The Federal Prop. 8 Trial / Gay Marriage Catch-All

No, I'm not, Stengah. I'm just saying that Phoenix Rev was incorrect in saying that they contradicted themselves. I can do that without believing in the righteousness of DOMA. In fact, I consider it distinctly unhealthy for US society on the whole that I'm the only one who could see this.

Then what is your point? Their arguments are absurd, if that is what they actually are. If your goal is to point out what they're thinking, I'm not interested. The existence of an argument does not make it worthy of consideration. It is a means to an end of denial of rights without a basis in reality. It is not deserving of respect or consideration for that reason alone.

I see that was I was mostly correct in my surmise, at least as far as one individual is concerned. There can be no healthy discourse or debate between components of a society if they are unwilling to even listen to each other. At that point, you can't even know what it is they're really saying - you've shut them out.

The point is that if you want to fight or talk, you mustn't lose your head. Attributing contradiction in your opponent's statements when there isn't any, as in here, at best only makes you look foolish to those who may not be sympathetic to your cause - those who you most need to convince.

Are you arguing just to be contrarian and get attention? Because we've heard these arguments for years and at length. We're not unfamiliar with the ideas. We don’t need them pointed out.

Phoenix Rev did. I think he forgot that DOMA advocates think that sexual orientation is a choice.

I don't need a healthy discourse with the KKK to know they're hateful racists. Maybe the Prop 8 defenders aren't quite that horrible, but they're not nice or understanding in any capacity when it comes to gay rights. You can stand on your supposed higher ground and judge my response as closed-minded claptrap, but the reality is that the defenders of Prop 8 work in absolutes. I'm gay, therefore I'm wrong and there is no discussion. I can easily sit here and logically point out that, no, even if I was married to a lesbian, I am not going to inseminate her, because that's not what I want, and the vast, overwhelming majority of homosexuals would say the exact same thing. That doesn't matter to them. If their thought is that forcing homosexuals into marriages - which they don't want, and don't afford them the same legal rights that everyone else gets - somehow might cure them of the gay, that is not a position remotely worthy of respect. And they don't want to hear arguments against that theory.

LarryC wrote:

No, I'm not, Stengah. I'm just saying that Phoenix Rev was incorrect in saying that they contradicted themselves. I can do that without believing in the righteousness of DOMA. In fact, I consider it distinctly unhealthy for US society on the whole that I'm the only one who could see this.

Arguing a position you don't believe in is really frowned up on GWJ. Beside that, PR was entirely correct that the two positions contradict each other. In one, they argue that the point of marriage is to facilitate procreation. In the other, they argue that gay people don't need to be able to marry each other because they can currently get married to people they have no intention of procreating with. To hold one position to be true means that the other isn't. If the point of marriage is to facilitate procreation, then two people with no intention of procreating should not be allowed to marry. If two people with no intention of procreating can be married, then the purpose of marriage isn't to facilitate procreation (it makes no statement as to what the purpose of marriage is, just that it's not that).

Then what is your point? Their arguments are absurd, if that is what they actually are. If your goal is to point out what they're thinking, I'm not interested. The existence of an argument does not make it worthy of consideration. It is a means to an end of denial of rights without a basis in reality. It is not deserving of respect or consideration for that reason alone.

I see that was I was mostly correct in my surmise, at least as far as one individual is concerned. There can be no healthy discourse or debate between components of a society if they are unwilling to even listen to each other. At that point, you can't even know what it is they're really saying - you've shut them out.

The point is that if you want to fight or talk, you mustn't lose your head. Attributing contradiction in your opponent's statements when there isn't any, as in here, at best only makes you look foolish to those who may not be sympathetic to your cause - those who you most need to convince.

When one side's argument is that the other does not deserve a basic human right, there's no point in listening to them.

They may work in absolutes. You don't have to. You're making that choice completely on your own. You may even have good cause for doing so. That doesn't make it healthy. I suspect that this hostile environment where you can't even point out when your colleague is making some sort of logical or reasoning error is exactly the kind of environment that's responsible for Republican politicians making completely ridiculous comments. Their aides can't point the errors out because then they get lynched for "being contrarian."

Just because I'm pointing out that you're not making sense doesn't mean that I'm your enemy. Just because I'm pointing out that someone is making sense according to their assumptions doesn't mean I agree with those assumptions.

In Edwin's plea for getting along, he described a process called "dialectics." I think that's a healthier means of doing discussion. There can be no healthy discussion when every dissenting opinion is attacked in overtly hostile and unfriendly manners.

Stengah:

Arguing a position you don't believe in is really frowned up on GWJ.

Aside from that situation being unfortunate, I wasn't doing that.

As for PR's statement, I believe I already stated where he was making the mistake. You're making the same one.

Larry, if your argument is that gay people might go ahead and procreate using heterosexual sex, for one, we don't need heterosexual marriage for that. Two, as a gay person, I would never marry a woman to have children or for any other reason, and having a minister, JOP, or the freaking Pope marry me to a woman would not do a damn thing to make me want to have sex with a woman for any purpose. It's an absurd argument.

I think I've been completely and absolutely unequivocal about this; but in case you missed it, I don't maintain the position DOMA advocates do. It's not MY argument.

You know what? I'm done here. You guys can say whatever you want. You clearly don't care what anyone thinks. Why should I? Say what you want. Done what I can. I'm out.

Fine, not you, but DOMA / Prop 8 defenders. Everything else I said in my last post stands.

EDIT: K, bye.

Stengah wrote:
LarryC wrote:

No, I'm not, Stengah. I'm just saying that Phoenix Rev was incorrect in saying that they contradicted themselves. I can do that without believing in the righteousness of DOMA. In fact, I consider it distinctly unhealthy for US society on the whole that I'm the only one who could see this.

Arguing a position you don't believe in is really frowned up on GWJ.

It is, and it sucks that it is. It's because people can't tell the difference between playing Devil's Advocate and trying to explain how one sees a situation. I think I may have dealt with this same thing earlier in this thread.

Like in this case the issue is whether DOMA is legal, not whether we're in support of DOMA or not. If the the people who *do* believe in DOMA have contradicted themselves, then they've hurt the chances of DOMA being legal. Someone may believe that while DOMA is morally wrong, it's constitutionally sound (FYI: I do not--I think DOMA is both a moral abomination and unconstitutional). Someone may believe that DOMA is unconstitutional for one reason, but not for another. Both those people could say they do not believe in the righteousness of DOMA and still argue these supporters did not contradict themselves.

To say that person argued a position they did not believe in is wrong. wrong wrong wrong. It just means there's more than two positions on a topic, and they don't always line up neatly into us vs. them. And that's a good thing in my opinion. It might make things a little more confusing, but I think it makes things more interesting to have a variety of opinions on a topic beyond just pro vs. con, and it sure would make things a lot less polarized if we had to separate arguments into two opposing groups instead of people.

Also, let's be honest: GWJ doesn't frown upon arguing a position you don't believe in. It frowns upon arguing a non-liberal position you don't believe in. I get accused of this sort of thing a lot. Funny how it only happens when I'm arguing against something that supports a liberal position.

LarryC wrote:

Phoenix Rev did. I think he forgot that DOMA advocates think that sexual orientation is a choice.

That's not correct.

The pro-DOMA and pro-Prop. 8 forces have sent conflicting messages regarding this. Some has said that being gay is a choice, but some have not. It is not a universal belief in their world that being gay is a choice.

CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
LarryC wrote:

No, I'm not, Stengah. I'm just saying that Phoenix Rev was incorrect in saying that they contradicted themselves. I can do that without believing in the righteousness of DOMA. In fact, I consider it distinctly unhealthy for US society on the whole that I'm the only one who could see this.

Arguing a position you don't believe in is really frowned up on GWJ.

It is, and it sucks that it is. It's because people can't tell the difference between playing Devil's Advocate and trying to explain how one sees a situation. I think I may have dealt with this same thing earlier in this thread.
[ snip ]
Also, let's be honest: GWJ doesn't frown upon arguing a position you don't believe in. It frowns upon arguing a non-liberal position you don't believe in. I get accused of this sort of thing a lot. Funny how it only happens when I'm arguing against something that supports a liberal position.

It usually only happens when the position being argued for is one that would prevent people from having equal rights. I personally like that it's frowned upon here, as it's almost always used as an "out" once the devil's advocate has caught some flak for arguing that certain goodjers don't deserve the same rights as others. It may be an intellectual position or mental exercise for the D.A., but it's directly affecting their lives.

In this specific scenario, though, it's being used to defend a position most of us consider distasteful, and that defense serves the purpose of strengthening the arguments against DOMA, or at least weeding out the weak arguments against DOMA.

A few years ago, a fellow Goodjer named JohnnyMoJo used a line of reasoning identical to Larry's defense of DOMA, and while he did not change many minds, he argued thoughtfully and politely and articulately. Larry is no less (or more) wrong here; the law does not discriminate against he actions of gays and lesbians. They can still marry. They just have to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else.

And blacks can marry their own kind. Why do they need to marry whites?

NSMike wrote:

And blacks can marry their own kind. Why do they need to marry whites?

This logic is consistent with DOMA, and overturned a half century ago. Unfortunately, Loving v Virginia only covered interracial marriage.

It's why most of us support repealing or overturning DOMA. Logical consistency isn't always a good thing.

... Yes, I know. I was playing devil's advocate, except being painfully obvious about it. Not to mention that getting married alone is not the point.

If two lesbians marry, they're twice as likely to have children than a gay man marrying a gay woman. Because double the uteruses! Therefore, DOMA should be overturned.

Stengah wrote:
CheezePavilion wrote:
Stengah wrote:
LarryC wrote:

No, I'm not, Stengah. I'm just saying that Phoenix Rev was incorrect in saying that they contradicted themselves. I can do that without believing in the righteousness of DOMA. In fact, I consider it distinctly unhealthy for US society on the whole that I'm the only one who could see this.

Arguing a position you don't believe in is really frowned up on GWJ.

It is, and it sucks that it is. It's because people can't tell the difference between playing Devil's Advocate and trying to explain how one sees a situation. I think I may have dealt with this same thing earlier in this thread.
[ snip ]
Also, let's be honest: GWJ doesn't frown upon arguing a position you don't believe in. It frowns upon arguing a non-liberal position you don't believe in. I get accused of this sort of thing a lot. Funny how it only happens when I'm arguing against something that supports a liberal position.

It usually only happens when the position being argued for is one that would prevent people from having equal rights. I personally like that it's frowned upon here, as it's almost always used as an "out" once the devil's advocate has caught some flak for arguing that certain goodjers don't deserve the same rights as others. It may be an intellectual position or mental exercise for the D.A., but it's directly affecting their lives.

That is totally not my experience, from either side of the coin.

Then again, I'm willing to entertain the idea that my experience is not representative in that I never really feel the need to give people flak: I'm usually able to demolish those kinds of arguments with reasonable and logical counter-arguments.

CheezePavilion wrote:

That is totally not my experience, from either side of the coin.

Then again, I'm willing to entertain the idea that my experience is not representative in that I never really feel the need to give people flak: I'm usually able to demolish those kinds of arguments with reasonable and logical counter-arguments.

That's one way to phrase it...

So I went looking for a sassy picture to post about "do not engage" and I ended up finding this instead:

IMAGE(http://www.stonewall.org.uk/images/cm_images/engage-cover.gif)

My theory is that it's one page, in all caps it says, "LIKE PEOPLE" and that's the book. It's probably not that, though.

oilypenguin wrote:

So I went looking for a sassy picture to post about "do not engage" and I ended up finding this instead:

IMAGE(http://www.stonewall.org.uk/images/cm_images/engage-cover.gif)

My theory is that it's one page, in all caps it says, "LIKE PEOPLE" and that's the book. It's probably not that, though.

Or it says "work to make gay marriage legal, and they'll engage themselves"? : D

I hope there is a chapter about photos of Fabio in the break room.

Hmm, I should order a bunch of those and leave them on the table in the break room. Could have some interesting side effects.

"Engage 'em? I hardly know 'em!"

IMAGE(http://i1094.photobucket.com/albums/i453/czpv/PicardEngage.jpg)

I've read a great deal of this thread and find it sad to see that there is such argument over this issue. The reason the pro-DOMA and pro-Prop 8 groups are contradicting themselves is the core falsity of their argument. The reality is that the only logical reason for opposing gay marriage is the belittlement of the LGBT community and because it makes you feel icky. Fortunately there is no Constitutional Right protecting you from things that make you feel icky, but there are rights that prevent the belittlement of a minority based on the popular will of the majority.

Gay rights are human rights. Period.

The argument that gay marriage ban is not unconstitutional because they can marry a member of the opposite gender would be like the judge saying in Loving vs. Virginia that interracial couples don't need to be married because they can marry members of the same race, but choose to be with each other. The concept of a marriage in name only violates the sacred pact of fidelity that those opposing gay marriage so vehemently claim to protect. Not to mention the legal quagmire of a divorce resulting from the adulterous behavior with the game gender partner that violates the traditional concept of a marriage.

Marriage may have originated in the realm of the sacred, but when legal rights and privileges were given to the concept of marriage it passed out of the sacred and into the secular. May we also not forget that our nation was founded in part on the concept of freedom of religion, which includes the right to not have to follow a religion that is not your own. To bind marriage to a religious doctrine is directly against this fundamental value of our nation as it forces others to follow tenants of a faith they do not believe.

We as a nation feel that all men, women, people, genders, races, and religions are created equal. Allowing the LGBT community to marry the same gender does not diminish the rights of those seeing marriage with the opposite gender. However, blocking those that seek same sex marriage diminishes their rights. Therefore, blocking gay marriage is against the core values of our nation by preventing access to life free from tyranny, liberty, and the pursuit of their happiness.

/soapbox off

Quintin_Stone wrote:

If two lesbians marry, they're twice as likely to have children than a gay man marrying a gay woman. Because double the uteruses! Therefore, DOMA should be overturned.

So only lesbians should marry! 'Cause its all about having them babies.

...thanks for the rundown, Blondish.

Nevin73 wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

If two lesbians marry, they're twice as likely to have children than a gay man marrying a gay woman. Because double the uteruses! Therefore, DOMA should be overturned.

So only lesbians should marry! 'Cause its all about having them babies.

Also, totally hawt.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:

If two lesbians marry, they're twice as likely to have children than a gay man marrying a gay woman. Because double the uteruses! Therefore, DOMA should be overturned.

So only lesbians should marry! 'Cause its all about having them babies.

Also, totally hawt.

Totes

So, apparently, one influential donor/actvisit seems to believe gay folks are fighting for marriage equality, but not because they want to get married. It is, it seems, just a big PR campaign. By the Big Gay Council that orchestrates how all gay folks act and think.

Bloo Driver wrote:

So, apparently, one influential donor/actvisit seems to believe gay folks are fighting for marriage equality, but not because they want to get married. It is, it seems, just a big PR campaign. By the Big Gay Council that orchestrates how all gay folks act and think.

A big PR campaign with the goal of... what?