Tweet
So we're (we being me, Kheldarson, and three friends) having a loooong Facebook argument with Kheldarson's uncle Jim. Jim is an insufferable ass, and arguing with him is an exercise in frustration, but he managed to offend basically all of us, so it was on. Here are some highlights from him, with the occasional post from one of the rest of us, with names changed to preferred aliases.
Super-long because, seriously, it's a big chunk of a Facebook debate.
Super-long because, seriously, it's a big chunk of a Facebook debate.
Originally posted by Original post: (Kheldarson) via (Dru)
http://newzar.com/heartbreaking-video-on-gay-marriage-goes-viral/
This is why I support separating our ideas about the legal definition of marriage from the religious definition. This is a shame and a travesty.
This is why I support separating our ideas about the legal definition of marriage from the religious definition. This is a shame and a travesty.
Originally posted by Jim
It seems to me the primary issue was that they failed to write wills, enact powers of attorney, prepare trusts, and document their financial relationship properly. The fact that his partner's family were jerks cannot be changed by legislation. Societies are only possible because we agree that the majority can choose what BEHAVIORS we will accept and encourage. When one chooses to reject those standards, one must be ready to accept some consequences. That is part of being mature. Sad story, but not a justification for gay marriage in any way, IMO.
Originally posted by (Kheldarson)
Why not? (Kabe) and I didn't have to write up any of that stuff and our legal union was recognized both by the state and the federal governments. Just because it was also recognized by our church is a separate issue, IMO. Two people should not have to jump through extra hoops granted automatically to a vast majority of people simply because some people don't like what they do in the bedroom.
What I'd like to see is our government to stop regulating moral issues between consenting adults. I don't expect churches to accept a government decision, nor do I expect the government to force churches to accept it. What I want, and most people want, is for the same automatic rights that two consenting adults get simply because they're the right genders to go to others that don't fit the mold. Because, yes, legislation won't change the fact that Tom's family were jerks. But it would change the fact that Shane would have been able to be at his partner's funeral, found out how exactly he died, and been able to protect their property. Without having to go through extra legalese that no male/female partnership has to go through.
Add on top of this: if we're going to deny two men or two women the rights we give to a man and woman who are allowed to get married by the churches simply because churches don't accept such a union, why do we give these rights to a man and woman who DON'T get married in a church for X reason and never get it formally recognized by the government after they've lived together for X amount of years? We cannot say that this is ethically right for our government to do. It is the grossest discrimination.
What I'd like to see is our government to stop regulating moral issues between consenting adults. I don't expect churches to accept a government decision, nor do I expect the government to force churches to accept it. What I want, and most people want, is for the same automatic rights that two consenting adults get simply because they're the right genders to go to others that don't fit the mold. Because, yes, legislation won't change the fact that Tom's family were jerks. But it would change the fact that Shane would have been able to be at his partner's funeral, found out how exactly he died, and been able to protect their property. Without having to go through extra legalese that no male/female partnership has to go through.
Add on top of this: if we're going to deny two men or two women the rights we give to a man and woman who are allowed to get married by the churches simply because churches don't accept such a union, why do we give these rights to a man and woman who DON'T get married in a church for X reason and never get it formally recognized by the government after they've lived together for X amount of years? We cannot say that this is ethically right for our government to do. It is the grossest discrimination.
Originally posted by Jim
The problem is your logic says that polygamy, incest, bigamy, pedophilia, etc. should all be legalized as long as it "stays in the bedroom". In fact, various left wing looneys have already made those arguments and will continue to push that envelope. Oddly enough, these folks who keep screaming that they want us out of their bedrooms keep wanting to push their bedroom habits into everyone else's faces. Our society has decided for centuries that it is in the interest of a nation to encourage monagamous male-female marriage as a basis for raising children and perpetuating the nation's growth. I don't see that advanatge in a gay union and therefore it is legitimate for society to say that it is NOT going to encourage that behavior. If various states happen to change their minds and decide that they WILL encourage it, then I think that is completely within the right of each state. Since your church happens to agree with me, I wonder why you would belong to a church that advocates such "gross discrmination". BTW, I have no issue with folks being discrminating, as long as their discrimination is based on moral criterion.
Originally posted by (Kabe)
Er, Jim. She did mention "two consenting adults". "Two" goes against your polygamy and bigamy points, and both "consenting" and "adults" go against your pedophilia objection. As far as incest goes, the objection to that DOES have basis in the greater good, both due to the increased chance of health complications in any child from such a relationship, and because incestuous relationships tend to be abusive - often of a minor. However, the application of that objection, in the form of codified incest prohibitions, varies widely from state to state (for the record, Rhode Island no longer has any laws against incest in and of itself, while the strictest laws are found in the Deep South).
That being said, assuming a relationship is consensual (and I mean what is legally considered consent - over the age of majority and given without coercion) and non-incestuous, I don't see why we should object to it. Nor do I think we need to define the advantages of ending a discriminatory policy. We are, by it's very nature, better off without it. While, yes, our society may have decided for centuries that it was in our national interest to restrict marriage equality to monogamous heterosexuals, our society also decided for centuries that it was in our national interest to oppress and enslave an entire people based solely upon the color of their skin.
Of all the things History is good for, "valid moral arguments" is rarely on the list.
That being said, assuming a relationship is consensual (and I mean what is legally considered consent - over the age of majority and given without coercion) and non-incestuous, I don't see why we should object to it. Nor do I think we need to define the advantages of ending a discriminatory policy. We are, by it's very nature, better off without it. While, yes, our society may have decided for centuries that it was in our national interest to restrict marriage equality to monogamous heterosexuals, our society also decided for centuries that it was in our national interest to oppress and enslave an entire people based solely upon the color of their skin.
Of all the things History is good for, "valid moral arguments" is rarely on the list.
Originally posted by Jim
Er (Kabe), the definition of "adult" is as malleable as your ethics, and your line drawing at TWO consenting adult is already being subverted in the popular media, and by the same folks pursuing your agenda of gay marriage. You mention the variations in state laws, and as I stipulated, I have no issue with that variation. MY issue is with your ( and (Kheldarson)'s) insistence that the FEDERAL government has a right to dictate what behaviors states will allow in this arena. You are also throwing up a silly non sequitor when you equate the enslavement of blacks to my opposition to gay marriage. I beleive that slavery in this country was wrong because it was NOT behavior based. You are arguing that banning gay marriage is wrong because it IS behavior based. Apple, meet Orange.
Originally posted by Jim
(Kheldarson), you raised the same weak straw man as (Kabe) on the slavery issue so I won't rehash my argument. OTOH, I am not sure how you concluded that incest is never consenting. Hanging out in West Virginia I am sure you see plenty of consenting parties in that vein. As for pedophilia, there are plenty of states where the defintion of adulthood has been quite malleable. I believe the age of consent in Georgia was 13 just afew years ago. I have no idea what it is now. At least THAT consent had to be within the bounds of a legal marriage, but based on your logic, why should that be needed? After all, if a girl can say yes to marriage why should she be unable to say yes to sex? I would say that would make pedophilia legal and unless you are totally ignoring the debate in this arena, you would know that there are plenty of sexual predators just itching for that change to come about. As for gay marraige relieving pressure on the welafre system, you are exposing the lack of math in your education. The number of gay marriages would be small, and the number of them adopting children would be miniscule versus the number of children on welfare needing to be adopted. Any savings in the welfare system would be more than offset by giving these married folks their tax deductions, not to mention that cohabitating people will be demanding the same tax benefits shortly after gay marraige becomes the law of the land. The best way to reduce the issue of abandoned kids on welafre would be to require any person on welfare and unmarried who has a second child out of wedlock, to consent to sterilzation as a pre condition for receiving government support--men included.
Originally posted by (Kabe)
I think the better question is why discrimination based upon someone's nature is bad when it's based on what's on the outside, but fine when it's based on what's on the inside.
Anyway, it was no non-sequitur. Your argument was fallacious - specifically, an argumentum ad antiquitatem, or appeal to tradition. The fact that we at once point supported a unjust system is no argument for continuing to support an unjust system. I was only pointing out the clearest example of the flaws in that reasoning.
Anyway, thanks Jim, for throwing out an old stereotype like that. No, I've never known anyone in an incestuous relationship in my 27 years in this state. Just so you stay up to date, I assure you the Hatfields and McCoys have settled their differences, too.
I also find it surprising that you find it intolerable to nationally recognize same-sex unions, but find state-run eugenics programs acceptable.
Anyway, it was no non-sequitur. Your argument was fallacious - specifically, an argumentum ad antiquitatem, or appeal to tradition. The fact that we at once point supported a unjust system is no argument for continuing to support an unjust system. I was only pointing out the clearest example of the flaws in that reasoning.
Anyway, thanks Jim, for throwing out an old stereotype like that. No, I've never known anyone in an incestuous relationship in my 27 years in this state. Just so you stay up to date, I assure you the Hatfields and McCoys have settled their differences, too.
I also find it surprising that you find it intolerable to nationally recognize same-sex unions, but find state-run eugenics programs acceptable.
Originally posted by Jim
(Dru), based on your comments and your failure to address the issue rather than calling names, I can deduce that you are a liberal. As such, I suspect that your willingness to debate rationally is highly suspect. Therefore, I will merely point ouit that you are the one who appeared ignorant of the fact that slavery in the USA was based on race, not behavior. I am happy to have cleared that up for you after all these years.
Originally posted by (Kabe)
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. "Non sequitur" is literally Latin for "it does not follow", such as when a conclusion does not follow from a premise. A good example of such a case is an argument made from a logical fallacy, such as your previous use of argumentum ad antiquitam.
Originally posted by Jim
Yes, I know what it means (Kabe) and if you look at your argument and my response, it "follows" exactly.
Originally posted by (Kabe)
Actually, it does not, nor does your own argument follow internally. You are assuming a false premise - actually, two in this case. The first is that the practice was justified when in was put into place, and the second is that the prior justifications for the practice are still applicable. I gave an example of a clearly flawed use of the fallacy you were using. You have yet to give any reason for why our traditional views on marriage were justified in the past, nor why those traditions justify current policy. All you've done is hold up the tradition itself as somehow infallible.
Originally posted by Jim
(Kabe), the fact that heterosexual marriage is universally enshrined in the legal traditions of every Western nation, and that is from which we derive ALL of our legal and governmental traditions is about all the "justification" you're gonna get on this planet. The crux of democracy is ALWAYS that the will of the majority "justifies" a law. The only exception is when a law discriminates on the basis of a characteristic that has NO bearing on one's conduct with respect to such law. I am sure you're aware that NAMBLA thinks that pedophilia is great and they also cite, as (Kheldarson) does, the Old Testament and the Koran to justify their bevhavior, but the majority of Americans still oppose such perversion and therefore, it is against the law. No other justification is needed.
Originally posted by Jim
(Marcovelli), how is marraige a "right"?
Originally posted by (Marcovelli)
See Loving v. Virginia. "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted" - Chief Justice Warren, in the unanimous decision that put marriage as a right in Constitution.
Originally posted by Jim
(Marcovelli), the Justice was specifically referring to hetrosexual marriage because back then the idea of gay marriage was still a gliimer in some ACLU lawyer's left wing brain.
)
Comment