Page 43 of 43 FirstFirst ... 33414243
Results 421 to 429 of 429

Thread: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

  1. #421
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Part II

    ==============================================
    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 -
    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 address these points here:
    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.
    I conclude this way -
    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 rebut
    This didn't sit well with you, you reply here, and this is where I will pick it up -
    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
    No, both are being endorsed, and that's the point. By making SSM no longer illegal, society endorses it. No false dilemma there.

    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.
    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!

    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.
    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.

    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.
    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!

    And endorsment requires a preference.
    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!

    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.

    Thanks guys!

    Tim-
    Last edited by Hicup; 07-16-10 at 02:40 PM. Reason: Misc
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  2. #422
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.
    As I was reading the post, I was making handwrritten notes on what issues I wanted to rebut and such (which I typically do when the post is a longer one so that I don't miss anything) and then I get to this part and I realize the notes are all wasted at this point.

    I will now make a paper airplane out of my notes so that I do not waste the paper as well.

    But I must say that I'm impressed. Kudos, and thank you for the interesting debate.

    Now I must go about trying to revise my premise without adjusting the conclusion. LOL A tall task indeed.
    Indeed. But I would warn against that approach, speaking from a purely logical sense.

    A conclusion must follow from its premises, not the reverse. As such, if a premise is designed with the pre-concieved conclusion in mind, it will be far more likely to have some unseen fallacy (my theory is that creating the premises to fit a conclusion creates fallacy "blindspots" for us) and thus make the argument weaker than one derived from a conclusion which followed it's premises.

    That's just my approach, though.





    Thanks guys!

    Tim-
    You're welcome, and thank you as well.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  3. #423
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    A conclusion must follow from its premises, not the reverse
    No, I know, hence the *LOL*. I was joking.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  4. #424
    Dungeon Master
    Somewhere in Babylon
    Jetboogieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Somewhere in Babylon...
    Last Seen
    @
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,341
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    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.

    Tim-
    On a side note. I want to say, that takes some real balls man. Few people in this forum would ever, ever admit they were wrong. Very mature, and gracious of you.

    :

  5. #425
    Sage
    Hicup's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Rochester, NY
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 03:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    7,846

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Jetboogieman View Post
    On a side note. I want to say, that takes some real balls man. Few people in this forum would ever, ever admit they were wrong. Very mature, and gracious of you.

    :
    Thanks! As I stated in one post to CC, I am never deliberately dishonest in anything I post.

    Tim-
    “When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.” - P. J. O’Rourke
    “Socialism is great until you run out of someone elses money” Margaret Thatcher

  6. #426
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    No, I know, hence the *LOL*. I was joking.

    Tim-
    Gotcha. My mistake.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  7. #427
    Sage
    Caine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    10-05-17 @ 01:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    23,336

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    I read the bolded part and was really excited for someone to tell how gay marriage will cause harm.
    Then, I notice, a distinct lack of explaining what that harm is. You are arguing: "Gay marriage causes harm because you can't predict the harm it will cause."

    That's not a "successful" argument. That's not even an argument. Also, your "very conservative" tag isn't sufficient. We need a tag for "Would prefer to reinstate segregation."
    Be honest... you are only arguing because of the "very conservative" tag in the first place.

    Why are you always bringing up someone's political lean as a weapon against them in a debate, as a means to dismiss everything they say.
    "I condemn the ideology of White Supremacy and Nazism. They are thugs, criminals, and repugnant, and are against what I believe to be "The American Way" "
    Thus my obligatory condemnation of White supremacy will now be in every post, lest I be accused of supporting it because I didn't mention it specifically every time I post.

  8. #428
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    Be honest... you are only arguing because of the "very conservative" tag in the first place.

    Why are you always bringing up someone's political lean as a weapon against them in a debate, as a means to dismiss everything they say.
    What do you mean, my centrist friend?

  9. #429
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,802

    Re: Federal Gay Marriage Ban Is Ruled Unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Hicup View Post
    Thanks! As I stated in one post to CC, I am never deliberately dishonest in anything I post.

    Tim-
    I give you credit for admitting you were wrong. I will say, however, that I pointed out the error in your "endorsement" position, pages ago. I took a different route, identifying how it was an inaccurate usage in context. I did not explain it in as much detail as Tucker did, but the conclusion was the same.

    Good job in re-looking at your position.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

Page 43 of 43 FirstFirst ... 33414243

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •