|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 16:28:29 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
I like how everyone on this forum is all open minded when it comes to giving homosexual couples the right to marry. |
Me too!
Bill:
They call me discriminatory and close minded blah blah blah..... |
Only because you are.
Bill:
but yet all of these open minded non-discriminatory progressives grow deafening silent and refuse to condone the rights of other sexual orientations. |
If this conversation were really about other sexual orientations with regard to marriage, my opinion on that is pretty much the same as Dave’s. But this thread isn’t about that. It’s about why we shouldn't allow same sex marriages, and the argument that you have presented in support of that position is fallacious, as I keep pointing out.
Bill:
Why do you guys hate bisexual polygamists so much that you would refuse to condone their rights as you do for the homosexual couples? |
I don’t hate bisexual polygamists. Why? Should I? My refusal to answer answer your question is because it’s being presented as a part of a slippery slope argument, a logical fallacy, and is therefore irrelevant to the question of why we shouldn't allow same sex marriage. It’s just a diversion and an appeal to fear on your part.
Bill:
You are not open minded and non-discriminatory. |
I’m pretty sure I’m open-minded. And no. I don’t discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation unless were talking about something like pedophilia or bestiality or other non-consenting sexual relations.
Bill:
You just choose to draw your line in the sand in a different place than do I. |
True.
Bill:
While I have drawn my line and have refused to condone gay marriage you are OK with that. |
True.
Bill:
While you will condone gay marriage you draw your line at the next level and refuse to condone bisexual polygamist the right to marry without even saying why. |
My refusal to indulge you in, and therefore give credibility to a slippery slope argument, does not give you the right to make assumptions about what I think. If you can’t come up with a better case against same sex marriage than one built on a logical fallacy, then you have no argument. And if you have no argument on which to base your reason for why people of the same sex shouldn’t marry, other than you don’t like it, then you are a bigot.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 18:20:17 [Permalink]
|
Divorces are messy legal proceedings that can harm both children and society, therefore marriages should be prevented.
How does that NOT apply to heterosexual marriage, Bill? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
On fire for Christ
SFN Regular
Norway
1273 Posts |
Posted - 12/19/2013 : 20:16:29 [Permalink]
|
| Bill no one will commit to endorsing your examples of more extreme alternative marriages because they all recognise that the idea is ludicrous, but at the same time don't want to be politically incorrect. As soon as it becomes more socially acceptable for multiple person marriages in western society, all liberals will act as if they were behind the idea all along. |
 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
 Posted - 12/19/2013 : 21:35:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Bill no one will commit to endorsing your examples of more extreme alternative marriages... |
Why do you feel the need to lie like that? I heartily endorsed multiple marriages hours ago.| ...because they all recognise that the idea is ludicrous... |
Why is it ludicrous?| ...but at the same time don't want to be politically incorrect. |
This isn't about political correctness, it's about getting the government out of people's personal business. How people manage their own families shouldn't be up for popular vote, but that's exactly what the anti-gay-marriage folks want to do: stick their noses in where they don't belong and say, "no, you may not build a family like you want, you can only have a family if it's a family like mine."
What's even more ridiculous about the whole thing is that the "pro-family" people are against families. One cannot claim to be pro-family while denying two men and their kids the same familial rights as one man, one woman and their kids.
They also claim to be in favor of "traditional" families, but the nuclear-family ideal originated in the 1950s. Before then, multi-generational households and other non-nuclear families were the norm. "Tradition" apparently extends only a few decades.
In short, those opposed to same-sex (and plural) marriages are pro-big-government, anti-freedom, anti-family, anti-tradition hypocrites.| As soon as it becomes more socially acceptable for multiple person marriages in western society, all liberals will act as if they were behind the idea all along. |
Conservatives should be opposed to government interference in personal business, yet are hypocritically unable to keep their anti-freedom noses out of other people's homes. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 01:18:05 [Permalink]
|
New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Gay Marriage Constitutional
In a unanimous ruling, the New Mexico Supreme Court declared same sex marriage to be constitutional in New Mexico. They wrote:
| Prohibiting same-gender marriages is not substantially related to the governmental interests advanced by the parties opposing same-gender marriage or to the purposes we have identified. Therefore, barring individuals from marrying and depriving them of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage solely because of their sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution. We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law. |
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 05:36:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
Originally posted by Dave W.
And the last time I asked you questions about the bowling team, you vanished
Your arguments against same-sex marriage should embarrass you into hiding, Bill. |
Never afraid to jump to conclusions is Dave.
<snip>
Please don't correlate "low priority" with "vanished and hiding."
|
Then prove Dave W. and the rest of us wrong, and return to the old threads from which you 'vanlished', and pick up where you left off! If nothing else, that would be a win for you that none of us can deny. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 12/20/2013 05:40:35 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 05:48:55 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| I'm all for consenual multiple marriage. |
Than you and I really have no point in even continuing this conversation. As far as what a legal marriage structure in this country should look like you and I could not be on further apart reservations here.
| Yes, I choose to draw the line such that I stay out of other people's consenual business, while you scribble your line over top of their lives, loves and children. You're a butt-inski, Bill, with dreams of limiting other people's freedom despite no potential harm to you or your family. |
Not true. I say that the homosexuals and polygamist and the swingers and all the other orientations should be able to do whatever makes their heart content, behind closed doors. What I refused to do was condone the redefining of marriage in this country from being between one man and one women to giving marriage status to any and/or all sexual orientations. You, on the other hand, appear to have no problem giving legal status to bisexual polygamists and/or bowling teams which puts you so far out on the lunatic fringe that I don't even see the point of continuing this conversation. Obviously you and I are going to agree on just about nothing here. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 05:51:05 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by On fire for Christ
Bill no one will commit to endorsing your examples of more extreme alternative marriages because they all recognise that the idea is ludicrous, but at the same time don't want to be politically incorrect. As soon as it becomes more socially acceptable for multiple person marriages in western society, all liberals will act as if they were behind the idea all along.
|
Most of them. Dave is so far gone he is willing to endorse giving marriage status to a bowling team.  |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 06:01:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Gay Marriage Constitutional
In a unanimous ruling, the New Mexico Supreme Court declared same sex marriage to be constitutional in New Mexico. They wrote:
| Prohibiting same-gender marriages is not substantially related to the governmental interests advanced by the parties opposing same-gender marriage or to the purposes we have identified. Therefore, barring individuals from marrying and depriving them of the rights, protections, and responsibilities of civil marriage solely because of their sexual orientation violates the Equal Protection Clause under Article II, Section 18 of the New Mexico Constitution. We hold that the State of New Mexico is constitutionally required to allow same-gender couples to marry and must extend to them the rights, protections, and responsibilities that derive from civil marriage under New Mexico law. |
|
Why are they limiting it to gay marriage and discriminating against all of the other orientations out there? Again this is akin to giving civil rights to the blacks but completely ignoring all other minorities in the process. Be just and give marriage rights to all orientations and not just the one you hand pick which has completely excluded all other orientations from their rights.
Put it to a vote with the people in each state and let the chips fall where they may. My guess is most gay marriage rights will be/already have been legislated in (forced in) by a judge or court. Why? Why not just put it to a vote with the folks. Stop being so intrusive using big government as your rod of attack. Let the folks decide the fate of their own state. Just another example of progressives taking freedom away from the people and given it to big government when they realize it it the only way for them to get their way. The vast majority of the time gay marriage fails when put to vote with the people. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 07:30:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| I'm all for consenual multiple marriage. |
Than you and I really have no point in even continuing this conversation. As far as what a legal marriage structure in this country should look like you and I could not be on further apart reservations here. |
Yeah, because you think it should "look like" something in particular. I don't know why you think the government has any reason to govern family structure.| Not true. I say that the homosexuals and polygamist and the swingers and all the other orientations should be able to do whatever makes their heart content... |
Except get married.| What I refused to do was condone the redefining of marriage in this country from being between one man and one women to giving marriage status to any and/or all sexual orientations. |
Why do you want to deny family rights to those families?| You, on the other hand, appear to have no problem giving legal status to bisexual polygamists and/or bowling teams... |
From a secular point-of-view, a marriage is a contract for sharing fiscal responsibilities and support. I don't see what the number of people or their sexual orientation(s) have to do with that.| ...which puts you so far out on the lunatic fringe that I don't even see the point of continuing this conversation. Obviously you and I are going to agree on just about nothing here. |
So rather than make an attempt at understanding me, you'll just shut me out. Got it.| Dave is so far gone he is willing to endorse giving marriage status to a bowling team. |
And the question you refuse to answer is: why not? Why is the idea "on the lunatic fringe?" What is wrong with it that can't be fixed?| My guess is most gay marriage rights will be/already have been legislated in (forced in) by a judge or court. Why? Why not just put it to a vote with the folks. |
You need to take Civics 101 again.| Stop being so intrusive using big government as your rod of attack. |
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Bill, you are the one insisting on using big government to prevent loving couples from getting married! I want big government out of people's family decisions. You're the one demanding that government needs to step in and prevent all families that aren't structured like yours from having the same legally protected rights that yours does.| Let the folks decide the fate of their own state. |
Fundamental rights should not be decided by the ballot box.| Just another example of progressives taking freedom away from the people and given it to big government when they realize it it the only way for them to get their way. |
Yeah, like taking people's freedom to get married away by passing constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage when the courts say that conservative bigots can't have their way. You're projecting, Bill. You're on the big-government side of this argument. You're opposed to freedom.| The vast majority of the time gay marriage fails when put to vote with the people. |
That's not true any more. The tide has turned. Freedom and opposition to institutionalized bigotry are inevitable, as we've seen throughout history. Same-sex marriage is next on the block, and will eventually follow abolition, suffrage and mixed-race marriage (there are no arguments against same-sex marriage that weren't being made in the 1960s regarding mixed-race marriage - they failed then, and they'll fail again now). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 08:15:38 [Permalink]
|
And just so we're crystal clear on the whole "big government" thing: right now, in 35 states, if Jim and Joe want to get married, the government steps in and says, "no." You, Bill, want the government to continue to play a role in such decisions. Progressives want the government out of that process.
Bill, you are in favor of government intrusion in people's families. Progressives oppose that intrusion.
You've got those facts reversed in your head somehow. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 09:49:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| I'm all for consenual multiple marriage. |
Than you and I really have no point in even continuing this conversation. As far as what a legal marriage structure in this country should look like you and I could not be on further apart reservations here.
| Yes, I choose to draw the line such that I stay out of other people's consenual business, while you scribble your line over top of their lives, loves and children. You're a butt-inski, Bill, with dreams of limiting other people's freedom despite no potential harm to you or your family. |
Not true. I say that the homosexuals and polygamist and the swingers and all the other orientations should be able to do whatever makes their heart content, behind closed doors. What I refused to do was condone the redefining of marriage in this country from being between one man and one women to giving marriage status to any and/or all sexual orientations. You, on the other hand, appear to have no problem giving legal status to bisexual polygamists and/or bowling teams which puts you so far out on the lunatic fringe that I don't even see the point of continuing this conversation. Obviously you and I are going to agree on just about nothing here.
|
Marriage as the religious rite is unchanged by what the government does or does not recognize. It is involate.
Marriage as the civil definition is not religious in nature. It is a merger of households. As such, allowing such mergers to take place merely expands that power to all legal people in this nation as it is already legal between some persons. (Corporations are legally people, Bill.)
I also have no problem with personal mergers of this kind.
I also support marriage between any number of consenting adults. (children and animals cannot legally give consent.)
Or can I expect you to oppose all corporate mergers after the first one? After all, you are against polyamory. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 10:22:58 [Permalink]
|
| Originally posted by Dave W. |
| I don't know why you think the government has any reason to govern family structure. |
I don't either.
But in your secular word the government establishes what a marriage is and you don't want the government involved in your life so why are you even worried about it? You believe marriage is an archaic and flawed concept anyway so I don't know why you get all uptight about it? You want recognition in something you don't even believe in????
| Why do you want to deny family rights to those families? |
To bowling teams?
| From a secular point-of-view, a marriage is a contract for sharing fiscal responsibilities and support. I don't see what the number of people or their sexual orientation(s) have to do with that. |
In your diluted state I would expect not.
| So rather than make an attempt at understanding me, you'll just shut me out. Got it. |
When someone tells me that they would give legal marriage status to a bowling team I think it is safe to say that I will never understnd this person so why just go in circles?
| And the question you refuse to answer is: why not? Why is the idea "on the lunatic fringe?" What is wrong with it that can't be fixed? |
To give a bowling team marriage status?
| Bill, you are the one insisting on using big government to prevent loving couples from getting married! I want big government out of people's family decisions. You're the one demanding that government needs to step in and prevent all families that aren't structured like yours from having the same legally protected rights that yours does. |
You are the one who on one hand insists that government stays out of his life yet on the other hand insists the government recognize what he thinks is a marriage.
| Fundamental rights should not be decided by the ballot box. |
Redefining marriage is not a fundamental right.
| Yeah, like taking people's freedom to get married away by passing constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage when the courts say that conservative bigots can't have their way. You're projecting, Bill. You're on the big-government side of this argument. You're opposed to freedom. |
Put it to a people vote.
| That's not true any more. The tide has turned. Freedom and opposition to institutionalized bigotry are inevitable, as we've seen throughout history. Same-sex marriage is next on the block, and will eventually follow abolition, suffrage and mixed-race marriage (there are no arguments against same-sex marriage that weren't being made in the 1960s regarding mixed-race marriage - they failed then, and they'll fail again now). |
Well in my state it is banned by law with a vote from the people and that will not be changing anytime soon. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
| Edited by - Bill scott on 12/20/2013 10:37:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2013 : 11:30:07 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Bill scott
| I don't know why you think the government has any reason to govern family structure. |
I don't either. |
You don't know why you think the government should approve people's marriages?| But in your secular word the government establishes what a marriage is and you don't want the government involved in your life so why are you even worried about it? You believe marriage is an archaic and flawed concept anyway so I don't know why you get all uptight about it? You want recognition in something you don't even believe in???? |
Archaic and flawed? Who said?| Why do you want to deny family rights to those families? |
To bowling teams? |
If a bowling team wants to formalize their fiscal and personal commitments to each other legally, who are you to say "no"?| From a secular point-of-view, a marriage is a contract for sharing fiscal responsibilities and support. I don't see what the number of people or their sexual orientation(s) have to do with that. |
In your diluted state I would expect not. |
I'm sure you meant "deluded," but you refuse to say why.| So rather than make an attempt at understanding me, you'll just shut me out. Got it. |
When someone tells me that they would give legal marriage status to a bowling team I think it is safe to say that I will never understnd this person so why just go in circles? |
Yet here you are, still.| And the question you refuse to answer is: why not? Why is the idea "on the lunatic fringe?" What is wrong with it that can't be fixed? |
To give a bowling team marriage status? |
Yes, Bill: what is wrong with that? You obviously think something is wrong with it, but despite being asked point-blank, you instead just call it a "lunatic fringe" idea or otherwise imply that it's crazy, but you refuse to say why you think it's a bad idea. That's why this discussion will ultimately go nowhere: you either don't know why you feel the way you do, or you'll continue to refuse to say.
Look, we get that you think anything other than "one man, one woman" is "redefining" marriage, and that you won't "condone" it (as if anyone asked you to), and that the farther away from that ideal someone gets, the more "lunatic" you think it is, but you refuse to divulge any of the reasoning you went through to get to those opinions. The IRS and divorce things you brought up before are non-starters, because the former is easily solved and the latter applies to hetero marriage, too. So, do you have any objectively reasonable basis for you feelings?| Bill, you are the one insisting on using big government to prevent loving couples from getting married! I want big government out of people's family decisions. You're the one demanding that government needs to step in and prevent all families that aren't structured like yours from having the same legally protected rights that yours does. |
You are the one who on one hand insists that government stays out of his life yet on the other hand insists the government recognize what he thinks is a marriage. |
Way to misunderstand what's going on. The government recognizes the existence of contracts between people, in general, and regulates them. Marriage, to the government, is just another kind of contract. You want the government to refuse to allow certain groups of people to enter into that sort of contract because either A) there are more or fewer than two people or B) the two people aren't of opposite gender, and such filtering will require more government employees to examine proposed marriages for correct form, thus needlessly requiring higher taxes. Why, Bill, should the government be allowed to determine who enters into a marriage contract? Do you think the government should demand blood tests in order to determine XX and XY conformity?
Side question, Bill: in your mind, would it be okay for someone who is genetically XY but suffers from testosterone insensitivity (and so looks like and was raised as a woman) to get married to an XX woman?| Fundamental rights should not be decided by the ballot box. |
Redefining marriage is not a fundamental right. |
Getting married is. You already redefined marriage, anyway, given that you would refuse to recognize the marriages of Abraham, Moses, David and Solomon.While we're at it, let's put "Should Bill Scott's marriage be allowed?" to a vote. Would that be okay?| Well in my state it is banned by law with a vote from the people... |
Mob rule simply allows the majority to bully minorities. The American justice system is designed to protect against that sort of thing. The legal wheels turn slowly, but they do turn.| ...and that will not be changing anytime soon. |
Depends on how far backwards south the state is. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I told you so.....
