Lets ask the girl who was raped by her father. Sweetie, what was that like?

-Eww, it was gross, it was like two guys making out.

7/10/2006 2:42:54 PM

Very little penetrates these peoples' bubbles of decadence.

7/10/2006 2:44:28 PM

penetrates

7/10/2006 2:50:20 PM

Quote :

"Wolfpack2K: If you don't like rape, then don't commit rape. That's just as silly as your statement."

AHA, you compared gay marriage and rape. You're one sick fuck.

Quote :

"Wolfpack2K: Who said it was a comparison? I'm attacking the logic of the statement itself, regardless of the particular facts to which it applies. I am saying that the basic statement itself (the major premise) is illogical, regardless of the particular facts (the minor premise)."

No, it was a comparison. And attacking my logic? Why did you expect me to use logic? You must have missed this part:

Quote :

"BridgetSPK: I'm done arguing about this topic."

You see, I'm right and you're wrong. I don't need to argue or use logic or talk about distractors like polygamy and religion and incest and bestiality or whatever.

I repeat: I'm right. You're wrong.

7/10/2006 2:52:58 PM

I think you need to repeat it again.

7/10/2006 2:57:46 PM

Quote :

"see, that logic is completely sound. "

Soundness is not the question. Validity is the question. Soundness takes into consideration the particular set of facts - validity deals only with the symbolic logic. Allow an explanation:

A major premise is an across the board assertion, to which particular facts (a minor premise) are applied. For example, "All cats are gray" is a major premise - it is an across the board assertion. "That creature is a cat" is a minor premise, it make reference to a specific set of facts present in the given situation. The application of the minor premise to the major premise would yield the statement "That creature is gray." Now, there are several ways of attacking this statement. One would be to attack the minor premise, that is, to say that creature is not a cat. That deals with the particular set of facts in this situation. The second means of attack would be to attack the MAJOR premise, that is, to say that NOT all cats are gray. It is the second means of attack which I am using. I do not care what the particular set of circumstances are, whether that creature is actually a cat or not. I question the MAJOR premise.

In other words, let's take out the particular set of circumstances and replace it with a variable. That way we only have to deal with the major premise. The statement was "If you don't like gay marriage don't marry a gay person." Replacing the minor premise with variables, we can reduce it to the major premise, which is "If you don't like X, then don't do X." I assert that this is NOT a logically valid major premise.

Going back to my cat example, the major premise there was "All cats are gray." Now in order to destroy the validity of this major premise, all I must do is show ONE cat in the entire world that is NOT gray. If I can show even one cat in the whole world that is not gray, then the major premise is destroyed and thus the entire argument itself falls. That does not mean that the statement is NECESSARILY false; that particular cat may very well be gray. It's just that the ARGUMENT used is invalid. (This is the difference between validity and soundness).

So, I assert that "If you don't like X, then don't do X" is not a valid major premise, and therefore the ARGUMENT she is using to support her position is invalid. (Whether her position itself is a sound one is not my concern at this time - I am attacking her reasoning.) So all I need to do is show ONE circumstance, in the entire universe of possibilities, where "If you don't like X then don't do X" is no good. Whatever we happen to make X is not really important, we could make it pineapples or eating at Burger King or rape.

Clearly, if we make "X" pineapples, as you have, then there would be no problem with the major premise. And if we make "X" eating at Burger King, then similarly we have no problems. But remember, to defeat a major premise I only have to show ONE circumstance in all of the entire world of possibilities, where it would not apply. So I choose to make "X" rape. It is surely beyond contradiction that "If you don't like rape, then don't do rape" would not be an acceptable policy argument. Therefore, since i have shown ONE circumstance in the entire world of circumstances, where the major premise would not apply, then the major premise is not a valid one. (Just like if I showed ONE cat in the entire world of cats that is not gray, the major premise "All cats are gray" would be made invalid.)

So whether or not her position in support of gay "marriage" is SOUND, the REASONING she is using is plainly not VALID.

Quote :

"No, it was a comparison."

I have just explained the difference between a comparison (an attack upon a minor premise) and what I have done. Do you have any questions about this logic that I can answer for you? I got an A+ in Symbolic Logic.

[Edited on July 10, 2006 at 7:01 PM. Reason : any questions?]

7/10/2006 6:59:10 PM

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. I'm right. You're wrong.

I love this issue. I can just sick back and know that I'm right. And I don't have to feel lazy or stupid for being that way. I'm right. You're wrong. I absolutely love it!

7/10/2006 7:06:14 PM

Your opinion is not really relevant unless it is logically supported. Do you have any logical support for it? If you don't, then why should your opinion matter to anyone? Further, if you yourself acknowledge that your opinion has no logical support, then why persist in that opinion? Most people do not persist in opinions that they know are lacking logical support unless they have a mental disorder of some kind.

7/10/2006 7:12:00 PM

Again.

BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. I'm right. You're wrong.

7/10/2006 7:15:27 PM

As it please you.

Does anyone else have any logical defense for the pro-gay "marriage" position, or the position that "If you don't like X, then don't do X" is a logically defensible policy statement?

[Edited on July 10, 2006 at 7:20 PM. Reason : me 1, challengers 0 - next challenger please?]

7/10/2006 7:19:08 PM

Supporting a ban on gay marriage is nonsense. You should only support laws that prohibit the infringement of rights. Whose rights are being infringed upon by allowing two men or two women to marry? Noone is talking about forcing churches to sanction the marriages. Comparing gay marriage to pedophilia is nonsense. Minors cannot enter into a contract so that point is moot. I also see nothing wrong with polygamous marriages so long as all participants are of legal age and willing. I personally think marriage is a crock of shit as I as a male stand nothing to gain from it (only a shitload to lose), but if a man wants to marry 2 or 3 women, let him. Then I can stand back and laugh as all his assets get plundered in divorce court. Arguments against incestral relationships/marriages are based on the fact the the offspring of said relationships have a high probability of physical/mental deformaties. As such I pose this question: if it is found out a person(s) is a carrier of a particular disease (lets say Huntingtons) should they be prevented from getting married?

[Edited on July 10, 2006 at 7:26 PM. Reason : ..]

[Edited on July 10, 2006 at 7:26 PM. Reason : fucking errors]

7/10/2006 7:25:54 PM

^^Dude, I don't think many people thought my comment was a "logically defensible policy statement." I mean, I prefaced the fucking thing with "I'm done arguing about this topic."

Don't get all excited because you were able to prove my statement wasn't logically defensible. That doesn't mean you're right about gay marriage. It just means you took a statement that wasn't intended to be logically defensible and attacked it. Good for you, bitch.

And oh yeah...I'm right. You're wrong.

[Edited on July 10, 2006 at 7:26 PM. Reason : me: righteous, Wolfpack2K: wasting his time]

7/10/2006 7:26:00 PM

so the entire argument of gay marriage supporters is: "I don't need to use logic." That's what I am intending to prove.

Proto - I'm going out now, I'll get to your statement later. It at least has some good thinking behind it, at first glance.

Quote :

"Comparing gay marriage to pedophilia is nonsense."

WHICH IS WHY NO ONE IS DOING IT. No one is making any comparisons - a comparison is a minor premise attack. Please read my big long statement above. This is not an issue of comparisons.

[Edited on July 10, 2006 at 7:32 PM. Reason : add]

7/10/2006 7:31:51 PM

Quote :

"Supporting a ban on gay marriage is nonsense."

For the record, I don't support a constitutional ban

And I'm not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or rape in the way you think. What I'm suggesting is that its a non-mainstream sexual practice that is somehow acceptable when other lifestyles are not. The actual example that fits is polygamy, but only one person took the time to respond to the polygamy comparison, so I added a few more that people jumped on instead. Of course I see the difference between incest, bestiality, etc. but polygamy doesn't seem to have a valid difference that would cause it to be treated differently.

[Edited on July 10, 2006 at 7:53 PM. Reason : .]

7/10/2006 7:48:10 PM

for the record, legal marriage doesn't have much to do with sex.

[Edited on July 10, 2006 at 8:00 PM. Reason : and i have nothing wrong with polygamy]

but there is a difference in that monogamy is arguably more beneficial to a society than polygamy, particularly societies where gender roles are supposedly somewhat equal and there are roughly the same number of men as women.

[Edited on July 10, 2006 at 8:01 PM. Reason : but that's not really that big of a deal to me.]

7/10/2006 7:59:54 PM

Quote :

"Wolfpack2K: so the entire argument of gay marriage supporters is: "I don't need to use logic." That's what I am intending to prove."

LOL, NO. You can't use my fatigue with this subject to make any such point because that doesn't make any sense. You know, it's not logical.

I mean seriously, what are the arguments against homosexual marriage?

1. I don't like it. / It's creepy.

Tough shit.

2. It's wrong.

Prove it.

3. It's against my religion.

You're worried about people going to Hell? Then find a homosexual and get to preaching.

4. It's not natural.

Oh, but it is.

5. It doesn't make biological "sense."

Thank goodness science and technology have improved. We can overcome all sorts of obstacles these days, a few folks not making babies being a fairly minor one.

6. It's "bad" for society.

Well, shit, marriage is bad for society? That's news to me. Married folks, please report to your attorneys immediately; you're bad for society!!!

[Edited on July 10, 2006 at 8:11 PM. Reason : ]

7/10/2006 8:09:34 PM

Quote :

"LOL, NO. You can't use my fatigue with this subject to make any such point because that doesn't make any sense. You know, it's not logical."

I thought you weren't interested in the use of logic? Please make up your mind - are you interested in the use of logic to address this issue, or not? Please report back with your answer as soon as possible. In the meantime, I will assume the answer is no judging by your previous comments.

Quote :

"I mean seriously, what are the arguments against homosexual marriage?"

This is the wrong way to look at it. The pro-gay "marriage" people are the ones wanting to change the law, so the burden should be on them to make a logically defensible argument that the law should be changed. The burden is on the one wanting a change to show why a change is necessary or good.

Quote :

" You should only support laws that prohibit the infringement of rights. Whose rights are being infringed upon by allowing two men or two women to marry? "

I respectfully submit that this is an improper statement of the issue. The issue is whether the government will recognize same sex "marriages". Not whether they will be allowed to "marry." The government is not going to burst into an Episcopalian church and arrest the priestess for performing a gay "marriage". The government is not going to get an injunction telling two gay people that they cannot live together, love each other, etc. The issue is simply whether the government (and by extention, society) is going to call their relationship by the name of "marriage" or not.

Once that fact is established, there are two points to consider. First is the substantive point of whether the government should call that relationship "marriage" or not. Second is the point addressed by the Court in this case, which was WHO should make that decision. Since the second point was the one addressed by the Court, I want to focus on that one. The courts should not be in the business of setting public policy. That is why there is a legislature. We live in a republic, governed by the people through their representatives. We should not live in an oligarchy of courts that announce public policy from their thrones on high and thrust it upon us whether we like it or not. Looking at it in the broadest sense, public policy decisions should be made from the bottom up - that is, from the people, instead of from the top down - that is, by the courts.

This is not to say that there is no role for courts in our system - as a lawyer of course I would never say that. But the role of courts is not to make public policy decisions. This is why there is a Political Question Doctrine.

[Edited on July 10, 2006 at 11:06 PM. Reason : structural look]

7/10/2006 11:05:02 PM

Quote :

"Do you have any questions about this logic that I can answer for you? I got an A+ in Symbolic Logic."

Uh yeah one question, how can something be logically sound without being logically valid?

7/10/2006 11:12:36 PM

hello everyone, i like boys. i'm calling myself to the stand as a witness. any questions, ask away.

7/10/2006 11:37:50 PM

Quote :

"Wolfpack2K: I thought you weren't interested in the use of logic? Please make up your mind - are you interested in the use of logic to address this issue, or not? Please report back with your answer as soon as possible. In the meantime, I will assume the answer is no judging by your previous comments."

I never said that about logic. I've been saying that about this topic, but I've already started back into it so whatever. Logic is still cool, man. I ain't got no probs with logic. Me and him is homies.

Quote :

"Wolfpack2K: This is the wrong way to look at it. The pro-gay "marriage" people are the ones wanting to change the law, so the burden should be on them to make a logically defensible argument that the law should be changed. The burden is on the one wanting a change to show why a change is necessary or good."

Okay then. Homosexual love is the same as heterosexual love, and it should be treated the same. That's why such a law change is necessary and "good." Do you disagree?

7/10/2006 11:56:44 PM

Quote :

"I got an A+ in Symbolic Logic."

[Edited on July 11, 2006 at 12:05 AM. Reason : ]

7/11/2006 12:04:59 AM

I like to take a line from typical SB back and forth, and act as if it was meant to be a logical proof.

Because I'm a douche.

Quote :

"The burden is on the one wanting a change to show why a change is necessary or good."

False. The government is currently denying services to a group of people. It's up to the anti-gay marriage people to tell us why they should continue doing so.




[Edited on July 11, 2006 at 1:05 AM. Reason : .]

7/11/2006 1:00:09 AM

Again, I'm not anti-gay nor do I support a constitutional ban on gay marriage, but

Quote :

"but there is a difference in that monogamy is arguably more beneficial to a society than polygamy, particularly societies where gender roles are supposedly somewhat equal and there are roughly the same number of men as women."

So if there were studies (actual, scientific ones, where we can all see the methods used) that said that gay marriage was, in fact, a detriment to children or society, you would cease supporting it? I know there have been studies claiming that kids come out fine with gay parents, but I really haven't looked at them to see if they're decent studies. If you have some to cite, please do, but only give me actual study information, not the AP article explaining it to the idiots.

7/11/2006 6:34:05 AM

Quote :

"So if there were studies (actual, scientific ones, where we can all see the methods used) that said that gay marriage was, in fact, a detriment to children or society, you would cease supporting it? I know there have been studies claiming that kids come out fine with gay parents, but I really haven't looked at them to see if they're decent studies. If you have some to cite, please do, but only give me actual study information, not the AP article explaining it to the idiots. "

I wouldn't because I stand on the side of freedom, and only support laws which prevent the infringement of rights from happening. Society will continue to adapt and evolve and will drag social conservatives (who hate freedom) along with it. The same argument was made against interracial marriage. "It hurts the children" or "It is a detriment to society" or "It's immoral" or some other lame BS argument, and low and behold society still is chugging along and a good many children are still growing up to be successful and morality is still subjective just like it always has been.

7/11/2006 9:25:21 AM

Quote :

"The courts should not be in the business of setting public policy."

Though they donot set public policy, they are in the business of interpreting it to insure that it is just and fair.

Quote :

"That is why there is a legislature. We live in a republic, governed by the people through their representatives. We should not live in an oligarchy of courts that announce public policy from their thrones on high and thrust it upon us whether we like it or not."

I agree. I believe that the legislature, executive, and judicial branches should stand as equals keeping checks on each other. When the legislative branch over steps it bounds passes laws that discriminate and/or unjust in some way, it is up to the judiciary to step up to the plate and knock them down.

Quote :

"Looking at it in the broadest sense, public policy decisions should be made from the bottom up - that is, from the people, instead of from the top down - that is, by the courts."

Yes I agree, BUT within reason. Otherwise you simply have unchecked democracy, whichh is simply tyranny of the majority where 51% can strip the other 49% of their rights. The issue here is equal treatment. Equal treatment and benefits that heterosexual couples receive from the government. Eqaul treatment under law is embodied in the 14th amendment of the US Constitution.
I personally believe that marriage should only be looked upon as a contract and nothing more. Noone should receive any benefits or tax cuts/previledges period.

7/11/2006 9:47:22 AM

Don't forget, we all hate freedom in one shape or another (well, except for libertarians, I suspect).

7/11/2006 9:48:59 AM

Libertarians, in their refusal to submit to the Constitutionally-derived two-party US political system, hate freedom most of all.

7/11/2006 10:07:04 AM

Quote :

"Do you have any questions about this logic that I can answer for you? I got an A+ in Symbolic Logic."

Uh yeah one question, how can something be logically sound without being logically valid?

Quote :

"Do you have any questions about this logic that I can answer for you? I got an A+ in Symbolic Logic."

Uh yeah one question, how can something be logically sound without being logically valid?

Quote :

"Do you have any questions about this logic that I can answer for you? I got an A+ in Symbolic Logic."

Uh yeah one question, how can something be logically sound without being logically valid?

7/11/2006 10:12:10 AM

Quote :

"Libertarians, in their refusal to submit to the Constitutionally-derived two-party US political system, hate freedom most of all."

Is this sarcasm?

7/11/2006 11:25:01 AM

It has to be.

7/11/2006 12:45:29 PM

Libertarians hate liberty.

7/11/2006 3:21:50 PM

Quote :

"False. The government is currently denying services to a group of people. It's up to the anti-gay marriage people to tell us why they should continue doing so. "

sorry, but 2K is right. Those who desire the change need to state why it needs to be changed. We shouldn't have to keep arguing the the way it is is right. The basic premise of law is that it is "right." When someone can show that a law that was previously believed "right" isn't, then that law should be removed.

Otherwise, what is the basis of what is "right?" Morality discussions aside, what is that basis? The Constitution? So, everything after the Constitution should be questioned in every court case that ever happens? Such a notion is preposterous. No, we assume that everything which is currently on the books is legal and just and "right," until shown otherwise.

7/11/2006 5:53:40 PM

it's wrong because it limits the rights of citizens based on their sexual orientation. it seems very straightforward to me.

7/11/2006 6:03:43 PM

The government is denying certain civil liberties to a group of people based on their beliefs/genetics/creed.

There, it's "wrong."

So again, the ball's in your court.


(oh, and "marriage by definition is between a man and woman" stands to reason about as well as "suffrage by definition is a man's right to vote.")

[Edited on July 11, 2006 at 6:07 PM. Reason : to avoid a few minutes of silly arguments.]

7/11/2006 6:05:26 PM

right???

7/11/2006 6:05:55 PM

yes i believe marriage is a right of law-abiding citizens.

7/11/2006 6:06:53 PM

I think he technically means civil liberty. GG on playing semantics, trikk311

7/11/2006 6:08:21 PM

so what's the difference? i honestly don't know.

7/11/2006 6:08:47 PM

Quote :

"How can government cheapen marriage when its the sole enforcer of any contract to begin with? Without government policy, marriage would have no binding outside the will of the two entering."

Actually, the government took the CHURCH practice of marraige and put a wrapper around it in order to give legal rights and such to those who got "married." And the government could never remove the "religious binding" that some people would feel exists in a marraige.

Quote :

"If you believe legal marriage is rooted in religion, you must logically also believe the no-fault divorces that accompany it are as well. After all, they are the flip side of the same coin."

Actually, I don't have to believe that no-fault divorces are rooted in religion. It's called a "false dilemma," and you have just used one. "No fault" divorces were invented by the government. You'll find no mention of them in religious texts, with a few exceptions. However, you will find frequent mentioning of marraige in religious texts... hmmm....

Quote :

"The government is denying certain civil liberties to a group of people based on their beliefs/genetics/creed. There, it's "wrong.""

I'm purely playing devil's advocate here, but is marraige really a "civil liberty?"


and, the question of "is marraige a 'right'?" is NOT a matter of semantics. It's almost at the heart of the matter, boonedocks. If marraige isn't a right, then you have no legal basis on which to argue that any group of people currently excluded by marraige laws should have the ability to marry. Of course, if we conclude that marraige isn't a "right," then we should naturally ask why the fuck the government is getting involved in it anyway...





and no, I am NOT being duplicitous in my analysis of marraige as a civil liberty. I have acknowledged that the status of "married" does grant certain privileges to it's holders, but a privilege is a far cry from a "right."

[Edited on July 11, 2006 at 6:14 PM. Reason : ]

7/11/2006 6:09:35 PM

Quote :

"The burden is on the one wanting a change to show why a change is necessary or good."

While I'm of the opinion that government should stay out of the topic of marrige in general (as marrige is a religious concept rather than a legal concept) this is not always true. The 10th amendment specificaly reserves all rights not granted to the federal government to the states or the people. Therefore if a challenge is brought to a federal law or regulation, the burden should be on the federal government to show that it is A) Within the powers granted and B) necessary and proper for the federal government to have such a power. Failure to do so should result in the invalidation of the law.

That said, on a state level things should be different. States should be allowed to make such laws with much more freedom, and challenges to those laws should be brought to show either why the change is neccesary or why such a power should be reserved to the people.


As a general stance on this, I think the government could solve this whole problem by having just a simple "legal union" for all people. If two people enter into legal union they should have all the rights and powers associated with what the government terms marrige currently. A union could be between any two people for any reason but any one person can only be in one union. To get a union one should have proof of not being in another union (part of government record) and should have to show proof of having lived together for a significant period of time (say 3 years or so). Exiting a union should carry as much legal wieght and burden as a divorce currently does. Proof of living together could be 3 years of bills to the same address or a marrige certificate from a church or religious entity which certifies as such.

Marrige is and has been a religious domain, and the government has no right to be involved in it one way or the other. If the government wants to consider two people a single legal entity for convenience sake, then marrige or lack there of should have no bearing on this.

7/11/2006 6:24:48 PM

Quote :

"Therefore if a challenge is brought to a federal law or regulation, the burden should be on the federal government to show that it is A) Within the powers granted and B) necessary and proper for the federal government to have such a power. Failure to do so should result in the invalidation of the law. "

Wouldn't it be easier to have someone prove that the gov't should have such a power and that such a power is necessary before we give the gov't that power? Then we can, you know, actually assume that laws are just and stuff...

7/11/2006 6:32:39 PM

Quote :

"but a privilege is a far cry from a "right.""

It's not a privilege. It's a civil liberty.

7/11/2006 6:33:42 PM

it's not a civil liberty. it's a privilege.

see how easy that was?

7/11/2006 6:34:59 PM

Yeah, only I'm right and you're wrong.

Look it up


(Seriously, look it up. This isn't a matter of opinion)

...I guess it'll be a while. Not only do you need to do some research before you realize I'm right, but then you'll have to take the time to formulate some idiotic reason as to why civil liberties should be denied to a group of law-abiding citizens.


[Edited on July 11, 2006 at 6:43 PM. Reason : .]

7/11/2006 6:35:41 PM

only I'm right and you're wrong.

look it up. It's not a matter of opinion...

See how easy it is to just make bold assertions without any factual basis?

7/11/2006 7:50:53 PM

Did you sleep through your poly sci classes?

Jesus.

Quote :

""Civil Rights" vs. "Civil Liberties" It is important to note the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties." The legal area known as "civil rights" has traditionally revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such as employment and housing. "Civil liberties" concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. Civil liberties include: * Freedom of speech * The right to privacy * The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home * The right to a fair court trial * The right to marry * The right to vote One way to consider the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties" is to look at 1) what right is affected, and 2) whose right is affected. For example, as an employee, you do not have the legal right to a promotion, mainly because getting a promotion is not a guaranteed "civil liberty." But, as a female employee you do have the legal right to be free from discrimination in being considered for that promotion -- you cannot legally be denied the promotion based on your gender (or race, or disability, etc.). By choosing not to promote a female worker solely because of the employee's gender, the employer has committed a civil rights violation and has engaged in unlawful employment discrimination based on sex or gender. "

http://public.findlaw.com/civil-rights/civil-rights-basics/civil-rights-vs-liberties.html



[Edited on July 12, 2006 at 1:33 AM. Reason : .]

7/12/2006 1:21:46 AM

Quote :

"Of course I see the difference between incest, bestiality, etc. but polygamy doesn't seem to have a valid difference that would cause it to be treated differently."

... do you need to have everything explained to you? Use some imagination, already.

The major difference between polygamy and homosexual marriage is that ... um, polygamy involves more than one person. By definition.

From a moral standpoint -- insofaras the government dabbles in such matters -- they are equivalent. But from a policy standpoint, they are very different.

For example: how does the government tax polygamous marriage? How are tax credits arranged? How does alimony work? Divorce? Think about all the myriad complications in domestic law.

These issues are very clear with gay marriage, because the whole setup is basically analagous to straight marriage (hence the ludicrous "separate but equal" idea). But with polygamy, it is difficult territory and so there are plenty of non-moral, public policy reasons why we might approach the issue differently or not at all.

Polygamy resides more on the "fundamental reshaping of marriage" axis than gay marriage does. It's a very different approach to marriage than the standard "two people in a union."

7/12/2006 4:33:11 AM

Quote :

"we can reduce it to the major premise, which is "If you don't like X, then don't do X." "

No, the major premise was "if you don't like X, then don't do X, because X doesn't affect you otherwise." The last part was implied. I think that was obvious to anyone who read the sentence and whose brain hasn't been fried by law school.

Noone would say "if you don't like rape, don't get raped, because getting raped doesn't affect you otherwise."

Now you can definitely argue that gay marriage does have broader effects than are implied, but that requires a ton more intelligence and savoir faire than babbling on about symbolic logic.

7/12/2006 4:36:39 AM

Quote :

"sorry, but 2K is right. Those who desire the change need to state why it needs to be changed. We shouldn't have to keep arguing the the way it is is right. The basic premise of law is that it is "right." When someone can show that a law that was previously believed "right" isn't, then that law should be removed."

In America -- and in most Democratic countries -- the law is just an expression of power. That power is derived from the system of government, which starts with the people (but which is not, in itself, the direct will of the people). As such, the law exists because the system has allowed it to come into being.

And in our particular system, laws are balanced against rights, which are immutable facts about individuals that cannot be contradicted by law alone. When a law does contradict a right, it must be struck down or modified no matter who believes it to be correct.

The right in question where gay marriage is concerned is whether gay people, as individual citizens, enjoy all the same privileges and immunities of citizenship as everyone else (a right expressed by the fourteenth amendment). This is the same basic question as was answered in the 1960s with regards to black people.

On paper, in the narrowest technical sense, gay people do enjoy the same marriage rights as straight people. Gay people can of course marry if they wish, they must simply marry ... the opposite sex.

Analagously, black people enjoyed the same rights to public education when their schools were seperated from whites'. Of course, they experienced all the side effects of segregation that were not written into law, such as underfunding, social stratification, and so on.

The question of gay marriage is whether the spirit of the law allows gay people to enjoy the rights expressed in the fourteenth amendment. That it does not, is very obvious. Gay people simply are not in any position to marry the opposite sex, by definition. They are banned in a de facto way from enjoying the rights of marriage. And as we have learned from the past with civil rights, de facto discrimination is just as evil as paper discrimination, and it must be dealt with legally.

Of course there are groups of people -- quite prominent ones, some represented here -- who would argue that gay people simply choose to live as they do and they should switch over, any day now, you see. Unfortunately, for some, ignorance is bliss.

There are those who believe that gay marriage would be a social ill, regardless of the individual circumstances of gay people. It's nice to see such compassion in our electorate.

And then there's the Civil Union brigade, forever pushing separate water fountains for the whites (straight people) and the coloreds (gays). Of course, we all know that government works best when it's the most convoluted.

Such is the landscape of this debate. The waters are endlessly muddy, but I don't think there's any lack of clear reasoning on our (the supporters') side.

7/12/2006 5:07:07 AM

Quote :

"On paper, in the narrowest technical sense, gay people do enjoy the same marriage rights as straight people. Gay people can of course marry if they wish, they must simply marry ... the opposite sex."

this is true, and by the same token, granting marriage rights to same-sex couples would not be giving them "special" rights at all. Heterosexuals could also, then, marry someone of the same sex.

7/12/2006 7:46:49 AM