So do we move on? Yes, you understood that I wasn't going to change the parameters, and I suspect you reverted back to the task of refuting the original premise.
Tucker -I address these points here:So there are actually no constraints being placed on homosexual marriage. Only constraints on the State's recognition of these marriages.
That lack of recognition serves as an enrosement of heterosexual marriages.
Repealing that constraint on recognition does not validate anything. It simply retracts the endorsemnt of heterosexual marriages.
That does not act as an endorsement of homosexual marriages, though. It merely serves as an endorsement neutral environment.
To make an example, let's say two politicians, Politician A and Politician B, are running for an office.
So lets say I decide to endorse Poltician A. By necessity, this requires me to reject politician B.
Now let's say the only thing I can officially do is reject something (i.e. pass legislation making something illegal). Thus, I have to reject politician B in order to endorse politician A.
Endorsement is the equal and opposite reaction to rejection of a dichotomy and vice versa.
But lets say I rescind my rejection of Politician B (and thus rescind my endorsement of politician A).
I'm back to an endorsement-neutral situation. Neither politician is endorsed nor rejected.
Thus, by repealing the constraints on recognition, ther cannot possibly be an endorsement or validation of gay marriage. The only thing that occurs is a return to neutral regarding the collective position. It allows for both beliefs to be seen as potentially valid by the collective. It leaves the ultimate power to decide with the people instead of the State.I conclude this way -I don't agree, and here's why, it's only a small point but important in the overall scheme. I think in your scenario, the endorsement doesn't go neutral, but rather it becomes equal to both hetero, and homo marriage. It isn't neutral in the sense the endorsement is still there, but adding another player.
You lost me.. This is not analogous to your first example. You do not have to reject Politician B in order to endorse Politician A. What you are doing is endorsing Politician A, and at the same time rejecting politician B. They both have the same result, I'll grant you that, but the order in which its done is what's key. In this example, you must pick one, but by rejecting politician B, you do not necessarily endorse politician A. You endorse politician A, only if you choose him over politician B consciously, and in that order.
I don't agree with that. Let's take a real world example. In 2008 I rejected Obama for President, however, I also did not endorse McCain. They both were rejected, but by having to choose the lesser of two evils, I chose McCain. I did not, nor do I ever endorse him. My choice was conscious, but it wasn't conscience.This didn't sit well with you, you reply here, and this is where I will pick it up -But that's not a dichotomy, it is rather the opposite. Neutral does not imply a dichotomy, in fact it's the polar opposite. You claimed I made a false dichotomy, meaning essentially that I created a false dilemma where only two choices were available, when in fact there were more. In this scenario the one presenting the dichotomy is trying to create only two parts, where only one can be correct, -or- one is discredited, and the only other choice left is then deemed correct. I didn't do this. In essence, my basic argument concerning legal, and illegal is correct. if something is not illegal, it is deemed legal, not that it must be made somehow legal by any other standard, but that it isn't illegal. None of the parameters of my assertion overlap, nor are there any missing parts hidden away. By defining the premise, "legal-illegal", I went on to suggest that an endorsement is made when something that was illegal, and consequently made no longer illegal, is an endorsement by the collective. Conversely, when something that is legal, or not illegal is left unchallenged, it is also an endorsement.
The key in deciphering the argument, is in paying close attention to the guiding parameters. I don't think I made any error in logic, or in the dichotomy. But, as a reasonable person you seem to be, and will relinquish the floor to give you a chance to rebutNo, both are being endorsed, and that's the point. By making SSM no longer illegal, society endorses it. No false dilemma there.In a societal sense, it becomes neutral. The decision on whether or not to endorse a specific type of marriage is entirely left to the individual. Neither union is being endorsed by society
That would be wrong, that is not what I am seeking, nor anyone else I know. The endorsement of OSM has existed in the US for 234 years, since its inception. The DOMA is simply to define that endorsement, and reject all others. Legal <> Illegal, no overlapping parameters, no missing middle, NOT a false dilemma!What you, and other anti-GM people are seeking is not an injunction against homosexual marriages as much as it is an endorsement of heterosexual marriage by society.
With all due respect, that's absurd! Begging the question comes to mind? But even if we take your premise at face value it is simply not true. When this nation was born, there was no immediate need to reject any other form of marriage, there was only ever one form. The DOMA is born out of a necessity, or bias, but it cannot be a separate, new endorsement by society. The by-product, of the DOMA, is the rejection of SSM, not the other way around. They accomplish the same thing, but the order in the logic is what's important! The dichotomy, is the separation of the whole, and if we were to assign value to the non overlapping parts, it might go something like 90% OSM, 10% SSM. The logic in that value, is in the bias that brought about the necessity of declaring the whole that needed to be separated in the first cause.Things like the DOMA are a byproduct of that desire for a heterosexual marriage endorsement because the government can only endorse something by way of rejecting it's alternative.
The reason I chose the example of free speech should be clear. The Constitution/BOR is the first legislation. In that regard, the constitutional congress, and the states, set out to enumerate certain rights, (Legal), and grounds for illegal (Infringement = Wrong). There is no excluded middle as near as I can tell between what is legal, and what is illegal. There is no neutrality, if there is bias. Even if SSM were to gain equal standing in front of the law, the bias is all over every aspect of the legislation, if NOT voted on directly by the people. As in the case with MA, there was bias, therefore by definition, neutrality is impossible! With the case of Prop 8, there is bias, not in the first cause, but subsequent filings, and end-around the system where the people have decided. So, even if Prop 8 is overturned, and SSM becomes the law of the land in CA, neutrality cannot be claimed, and as such, your claim to add in the middle ground, that creates the false dichotomy is rendered moot! There is no false dichotomy!The government endorses free speech by rejecting the ability to pass legislation which limits speech. If there was no rejection, societies stance becomes neutral, i.e. Both free speech and limited speech are of equal value, neither gets supported or promoted.
Wrong! An endorsement requires no rejection, only an affirmation. Rejection of something, and an affirmation of something, are mutually exclusive. Your definition only holds true where there are only two choices that are of "competing" interests. In the gay marriage debate, one could argue that they are competing with OSM, and I'm sure the anti-GM side might fear as such, but I would disagree on principle alone. SSM proponents are simply trying to gain equal standing as OSM proponents. Philosophically, I submit that they are none competing in the sense that the goal of SSM is equality, not supremacy. OSM is supreme in the eyes of the law, notwithstanding public support; however, the only thing OSM can lose in the eyes of the law, is supremacy. It cannot lose any fundamental quality of its own existence, and thus, I argue that, in and of itself, it is a none competing entity!And endorsment requires a preference.
I'm going to stop here know why?
I just realized Tucker, and Rivrrat were correct! My premise was, and is a false dichotomy! Reason. In the eyes of the law, if OSM, and SSM gain equal standing, they are neutral. Hence there is an excluded middle in my premise. I leave my argumentation up, so others can see how I arrived at my mistake, and specifically WHY debate is good, and partisanship for the sake of partisanship is wrong. I also leave it to show that even someone with my experience in debate, and a student of logic, can make such mistakes, My hope is, that it serves as a lesson that, for all those that care, that, it's important to review your argument carefully. Not to get pissed off when someone challenges you, but rather, to take that challenge as an opportunity to analyze your thought process. You may end up being correct in your initial premise, but sometimes, you're not, and the exercise has value, as we can witness right here.
Now I must go about trying to revise my premise without adjusting the conclusion. LOL A tall task indeed.