Someone posted this on a message board. I completely disagree with their

[meatloaf]

position on gay marriage and my reply to them is the first reply to this thread.

Why gay marriage is the wrong route.

I've already harpered on this once here in Crapshoot, but would like to harper on it again and invite people from the political forum-thread to read it to see what they think, but I cannot promise to reply because I don't want to really argue about it (besides, it's a given that homosexuals won't listen to these rational arguments no matter what so why bother?), but I would still like to voice my thoughts, all the same. I feel that my argument is a rational approach, one that the "commonwealth" may address contrary to the court of Massachusett's statement:

According to Xeno, the Massachuetts court said:

"The court concluded that it may not do so, determining that the Commonwealth had failed to articulate a rational basis for denying civil marriage to same-sex couples. The court stated
that the Massachusetts Constitution "affirms the dignity and equality of all individuals" and "forbids the creation of second- class citizens." Id. at 312."

I got four problems with the court's statement. The first is that this implies that anyone not married is a second class citizen. If person A is 'not married', then A is a 'second-class citizen'. Person A is single, hence 'not married', therefore, A is a second-class citizen (as is anyone 'not married', or single). In addition, the court "forbids the creation of second-class citizens". So, if a single person is a second-class citizen, then the court forbids that person being a second-class citizen based on his/her single status. Therefore, this invalidly implies that the court forbids anyone from being single because they are second-class citizens by definition, as that citizenship was based upon marriage according to Massachusetts!

Secondly, if you change the definition of marriage (i.e. no longer just between a man and a women), then you change the standard of marriage. This implies that marriage between a man and a women is immoral because it is wrong for marriage to only be between a man and a women. NOW, in order for marriage to be moral, it has to be between three entities (but all separate and monogamous partnerships, mind you), or that three entities have to exist to fulfill the requirement of moral standard: there has to exist simultaneous marriage between a man and a women, man and man, and women and women for the whole scope of the newly defined morality to be fulfilled (read it a few times if you don't understand and maybe you'll get it). This is, however, ass-backwards. Moreover, change the standard once, and it will be changed again to include anything from marriage with animals (as in certain Hindu rites) to polygamous marriage (implying anything from homosexual polygamy to homosexual polygamy plus marriage to animals). In addition, it would seem to be hypocritical to allow "gay marriage" and deny, say, polygamy. All a polygamist needs to do is claim that being denied that sort of marriage creates a second-class citizen, namely, the person denied into a polygamous relationship. Therefore, changing the standard of marriage will only create ethical problems (which goes back to suggestion of immorality).

Thirdly, the secondary purpose of marriage (albeit an unwritten one) is to establish a family, but the homosexual "families" are only capable of being surrogate. This is metaphorically equivalent to the third gender (I said "gender", not "sex") called 'berdach' in other cultures (e.g. of some Asian, South Pacific, and North American Indian societies). Let me give more background before furthering the thought. These are individuals that adopt the gender behavior of the opposite sex. Male berdaches would often pretend to menstruate by cutting their upper thighs. Additionally, they would simulate labor (i.e. giving birth) by drinking a severely constipating drug giving "birth" to a fictitious "stillborn child", and these "stillborns" are even given a burial. Of course these aren't strictly 'homosexual' since some are sexually oriented to the opposite sex, but that's not the point. Homosexuals aren't capable of having real (i.e. natural) families based on what is natural (sad to say). They have to have surrogacy. Is this reason enough to bar marriage from then? No, not exactly, but they cannot naturally fulfill the secondary requirement of marriage without surrogancy. Thus, it is rather like the pretending of the berdaches in the simulation of menstruation and labor (this pretending is echoed in the homosexual marriage pronouncement: "I now pronounce you spouses for life", in stead of, "I now pronounce you husband and wife"). We can extend the definition of marriage to include them, but we CANNOT extend the naturalism of marriage to them. They need the interface of surrogacy.

Fourthly (and I think the strongest point), and this is an excerpt from one of my previous posts, if gays think marriage makes them second class citizens then they should ratify the notion of "civil union", not marriage. It's like saying that women, because they have vaginas, are second class citizens to men. If a women thinks she is a second class citizen, is the answer for her to be found in getting a sex change so that she can have equal rights? Obviously not, and yet, homosexuals think in order for them to be equal, they have to give marriage a "sex change" instead of fighting for equal rights as women have done. They have the strange notion (which is, in fact, arguable irrational because it's not necessarily the best means choice for their end, not that I'm saying it is irrational though) that they cannot have equal rights unless they become as those that have equal rights (i.e. if it takes marriage to establish that second-class citizenship; thus it's like a women becoming a man or vice versa). If they want to change something, they need to work on civil unions, not marriage. Otherwise they sell themselves short. We don't have unisex bathrooms for a reason (e.g. potential harassments, etc.; but not that we should apply that reason to marriage). We have bathrooms for both sexes because women and men are different anatomically and psychologically. Similarly, heterosexual sex is different anatomically and psychologically than homosexual sex. For the same reason we should have two different institutions of marriage and "civil unions" because, let's face it, heterosexualism is quite different than homosexualism. To suggest it is the same in marriage is a major fallacy.

[meatloaf]

1. This was my reply...

I strongly disagree.

There are gaping holes in your logic which defeat your attempt at rationalism.

The statement in no way implies that single people are second class citizens. It is not implying that if persona A is not married they are a second class citizen. It is stating that if person A is not allowed to marry for some arbitrary reason, in this case sexual orientation, then they are being relegated to second-class status. It implies that denying an individual the right to marry based on sex, race, or sexual orientation, would make them second-class, not that the unmarried themselves are second-class.

What standard of marriage? You're making a straw man argument here. You're trying to argue that broadening the spectrum of marriage is actually inhibiting it? That is illogical on the face of it. Accepting gay marriage in no way places it above Hetero marriage. Why is it so hard to see them side by side as equal?

You state that accepting gay marriage will make things ass-backwards. In what way? Your simply stating it does not make it so.

Why is it you folks always go to the sex/marriage with animals argument, and you say the Homosexuals are weird? The obvious flaw in that argument is gay marriage, like hetero marriage is still among two consenting adults.

Logically speaking there may be a valid argument to be made for various forms of poly marriage, once again as long as it is among consenting adults, but that's a different discussion for a different time.

Because a decision reveals logical inconsistency does not make the decision wrong. In fact if it makes someone or a group review a whole trend of inconsistent thinking and logic then I would argue it's for the better of said individual/group. In that context denying gay-marriage because it makes us confront other logical fallacies/hypocrisies is not a valid reason for denying it.

The third argument is wholly dependent on accepting only one definition/description of what a family is. As is becoming increasingly clear in this day and age one definition/description of family simply won't do. Families come in all shapes and sizes these days. You have the traditional nuclear family of Mom, Dad, and 2.3 kids. You have extended families where one or more grandparent lives with the family. You have single parent families of both sexes, most born of divorce but some from untimely death. Occasionally you have families without any parents, usually with and elder sibling filling the parental role. And of course, you have families with two female parents or two male parents. To deny the existence of these types of families is to simply live in denial.

Your description of some of the more obscure and unusual practices of different cultures that accept some form of same sex coupling strikes me as an obvious attempt to further demonize and unflatteringly color these types of relationships. If you must provide examples, try providing examples of same sex relationships in Western civilization.

Adopting children or having children via surrogacy or artificial insemination is not "pretending" and I'm sure such parents would rightfully take offense at having it described as such. You may offer yourself an out and state that you are not "saying" that their families aren't real but you sure as hell are implying it. The responsibilities/requirements/duties, and indeed the families of gay parents, in and of themselves, are no less real than those of hetero parents. Because they cannot achieve their families through traditional biological means does not make them any less so. Furthermore, their inability to produce children through traditional means should not and does not have any bearing on the legitimacy of their ability to marry one another. They are not asking for the right to reproduce.

The fourth argument is fraught with false analogies, and may well be the weakest argument.

I don't know if it was a typo or not, but it is not marriage that makes them second class citizens, but the denial of marriage that does so. In that same vein a woman could only consider herself a second-class citizen if men were getting rights that they were denied solely on the basis of their gender. Which indeed they were in regards to voting early in the last century. And no, a woman's choice, should she feel like a second-class citizen, is not limited to a sex-change operation. As in the case of the vote they can go through the courts and the legislature and get the rights they so obviously are due. In fact the suffrage movement puts the lie to the entirety of your fourth argument and soundly defeats it. Women did not give the right to vote a sex change, they merely broadened the spectrum of who that right covered. Gays ask the same of marriage. They are not trying to restrict anyone else's access, merely insure their own. How is it some sort of special right to grant them what everybody else already has?

How is it even remotely irrational to want what they are denied by a societal construct? Once again your getting the argument backwards. It isn't access to marriage that makes them second-class but the lack thereof. A woman or a gay person does not have to become a man to have their rights. The rights can simply be granted by the powers that be ala the vote. According you your logic women should have settled for something short of the right to vote, what then, every two women count as one vote?

Are you kidding me? You're now equating marriage to bathrooms? This just might be the worst false analogy yet. According to this logic men and women shouldn't marry to begin with or if they do they should have separate ceremonies and only come together for conjugal visits.

Marriage is not effected in any way shape or form by the sex of the individuals engaging in the ritual. It is not as if there's a particular marriage for men, another for women, and now a third for gays. Your attempt to paint it as such is the worst fallacy and only further proves that your analogy makes absolutely no sense.

If I didn't know better I'd say this entire piece was intentionally poorly written/thought out to mock those that oppose gay marriage.



What could I or should I change to make a better argument?

[belle]

9. This is nice, lofty abstraction, I like it. When this affects your *life*

...one is not as inclined to engage in how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-logical-fallacy discussions with homophobes, *I* find, anyway; but, you go. Someone has to do it, I suppose. Now, who had that aspirin bottle?

[eyesroll]

2. I have a headache n/t

[enki23]

3. what a load of gibberish. why did you feel the need to post this?

for instance:

Secondly, if you change the definition of marriage (i.e. no longer just between a man and a women), then you change the standard of marriage. This implies that marriage between a man and a women is immoral because it is wrong for marriage to only be between a man and a women. NOW, in order for marriage to be moral, it has to be between three entities (but all separate and monogamous partnerships, mind you), or that three entities have to exist to fulfill the requirement of moral standard: there has to exist simultaneous marriage between a man and a women, man and man, and women and women for the whole scope of the newly defined morality to be fulfilled

just look at that for a bit. read it over to yourself. what the fuck is this person talking about? changing the definition of marriage to be less restrictive does not change the "number of entities" involved. there's still two. even if we legalized polygamy, each marriage would still only involve two people. you can hold contracts with more than one other "entity" at a time, after all. at any rate, the new definition simply wouldn't specify gender requirements. it would be a less restrictive definition. that's all. that should be so obvious that there would be no need to say it. what the fuck this person is talking about is beyond me.

seriously. whoever wrote this stream of meaningless verbiage is truly an idiot. i feel dumber for having read any part of it.

[meatloaf]

7. The reason I posted it was to get feedback on my response.

The reason I chose to repsond is that the person who posted it is usually a relatively rational person and this post seemed contrary to their usually impressive reasoning. That's why I was wondering if my post had any chance of reaching them on a rational level.

[DuctapeFatwa]

4. Well, logical arguments are not everybody's strong suit

Equal protection under the law. Or not. Let the Congress vote.

[DarkPhenyx]

5. Considering the complete lack of logic in this post...

...I have no way of arguing back effectively. Anything I can use to refute it is based in logic and sound reasoning and as this person obviously has no grasp on such concepts it would do no good.

[saltpoint]

6. I liked enki23's question.

Why DID you post this?

[meatloaf]

8. Maybe you'll like my repose then.

[BiggJawn]

10. That writer needs to move out of his mom's basement.

And experience the REAL world.

First, I don't construe anything to mean that SINGLE people are "second class citizens". Hetero sigle people have the RIGHT to marry (provided basement boy would be so lucky to find someone) but gay people don't in most places. Single heteros are NOT 'second class citizens", gays are.

Secondly, where did this "threesome clause" of his come from? (Yeah, I know, he's hoping to have Anna AND Ellie some day) Marriage is TRADITIONALLY where "Two become as One". The RW'ers are the only ones I've seen pushing the "Man and Woman" clause. OK, so just write in "A Couple" or "Any TWO persons" into the law.

Third, Oh, boy, is he ever opening a can with this. So....Marriage is only for people who intend to reproduce offspring in a NATURAL way? did i understand that properly? What about me? My second wife had a Hysterectomy, did that make THAT marriage invalid? My current partner is out of eggs and estrogen. Should WE be barred from wedding?
And what is this "berdach" bullshit? something he read on a Sci-Fi webpage? And has he not heard of adoption? and what about infertile hetero couples? they don't deserve to be married, either? He really talks out his ass on this one.

and for his FOURTH preposterous staement...."If a women thinks she is a second class citizen, is the answer for her to be found in getting a sex change so that she can have equal rights?"
Uh, no, how about changing other's perception about her status? Maybe demanding that she be held as an equal? This is to inferr that there is a PHYSICAL reason for someone to be percieved as "second class"
Which is not so, either in the case of a woamn, or a gay couple. and again, if this guy would move out of his mom's basement, he might actually EXPERIENCE a vaginia, and then wouldn;t be so down on them or their owners....:-)

Wouldn't surprise me to find out this guy is actually a minister and doesn't live in his mom's basement.....

[SlavesandBulldozers]

11. uh

wow. yeah.

:shrug:

[ConcernedCanuk]

12. Alot of hoopla is going on about "redefining" definition of marriage -

.
.
.

Even now, critics of same-sex marriage use the term - redefining marriage

I guess these "experts" don't read dictionaries
.................................................

"mar·riage ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mrj) n.

1.
1. The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
2. The state of being married; wedlock.
3. A common-law marriage.
4. A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

[Moderator]

13. Locking--GD rules

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

.............

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises

While you responded in a second post to the points of the first, this thread-starter is ianppropriate.