Total Posts:199|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Homosexual Marriage

ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 1:49:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I have had some disagreement with the user EndarkenedRationalist about homosexual marriage.

Points I have made:

1. The term 'marriage' is used with two different definitions interchangeably by homosexual marriage advocates. This is a fallacy of equivocation. Those two different definitions are:

A: A private verbal/contractual commitment/agreement between two consenting adults.

B: A commitment between two consenting adults that is recognized as being entitled to all of the benefits defined here: http://www.revelandriot.com...

2. Discriminating against homosexual marriage is not discriminating against homosexuals. The government does not care about sexual orientations of the people involved, just their gender relative to each other.

3. Saying 'gay marriage is banned in state X' is a disingenuous statement. Definition A is not banned anywhere, and definition B is not a private contract, it is disingenuous to describe the refusal to grant benefits not owed as 'banning' a relationship. It is akin to saying "rich tax breaks are banned" or "now illegal to be friends in Idaho (since there are no government benefits for being friends)."

4. The equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not prevent laws which have different outcomes for different people in aggregate, it only prevents laws from being ignored at the whim of authorities.

5. The equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not interface with the civil rights act, they were made at different times and at fundamentally different levels of governance. Therefore if someone's interpretation of the equal protections act requires the civil rights act to make sense or give meaning to the clause their interpretation is necessarily wrong.

6. A homosexual couple can commit everything they have a right to commit to each other under normal contract law. Homosexual marriage is thus not an issue of rights denied but unequal government benefits.

I will defend these points from anyone who cares to doubt them, annnnnddd GO!
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
PiedPiper
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 4:23:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 1:49:51 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
I have had some disagreement with the user EndarkenedRationalist about homosexual marriage.

Points I have made:

1. The term 'marriage' is used with two different definitions interchangeably by homosexual marriage advocates. This is a fallacy of equivocation. Those two different definitions are:

A: A private verbal/contractual commitment/agreement between two consenting adults.

B: A commitment between two consenting adults that is recognized as being entitled to all of the benefits defined here: http://www.revelandriot.com...

2. Discriminating against homosexual marriage is not discriminating against homosexuals. The government does not care about sexual orientations of the people involved, just their gender relative to each other.

-It is a discrimination against homosexuals (and the broader LGBTQ community) because they are the primary category of people who are affected by these laws. Straight people of either gender are not affected and thus it is the sexual orientation, not the gender identity, that is the real issue regardless of the semantics.

3. Saying 'gay marriage is banned in state X' is a disingenuous statement. Definition A is not banned anywhere, and definition B is not a private contract, it is disingenuous to describe the refusal to grant benefits not owed as 'banning' a relationship. It is akin to saying "rich tax breaks are banned" or "now illegal to be friends in Idaho (since there are no government benefits for being friends)."


-This sounds like an issue of semantics. The term "ban" may not be technically correct, but the idea that the government in state "X" is choosing not to recognize a relationship between consenting adults that mirrors similar established relationships is still true.

4. The equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not prevent laws which have different outcomes for different people in aggregate, it only prevents laws from being ignored at the whim of authorities.


-There is also the issue of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause where states cannot disregard "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." A driver's license valid in one state is constitutionally valid in any other. The same, constitutionally, should apply to marriage.

6. A homosexual couple can commit everything they have a right to commit to each other under normal contract law. Homosexual marriage is thus not an issue of rights denied but unequal government benefits.


-It is not just government benefits. For instance, a big issue involved is being able to see ones significant other in a hospital. If the two do not share a legally recognized marriage then the significant other is seen as nothing more than a friend with no rights. There are other legal issues at play that relate only to marriage. I think the argument could also be made that they have the right to those government benefits if the only thing stopping them is a religious ideal that the government has no authority to uphold.

I will defend these points from anyone who cares to doubt them, annnnnddd GO!

-It's not a matter of doubt. It's a matter of you being wrong. Denying LGBTQ individuals the right to marry another consenting adult is discriminatory, based in religious prejudice, and intolerant.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 5:39:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 4:23:57 PM, PiedPiper wrote:
At 2/11/2014 1:49:51 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
I have had some disagreement with the user EndarkenedRationalist about homosexual marriage.

Points I have made:

1. The term 'marriage' is used with two different definitions interchangeably by homosexual marriage advocates. This is a fallacy of equivocation. Those two different definitions are:

A: A private verbal/contractual commitment/agreement between two consenting adults.

B: A commitment between two consenting adults that is recognized as being entitled to all of the benefits defined here: http://www.revelandriot.com...

2. Discriminating against homosexual marriage is not discriminating against homosexuals. The government does not care about sexual orientations of the people involved, just their gender relative to each other.

-It is a discrimination against homosexuals (and the broader LGBTQ community) because they are the primary category of people who are affected by these laws. Straight people of either gender are not affected and thus it is the sexual orientation, not the gender identity, that is the real issue regardless of the semantics.

3. Saying 'gay marriage is banned in state X' is a disingenuous statement. Definition A is not banned anywhere, and definition B is not a private contract, it is disingenuous to describe the refusal to grant benefits not owed as 'banning' a relationship. It is akin to saying "rich tax breaks are banned" or "now illegal to be friends in Idaho (since there are no government benefits for being friends)."


-This sounds like an issue of semantics. The term "ban" may not be technically correct, but the idea that the government in state "X" is choosing not to recognize a relationship between consenting adults that mirrors similar established relationships is still true.

4. The equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not prevent laws which have different outcomes for different people in aggregate, it only prevents laws from being ignored at the whim of authorities.


-There is also the issue of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause where states cannot disregard "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." A driver's license valid in one state is constitutionally valid in any other. The same, constitutionally, should apply to marriage.


6. A homosexual couple can commit everything they have a right to commit to each other under normal contract law. Homosexual marriage is thus not an issue of rights denied but unequal government benefits.


-It is not just government benefits. For instance, a big issue involved is being able to see ones significant other in a hospital. If the two do not share a legally recognized marriage then the significant other is seen as nothing more than a friend with no rights. There are other legal issues at play that relate only to marriage. I think the argument could also be made that they have the right to those government benefits if the only thing stopping them is a religious ideal that the government has no authority to uphold.

I will defend these points from anyone who cares to doubt them, annnnnddd GO!

-It's not a matter of doubt. It's a matter of you being wrong. Denying LGBTQ individuals the right to marry another consenting adult is discriminatory, based in religious prejudice, and intolerant.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 8:01:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 4:23:57 PM, PiedPiper wrote:
At 2/11/2014 1:49:51 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
2. Discriminating against homosexual marriage is not discriminating against homosexuals. The government does not care about sexual orientations of the people involved, just their gender relative to each other.

-It is a discrimination against homosexuals (and the broader LGBTQ community) because they are the primary category of people who are affected by these laws.

Irrelevant.

(1) Whether a law affects a group of people defined by immutable characteristics disproportionally does not change whether the law is justified or not, and does not prevent it from existing under the 14th amendment.

If you disagree with statement (1) one could you please explicitly agree to it's negation so we don't go in circles:

~(1) If a law proportionally affects a group of people defined by immutable characteristics more than the general population it is unconstitutional under the 14th amendment.

Straight people of either gender are not affected and thus it is the sexual orientation, not the gender identity, that is the real issue regardless of the semantics.

Nothing is regardless of semantics sir, we express concepts and logic through words.

Straight people of either gender cannot get a homosexual marriage license, thus it is not the sexual orientation.

3. Saying 'gay marriage is banned in state X' is a disingenuous statement. Definition A is not banned anywhere, and definition B is not a private contract, it is disingenuous to describe the refusal to grant benefits not owed as 'banning' a relationship. It is akin to saying "rich tax breaks are banned" or "now illegal to be friends in Idaho (since there are no government benefits for being friends)."


-This sounds like an issue of semantics.

All definitions are.

The term "ban" may not be technically correct

Then you agree with my point.

but the idea that the government in state "X" is choosing not to recognize a relationship between consenting adults that mirrors similar established relationships is still true.

Of course, although the quality of that reflection is not perfect.

4. The equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not prevent laws which have different outcomes for different people in aggregate, it only prevents laws from being ignored at the whim of authorities.


-There is also the issue of the "Full Faith and Credit" clause where states cannot disregard "public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state." A driver's license valid in one state is constitutionally valid in any other. The same, constitutionally, should apply to
marriage.

I did not mention the full faith and credit clause. However it is true that it does not require any other state to accept any other marriage license unless the requirements for the license in the other state are the same (in terms of what facts must be confirmed by officials).

6. A homosexual couple can commit everything they have a right to commit to each other under normal contract law. Homosexual marriage is thus not an issue of rights denied but unequal government benefits.


-It is not just government benefits. For instance, a big issue involved is being able to see ones significant other in a hospital.

That is not a right. The government benefit in this case is the immoral regulation of hospitals.

It's a matter of you being wrong.

Logical-Master seems to think this statement is a personal attack. He's wrong right?

Denying LGBTQ individuals the right to marry another consenting adult is discriminatory, based in religious prejudice, and intolerant.

First I want to point out (to again) illustrate point #2. LGBTQZ individuals can marry one another, if they are different genders every state in the union will recognize it.

Second, it is solely the religious or intolerant who have issues with it, as my position proves.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 8:28:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 1:49:51 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
I have had some disagreement with the user EndarkenedRationalist about homosexual marriage.

Points I have made:

1. The term 'marriage' is used with two different definitions interchangeably by homosexual marriage advocates. This is a fallacy of equivocation. Those two different definitions are:

A: A private verbal/contractual commitment/agreement between two consenting adults.

B: A commitment between two consenting adults that is recognized as being entitled to all of the benefits defined here: http://www.revelandriot.com...

Definition of marriage: The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law OR the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

So clearly the law is involved and is discriminating against same-sex couples.

2. Discriminating against homosexual marriage is not discriminating against homosexuals. The government does not care about sexual orientations of the people involved, just their gender relative to each other.

This is a smokescreen. The government knows a straight man will never try to marry a straight man (the same applies to women). Homosexuals (and the rest of the community) are the only people affected by these laws. Thus it is targeting them and their orientation.

3. Saying 'gay marriage is banned in state X' is a disingenuous statement. Definition A is not banned anywhere, and definition B is not a private contract, it is disingenuous to describe the refusal to grant benefits not owed as 'banning' a relationship. It is akin to saying "rich tax breaks are banned" or "now illegal to be friends in Idaho (since there are no government benefits for being friends)."

Clearly it is, as the definition of marriage requires the recognition of the law.

4. The equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not prevent laws which have different outcomes for different people in aggregate, it only prevents laws from being ignored at the whim of authorities.

The equal protection clause prevents laws from being applied unequally and unfairly to citisens. To discriminate against, say, criminals is unequal but not unfair. To discriminate against race, gender, or sexual orientation is both unequal and unfair.

5. The equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not interface with the civil rights act, they were made at different times and at fundamentally different levels of governance. Therefore if someone's interpretation of the equal protections act requires the civil rights act to make sense or give meaning to the clause their interpretation is necessarily wrong.

A law passed later can easily complement another law, including the Constitution. A law cannot defy the Constitution (as DOMA currently does), but it can certainly complement it.

6. A homosexual couple can commit everything they have a right to commit to each other under normal contract law. Homosexual marriage is thus not an issue of rights denied but unequal government benefits.

I think I have sufficiently disproven this.

I will defend these points from anyone who cares to doubt them, annnnnddd GO!
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 8:55:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 8:28:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/11/2014 1:49:51 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
I have had some disagreement with the user EndarkenedRationalist about homosexual marriage.

Points I have made:

1. The term 'marriage' is used with two different definitions interchangeably by homosexual marriage advocates. This is a fallacy of equivocation. Those two different definitions are:

A: A private verbal/contractual commitment/agreement between two consenting adults.

B: A commitment between two consenting adults that is recognized as being entitled to all of the benefits defined here: http://www.revelandriot.com...

Definition of marriage: The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law OR the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

So clearly the law is involved and is discriminating against same-sex couples.

That would be definition B. It's clear that the dictionary is just as much a discriminator as the law.

2. Discriminating against homosexual marriage is not discriminating against homosexuals. The government does not care about sexual orientations of the people involved, just their gender relative to each other.

This is a smokescreen. The government knows a straight man will never try to marry a straight man (the same applies to women). Homosexuals (and the rest of the community) are the only people affected by these laws. Thus it is targeting them and their orientation.

A totally accurate smokescreen. The motivations of the government can't possibly affect the nature of a law in relation to the constitution. It's not a loop-hole, the government doesn't care about sexual orientation.

3. Saying 'gay marriage is banned in state X' is a disingenuous statement. Definition A is not banned anywhere, and definition B is not a private contract, it is disingenuous to describe the refusal to grant benefits not owed as 'banning' a relationship. It is akin to saying "rich tax breaks are banned" or "now illegal to be friends in Idaho (since there are no government benefits for being friends)."

Clearly it is, as the definition of marriage requires the recognition of the law.

One definition.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

"the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife"

4. The equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not prevent laws which have different outcomes for different people in aggregate, it only prevents laws from being ignored at the whim of authorities.

The equal protection clause prevents laws from being applied unequally and unfairly to citisens. To discriminate against, say, criminals is unequal but not unfair.

rofl, the word 'unfair' does not appear in the clause. Equal protection does.

To discriminate against race, gender, or sexual orientation is both unequal and unfair.

and it discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately?

6. A homosexual couple can commit everything they have a right to commit to each other under normal contract law. Homosexual marriage is thus not an issue of rights denied but unequal government benefits.

I think I have sufficiently disproven this.

You have not.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 9:23:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 8:55:09 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/11/2014 8:28:09 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/11/2014 1:49:51 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
I have had some disagreement with the user EndarkenedRationalist about homosexual marriage.

Points I have made:

1. The term 'marriage' is used with two different definitions interchangeably by homosexual marriage advocates. This is a fallacy of equivocation. Those two different definitions are:

A: A private verbal/contractual commitment/agreement between two consenting adults.

B: A commitment between two consenting adults that is recognized as being entitled to all of the benefits defined here: http://www.revelandriot.com...

Definition of marriage: The state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognised by law OR the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

So clearly the law is involved and is discriminating against same-sex couples.

That would be definition B. It's clear that the dictionary is just as much a discriminator as the law.

I don't know why we continue this cycle. If I go up to my best friend and say "want to get married" and my best friend says "yes," we are not married. This is not a marriage. It will never be a marriage until it is officiated and recognised.

2. Discriminating against homosexual marriage is not discriminating against homosexuals. The government does not care about sexual orientations of the people involved, just their gender relative to each other.

This is a smokescreen. The government knows a straight man will never try to marry a straight man (the same applies to women). Homosexuals (and the rest of the community) are the only people affected by these laws. Thus it is targeting them and their orientation.

A totally accurate smokescreen. The motivations of the government can't possibly affect the nature of a law in relation to the constitution. It's not a loop-hole, the government doesn't care about sexual orientation.

The government does, and the smokescreen is just a front that distracts from that. For example, let's pretend that the bottom 50% of the nation was white and poor and the top 50% was rich and black. If the government wanted to exterminate all white people but couldn't (because of laws prohibiting discrimination based on immutable characteristics [basically the Civil Rights Act]) and instead launched a campaign to exterminate all poor people (pretending this was, by your definition, legal), then the government would be targeting only white people.

I know that seems like an absurd analogy, but you haven't been responding to reasonable ones.

3. Saying 'gay marriage is banned in state X' is a disingenuous statement. Definition A is not banned anywhere, and definition B is not a private contract, it is disingenuous to describe the refusal to grant benefits not owed as 'banning' a relationship. It is akin to saying "rich tax breaks are banned" or "now illegal to be friends in Idaho (since there are no government benefits for being friends)."

Clearly it is, as the definition of marriage requires the recognition of the law.

One definition.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Again, two people cannot arbitrarily declare themselves married.

"the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife"

4. The equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution does not prevent laws which have different outcomes for different people in aggregate, it only prevents laws from being ignored at the whim of authorities.

The equal protection clause prevents laws from being applied unequally and unfairly to citisens. To discriminate against, say, criminals is unequal but not unfair.

rofl, the word 'unfair' does not appear in the clause. Equal protection does.

I am discussing interpretations as to how the clause is applied to society.

To discriminate against race, gender, or sexual orientation is both unequal and unfair.

and it discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately?

Yes.

6. A homosexual couple can commit everything they have a right to commit to each other under normal contract law. Homosexual marriage is thus not an issue of rights denied but unequal government benefits.

I think I have sufficiently disproven this.

You have not.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 10:19:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 9:23:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/11/2014 8:55:09 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
That would be definition B. It's clear that the dictionary is just as much a discriminator as the law.

I don't know why we continue this cycle.

Because you think the distinction I made is a semantic smokescreen and therefore equivocation should proceed unhindered towards the glorious rainbow sunset?

If I go up to my best friend and say "want to get married" and my best friend says "yes," we are not married. This is not a marriage. It will never be a marriage until it is officiated and recognised.

If that is the case, then it is morally more than an agreement between you two; as such it is not and cannot be a right simply because you both consent. You need someone else, and you need their consent. That makes it a privilege. A privilege may be revoked for whatever reason the other person may deem fit.

You need to identify the other people for homosexual marriage and recognize that they do not consent.

A totally accurate smokescreen. The motivations of the government can't possibly affect the nature of a law in relation to the constitution. It's not a loop-hole, the government doesn't care about sexual orientation.

The government does

That's supposition, it's not in the law.

For example, let's pretend that the bottom 50% of the nation was white and poor and the top 50% was rich and black. If the government wanted to exterminate all white people but couldn't (because of laws prohibiting discrimination based on immutable characteristics [basically the Civil Rights Act]) and instead launched a campaign to exterminate all poor people (pretending this was, by your definition, legal), then the government would be targeting only white people.

No it would be targeting poor people who happened to be white.

I know that seems like an absurd analogy, but you haven't been responding to reasonable ones.

I've responded to all analogies you've made. You saw my answer and.. well.. were rendered speechless is what it seemed like.

Again, two people cannot arbitrarily declare themselves married.

Then again, it is not just 'two people loving each other' that counts. (Definition B)

rofl, the word 'unfair' does not appear in the clause. Equal protection does.

I am discussing interpretations as to how the clause is applied to society.

See, now there is why we have been at odds. I was trying to discuss what the clause actually means, not the many coloured interpretations that exist. Saying 'unfair' laws are unconstitutional is a crazy interpretation of anything since 'unfair' is extremely vague and can be resolved (or not) to anything depending on the moral beliefs and biases of the judge in question... and it doesn't appear in the language of the amendment.

and it discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately?

Yes.

Then you must agree that all laws against bestiality are unconstitutional since they affect zoosexuals disproportionately. You already said that discriminating against immutable characteristics is unconstitutional.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 10:29:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 10:19:32 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/11/2014 9:23:25 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/11/2014 8:55:09 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
That would be definition B. It's clear that the dictionary is just as much a discriminator as the law.

I don't know why we continue this cycle.

Because you think the distinction I made is a semantic smokescreen and therefore equivocation should proceed unhindered towards the glorious rainbow sunset?

The cycle I was referring to was with regard to that one point.

If I go up to my best friend and say "want to get married" and my best friend says "yes," we are not married. This is not a marriage. It will never be a marriage until it is officiated and recognised.

If that is the case, then it is morally more than an agreement between you two; as such it is not and cannot be a right simply because you both consent. You need someone else, and you need their consent. That makes it a privilege. A privilege may be revoked for whatever reason the other person may deem fit.

But it is. Two people decide to get married. They have the right to then have that marriage officiated.

Let's look at it another way. A registrar in North Carolina wants to wed a same-sex couple. Is the government infringing on his rights by saying he can't?

You need to identify the other people for homosexual marriage and recognize that they do not consent.

Doesn't matter.

A totally accurate smokescreen. The motivations of the government can't possibly affect the nature of a law in relation to the constitution. It's not a loop-hole, the government doesn't care about sexual orientation.

The government does

That's supposition, it's not in the law.

For example, let's pretend that the bottom 50% of the nation was white and poor and the top 50% was rich and black. If the government wanted to exterminate all white people but couldn't (because of laws prohibiting discrimination based on immutable characteristics [basically the Civil Rights Act]) and instead launched a campaign to exterminate all poor people (pretending this was, by your definition, legal), then the government would be targeting only white people.

No it would be targeting poor people who happened to be white.

Thus only white people. It doesn't matter what the government says it is doing; what matters is what is happening in effect and intention.

I know that seems like an absurd analogy, but you haven't been responding to reasonable ones.

I've responded to all analogies you've made. You saw my answer and.. well.. were rendered speechless is what it seemed like.

That's a word for it.

Again, two people cannot arbitrarily declare themselves married.

Then again, it is not just 'two people loving each other' that counts. (Definition B)

See above.

rofl, the word 'unfair' does not appear in the clause. Equal protection does.

I am discussing interpretations as to how the clause is applied to society.

See, now there is why we have been at odds. I was trying to discuss what the clause actually means, not the many coloured interpretations that exist. Saying 'unfair' laws are unconstitutional is a crazy interpretation of anything since 'unfair' is extremely vague and can be resolved (or not) to anything depending on the moral beliefs and biases of the judge in question... and it doesn't appear in the language of the amendment.

You don't know what the clause actually means. You place your own narrow interpretation on it. It does not matter what the law says; it only matters how the law is implemented in society. This implementation comes from the court's interpretation.

and it discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately?

Yes.

Then you must agree that all laws against bestiality are unconstitutional since they affect zoosexuals disproportionately. You already said that discriminating against immutable characteristics is unconstitutional.

As soon as animals can consent to marry a human, then laws against bestiality become unconstitutional.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/11/2014 11:35:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 10:29:11 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
But it is. Two people decide to get married.

You need more than two people since the duties involved are wider than two people.

They have the right to then have that marriage officiated.

Let's look at it another way. A registrar in North Carolina wants to wed a same-sex couple. Is the government infringing on his rights by saying he can't?

No, he's an agent of the state. To use your analogy, just because you and your friend say "let's get married" and have a third friend say "I guess you're married" doesn't make it marriage.

Doesn't matter.

I think it does, the rights of those people must be defended.

No it would be targeting poor people who happened to be white.

Thus only white people. It doesn't matter what the government says it is doing; what matters is what is happening in effect and intention.

In that case it is targeting white males using it's progressive tax system, thus it is unconstitutional to have a progressive tax system.

You don't know what the clause actually means. You place your own narrow interpretation on it. It does not matter what the law says; it only matters how the law is implemented in society. This implementation comes from the court's interpretation.

DOMA cannot be interpreted to force homosexual marriage on states, and so you say it is unlawful. Yet you say here my interpretation is narrow and does not matter compared to the courts. A bit of a double standard methinks?

Then you must agree that all laws against bestiality are unconstitutional since they affect zoosexuals disproportionately. You already said that discriminating against immutable characteristics is unconstitutional.

As soon as animals can consent to marry a human, then laws against bestiality become unconstitutional.

Irrelevant, your statements leave no option for appeal. I will simply repeat this point with all appropriate quotes if you ignore it.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 12:12:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/11/2014 11:35:22 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/11/2014 10:29:11 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
But it is. Two people decide to get married.

You need more than two people since the duties involved are wider than two people.

Will you please stop deleting everything providing framework for a point if you don't need the space?

They have the right to then have that marriage officiated.

Let's look at it another way. A registrar in North Carolina wants to wed a same-sex couple. Is the government infringing on his rights by saying he can't?

No, he's an agent of the state. To use your analogy, just because you and your friend say "let's get married" and have a third friend say "I guess you're married" doesn't make it marriage.

It's his job to officiate marriages and he consents to do it.

Doesn't matter.

I think it does, the rights of those people must be defended.

Those people do not have that right. People don't have the right to prevent the state from recognising homosexual marriages when the state already recognises heterosexual marriages.

No it would be targeting poor people who happened to be white.

Thus only white people. It doesn't matter what the government says it is doing; what matters is what is happening in effect and intention.

In that case it is targeting white males using it's progressive tax system, thus it is unconstitutional to have a progressive tax system.

So only whites make more than people of other races? The progressive tax system applies to all income brackets.

You don't know what the clause actually means. You place your own narrow interpretation on it. It does not matter what the law says; it only matters how the law is implemented in society. This implementation comes from the court's interpretation.

DOMA cannot be interpreted to force homosexual marriage on states, and so you say it is unlawful. Yet you say here my interpretation is narrow and does not matter compared to the courts. A bit of a double standard methinks?

DOMA is unconstitutional because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Then you must agree that all laws against bestiality are unconstitutional since they affect zoosexuals disproportionately. You already said that discriminating against immutable characteristics is unconstitutional.

As soon as animals can consent to marry a human, then laws against bestiality become unconstitutional.

Irrelevant, your statements leave no option for appeal. I will simply repeat this point with all appropriate quotes if you ignore it.

The option for appeal revolves around consent in this instance.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 1:53:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 12:12:30 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/11/2014 11:35:22 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/11/2014 10:29:11 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
But it is. Two people decide to get married.

You need more than two people since the duties involved are wider than two people.

Will you please stop deleting everything providing framework for a point if you don't need the space?

I find it distracting given that I remember it quite well, plus I did need space this post. Feel free to requote anything you think is important.

It's his job to officiate marriages and he consents to do it.

He is acting as an agent of a larger group of people. They need to consent, and when they don't they don't authorize him to authorize the marriage, and you describe such as a ban on marriage.

I think it does, the rights of those people must be defended.

Those people do not have that right. People don't have the right to prevent the state from recognising homosexual marriages when the state already recognises heterosexual marriages.

Of course they do if duties are placed on them as a consequence of a homosexual marriage.

In that case it is targeting white males using it's progressive tax system, thus it is unconstitutional to have a progressive tax system.

So only whites make more than people of other races? The progressive tax system applies to all income brackets.

White males are highly overrepresented in the top income brackets. Thus the progressive tax system fits your criteria of disproportionally affecting people with immutable characteristics. Any rational person would say "No it's about how much money they make" and it is, that's what the law says. However you think the law can't be taken at face value, so you open yourself to an uncountable number of possible attempts to discriminate.

Only whites? No there are some very rich people of other races, but there are some homosexuals who got themselves into heterosexual marriages as well. You don't accept such counter-examples. A black man in the top income tier is proof the discrimination is not against whites just as a homosexual who got married in a state is proof the discrimination isn't against homosexuals.

You painted this as 'a few get through the cracks but we really know what they're trying to do.'

DOMA is unconstitutional because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

The people who passed it disagreed? (since I am no longer allowed to use the language of Full Faith and Credit clause or make a case about what it actually means)

As soon as animals can consent to marry a human, then laws against bestiality become unconstitutional.

Irrelevant, your statements leave no option for appeal. I will simply repeat this point with all appropriate quotes if you ignore it.

The option for appeal revolves around consent in this instance.

Alright....

Your statements:

1. Public organisations do not have the right to discriminate based on immutable characteristics. http://www.debate.org... #197

2. To discriminate against race, gender, or sexual orientation is both unequal and unfair. Post #5 this thread.

3. It discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately. Post #7 this thread.

Some simple facts:

4. Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation.

5. Zoosexuality is an immutable characteristic.

6. Laws against bestiality disproportionately affect zoosexuals [since they are the vast majority of the people who want to have sex with animals].

Now for the implications of your statements:

/ It discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately. (3)
/ Laws against bestiality disproportionately affect zoosexuals (6)
A // Laws against bestiality discriminate against zoosexuals/zoosexuality

/ Public organisations do not have the right to discriminate based on immutable characteristics. (1)
/ Zoosexuality is an immutable characteristic (5)
B // Public organisations do not have the right to discriminate based on Zoosexuality.

/ To discriminate against race, gender, or sexual orientation is both unequal and unfair. (2)
/ Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation. (4)
C // To discriminate against zoosexuality is both unequal and unfair.

/ Laws against bestiality discriminate against zoosexuals/zoosexuality (A)
/ Public organisations do not have the right to discriminate based on Zoosexuality. (B)
// Public organisations do not have the right to make laws against bestiality.

/ To discriminate against zoosexuality is both unequal and unfair. (C)
/ Laws against bestiality discriminate against zoosexuals/zoosexuality (A)
// Laws against bestiality are both unequal and unfair.

Finally combining them:

Public organizations do not have the right to make laws against bestiality, such laws are both unequal and unfair.

This was derived using deductive logic from your statements and some simple facts.

The laws of logic are clear. Either your statements are wrong, the facts are incorrect, or the conclusion is true. What I meant when I said 'there is no option to appeal' is quite simply that logic affords you no option to appeal. I stated above what the only logically viable options for appeal were. One of the premises 1-6 must be false. The premises 1-6 do not mention consent, consent cannot be an option for appeal.

While I would for personal reasons be happy if you said the conclusion is true, the fact is that some of the premises were wrong and thus this argument is unsound. The premises that were false were not the three simple facts, they were your statements.

I want to take this opportunity to say [and I am addressing my general detractors as opposed to you EndarkenedRationalist] that I am completely serious about everything I have said here. That when I say things like "Poster X doesn't have sufficient critical thinking skills" I mean they can't understand that the syllogisms I posted above are valid deductions (they might say it's a semantic trick, or simply 'I just don't agree'). When I say "Poster X is not intellectually honest" I mean they don't care about whether their position is consistent.

The difference between whom I respect and whom I don't lies in their response to clear, on topic, often deductive logic-based-challenges like this. If someone doesn't care if I respect them fine, but don't accuse me of being condescending (like it's a bad thing) after you proven yourself an intellectual inferior in terms of virtue, ability, or both.

I do not get a kick out of seeing people act like fools, I would much rather have an honest intelligent opponent that can be convinced than a bunch of simpletons who can be convinced of nothing but what they were already fixing to believe. But as many have pointed out to me, the majority opinion is often in contradiction with my own. I have only two choices, I can choose logic or the crowd. When they ask me how it is that I am right while the crowd is wrong there is no answer that is both polite and honest.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 9:48:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 1:53:57 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/12/2014 12:12:30 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/11/2014 11:35:22 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/11/2014 10:29:11 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:



Let's make this cler. You and I have fundamental disagreement surrounding the concept of rights. You think people have the right to not fund things they don't support (essentially). This is true - for private organisations. The entire concept of taxation proves you wrong. Additionally, what about all the people who oppose any state intervention of marriage? By your logic, they have the right to not "fund" heterosexual marriages. However, in reality, they do not have this right.
Of course, the tax breaks given to married couples have a negligible impact on other people, so your argument is rather moot anyway.

It's his job to officiate marriages and he consents to do it.

He is acting as an agent of a larger group of people. They need to consent, and when they don't they don't authorize him to authorize the marriage, and you describe such as a ban on marriage.

I think it does, the rights of those people must be defended.

In that case it is targeting white males using it's progressive tax system, thus it is unconstitutional to have a progressive tax system.

So only whites make more than people of other races? The progressive tax system applies to all income brackets.

White males are highly overrepresented in the top income brackets. Thus the progressive tax system fits your criteria of disproportionally affecting people with immutable characteristics. Any rational person would say "No it's about how much money they make" and it is, that's what the law says. However you think the law can't be taken at face value, so you open yourself to an uncountable number of possible attempts to discriminate.

I said the intent behind and the effect in reality. A progressive tax was not designed with the intent of charging whites more. Bans on gay marriage were designed to stop gays from getting married.

Only whites? No there are some very rich people of other races, but there are some homosexuals who got themselves into heterosexual marriages as well. You don't accept such counter-examples. A black man in the top income tier is proof the discrimination is not against whites just as a homosexual who got married in a state is proof the discrimination isn't against homosexuals.

There is no right to marry someone of the opposite gender. This does not exist. The right that does exist is the right to marry the person you love. By person, we mean consenting adult, since neither children nor animals can consent.


The people who passed it disagreed? (since I am no longer allowed to use the language of Full Faith and Credit clause or make a case about what it actually means)

DOMA says states do not have to recognise the marriages performed in another state. FFC says they do.

As soon as animals can consent to marry a human, then laws against bestiality become unconstitutional.

Alright....

Your statements:

1. Public organisations do not have the right to discriminate based on immutable characteristics. http://www.debate.org... #197

2. To discriminate against race, gender, or sexual orientation is both unequal and unfair. Post #5 this thread.

3. It discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately. Post #7 this thread.

Some simple facts:

4. Zoosexuality is a sexual orientation.

Yes.

5. Zoosexuality is an immutable characteristic.

6. Laws against bestiality disproportionately affect zoosexuals [since they are the vast majority of the people who want to have sex with animals].

Now for the implications of your statements:

/ It discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately. (3)
/ Laws against bestiality disproportionately affect zoosexuals (6)
A // Laws against bestiality discriminate against zoosexuals/zoosexuality

By your logic, there are no such laws, since you don't need the state to get married to an animal. Just go to your dog and say hey, we're married.

/ Laws against bestiality discriminate against zoosexuals/zoosexuality (A)
/ Public organisations do not have the right to discriminate based on Zoosexuality. (B)
// Public organisations do not have the right to make laws against bestiality.

Finally combining them:

Public organizations do not have the right to make laws against bestiality, such laws are both unequal and unfair.

This was derived using deductive logic from your statements and some simple facts.

The laws of logic are clear. Either your statements are wrong, the facts are incorrect, or the conclusion is true. What I meant when I said 'there is no option to appeal' is quite simply that logic affords you no option to appeal. I stated above what the only logically viable options for appeal were. One of the premises 1-6 must be false. The premises 1-6 do not mention consent, consent cannot be an option for appeal.

That is because you willfully omitted it. Which of my premises are false? I doubt any are.

While I would for personal reasons be happy if you said the conclusion is true, the fact is that some of the premises were wrong and thus this argument is unsound. The premises that were false were not the three simple facts, they were your statements.

I want to take this opportunity to say [and I am addressing my general detractors as opposed to you EndarkenedRationalist] that I am completely serious about everything I have said here. That when I say things like "Poster X doesn't have sufficient critical thinking skills" I mean they can't understand that the syllogisms I posted above are valid deductions (they might say it's a semantic trick, or simply 'I just don't agree'). When I say "Poster X is not intellectually honest" I mean they don't care about whether their position is consistent.

The difference between whom I respect and whom I don't lies in their response to clear, on topic, often deductive logic-based-challenges like this. If someone doesn't care if I respect them fine, but don't accuse me of being condescending (like it's a bad thing) after you proven yourself an intellectual inferior in terms of virtue, ability, or both.

I do not get a kick out of seeing people act like fools, I would much rather have an honest intelligent opponent that can be convinced than a bunch of simpletons who can be convinced of nothing but what they were already fixing to believe. But as many have pointed out to me, the majority opinion is often in contradiction with my own. I have only two choices, I can choose logic or the crowd. When they ask me how it is that I am right while the crowd is wrong there is no answer that is both polite and honest.

All of your statements would be completely logical, Liberty, except for one flaw. The discrimination we are discussing in context relates to marriage and sexual orientation. The fact that you omitted consent is telling. The premises are sound; the equivocation is faulty.
2 men consent to marry each other but cannot while one man and one woman can. They are denied the right to marry and the benefits with it because of their sexual orientation.

1 man consents to marry an animal. The animal is incapable of consenting back. The state of marriage can never be reached.

If the law said all zoosexuals needed to be shot or imprisoned or sterilised, this would obviously be discrimination against zoosexuals. Since the right to marriage revolves around consent and animals cannot consent, animals do not have a right to marriage.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 2:09:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 9:48:37 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/12/2014 1:53:57 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/12/2014 12:12:30 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/11/2014 11:35:22 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/11/2014 10:29:11 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Let's make this cler. You and I have fundamental disagreement surrounding the concept of rights.

I find that highly likely as well, but let me be clear. There is no where in the wide world of ideas I am not willing to go. The things I say people 'just have to agree on' are axioms and they are a lot more basic than the concept of rights.

If you don't want to start talking about foundational ethics, that's your prerogative. However I am not going to treat that refusal any different than you might treat someone who says "You and I have a fundamental disagreement surrounding the concept of homosexuality, God says it's wrong."

You think people have the right to not fund things they don't support (essentially).

Correct, an extension of the interaction by consent rule implied by a right to liberty.

This is true - for private organisations.

Nope, all humans have equal rights. There is no configuration of political or military power that can generate Frankenstein rights to violate rights.

The entire concept of taxation proves you wrong.

No it doesn't. That is like saying the whole Holocaust proves you wrong about discriminating against immutable characteristics. Just because somebody does it does not make it right.

Additionally, what about all the people who oppose any state intervention of marriage? By your logic, they have the right to not "fund" heterosexual marriages.

Correct, and the fact that the state does not give them the option to decline support while giving it to others is a result of a faulty mechanism of funding in the state [taxes].

However, in reality, they do not have this right.

Actually they do. If you ask "why" I will tell you, but also remind you that you never really supported your assertion that people have the right to marry the one they love. You just posted a series of concepts like "Justice, Equality, Truth, etc..."

Of course, the tax breaks given to married couples have a negligible impact on other people, so your argument is rather moot anyway.

Then it must have negligible affects on the married couples overall. The size of the impact relative to the participants is also immaterial.

If you stole one cent from everyone and gave it to Joe, the impact on everyone else is small but Joe feels very rich now. It is still theft.

I said the intent behind and the effect in reality. A progressive tax was not designed with the intent of charging whites more. Bans on gay marriage were designed to stop gays from getting married.

As I said before, you are advancing the governmental equivalent of thought crime. Unable to establish that what they are doing is evil you say why they are doing it is.

This suffers from the same two problem as traditional thought crime.

1. Proving a motivation is almost impossible.
2. Thoughts can't harm you or violate your rights, the proposition requires that if they did the exact same thing for a different reason you would be OK with it. I doubt that very much.

I know the progressive tax system was not designed to target whites [it was designed to target rich people, also unfair].

However it also seems just as obvious to me that the government laws on marriage are not designed to target homosexuals.

The homosexual advocacy is so used to dealing with persecution they see it in every corner. They assume holding to the traditional definition of marriage is a punitive measure and it explains why they describe it as 'banning' and 'making a consenting relationship illegal.'

It is not though, it is the default; what one would expect given that the traditional definition of marriage was the one the laws were written with. Changing it is in effect to legislate a decision altering the whole history of laws mentioning marriage in a state.

For instance, if a state decided to recognize animals as persons, that would change a huge amount of legal reality; that single change of definition would negate pretty much all laws relating to animal property, abuse, etc...

The simplest explanation is this, those the government represents in these states do not see homosexual couples as equally valuable to heterosexual couples, they do not wish to support them. If homosexuals got a heterosexual marriage they would be more than happy to support this. If heterosexuals tried to get a homosexual marriage they would not be willing to support it.

It's the relationship they don't care to support, not the people who want it.

There is no right to marry someone of the opposite gender. This does not exist.

Given definition B, I agree.

The right that does exist is the right to marry the person you love.

Given definition B, I disagree.

By person, we mean consenting adult, since neither children nor animals can consent.

They can both consent, just not to complicated contracts they don't understand.

DOMA says states do not have to recognize the marriages performed in another state. FFC says they do.

Then it seems the law is in contradiction with itself. Either FFC doesn't mean what you think it does or DOMA is unconstitutional. Either way one of us is going to have to challenge standing law, so I would appreciate it if you did not complain about doubting the opinions of judges and senators.

By your logic, there are no such laws, since you don't need the state to get married to an animal. Just go to your dog and say hey, we're married.

"Laws against bestiality" do not reference marriage.

That is because you willfully omitted it.

If I omitted anything that needs to be there the logic would be invalid.

Which of my premises are false? I doubt any are.

Then I would like to see you admit to the implications of your statements or identify which syllogism is invalid. You may want to do some quick reading:

http://www.iep.utm.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

All of your statements would be completely logical, Liberty, except for one flaw. The discrimination we are discussing in context relates to marriage and sexual orientation.

Marriage did not appear in the syllogisms I posted because it did not appear in your statements. No appeal with that is possible.

The fact that you omitted consent is telling.
It tells me you omitted consent in your interpretation of the 14th amendment.

The premises are sound; the equivocation is faulty.

Equivocation fallacies can be identified by the equivocated term. Please identify it and at least two places where it is used in different senses.

They are denied the right to marry and the benefits with it because of their sexual orientation.

This is a reassertion without support. You know I contest that there is no right to marriage (B) and that marriage (B) is not denied based on sexual orientation. I have given standing arguments to that effect.

If the law said all zoosexuals needed to be shot or imprisoned or sterilised, this would obviously be discrimination against zoosexuals.

The equivalent for homosexual marriage would be saying "No homosexuals may get married." That is not the case.

Since the right to marriage revolves around consent and animals cannot consent, animals do not have a right to marriage.

You presumed marriage without sufficient cause. Bestiality is not marriage it's sex.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 2:52:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 2:09:09 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/12/2014 9:48:37 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/12/2014 1:53:57 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/12/2014 12:12:30 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/11/2014 11:35:22 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/11/2014 10:29:11 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:

I find that highly likely as well, but let me be clear. There is no where in the wide world of ideas I am not willing to go. The things I say people 'just have to agree on' are axioms and they are a lot more basic than the concept of rights.

If you don't want to start talking about foundational ethics, that's your prerogative. However I am not going to treat that refusal any different than you might treat someone who says "You and I have a fundamental disagreement surrounding the concept of homosexuality, God says it's wrong."

Okay. Let's get into foundational ethics.
Where do you believe rights come from?
What rights do you believe people have?
Do you believe rights are inherent?

You think people have the right to not fund things they don't support (essentially).

Correct, an extension of the interaction by consent rule implied by a right to liberty.

The entire concept of taxation proves you wrong.

No it doesn't. That is like saying the whole Holocaust proves you wrong about discriminating against immutable characteristics. Just because somebody does it does not make it right.

So you do not believe taxation is right?

Additionally, what about all the people who oppose any state intervention of marriage? By your logic, they have the right to not "fund" heterosexual marriages.

Correct, and the fact that the state does not give them the option to decline support while giving it to others is a result of a faulty mechanism of funding in the state [taxes].

I disagree. It seems to me that you are placing too much value on the individual. Even assuming you're right, I would hold that the state ought not to give people to option to decline "support" for homosexual marriages.

Of course, the tax breaks given to married couples have a negligible impact on other people, so your argument is rather moot anyway.

Then it must have negligible affects on the married couples overall. The size of the impact relative to the participants is also immaterial.

You realise gay couples are denied 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections offered by marital status?

http://www.hrc.org...

If you stole one cent from everyone and gave it to Joe, the impact on everyone else is small but Joe feels very rich now. It is still theft.

I said the intent behind and the effect in reality. A progressive tax was not designed with the intent of charging whites more. Bans on gay marriage were designed to stop gays from getting married.

As I said before, you are advancing the governmental equivalent of thought crime. Unable to establish that what they are doing is evil you say why they are doing it is.

The effect in reality is establishing what they are doing is "evil."

This suffers from the same two problem as traditional thought crime.

I know the progressive tax system was not designed to target whites [it was designed to target rich people, also unfair].

Not unfair, but that's not the issue at hand.

However it also seems just as obvious to me that the government laws on marriage are not designed to target homosexuals.

How? Why bother with passing them at all if not to target sexual orientations of minorities?

The homosexual advocacy is so used to dealing with persecution they see it in every corner. They assume holding to the traditional definition of marriage is a punitive measure and it explains why they describe it as 'banning' and 'making a consenting relationship illegal.'

It is not though, it is the default; what one would expect given that the traditional definition of marriage was the one the laws were written with. Changing it is in effect to legislate a decision altering the whole history of laws mentioning marriage in a state.

Appeal to tradition fallacy.

For instance, if a state decided to recognize animals as persons, that would change a huge amount of legal reality; that single change of definition would negate pretty much all laws relating to animal property, abuse, etc...

True.

The simplest explanation is this, those the government represents in these states do not see homosexual couples as equally valuable to heterosexual couples, they do not wish to support them. If homosexuals got a heterosexual marriage they would be more than happy to support this. If heterosexuals tried to get a homosexual marriage they would not be willing to support it.

But homosexual couples are equally valuable and have the right to be treated as such.

It's the relationship they don't care to support, not the people who want it.

By person, we mean consenting adult, since neither children nor animals can consent.

They can both consent, just not to complicated contracts they don't understand.

Children cannot consent to sexual relations, which is why pedophilia is an issue. This holds true for animals.

By your logic, there are no such laws, since you don't need the state to get married to an animal. Just go to your dog and say hey, we're married.

"Laws against bestiality" do not reference marriage.

That is because you willfully omitted it.

If I omitted anything that needs to be there the logic would be invalid.

Exactly.

Which of my premises are false? I doubt any are.

Then I would like to see you admit to the implications of your statements or identify which syllogism is invalid. You may want to do some quick reading:

I pointed out the issue with your syllogisms.

http://www.iep.utm.edu...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

All of your statements would be completely logical, Liberty, except for one flaw. The discrimination we are discussing in context relates to marriage and sexual orientation.

Marriage did not appear in the syllogisms I posted because it did not appear in your statements. No appeal with that is possible

That was because it was implied by the statements in context.

The fact that you omitted consent is telling.
It tells me you omitted consent in your interpretation of the 14th amendment.

I did not. Equal protection under the laws - sure. No consent needed. But we're discussing the 14th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act, and marriage. The last one requires consent. Thus it becomes a building block for the others.

The premises are sound; the equivocation is faulty.

Equivocation fallacies can be identified by the equivocated term. Please identify it and at least two places where it is used in different senses.

I used discrimination with regards to removing a right from consenting people. You removed the consenting aspect.


If the law said all zoosexuals needed to be shot or imprisoned or sterilised, this would obviously be discrimination against zoosexuals.

The equivalent for homosexual marriage would be saying "No homosexuals may get married." That is not the case.

That is exactly the case.

Since the right to marriage revolves around consent and animals cannot consent, animals do not have a right to marriage.

You presumed marriage without sufficient cause. Bestiality is not marriage it's sex.

I am not convinced that animals can consent to sex with a human either. Scientific study has told us children cannot consent to sex with adults and animals cannot consent to sex with humans.

By consent, naturally, I am referring to informed consent.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 6:51:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 2:52:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/12/2014 2:09:09 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Okay. Let's get into foundational ethics.

This is going to take a bit, it will have to be a second post. I am not going to get into that though until we resolve the matter of these syllogisms.

So you do not believe taxation is right?

Correct.

It seems to me that you are placing too much value on the individual.

Individual rights are the only thing of value in objective morality.

I would hold that the state ought not to give people to option to decline "support" for homosexual marriages.

Then they could just decline state support and do it privately. Inefficiency for no reason.

You realise gay couples are denied 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections offered by marital status?

If it was 11,380 I would say the same thing. They must fall into three categories.

1. Public support morally contingent on the public's consent. They may withhold it.
2. Rights denied to people outside of marriage but which would be granted in it. These should not be attached to marriage.
3. Privileges extorted from individuals or companies in society, these render it immoral.

This is a simple consequence of the statement "the rights of all men are equal" if they are equal they cannot depend on a relationship. Either you have a right to it as an individual or you don't have a right to it in any case.

The effect in reality is establishing what they are doing is "evil."

Why does it become evil?

How? Why bother with passing them at all if not to target sexual orientations of minorities?

They don't have to pass anything. The legal definition would remain static until they passed legislation to change it. DOMA was a preemptive strike against judicial misinterpretation of the constitution, it did not require any state to change their laws or legal definitions.

Appeal to tradition fallacy.

Incorrect, appeal to tradition is the claim that something is correct because it is traditional. I was merely pointing out that status quo legality is to keep using the same definitions. It is a proactive step to change a definition and can affect the legal reality just as surely as sweeping reform.

You don't need any motivation other than a desire to stay true to past legislation in order to refuse to change a definition.

But homosexual couples are equally valuable and have the right to be treated as such.

You can't prove that, trust me I've scoured this world for objective values; there aren't many.

Children cannot consent to sexual relations, which is why pedophilia is an issue. This holds true for animals.

It does not, but this is a different issue.

Exactly.

The logic is valid, check it yourself (you should have done so already).

I pointed out the issue with your syllogisms.

You most certainly did not. I am not going to let this go. Marriage and consent do not appear in the syllogisms, yet the syllogisms are valid. You must logically reject some of the premises or the conclusion.

That was because it was implied by the statements in context.

So you're saying that some of your statements were only true in context? Could you please provide those statements again with the context converted into conditionals?

The last one requires consent.

If the need for consent allows laws to be exceptions to the 14th amendment (as you interpret it).....?

I used discrimination with regards to removing a right from consenting people.

I removed nothing, I used your statements as you gave them which was without any conditionals relating to marriage or consent.

The equivalent for homosexual marriage would be saying "No homosexuals may get married." That is not the case.
That is exactly the case.

Counter-example http://www.tandfonline.com... Gay men in heterosexual marriages. It is false that homosexuals may not get married.

I am not convinced that animals can consent to sex with a human either.

Once again, your statements didn't rely on any conditionals involving consent or marriage.

Scientific study has told us children cannot consent to sex with adults and animals cannot consent to sex with humans.

That is patently false, there is no science of consent. What you may be referring to are completely arbitrary legal presumptions created to simplify a complex moral problem. While you know I would love to argue about this, this thread is not about it. I did not choose this example to start an argument about bestiality but because I am familiar with it and can defend those simple facts above. What matters here is getting you to the point where you realize that your statements are in contradiction and you must withdraw one or more of them.

By consent, naturally, I am referring to informed consent.

When I refer to consent, I naturally refer to consent.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 8:34:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 6:51:12 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/12/2014 2:52:28 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/12/2014 2:09:09 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Okay. Let's get into foundational ethics.

This is going to take a bit, it will have to be a second post. I am not going to get into that though until we resolve the matter of these syllogisms.

So you do not believe taxation is right?

Correct.

I do. And here we reach another value disagreement. I believe the collective is more important than the individual.

Once people enter into civil society, they necessarily surrender some of their - let's call them "rights." One of these includes taxation. People have to make sacrifices in order to ensure the protection of their rights and liberties - this is the purpose of government. Once in society, people no longer have the right to refuse being taxed by the government. They used public roads. They attend public schools. They are protected by public police. These things are all undertaken to benefit the collective whole. People then do not get a say over what their tax money goes to. Thus they do not have a right to oppose the legalisation/recognition of gay marriage.

You realise gay couples are denied 1,138 benefits, rights, and protections offered by marital status?

If it was 11,380 I would say the same thing. They must fall into three categories.

1. Public support morally contingent on the public's consent. They may withhold it.

They currently have public support.

2. Rights denied to people outside of marriage but which would be granted in it. These should not be attached to marriage.

Regardless of that, they currently are.

3. Privileges extorted from individuals or companies in society, these render it immoral.

How? Why bother with passing them at all if not to target sexual orientations of minorities?

They don't have to pass anything. The legal definition would remain static until they passed legislation to change it. DOMA was a preemptive strike against judicial misinterpretation of the constitution, it did not require any state to change their laws or legal definitions.

I'm not talking about DOMA; I'm talking about the need the majority of states felt to pass laws/amendments banning gay marriage.

Appeal to tradition fallacy.

Incorrect, appeal to tradition is the claim that something is correct because it is traditional. I was merely pointing out that status quo legality is to keep using the same definitions. It is a proactive step to change a definition and can affect the legal reality just as surely as sweeping reform.

But people argue that the definition should not change because it has "always" been that way (though this is false). If this was not your argument, I apologise.

You don't need any motivation other than a desire to stay true to past legislation in order to refuse to change a definition.

But homosexual couples are equally valuable and have the right to be treated as such.

You can't prove that, trust me I've scoured this world for objective values; there aren't many.

So prove they aren't. Reproduction doesn't play a role.


Exactly.

The logic is valid, check it yourself (you should have done so already).

I pointed out the issue with your syllogisms.

You most certainly did not. I am not going to let this go. Marriage and consent do not appear in the syllogisms, yet the syllogisms are valid. You must logically reject some of the premises or the conclusion.

Marriage and consent do not appear because you left them out. They were involved with the discrimination we were referring to. You removed them and argued a slightly different sort of discrimination.

That was because it was implied by the statements in context.

So you're saying that some of your statements were only true in context? Could you please provide those statements again with the context converted into conditionals?

The last one requires consent.

If the need for consent allows laws to be exceptions to the 14th amendment (as you interpret it).....?

This had nothing to do with anything.
The 14th Amendment deals with the equal protection of every citisen beneath the law.
Consent deals with marriage.
The benefits, rights, and protections associated with marriage (and thereby consent) given to one group and denied to another - which are denied based on sexual orientation, which in turn is unacceptable under the Civil Rights Act - are a violation of equal protection under the law.

The equivalent for homosexual marriage would be saying "No homosexuals may get married." That is not the case.
That is exactly the case.

Counter-example http://www.tandfonline.com... Gay men in heterosexual marriages. It is false that homosexuals may not get married.

Yes, technically, homosexuals can get married. Homosexuals cannot get married to the person they love.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 9:34:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 8:34:19 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/12/2014 6:51:12 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Correct.

I do. And here we reach another value disagreement. I believe the collective is more important than the individual.

Then if the collective decides gays shouldn't be have their relationships recognized as marriage? Decides they shouldn't be allowed to have sex? Decides they should be destroyed?

It's always the same story. The collective only trumps liberty when you're the one trying to trump liberty, it never seems to work that way when it's your liberty being trumped.

Once people enter into civil society, they necessarily surrender some of their - let's call them "rights." One of these includes taxation.

Suppose I say marriage is another?

People have to make sacrifices in order to ensure the protection of their rights and liberties - this is the purpose of government.

People have to sacrifice their rights to ensure the protection of their rights, that is a contradiction.

Once in society, people no longer have the right to refuse being taxed by the government.

Of course they do.

They used public roads. They attend public schools. They are protected by public police.

They are forbidden free movement if they don't use the roads, they are forced to attend public schools (and if they're home-schooled there are no tax breaks), they did not ask to be protected by the police and even if they do that doesn't mean they are willing to fund the police as the government may happen to run it.

These things are all undertaken to benefit the collective whole.

That is irrelevant. Benefiting someone does not entitle me to their money, only their consent does that.

People then do not get a say over what their tax money goes to.

They have a right to say where all their money goes to.

Thus they do not have a right to oppose the legalisation/recognition of gay marriage.

In defending homosexual marriage recognition from my criticism you have left it open to a far more obvious means of attack. If the collective can force individuals to pay for homosexual marriages, they can force homosexuals to pay for their own de-gaying treatments.

They currently have public support.

Then all that remains is a rational system of government to connect those who are willing to support homosexual unions to the homosexual unions.

2. Rights denied to people outside of marriage but which would be granted in it. These should not be attached to marriage.

Regardless of that, they currently are.

I can't seem to think of a single example except for tax breaks, and you say the collective has the right to impose taxes.

They don't have to pass anything. The legal definition would remain static until they passed legislation to change it. DOMA was a preemptive strike against judicial misinterpretation of the constitution, it did not require any state to change their laws or legal definitions.

I'm not talking about DOMA; I'm talking about the need the majority of states felt to pass laws/amendments banning gay marriage.

Those too are simply preemptive DOMA like statements instructing state officials that the legal definition of marriage in that state rules out two applicants of the same sex.

Incorrect, appeal to tradition is the claim that something is correct because it is traditional. I was merely pointing out that status quo legality is to keep using the same definitions. It is a proactive step to change a definition and can affect the legal reality just as surely as sweeping reform.

But people argue that the definition should not change because it has "always" been that way (though this is false). If this was not your argument, I apologise.

I don't believe legislators should try to hide legal changes using definition shifts, and it's 10x worse when judges do it. However that is a tangent.

The relevant point here is that it is possible for a legislator to be pro homosexual marriage and yet still recognize that the honest way to change the law is to re-pass it since the intent of all previous laws on marriage were necessarily made with the previous definition of marriage.

You most definitely cannot infer their intent to discriminate against homosexuals even if that mattered. For a historical example of this consider Lincoln, he was most certainly an abolitionist however he consistently refused to declare all men free in America because he didn't have the authority. He considered the emancipation proclamation (which only applied to states still in rebellion) to be the limit of his power. He felt he had to wait for congress to change the law (and indeed the very constitution).

You cannot infer from his unwillingness to define away slavery or declare it banished forever that he is trying to discriminate against blacks.

You can't prove that, trust me I've scoured this world for objective values; there aren't many.

So prove they aren't. Reproduction doesn't play a role.
e
Reproduction most certainly does play a role in the minds of the people who want to support heterosexual marriage but not homosexual marriage.

You're attempting to shift the BoP here as well. It is your position here that would rely on there being an objective value of marriage (that is equal in this case). I am saying there isn't. I am not called upon to prove the subjectiveness of every possible reason one may value marriage.

Marriage and consent do not appear because you left them out. They were involved with the discrimination we were referring to. You removed them and argued a slightly different sort of discrimination.

I did not remove anything, those are direct quotes or implications. If you wish to correct one of the statements with conditionals, please do so.

If the need for consent allows laws to be exceptions to the 14th amendment (as you interpret it).....?

This had nothing to do with anything.
The 14th Amendment deals with the equal protection of every citisen beneath the law.
Consent deals with marriage.
The benefits, rights, and protections associated with marriage (and thereby consent) given to one group and denied to another - which are denied based on sexual orientation, which in turn is unacceptable under the Civil Rights Act - are a violation of equal protection under the law.

So even if a law does discriminate against a sexual orientation, if it protects the requirement for consent it's constitutional?

Yes, technically, homosexuals can get married.
Finally, it took you forever to cede that.

Homosexuals cannot get married to the person they love.
Join the club, zoos are going to be here a lot longer than homosexuals.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2014 10:35:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 9:34:10 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/12/2014 8:34:19 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
At 2/12/2014 6:51:12 PM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
Correct.

I do. And here we reach another value disagreement. I believe the collective is more important than the individual.

Then if the collective decides gays shouldn't be have their relationships recognized as marriage? Decides they shouldn't be allowed to have sex? Decides they should be destroyed?

It's always the same story. The collective only trumps liberty when you're the one trying to trump liberty, it never seems to work that way when it's your liberty being trumped.

Just because the collective has more value doesn't mean it benefits the collective to restrict the individual.

Once people enter into civil society, they necessarily surrender some of their - let's call them "rights." One of these includes taxation.

Suppose I say marriage is another?

People have to make sacrifices in order to ensure the protection of their rights and liberties - this is the purpose of government.

People have to sacrifice their rights to ensure the protection of their rights, that is a contradiction.

No, that is how civil society works.

Once in society, people no longer have the right to refuse being taxed by the government.

Of course they do.

They used public roads. They attend public schools. They are protected by public police.

They are forbidden free movement if they don't use the roads, they are forced to attend public schools (and if they're home-schooled there are no tax breaks), they did not ask to be protected by the police and even if they do that doesn't mean they are willing to fund the police as the government may happen to run it.

Doesn't matter. They live under the government. They participate in the social contract.

These things are all undertaken to benefit the collective whole.

That is irrelevant. Benefiting someone does not entitle me to their money, only their consent does that.

People then do not get a say over what their tax money goes to.

They have a right to say where all their money goes to.

Not with regard to taxation.

Thus they do not have a right to oppose the legalisation/recognition of gay marriage.

In defending homosexual marriage recognition from my criticism you have left it open to a far more obvious means of attack. If the collective can force individuals to pay for homosexual marriages, they can force homosexuals to pay for their own de-gaying treatments.

Those treatments are not funded publicly nor by taxation, so your argument does not hold up.

They currently have public support.

Then all that remains is a rational system of government to connect those who are willing to support homosexual unions to the homosexual unions.

2. Rights denied to people outside of marriage but which would be granted in it. These should not be attached to marriage.

Regardless of that, they currently are.

I can't seem to think of a single example except for tax breaks, and you say the collective has the right to impose taxes.

Yes. And?


I'm not talking about DOMA; I'm talking about the need the majority of states felt to pass laws/amendments banning gay marriage.

Those too are simply preemptive DOMA like statements instructing state officials that the legal definition of marriage in that state rules out two applicants of the same sex.

Those would never need to be passed if marriage was based around gender and not sexual orientation.


The relevant point here is that it is possible for a legislator to be pro homosexual marriage and yet still recognize that the honest way to change the law is to re-pass it since the intent of all previous laws on marriage were necessarily made with the previous definition of marriage.

This is irrelevant. I am arguing for legalisation, which requires new legal action.

You most definitely cannot infer their intent to discriminate against homosexuals even if that mattered. For a historical example of this consider Lincoln, he was most certainly an abolitionist however he consistently refused to declare all men free in America because he didn't have the authority. He considered the emancipation proclamation (which only applied to states still in rebellion) to be the limit of his power. He felt he had to wait for congress to change the law (and indeed the very constitution).

This analogy does not hold up. Aside from the fact that Lincoln was a free-soiler, not an abolitionist, I am not arguing for the President to stand up and legalise gay marriage; I am arguing that it should be legalised, meaning Congress and the Court should take action.

You cannot infer from his unwillingness to define away slavery or declare it banished forever that he is trying to discriminate against blacks.

You can't prove that, trust me I've scoured this world for objective values; there aren't many.

You're attempting to shift the BoP here as well. It is your position here that would rely on there being an objective value of marriage (that is equal in this case). I am saying there isn't. I am not called upon to prove the subjectiveness of every possible reason one may value marriage.

My position does not rely on an objective value of marriage. My position relies on logic,
1) The government currently recognises heterosexual marriage.
2) The government currently does not recognise homosexual marriage.
3) In order for this discrimination to be acceptable, the government must provide a rational reason why it should continue as is.
4) The government has not done so. Religion is not a valid reason because of separation of church and state. Personal opinion is not a valid reason because people cannot force others to live by their opinions,
5) Allowing gay marriage does not infringe on the rights of others.

You'll take issue with 5, but you'll be wrong. As long as you live in and enjoy the benefits of civil society, you owe a debt to that society. That debt is taxation. You do not get a say in what the money goes to.

Marriage and consent do not appear because you left them out. They were involved with the discrimination we were referring to. You removed them and argued a slightly different sort of discrimination.

I did not remove anything, those are direct quotes or implications. If you wish to correct one of the statements with conditionals, please do so.

If the need for consent allows laws to be exceptions to the 14th amendment (as you interpret it).....?

This had nothing to do with anything.
The 14th Amendment deals with the equal protection of every citisen beneath the law.
Consent deals with marriage.
The benefits, rights, and protections associated with marriage (and thereby consent) given to one group and denied to another - which are denied based on sexual orientation, which in turn is unacceptable under the Civil Rights Act - are a violation of equal protection under the law.

So even if a law does discriminate against a sexual orientation, if it protects the requirement for consent it's constitutional?

No, and I have no idea where you got that. It is wrong for a law to discriminate against sexual orientation where consent is involved.

Yes, technically, homosexuals can get married.
Finally, it took you forever to cede that.

Homosexuals cannot get married to the person they love.
Join the club, zoos are going to be here a lot longer than homosexuals.

That is the only issue here. Animals cannot consent to marriage.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 12:05:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Even ignoring the sexual orientation issue, even ignoring the consent issue with animals which makes zoophilia in no way analogous to homosexual marriage, barring homosexual marriage is explicit discrimination based on gender. Person X (m) can marry Person Y (f), but Person Z(f) cannot marry Person Y, wholly because of gender. While there are issues of precedent, it certainly violates the plain language of equal protection clause of the constitution.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 12:17:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/12/2014 10:35:16 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Just because the collective has more value doesn't mean it benefits the collective to restrict the individual.

However if someone thought it did benefit the collective to kill homosexuals, that would be justified?

No, that is how civil society works.

If civil society works on a contradiction it is little wonder that it doesn't seem to work at all.

Doesn't matter. They live under the government. They participate in the social contract.

The government is very heavy, hard to lift it off of oneself. The social contract is a lie, one must agree to contracts, when one is born into them it is slavery.

Not with regard to taxation.

It is just counter-assertion at this point.

Those treatments are not funded publicly nor by taxation, so your argument does not hold up.

Well they won't be when homosexuals are forced to pay for it :p

Yes. And?

Therefore there is no reason to support homosexual marriage in terms of rights.

Those too are simply preemptive DOMA like statements instructing state officials that the legal definition of marriage in that state rules out two applicants of the same sex.

Those would never need to be passed if marriage was based around gender and not sexual orientation.

Why?

This is irrelevant. I am arguing for legalisation, which requires new legal action.

You are arguing for government benefits.

I am arguing that it should be legalised, meaning Congress and the Court should take action.

and that is not an accurate representation of your position, you are claiming that this 'legalization' is the only constitutional option.

3) In order for this discrimination to be acceptable, the government must provide a rational reason why it should continue as is.

Why?

Personal opinion is not a valid reason because people cannot force others to live by their opinions

The law is the final result of aggregate personal opinions, people most certainly can and do force others to live by their opinions. The question is whether it is moral to do so. A question you answer "yes" to taxes, "yes" to bestiality, but "no" to homosex, and even more you say personal opinions don't even entitle one to spend less money supporting homosexual couples.

5) Allowing gay marriage does not infringe on the rights of others.

I gave you examples of how it did in the other thread, we can go through them here.

You'll take issue with 5, but you'll be wrong. As long as you live in and enjoy the benefits of civil society, you owe a debt to that society. That debt is taxation. You do not get a say in what the money goes to.

I deserve a say, I deserve the final say. Debt is fine, if it were properly recorded according to the consent principle as the rest of the market does. What is immoral is the vague abstract debt which you speak of. The never ending debt which cannot be quantified but which is owed to everyone but yourself so long as they think you owe them. The debt that is still there even after you have paid ten times the worth of every public service you have ever used.

Since you positively refuse to address the syllogisms on your own power, I guess I'll take you on a guided tour of sorts. I want you to answer the following questions about the following argument:

/ It discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately. (3)
/ Laws against bestiality disproportionately affect zoosexuals (6)
A // Laws against bestiality discriminate against zoosexuals/zoosexuality

Is this argument valid?

Is the first premise true?

Is the second premise true?

Is this argument sound?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 12:24:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 12:05:27 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Even ignoring the sexual orientation issue

No can do, that is integral to my points here since I am doubting the claim that discrimination is occurring based on sexual orientation.

even ignoring the consent issue with animals which makes zoophilia in no way analogous to homosexual marriage

There is no consent issue. It is a mass delusion. The point of analogy was EndarkenedRationalist statement: "It discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately." in post #7 this thread.

barring homosexual marriage is explicit discrimination based on gender. Person X (m) can marry Person Y (f), but Person Z(f) cannot marry Person Y, wholly because of gender.

Yes the law discriminates based on relative gender.

While there are issues of precedent, it certainly violates the plain language of equal protection clause of the constitution.

No it doesn't. The plain language as well as the surrounding context of the equal protections clause paint a very clear picture. The clause prevents governments at all levels in the U.S. from selectively enforcing laws. It makes no restriction on laws themselves except that they cannot be written such that they only apply to subsections of the population.

That is clearly not the case here. The same marriage laws apply to both genders and all sexual orientations. The relative genders are relevant in the law, but there is nothing unconstitutional about that.

Furthermore this particular subset of law has nothing to do with protections, and is about public recognition and state mandated benefits. If the equal protections clause demands equal benefits every social program since the new deal has been in violation of it.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 12:49:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 12:24:34 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/13/2014 12:05:27 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Even ignoring the sexual orientation issue

No can do, that is integral to my points here since I am doubting the claim that discrimination is occurring based on sexual orientation.

Well, it clearly is.

even ignoring the consent issue with animals which makes zoophilia in no way analogous to homosexual marriage

There is no consent issue.

Yes, there is.

It is a mass delusion.

You can feel that consent is a "delusion", I suppose. It's nonsense, but you can feel it.

The point of analogy was EndarkenedRationalist statement: "It discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately." in post #7 this thread.

And that is true.

barring homosexual marriage is explicit discrimination based on gender. Person X (m) can marry Person Y (f), but Person Z(f) cannot marry Person Y, wholly because of gender.

Yes the law discriminates based on relative gender.

Well I'm glad you can agree, then.

While there are issues of precedent, it certainly violates the plain language of equal protection clause of the constitution.

No it doesn't. The plain language as well as the surrounding context of the equal protections clause paint a very clear picture. The clause prevents governments at all levels in the U.S. from selectively enforcing laws.

No, that's not what the plain language, OR the precedent says. While that is part and parcel of both things, claiming that's ALL it is is flatly and simply wrong.

It makes no restriction on laws themselves except that they cannot be written such that they only apply to subsections of the population.

Yes, it does. "Equal protection of the laws".

That is clearly not the case here. The same marriage laws apply to both genders and all sexual orientations. The relative genders are relevant in the law, but there is nothing unconstitutional about that.

Reading comprehension fail.

X CAN marry Y, Z CANNOT marry Y, therefore Z is not protected under the law to the same extent X is.

Furthermore this particular subset of law has nothing to do with protections,

I don't understand what you mean by this.

and is about public recognition and state mandated benefits.

Yes, which would be protections of the law.

If the equal protections clause demands equal benefits every social program since the new deal has been in violation of it.

Not really--financial circumstances can be changed, which is what most social programs rely on.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 1:03:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 12:49:35 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 12:24:34 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
No can do, that is integral to my points here since I am doubting the claim that discrimination is occurring based on sexual orientation.

Well, it clearly is.

Do I have to go through the same thing with you as EndarkenedRationalist? One married homosexual in a state where homosexual marriage is 'banned' is proof that it is not sexual orientation that is being discriminated against.

There is no consent issue.

Yes, there is.

You can bring it up in my bestiality/zoophilia thread. http://www.debate.org...

The point of analogy was EndarkenedRationalist statement: "It discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately." in post #7 this thread.

And that is true.

Then I have a analogous element, see post #12 of this thread.

No, that's not what the plain language, OR the precedent says. While that is part and parcel of both things, claiming that's ALL it is is flatly and simply wrong.

Regardless of what precedent may 'say', the way it needs to be interpreted to fit the claims of the homosexual marriage advocacy does not follow from it's language, nor is it consistent with half of modern law.

It makes no restriction on laws themselves except that they cannot be written such that they only apply to subsections of the population.

Yes, it does. "Equal protection of the laws".

Yea "equal protection of the laws" so if the laws don't protect you by nature rather than independent discrimination, or there is nothing to be protected against forget about equality.

That is clearly not the case here. The same marriage laws apply to both genders and all sexual orientations. The relative genders are relevant in the law, but there is nothing unconstitutional about that.

Reading comprehension fail.

X CAN marry Y, Z CANNOT marry Y, therefore Z is not protected under the law to the same extent X is.

Then the only way to satisfy equal protection is for Z to be able to do anything that X can?

and is about public recognition and state mandated benefits.

Yes, which would be protections of the law.

Protections against what? Being treated like everyone else?

If the equal protections clause demands equal benefits every social program since the new deal has been in violation of it.

Not really--financial circumstances can be changed, which is what most social programs rely on.

The clause does not distinguish between circumstances changeable or otherwise.

To use your quaint method of putting it.

X CAN get a food stamp. Z CANNOT get a food stamp, therefore Z is not protected under the law to the same extent X is.
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 1:11:05 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 1:03:50 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/13/2014 12:49:35 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 12:24:34 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
No can do, that is integral to my points here since I am doubting the claim that discrimination is occurring based on sexual orientation.

Well, it clearly is.

Do I have to go through the same thing with you as EndarkenedRationalist? One married homosexual in a state where homosexual marriage is 'banned' is proof that it is not sexual orientation that is being discriminated against.

One homosexual married to the opposite gender? That does not prove it's not sexual orientation, quite the opposite.

There is no consent issue.

Yes, there is.

You can bring it up in my bestiality/zoophilia thread. http://www.debate.org...

The point of analogy was EndarkenedRationalist statement: "It discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately." in post #7 this thread.

And that is true.

Then I have a analogous element, see post #12 of this thread.

I disagree--since there is an overriding concern (consent).

No, that's not what the plain language, OR the precedent says. While that is part and parcel of both things, claiming that's ALL it is is flatly and simply wrong.

Regardless of what precedent may 'say', the way it needs to be interpreted to fit the claims of the homosexual marriage advocacy does not follow from it's language, nor is it consistent with half of modern law.

Yes, it is, actually.

Again: X CAN marry Y, Z CANNOT marry Y. They are denied equal protection. That directly follows from the plain language.


It makes no restriction on laws themselves except that they cannot be written such that they only apply to subsections of the population.

Yes, it does. "Equal protection of the laws".

Yea "equal protection of the laws" so if the laws don't protect you by nature rather than independent discrimination, or there is nothing to be protected against forget about equality.

That sentence doesn't parse properly. Please rephrase. Unless you're saying that laws can be completely discriminatory unless they explicitly "protect" something? Which would be absurd.

That is clearly not the case here. The same marriage laws apply to both genders and all sexual orientations. The relative genders are relevant in the law, but there is nothing unconstitutional about that.

Reading comprehension fail.

X CAN marry Y, Z CANNOT marry Y, therefore Z is not protected under the law to the same extent X is.

Then the only way to satisfy equal protection is for Z to be able to do anything that X can?

That would be a plain-language reading.

and is about public recognition and state mandated benefits.

Yes, which would be protections of the law.

Protections against what? Being treated like everyone else?

Protections of the law are the things the law allows you to do.

If the equal protections clause demands equal benefits every social program since the new deal has been in violation of it.

Not really--financial circumstances can be changed, which is what most social programs rely on.

The clause does not distinguish between circumstances changeable or otherwise.

To use your quaint method of putting it.

X CAN get a food stamp. Z CANNOT get a food stamp, therefore Z is not protected under the law to the same extent X is.

Z CAN get a food stamp, they merely have to change their financial circumstances.

Z CANNOT marry Y.

The situations are not analogous.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 1:35:49 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 1:11:05 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 1:03:50 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
One homosexual married to the opposite gender? That does not prove it's not sexual orientation, quite the opposite.

Actually it does, note that a homosexual married to the opposite gender is still a homosexual.

Then I have a analogous element, see post #12 of this thread.

I disagree-

You can't disagree with an analogy if the analogous elements are similar, it is a contradiction in terms.

-since there is an overriding concern (consent).

If you think premises 1-3 should be corrected because of this overriding concern please do so and I will 'recompute' as it were.

That sentence doesn't parse properly. Please rephrase. Unless you're saying that laws can be completely discriminatory unless they explicitly "protect" something? Which would be absurd.

Laws are by nature completely discriminatory. Observe the roots of the word discrimination.

The word 'discrimination' doesn't appear in the equal protection clause because the writers would have laughed at the idea that laws aren't supposed to define different outcomes for different people no matter what. The equal protection clause was never about benefits, it was about victims being denied justice because the authorities in their area declined to prosecute their persecutors.

Protection, meaning those who break the law and hurt you are subject to conviction and punishment. Equal meaning no exceptions based on the victims.

Whatever people have tried to twist it into, that is what it meant and still means.

X CAN marry Y, Z CANNOT marry Y, therefore Z is not protected under the law to the same extent X is.

Then the only way to satisfy equal protection is for Z to be able to do anything that X can?

That would be a plain-language reading.

Good, then I look forward to how you deal with the food stamp example.

X CAN get a food stamp. Z CANNOT get a food stamp, therefore Z is not protected under the law to the same extent X is.

Z CAN get a food stamp, they merely have to change their financial circumstances.

Z CANNOT marry Y.

The situations are not analogous.

Ah, by ignoring it completely.... Not good enough.

X CAN get a food stamp, just not without giving away all their money and getting a low income job.

Z CAN marry, just not without proposing to someone of the opposite gender.

Protections against what? Being treated like everyone else?

Protections of the law are the things the law allows you to do.

Like marry? Or have sex?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 7:31:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 12:17:00 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/12/2014 10:35:16 PM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
Just because the collective has more value doesn't mean it benefits the collective to restrict the individual.

However if someone thought it did benefit the collective to kill homosexuals, that would be justified?

No. There's no way to reasonably prove that would be beneficial.

No, that is how civil society works.

If civil society works on a contradiction it is little wonder that it doesn't seem to work at all.

The surrendering of some rights for the protection of other rights and liberties is no contradiction. For example, under civil society, you're not allowed to do justice against criminals yourself. You lost that right. Instead you trust society to do it.

Doesn't matter. They live under the government. They participate in the social contract.

The government is very heavy, hard to lift it off of oneself. The social contract is a lie, one must agree to contracts, when one is born into them it is slavery.

The social contract is a part of how civil society functions. If you're going to reject the foundations of society itself, we will get nowhere, and this discussion is pointless. It is impossible for society to function if the individual is sacrosanct.

Not with regard to taxation.

It is just counter-assertion at this point.

Those treatments are not funded publicly nor by taxation, so your argument does not hold up.

Well they won't be when homosexuals are forced to pay for it :p

That doesn't make any sense.

Yes. And?

Therefore there is no reason to support homosexual marriage in terms of rights.

That it is not even remotely implied.

Those too are simply preemptive DOMA like statements instructing state officials that the legal definition of marriage in that state rules out two applicants of the same sex.

Those would never need to be passed if marriage was based around gender and not sexual orientation.

Why?


I am arguing that it should be legalised, meaning Congress and the Court should take action.

and that is not an accurate representation of your position, you are claiming that this 'legalization' is the only constitutional option.

Well, in a country claiming liberty and justice for all, in a country claiming equality and freedom, it is the only option.

3) In order for this discrimination to be acceptable, the government must provide a rational reason why it should continue as is.

Why?

Because that's an action requiring a BoP. Because one cannot just wake up and decide to discriminate one day. It's the same reason the government cannot go around and imprison people at random. It has to justify itself first.

Personal opinion is not a valid reason because people cannot force others to live by their opinions

The law is the final result of aggregate personal opinions, people most certainly can and do force others to live by their opinions. The question is whether it is moral to do so. A question you answer "yes" to taxes, "yes" to bestiality, but "no" to homosex, and even more you say personal opinions don't even entitle one to spend less money supporting homosexual couples.

You consistently confuse personal opinion and reason. It is impossible for society to function with some form of taxation. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.


5) Allowing gay marriage does not infringe on the rights of others.

I gave you examples of how it did in the other thread, we can go through them here.

I discredited all of them. Again, there is no right to determine where money from taxes goes.

You'll take issue with 5, but you'll be wrong. As long as you live in and enjoy the benefits of civil society, you owe a debt to that society. That debt is taxation. You do not get a say in what the money goes to.

I deserve a say, I deserve the final say. Debt is fine, if it were properly recorded according to the consent principle as the rest of the market does. What is immoral is the vague abstract debt which you speak of. The never ending debt which cannot be quantified but which is owed to everyone but yourself so long as they think you owe them. The debt that is still there even after you have paid ten times the worth of every public service you have ever used.

Yes because you continue to live in civil society. If you want to move to Antarctica and build your own home and generate your own power and provide your own food, go ahead. Civil society certainly won't stop you. You live in their house, you play by their rules.

Since you positively refuse to address the syllogisms on your own power, I guess I'll take you on a guided tour of sorts. I want you to answer the following questions about the following argument:

/ It discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately. (3)
/ Laws against bestiality disproportionately affect zoosexuals (6)
A // Laws against bestiality discriminate against zoosexuals/zoosexuality

Is this argument valid?

Is the first premise true?

Is the second premise true?

Is this argument sound?

Yes.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 10:47:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 1:35:49 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/13/2014 1:11:05 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 1:03:50 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
One homosexual married to the opposite gender? That does not prove it's not sexual orientation, quite the opposite.

Actually it does, note that a homosexual married to the opposite gender is still a homosexual.

And not that he can't MARRY in a homosexual fashion. He can only marry in a HETEROsexual fashion--making it explicitly an orientation issue. That the person's still a homosexual doesn't make it magically not.

Then I have a analogous element, see post #12 of this thread.

I disagree-

You can't disagree with an analogy if the analogous elements are similar, it is a contradiction in terms.

I can disagree with an analogy if there is a huge difference that you aren't addressing.

-since there is an overriding concern (consent).

If you think premises 1-3 should be corrected because of this overriding concern please do so and I will 'recompute' as it were.

I do think they should be corrected:

1. Public organisations do not have the right to discriminate based on immutable characteristics without an explicit overriding concern (such as consent).

2. To discriminate against race, gender, or sexual orientation is both unequal and unfair.

3. It discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately, unless it's due to a specific reason that doesn't directly relate to the sexuality per se.

That sentence doesn't parse properly. Please rephrase. Unless you're saying that laws can be completely discriminatory unless they explicitly "protect" something? Which would be absurd.

Laws are by nature completely discriminatory. Observe the roots of the word discrimination.

The word 'discrimination' doesn't appear in the equal protection clause because the writers would have laughed at the idea that laws aren't supposed to define different outcomes for different people no matter what. The equal protection clause was never about benefits, it was about victims being denied justice because the authorities in their area declined to prosecute their persecutors.

No, it wasn't--not wholly. They were concerned about unfair laws, as well.

Protection, meaning those who break the law and hurt you are subject to conviction and punishment. Equal meaning no exceptions based on the victims.

While that is included, it is not the entirety.

Whatever people have tried to twist it into, that is what it meant and still means.

No. You are mistaken both in terms of the plain meaning, and in terms of precedent.

X CAN marry Y, Z CANNOT marry Y, therefore Z is not protected under the law to the same extent X is.

Then the only way to satisfy equal protection is for Z to be able to do anything that X can?

That would be a plain-language reading.

Good, then I look forward to how you deal with the food stamp example.

X CAN get a food stamp. Z CANNOT get a food stamp, therefore Z is not protected under the law to the same extent X is.

Z CAN get a food stamp, they merely have to change their financial circumstances.

Z CANNOT marry Y.

The situations are not analogous.

Ah, by ignoring it completely.... Not good enough.

No, I did not "ignore it completely". I specifically addressed why the situations are not the same. In one case, all one needs to do is change their financial circumstances. In the other, there is no way for it to happen.

X CAN get a food stamp, just not without giving away all their money and getting a low income job.

Z CAN marry, just not without proposing to someone of the opposite gender.

Again, you're ignoring Y. They can marry in general. But they can't marry Y. YOU are ignoring the point. X CAN marry Y, Z CANNOT marry Y

Protections against what? Being treated like everyone else?

Protections of the law are the things the law allows you to do.

Like marry? Or have sex?

Yup.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 1:41:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 7:31:59 AM, EndarkenedRationalist wrote:
No. There's no way to reasonably prove that would be beneficial.

Beneficial to who? By what standard?

The surrendering of some rights for the protection of other rights and liberties is no contradiction. For example, under civil society, you're not allowed to do justice against criminals yourself. You lost that right. Instead you trust society to do it.

I did not lose that right, I delegate it while retaining it in full. Just as I could name an attorney without losing the right to make legal decisions for myself.

Well, in a country claiming liberty and justice for all, in a country claiming equality and freedom, it is the only option.

That's an emotionally charged begging the question response.

Why?

Because that's an action requiring a BoP.

Why?

Because one cannot just wake up and decide to discriminate one day.

I showed you that they don't have to wake up and decide that, all they have to do is decide "I'm not going to let a judge subvert the existing law."

It's the same reason the government cannot go around and imprison people at random.

I thought that was human rights...

The law is the final result of aggregate personal opinions, people most certainly can and do force others to live by their opinions. The question is whether it is moral to do so. A question you answer "yes" to taxes, "yes" to bestiality, but "no" to homosex, and even more you say personal opinions don't even entitle one to spend less money supporting homosexual couples.

You consistently confuse personal opinion and reason.

I think not, reason is an argument. Reason is not blindly appealing to a greater good that one can never quantify or pove beyond the fact that most people seem to want it.

It is impossible for society to function with some form of taxation. This is not an opinion. This is a fact.

It is not a fact, it is an assumption; and a bad one too.

I discredited all of them.

You dismissed all of them.

Again, there is no right to determine where money from taxes goes.

If there was, would it then be moral to oppose mandated acceptance of definition B from post #1?

Yes because you continue to live in civil society. If you want to move to Antarctica and build your own home and generate your own power and provide your own food, go ahead. Civil society certainly won't stop you. You live in their house, you play by their rules.

False dilemma. I can morally live right here, pay someone to generate my power, pay for my own food, and "civil" society will stop me. It thinks it has a right to make me pay for more than what I use or agree to.

What if I say homosexuals can get married to the same gender... when they go to Antarctica; we won't stop you.

/ It discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately. (3)
/ Laws against bestiality disproportionately affect zoosexuals (6)
A // Laws against bestiality discriminate against zoosexuals/zoosexuality

Is this argument valid?

Is the first premise true?

Is the second premise true?

Is this argument sound?

Yes.

On all four counts? Good. Next.

/ Public organisations do not have the right to discriminate based on immutable characteristics. (1)
/ Zoosexuality is an immutable characteristic (5)
B // Public organisations do not have the right to discriminate based on Zoosexuality.

Is this argument valid?

Is the first premise true?

Is the second premise true?

Is this argument sound?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.
ADreamOfLiberty
Posts: 1,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/13/2014 2:01:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/13/2014 10:47:36 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 1:35:49 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
At 2/13/2014 1:11:05 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 2/13/2014 1:03:50 AM, ADreamOfLiberty wrote:
One homosexual married to the opposite gender? That does not prove it's not sexual orientation, quite the opposite.

Actually it does, note that a homosexual married to the opposite gender is still a homosexual.

And not that he can't MARRY in a homosexual fashion. He can only marry in a HETEROsexual fashion--making it explicitly an orientation issue. That the person's still a homosexual doesn't make it magically not.

Nothing magical about it. If the state let's a homosexual marry, it cannot be claimed that it doesn't allow homosexuals to marry. Therefore it cannot be claimed that it does not allow someone to marry because they are homosexual. Therefore it cannot be claimed that it discriminates against homosexuals.

I can disagree with an analogy if there is a huge difference that you aren't addressing.

There are always differences or it wouldn't be an analogy it would be the same thing. Those differences, contrasted with the similarities are the engine of comparison by which points can be succinctly made. People on a debate site should know better than to make excuses like this.

If you think premises 1-3 should be corrected because of this overriding concern please do so and I will 'recompute' as it were.

I do think they should be corrected:

1. Public organisations do not have the right to discriminate based on immutable characteristics without an explicit overriding concern (such as consent).

Very good, now do you know why I object to homosexual marriage?

Do you believe this premise is a true consequence of the 14th amendment, and if so how do you account for the fact that it doesn't mention overriding concerns like consent?

3. It discriminates against sexual orientation to make laws that affect them disproportionately, unless it's due to a specific reason that doesn't directly relate to the sexuality per se.

Why does relative gender specifically relate to the sexuality per say/em>?

No, it wasn't--not wholly. They were concerned about unfair laws, as well.

Then they worded it very poorly. They forgot to use the word 'fair' or 'unfair.'

Ah, by ignoring it completely.... Not good enough.

No, I did not "ignore it completely". I specifically addressed why the situations are not the same. In one case, all one needs to do is change their financial circumstances. In the other, there is no way for it to happen.

I gave you a way for it to happen, and there is no where in the 14th amendment that justifies your distinction between changeable circumstances and unchangeable ones.

X as he exists CANNOT get a good stamp.

X CAN get a food stamp, just not without giving away all their money and getting a low income job.

Z CAN marry, just not without proposing to someone of the opposite gender.

Again, you're ignoring Y. They can marry in general. But they can't marry Y. YOU are ignoring the point. X CAN marry Y, Z CANNOT marry Y

You're ignoring X's money and job. They can get a food stamp in general. But they can't get it without giving up their money and job.

If "in general" isn't good enough, then the conditions you place on getting a food stamp may be rejected as well.

Protections of the law are the things the law allows you to do.

Like marry? Or have sex?

Yup.

Then, in order for people to have equal protection under the law, they must be allowed to do the same things under the law.

(A) Since some people are allowed to marry under the law, all people must be allowed to marry under the law.

(B) Some people want to marry the same gender, since other people marry the opposite gender they must be allowed to.

(a) Since some people are allowed to have sex under the law, all people must be allowed to have sex under the law.

(b) Some people want to have sex with dogs, since other people have sex with humans they must be allowed to.

Overriding concern you forgot to mention again? How many overriding concerns are there by the way? Why aren't they in the 14th amendment?
LOL, yeah, it's pretty amazing how they think they can "reason" with you. - Sidewalker, speaking of advocates for sexual deviancy.

So, my advice, Liberty, is to go somewhere else. Leave, and never come back. - YYW

And that's what I did. Contact me at http://www.edeb8.com... by the same user name if you have anything you'd like to say.