Over the Christ-mas break, I had me some fun over at the Atheist Experience on the topic of same-sex marriage. I kept referring the commenters to the posts I've recently done on this topic, but they wanted me to take up a bunch of combox space retyping everything. So I just copy-pasted representative quotes. They form a devastating case against the idea of SSM and, despite many dozens of posts from the other side, only a few of my points were even interacted with, much less refuted. Having survived the gauntlet of the knowledgeable (and fairly nasty) atheists over there, I figure they bear repeating in the same form. For your edification...
1) Homosexual behavior is just that - BEHAVIOR. Why should we change a societal institution to accommodate and include people based only on their behavior?
2) Just b/c one is born with a tendency does not mean that one is therefore justified in carrying that tendency out in behavior.
3) Homosexual people have the exact same rights and privileges related to marriage that I have - the right and privilege to marry someone of the opposite sex. To change that is to demand a super-right, one not granted to me. I do not see why, based on a simple behavioral preference, the law should be changed in this way, especially one related to something so fundamental to society as the family unit. Perhaps I should pursue a change in law that would rewards me for carrying out my from-birth predilection to be a drunk. And maybe I like to drive. So maybe I can get the drunk-driving law annulled by my efforts towards "equality".
You might say:
-But drunk driving a) is dangerous and b) hurts people and c) it's foolish to change the law just based on your desire to carry out your own weird tendencies!
A few responses:
a) Indeed, but who are you to judge my chosen lifestyle! Seriously, who are you?
b) Homosexual behavior is dangerous as well. And it hurts people - the average life expectancy of a homosexual is vastly shorter than a heterosexual. It's just the way it is, and it's b/c homosexual sex is harmful. It involves activity using a part of the body that is designed for something completely different, and that part of the body just happens to be the canal for eliminating poisonous waste, which is easily introduced into the body if it is damaged by, say, sexual contact.
c) Quite so. So let's just leave it the way it is, capiche?
4) Since we're changing the definition of marriage, why not remove the 'by mutual consent' part of it too? Just b/c YOU say so? What reasonable answer will we have for someone who sues to get married in a few years to someone who doesn't consent, or to sthg that can't give consent, and they accuse you of consent-centrism if you refuse?
Here is the now definition of marriage:
One male adult, one female adult, by mutual consent.
You want to change one part of that, the male/female part.
For what reason could you say that the other parts are off-limits for --ahem-- extension?
5) Marriage is not simply a private ceremony or agreement. There are witnesses, a judge, neighbors, children, in-laws. It's the foundation of society, for childbearing and child-rearing, of societal stability. Has been for millennia. When there's no good reason to tinker with it, why tinker with it? Just b/c people want to be legally recognised as different and flaunt their differences, the way they were able to bend the gov't to their will?
As I'm sure you'd agree, it is not laudable that the Atheist Haters and Eaters Society of America would probably like to bend the gov't to their will so that it be legal to hate and eat atheists.
6) Homosexuals are ALREADY, NOW highly promiscuous. Why validate that with sham marriages?
7) If we change the law for you, we have no plausible denial when someone asks to marry:
-a grapefruit
-a dead person
-a 3-yr old
-a parakeet
-a tree
If you answer "But, but, consent!!!" see #4.
8) If we change the law for you, we have no plausible denial when someone asks to marry 4 people at once. All consenting adults. Maybe we should change the law for that, too, huh? What would be your argument for why, since we changed it to give YOU a super-right, why we shouldn't change it for anyone else?
9) Since we're all good naturalists here, I'd really like to know on what basis we ascribe rights to any human at all. Sure, you can assume them, or say you prefer to live in a society that ascribes everyone the same rights, but that's called wishful thinking.
10) I'm still waiting for your argument FOR same-sex marriage beyond what amounts to "but homosexuals are such nice people! They deserve to be able to get married!" That is also called wishful thinking. I thought you were all beyond that here.
1) Why should we change a societal institution to accommodate and include people based only on their behavior?
ReplyDeleteBecause the reason why societal institutions change is to accommodate changes in behaviour.
2) Just b/c one is born with a tendency does not mean that one is therefore justified in carrying that tendency out in behavior.
This is irrelevant to discussions about same-sex marriage unless you can demonstrate that the behaviour is not justified.
3) Homosexual people have the exact same rights and privileges related to marriage that I have - the right and privilege to marry someone of the opposite sex. To change that is to demand a super-right, one not granted to me.
No, the same right would be granted to you, everybody would have exactly the same rights and there would be no "super-rights" involved.
4) Since we're changing the definition of marriage, why not remove the 'by mutual consent' part of it too?
Because a) the contractual element is what makes it a legal institution, and b) consent is what makes a contract valid.
5) When there's no good reason to tinker with [marriage], why tinker with it?
Homosexuals argue that there is a good reason to tinker with it - because they want to get marreied.
Just b/c people want to be legally recognised as different and flaunt their differences, the way they were able to bend the gov't to their will?
So you don't think that government should respond to the will of the people?
6) Homosexuals are ALREADY, NOW highly promiscuous. Why validate that with sham marriages?
If your argument is that marriage validates promiscuity, then you are arguing against marriage in general.
7) If we change the law for you, we have no plausible denial when someone asks to marry:
*sigh* You're welcome to marry the grapefruit, parakeet or tree, for what it's worth. Personally I don't care about the dead person as long as you're the one who digs them up. The 3-yr-old is definitely covered by consent, in exactly the same way as they are covered against (for example) being forced to work.
If you answer "But, but, consent!!!" see #4.
This would be a valid point if your #4 was valid, which it is not (see above).
8) If we change the law for you, we have no plausible denial when someone asks to marry 4 people at once.
Agreed.
9) Since we're all good naturalists here, I'd really like to know on what basis we ascribe rights to any human at all.
Irrelevant unless you are arguing against the existence of rights in general, which you do not.
10) I'm still waiting for your argument FOR same-sex marriage
Because some homosexuals want same-sex marriage, and there are no substantive arguments against it, as you've demonstrated.
Rho:
ReplyDelete3) Homosexual people have the exact same rights and privileges related to marriage that I have ...
You have the right to marry someone you're sexually attracted to. They don't.
Paul C,
ReplyDelete1. Not all the time. We don't change the prohibition against murder just b/c people murder. Elaborate.
2. #2 is a counter-point against "but we're BORN that way!" arguments.
3. Everyone already has the same rights, so there you go. Less effort expended on the status quo.
4. Then let's change the contractual part too. Why not?
5. Many people like to screw with all kinds of laws to accommodate their own preferred illegal behavior. Why should SSM be special among them?
6. I'll grant that #6 is probably the weakest of the 10. But homosexual lifestyles are by and large much more highly promiscuous than hetero lifestyles. And hetero marriage already exists, you may have noticed.
7-8. Looks like you concede the point, and the absurdity of your process is plain to see. You don't really have any realistic vision of what role marriage plays in society if you think that marriage to a grapefruit is OK. Besides, it's counter-productive to the SSM proponent side, since it devalues marriage to the point that it's a total joke. Thank you.
9. I am arguing precisely that in this thread. I'll be waiting.
Besides, that statement does not really describe my position. But I modified my position recently, so you might not have seen that.
10. Lots of people want lots of things. Why should this be one of those things that becomes legalised?
NAL,
That's not part of the law. The law cares nothing for whether I"m attracted to my spouse or not, whether I love her or not.
And I don't have the right to marry someone I'm sexually attracted to. I'm already married to someone I'm sexually attracted to, but when I see someone else to whom I'm attracted, I can't marry her.
Rho:
ReplyDeleteI'm already married to someone I'm sexually attracted to, ...
Therefore, the law doesn't prevent you from marrying someone you're sexually attracted to. Therefore, you have the right to marry (at least one) someone you're sexually attracted to. A right you deny to others.
??? One has a right to marry someone of the opposite sex whether attracted to them or not.
ReplyDeleteSexual attraction or lack thereof is not part of the question.
Rho:
ReplyDeleteOne has a right to marry someone of the opposite sex whether attracted to them or not.
Therefore, you have the right to marry someone you're attracted to. Therefore, you have the right to marry someone you're not attracted to. The former right you deny to others.
You're being very dense here.
ReplyDelete1) Provide a justification for the existence of "rights" since you're throwing that word around. Warning - you might have to write more than one sentence.
2) As it stands now, one has the right to marry someone he's either attracted or unattracted to, if that person conforms to the categories I said - One male adult, one female adult, by mutual consent.
IOW, attraction is totally irrelevant. So is love.
ReplyDeleteRho:
ReplyDeleteYou're being very dense here.
Moi?
IOW, attraction is totally irrelevant. So is love.
ReplyDeleteSo what is relevant?
1. Not all the time. We don't change the prohibition against murder just b/c people murder.
ReplyDeleteYes we do. Laws regarding murder, and the application of those laws, have clearly changed over time.
2. #2 is a counter-point against "but we're BORN that way!" arguments.
Perhaps, but that's irrelevant - it isn't an argument against same sex marriage.
3. Everyone already has the same rights, so there you go. Less effort expended on the status quo.
You concede that argument #3 has no force, and that there are no "super-rights" involved.
4. Then let's change the contractual part too. Why not?
There's no reason why not, except that then we wouldn't be discussing marriage.
5. Many people like to screw with all kinds of laws to accommodate their own preferred illegal behavior. Why should SSM be special among them?
I don't even know what that first sentence is trying to communicate. "Many people"? "Screw with"? "All kinds of laws"? Try to formulate a comprehensible sentence and I'll try to answer it.
6. I'll grant that #6 is probably the weakest of the 10.
I wouldn't worry about that. Any differences in weakness between these arguments is vanishingly small.
But homosexual lifestyles are by and large much more highly promiscuous than hetero lifestyles. And hetero marriage already exists, you may have noticed.
Both of these points are irrelevant to your original argument, and to my refutation of that argument; marriage does not validate promiscuity, and prior promiscuity is irrelevant to marriage.
7-8. Looks like you concede the point, and the absurdity of your process is plain to see. You don't really have any realistic vision of what role marriage plays in society if you think that marriage to a grapefruit is OK. Besides, it's counter-productive to the SSM proponent side, since it devalues marriage to the point that it's a total joke. Thank you.
I conceded point 8 in my previous comment, but it's far from absurd, since polygamy is already legal in a number of countries. I haven't conceded point 7, since it isn't a coherent argument and thus there is nothing to concede. I don't object to you marrying non-humans since it involves no violation of consent; and I object to you marrying a 3-yr-old since I don't believe that they can reasonably give consent.
9. I am arguing precisely that in this thread.
And I'm pointing out that it's irrelevant to any argument against same sex marriage.
10. Lots of people want lots of things. Why should this be one of those things that becomes legalised?
Because some homosexuals want same-sex marriage, and there are no substantive arguments against it, as you've demonstrated.
Paul C,
ReplyDelete1. So we change the laws regarding murder b/c people murder. I don't think you mean that (but you could pleasantly surprise me). Go back and actually answer what I said.
2. You're not following me. Try again.
3. There would be if homogamists were given a different set of rights than what people have already. The rights are identical for all people wrt marriage RIGHT NOW.
4. I could easily say the same thing about SSM. Marriage is made of the components I stated. You want to change one. I just want to change another. Why is that any different? Make the argument.
7. Looks like you object to marrying a 3-yr-old on the basis of consent, so I guess #4 will answer you here.
But wait a minute, a 3-yr-old can't give consent. Neither can a tree. Why the inconsistency? Why are you OK with one but not the other?
Rho:
ReplyDeleteThe rights are identical for all people wrt marriage RIGHT NOW.
No. You have the right to choose to marry someone you're either attracted to or someone you're not attracted to. Yet you deny that right to choose to others. It is not I who is being dense.
Rho,
ReplyDeleteYou don't get it, do You?
SOILENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE!!!
OK, let me rephrase this:
The government is made of people.
(And people are people).
1. So we change the laws regarding murder b/c people murder. I don't think you mean that (but you could pleasantly surprise me). Go back and actually answer what I said.
ReplyDeleteI did answer what you said. Your question was "Why should we change a societal institution to accommodate and include people based only on their behavior?" I pointed out that "the reason why societal institutions change is to accommodate changes in behaviour."
You then said "We don't change the prohibition against murder just b/c people murder." Leaving aside the bizarre notion that you appear to think that murder is a societal institution like marriage, I pointed out that laws regarding murder do change. It seems blindingly obvious to me that those laws change because people murder - if people didn't commit murder, we wouldn't have those laws in the first place.
2. You're not following me. Try again.
You said "Just b/c one is born with a tendency does not mean that one is therefore justified in carrying that tendency out in behavior." I then pointed out that even if this is true, it is irrelevant to discussions about same-sex marriage unless you can demonstrate that the behaviour is not justified.
3. There would be if homogamists were given a different set of rights than what people have already. The rights are identical for all people wrt marriage RIGHT NOW.
No, the same right would be granted to you, everybody would have exactly the same rights and there would be no "super-rights" involved.
4. I could easily say the same thing about SSM. Marriage is made of the components I stated. You want to change one. I just want to change another. Why is that any different? Make the argument.
Mutual consent didn't used to be part of the definition of marriage, and indeed still isn't in many parts of the world. However it is currently the basis for the contractual definition of marriage which we have now.
You said "What reasonable answer will we have for someone who sues to get married in a few years to someone who doesn't consent, or to sthg that can't give consent, and they accuse you of consent-centrism if you refuse?" My reasonable answer would be that this would be rape, not marriage.
7. Looks like you object to marrying a 3-yr-old on the basis of consent, so I guess #4 will answer you here.
No, it doesn't. See my point about rape above.
But wait a minute, a 3-yr-old can't give consent. Neither can a tree. Why the inconsistency? Why are you OK with one but not the other?
Because one involves a human, and the other involves a plant.
We can keep doing this all day, but until you actually answer my responses, rather than just repeating your original points as if I haven't said anything, this discussion is unlikely to move forward.
NAL,
ReplyDeleteI have the right to marry someone in the categories I said. Whether I love or am attracted to them or not. Ditto for homosexuals.
Paul C,
1. And the laws are on the books AGAINST murder right now, much like they are AGAINST SSM.
3. Fair enough. Consider this a counter-point as well for a typical SSM argument, like what NAL is saying. The legality of marriage is the exact same for all right now.
4. Brilliant, let's just remove consent from it too. You're not giving me any reason not to remove it. And so what if it allows rape in the door? Calling rape "bad" demands an explanation of morality just as much as calling marital sex "acceptable".
7. You must have forgotten that we're talking about changing the institution. Saying "hey, we can't change it, b/c that would be changing it!" doesn't answer the question. Why not a plant?
Paul C:
ReplyDelete... but until you actually answer my responses, rather than just repeating your original points as if I haven't said anything, this discussion is unlikely to move forward.
I see what you mean.
1. And the laws are on the books AGAINST murder right now, much like they are AGAINST SSM.
ReplyDeleteThey're not against same sex marriage, they simply don't include same sex marriage. (It's interesting that the nearest legal parallel you could find for same-sex marriage was murder, though.)
3. Fair enough. Consider this a counter-point as well for a typical SSM argument, like what NAL is saying. The legality of marriage is the exact same for all right now.
And it will be the same for all if same sex marriage is legalised.
4. Brilliant, let's just remove consent from it too. You're not giving me any reason not to remove it.
Because it does not logically follow from extending legal marriage to same-sex couples. If your argument is that changing one aspect of a law means that you then have no defense against changing all of it, then direct your complaint to your entire legal system, which is based on laws and their application changing over time in response to social changes. For example, voting rights have been repeatedly extended to cover new groups.
Calling rape "bad" demands an explanation of morality just as much as calling marital sex "acceptable".
Irrelevant.
7. You must have forgotten that we're talking about changing the institution. Saying "hey, we can't change it, b/c that would be changing it!" doesn't answer the question. Why not a plant?
Either you didn't understand my answer, or you're deliberately misrepresenting it. The former makes you stupid, the latter makes you a liar; take your pick.
You have not questioned the principle of consent, only suggested that extending legal rights to same-sex couples might call into question that principle. Since you have not questioned the premise of consent, and marriage requires consent, marriage is not possible where consent cannot be given.
I take some grim satisfaction that, of your original "10 arguments", you are now reduced to 4; and in all those, your argument consists of repeating the same point over and over and over rather than answering my responses.
Biological versus nonbiological older brothers and men’s sexual orientation (.pdf)
ReplyDeleteThese results provide evidence that
a prenatal mechanism(s), and not social and/or rearing factors, affects men’s sexual orientation development.
Interesting. The paper contains a naturalistic explanation.
1. The laws include and define marriage. They are therefore set against SSM. This is semantics.
ReplyDelete3. So the common homosexual argument that they don't have the same rights fails, and you agree. Cool.
4. Because it does not logically follow from extending legal marriage to same-sex couples.
You're changing one of the elements of the institution, and we've seen you're not offering any reason TO DO SO. You're just trying to shoot down my arguments. I don't begrudge you trying to do that, but at some point one would think that an argument in favor of SSM would be helpful for you.
If your argument is that changing one aspect of a law means that you then have no defense against changing all of it
That's not exactly my argument. My argument is that changing one fundamental element of the institution can lead one to reasonably think that it's OK to change any and all fundamental elements. Yet this is the very nature of the institution that we're changing here. Why call it marriage at all? Why even have it? I'm asking the SSM proponent whether that is what he wants. Maybe it is, and we can go from there, but I want to make sure he understands that before we continue.
For example, voting rights have been repeatedly extended to cover new groups.
That's a good point for your side, I'll admit, to an extent.
Voting is not a fundamental social institution like marriage, though. It's hardly analogous.
Voting is a privilege.
I said:
And so what if it allows rape in the door?
Paul C said:
Irrelevant.
Tell that to rape victims.
7. You have not questioned the principle of consent, only suggested that extending legal rights to same-sex couples might call into question that principle.
Of course, why would *I* question the principle of consent outside of a hypothetical?
But what if someone did? What would the argument be? That's what I want to know.
Since you have not questioned the premise of consent, and marriage requires consent, marriage is not possible where consent cannot be given.
Then I must be misreading your misreading of me.
Yes, I am questioning the principle of consent, in the hypothetical. Why not remove it too?
There, that's a questioning of the principle.
You might have missed where I did precisely that in the original post, under "4)". Maybe you should go back and reread.
NAL,
See points #1 and #2. This post is about SSM, not the morality of homosexuality in general.
1. The laws include and define marriage. They are therefore set against SSM. This is semantics.
ReplyDeleteYour argument was that "the laws are on the books AGAINST murder right now, much like they are AGAINST SSM." If you continue to deny the distinction between murder and same sex marriage from a legal perspective - one being a criminal act and one a contractual arrangement - is there any point in continuing this discussion?
3. So the common homosexual argument that they don't have the same rights fails, and you agree.
No. That argument doesn't fail since it doesn't proceed from the same premise as your argument. More to the point of this post, your argument against extending marriage rights fails.
You're changing one of the elements of the institution, and we've seen you're not offering any reason TO DO SO.
Because a growing number of citizens want to change it, and want the law to reflect that. Marriage has changed over the years, despite your protests that it's always been exactly the way you see it now.
My argument is that changing one fundamental element of the institution can lead one to reasonably think that it's OK to change any and all fundamental elements.
That's not an argument, that's an assertion. Make an argument.
Voting is not a fundamental social institution like marriage, though. It's hardly analogous.
It is analogous, in the sense that both of them are legally sanctioned states which people believe they have a right to.
Voting is a privilege.
Voting is a right. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 25; ratified by the USA on 8 June 1992.
Tell that to rape victims.
Don't make yourself look more obnoxious than you already are. My point was clearly that your argument was irrelevant, not that rape is irrelevant.
Of course, why would *I* question the principle of consent outside of a hypothetical? But what if someone did? What would the argument be? That's what I want to know.
And I've given you an answer. The principle of consent is the basis of all contractual agreements in modern society. Getting rid of the principle of consent is not an argument against marriage, but an argument against contract law. And that's not the argument you're making.
If you continue to deny the distinction between murder and same sex marriage from a legal perspective
ReplyDeleteEach is against the law. That is the relevant point of comparison.
is there any point in continuing this discussion?
It's up to you.
I said:
So the common homosexual argument that they don't have the same rights fails, and you agree.
You had said:
And it will be the same for all if same sex marriage is legalised.
Let the reader judge.
Because a growing number of citizens want to change it, and want the law to reflect that.
I didn't realise that a criterion for changing laws was that a "growing number" of voters want to change it.
I always thought it was a majority of voters. And Prop 8 just passed in California, remember?
Marriage has changed over the years, despite your protests that it's always been exactly the way you see it now.
I don't remember claiming that.
It is analogous, in the sense that both of them are legally sanctioned states which people believe they have a right to.
It's not b/c marriage has been around a LOT longer in a LOT more societies (virtually all societies in history) than voting has. Voting is not necessarily all that recent but it has not been widespread.
Voting is a right.
I missed where an atheistic universe can account for rights?
The principle of consent is the basis of all contractual agreements in modern society.
And I'm just proposing we remove it as a basis. Might as well, right?
Each is against the law. That is the relevant point of comparison.
ReplyDeleteYour original assertion was that "we don't change the prohibition against murder just b/c people murder", to which my answer was that - yes we do. The law regarding murder has changed over time, and continues to change - and so has that regarding marriage. (Two recent examples for your files are Furman vs Georgia 1972 (murder) and Loving vs Virginia 1967 (marriage).)
You then accused me of not understanding what you'd written. I then recounted the entire sequence of comments to point out that not only had I understood what you had written, but I had successfully refuted it. You then decided to change your argument - realising that the laws regarding murder and marriage have in fact changed in response to peoples' murders and marriages, you then stated that "the laws are on the books AGAINST murder right now, much like they are AGAINST SSM."
I foolishly decided to try and engage that argument as well - foolishly because I know realise that no matter how often I answer your points, you'll just keep changing your argument rather than conceding. Let's go back to the original point, shall we - that the law often changes in response to social requirements. Do you have an argument against that point, or shall we just agree that the "argument" that same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal because it isn't legal is circular and nonsensical?
I didn't realise that a criterion for changing laws was that a "growing number" of voters want to change it. I always thought it was a majority of voters.
It doesn't take an absolute majority in a popular vote because the US is a representative democracy and not a direct democracy; and because the legal system is set up so that change doesn't necessarily require the support of an absolute majority. I understand that you probably didn't realise that before - this is fairly complex stuff, and you've previously demonstrated that your understanding of the real world is fairly limited.
I don't remember claiming that.
So you believe that marriage has changed over the years? Great, now let's change it a little bit more.
It's not b/c marriage has been around a LOT longer in a LOT more societies (virtually all societies in history) than voting has.
How long things have "been around for" has no bearing on whether they are analogous, and therefore voting rights can be used as an analogy for marriage rights. My argument stands: voting rights have been extended to new groups without leading to grapefruits or donkeys being given the right to vote, and there is no reason to expect that extending marriage rights will lead to such a situation.
I missed where an atheistic universe can account for rights?
I cited the relevant international agreement, ratified by the US government, that makes voting a right. You can try and evade it as much as you want, but your argument that voting is not a right is false.
And I'm just proposing we remove it as a basis. Might as well, right?
No. Now answer my points rather than just endlessly repeating yourself.
Your original assertion was that "we don't change the prohibition against murder just b/c people murder"
ReplyDeleteI will say this - your challenge has revealed that I didn't word that correctly.
What I meant was that we don't reverse the prohibition against murder just b/c people murder, and that should be clear from the context of my arguing that the laws PROHIBITING SSM shouldn't be overturned.
Furman vs Georgia 1972 does not speak to that issue at all.
I am unsure how Loving vs Virginia 1967 is analogous, given that the two involved were humans, one male and one female.
the law often changes in response to social requirements.
Then should society come to desire marriages to grapefruits, I expect you'd be OK with that too.
same-sex marriage shouldn't be legal because it isn't legal
Well, I've been also requesting for reasons why it should be made legal. You haven't given any, but feel free to.
Absent any, I don't see why it should be changed. Even if there weren't arguments against SSM, if there aren't any for, then why bother?
It doesn't take an absolute majority in a popular vote
Um, it did in California's Prop 8. Or did you think that was somehow up before the st legislature or sthg?
An awful lot of propositions, state questions, etc are up for popular votes. You might have missed that in your IV drip of all liberal news, all-the-time.
I cited the relevant international agreement
Agreements do not rights make. But we've already been over this. I'll take your "but, but some big shots got together and SAID it's a right!" as a concession.
What I meant was that we don't reverse the prohibition against murder just b/c people murder, and that should be clear from the context of my arguing that the laws PROHIBITING SSM shouldn't be overturned.
ReplyDeleteMy counter-argument is still valid even if you change your phrasing.
But hey, let's look at the Proposition 8 case, shall we? From 2008-2009 same-sex marriage wasn't prohibited. So apparently we are allowed to overturn the law, but only if Rhology disagrees with that law. And so your last argument falls like the final domino in a "stupid domino" derby.
Then should society come to desire marriages to grapefruits, I expect you'd be OK with that too.
Hmmm, I believe that I've already dealt with that argument by pointing out that a) extending voting rights didn't lead to people asking for voting rights for grapefruit, and b) it's impossible to form a legal contract with a grapefruit due to a lack of consent. Still, I wouldn't let that stop you going on about grapefruit, and raping young girls, and all the other failed arguments that you endlessly repeat.
Well, I've been also requesting for reasons why it should be made legal. You haven't given any, but feel free to.
I have of course given the only necessary reason: there's a growing number of people that want it. You might disagree with that reason, but it is still a reason. On the other hand, you are free to keep lying for Jesus about how I haven't given any reasons at all.
Um, it did in California's Prop 8. Or did you think that was somehow up before the st legislature or sthg? An awful lot of propositions, state questions, etc are up for popular votes. You might have missed that in your IV drip of all liberal news, all-the-time.
I wouldn't know, since I don't watch any "liberal news". My point stands: just because Proposition 8 required an absolute majority in a popular vote, does not mean that all changes to the law require it.
Agreements do not rights make. But we've already been over this. I'll take your "but, but some big shots got together and SAID it's a right!" as a concession.
So in an argument about the legal status of same-sex marriage, we shouldn't consider legal arguments. Stunning logic.
I love the way that you've basically given up defending your original arguments entirely at this point. "Let the reader judge", indeed.
This is such a thunly veiled attempt to defend a religion induced homophobic outlook.
ReplyDeleteI'm amazed that people like you can try and intellectualize the discrimination of others.