Bush supports constitutional amendmen to ban same sex marriage

[K e r b e r o s]

f the people dont decide what is right or wrong, who does?

How strikingly true. But is'int the Bush administration technically the government right now? If not the people then the government decides, correct? Again, whose attempting to decide for us?

I disagree that 'marriage' is meant to spite the religious, and if thats how shallow some people are then they're promising themselves a relation that won't be rewarding or lengthly. Based upon they're given perogatives for short sightedness and they're own lack of tolerance, we can't base the majority of homosexuals on the shoulders of a spiteful few.

Marriage is a powerful word, and is more often reflected on being more romantic, descriptive of ones dedication for another, and definately meant to interept a less legal sounding, longer lasting relationship then 'Civil Union'.

My own personal aside: I say, you should be able to 'wed, marry, union' under whichever term you feel defines your relationship. And that couples, no matter what sex, age, or gender, should be allowed to it.

 

[Sulkdodds]

what? bush wants to preserve marriage instead of redefining it to a minority lifestyle? im in love with a dog, why cant i marry it?

Here are two big reasons:
1. It is impossible for the dog to consent to the marriage. There is no way of working out whether the dog actually understands the concept of love, understands the concept of marriage, or consents to either. In the same way that children at the age of 12 are not allowed to marry because it is not considered they are capable of making such a decision, the same is true of dogs. Obviously both partners must consent to marriage.
2. A dog is not a human being.

Neither of these points are true of homosexuals.

this is disturbing, what you say here. you completely undermine the democratic process. matters of human rights should NOT be decided by the people?

Essentially correct. Not because 'the people are too stupid to decide' but rather because a democracy which denies some members of its people certain rights is essentially invalid. You can't 'let the people decide' if not all of those people are equal; you've got to have a society where people are afforded the same legal rights so that the concept of democracy can be valid. Surely that makes sense?

Democracy is invalid unless it extends the same universal rights to all people. Thus, a public referendum on whether gays should be able to marry is, if straights can marry too, fundamentally contradictory.

the world is NOT equal. it is not fair. case in point: in our country, women are not allowed to serve on the front lines in battle. its not to exclude or deny the priviledge of defending ones country. its not to prejudice against them.
the blind arent allowed to drive. men arent allowed to have multiple wives, people arent allowed to have sex with a monkey.
the right to vote can be taken away for a crime. the drinking age is 21. we have these systems in place for safety/moral/ethical reasons that society has determined.

In some ways you seem to be saying 'our whole society is unequal so why bother?'. The topic of women in war is debated. If the blind cannot drive, it is likely because they cannot see (this would appear a logical reason - it does harm to somebody. See Censorship thread and/or logic for why gay marriage does nobody any harm). Men aren't allowed to have multiple wives because of an essentially religious convention; this may become hotly debated in the future. See above for bestiality. The laws against polygamy and women in war are not necessarily morally sound. Maybe we should start a thread to debate it?

In any case, you have used these as examples of laws that descriminate for a reason, but you have not yet provided a good reason why homosexual marriage should not be legal. You've essentially said 'marriage is a religious thing' - but then it should offer no legal benefits. Non-religious people can get married too in a non-religious way and it is still termed 'marriage' - so if you insist on keeping marriage a religious institution, here's what you do:

- All people can have Civil Unions.
- The religious, if they wish, can have a religious 'marriage'. This would be similar to baptism in that it doesn't actually mean anything except to the religious.

You've given no good reason as to why there should be a law against gay marriage. Don't want to tamper with the system? Do you have any idea how much marriage has changed? Once, rape within marriage was legal. Quite recently as well. Once, marriage was only religious. Not so anymore. Once, divorce was impossible. This has changed. Once upon a time marriage was rarely for love but for social position - and I like to think this has changed.

marriage is not a right. it is a priviledge afforded by our government. its the same principle as getting a drivers license.

You kind of ignored his point: that marriage confers certain legal benefits and protections; it is a right of all citizens to enjoy equal treatment and protection under the law.

You constantly exclaim 'society is not equal! So there!' (as if this were any kind of defence) and yet I think you'll find there is a general presumption that society should at least be legally equal. Example:
- I have no money and my friend has lots. This is unequal, but I am not subject to laws he's not subject to, or vice versa. There is no legal discrimination or inequality here.
- I am legally allowed to own a house, but my friend is not because he has green eyes. Here is a legal discrimination without a reason.
- I am legally allowed to own a house, but my friend is not because he is only five years old. Here is a legal discrimination, but it has a reason: a five year old is not judged capable of owning a house. Moreover, this is a law extended to all five year olds.
- I am legally allowed to marry my girlfriend, but her brother is not legally allowed to marry his boyfriend. This is a legal inequality; there is no reason for it, and some men are allowed to marry their partners, where he is not.

Case in point using an example you provided: no man is allowed to marry multiple wives. But no man is allowed to marry multiple men either. This law is extended universally across all people in the country.

A 13 year old can't have sex, but NO 13 year olds can legally have sex. The morality of this measure may be debatable (there is in fact a reason for it) but there is at least equality in the way the law is implemented. You may argue that the law 'no person can marry another person of the same sex' is universally implemented (in whatever state it exists) but then it fails the fundamental test of a law: the purpose. What is the reason for such a law? Oh yeah: there isn't one.

Saying 'marriage is not a right but a privellege' doesn't change anything, because that just means it's immoral to not extend that privellege to the gay.

I find it quite difficult to argue with you because you're either arguing one of two things:
- Society is not equal so to hell with it.
Well, in this case, why bother? With trying to make society better at all? If this is your approach, you shouldn't care that gay marriage is legal.
- Gay marriage should not be legalised because [no logical reason stated].

I see a pattern here, theres quite a few posts that are saying "gays deserve the same rights as straight people". Truthfully, they have exactly the same rights. If this should pass, then a straight man couldnt marry a man, just like a gay person couldnt, and visa versa.

But marriage is the right (or privellege, lol) to enter into a mutual contract with someone that you love.

 

[CptStern]

both are fundamentally "incorrect" in that both sex with a dog, and with a similar gender are anatomically incompatible. i dont know where you got rape from, but proving or disproving the genuine love and affection for an animal and a man is something many people could argue.

you can never prove consent, your point is invalid not too mention idiotic, hateful and not in the least factual

marriage is not a right. it is a priviledge afforded by our government. its the same principle as getting a drivers license.

reading comprehension ftw:

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

of course. now you are putting words in my mouth. i never said or implied that "separate but equal" was ok.

of course not, you'd like to stave off your eventual banning at least a little while longer

things cannot ever be equal, because to do so would doom society. we would have the blind driving cars, we would have people with no legs on skateboards. we would have people marrying dogs. it simply makes no sense.

:upstare: now you're just being idiotic ..none of that is legislated ...again I re-iterate:

All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

do you think things can ever be completely equal?

immaterial, baseless, and not even in the least connected

i never said any of those things. you are bringing my argument to its absolute extreme, and its false.

no, it is a correct analogy. You just dont understand the relation ..here let me explain: some wanted slavery banned, others didnt, the gvernment had to step in and make it law because the public would never have supported it ..so again I ask you ..should they have allowed the issue of slavery to be decided by joe-six-pack? how about segregation? woman's right to vote (careful this is a loaded question, try not to let your inate desire to expound on your white supremacist/bigotted POV get in the way)

the difference between gay marriage and segregation, is that blacks at the time were denied essential rights of liberty and health. the gay movement is being denied one priviledge. one which they do not meet the requirements for, meet them any more than a blind person and an automobile.

please point out a single definition of marriage that applies to every single religion/set of circumstances. No matter how you slice it, gay couples are being denied rights that heterosexuals enjoy ..separate but equal still applies here

also, it was the majority who ended segregation,

really I thought it was forced by the military

and the majority who ended slavery.

it only took a war and the deaths of close to a million americans plus a presidential decree before slavery was finally abolished

thats a nice stereotype of an american citizen. real classy. id rather have the average american dictate my policy than a judge who does not feel or experience what the common american does. i think the average american would.

you sure about that?

well at least if invasion was decided by the people Iran would be safe .....poor australia

if these corporations have the political clout to affect change in our government then more power to them.

so much for "by the people, for the people" ...you're contradicting yourself again ...so what's it going to be ...the will of the people or the will of big business?

the peoples qualifications are irrelevant. it is still up to them to decide law.

if the brightest minds in your country havent a clue what makes you think joe-six-pack does?

 

[Ome_Vince]

Alot of weird things in this world, though i cant seem to understand how people care what other peoples sexuality is, as long as they dont hurt/abuse/rape anybody/any"thing", and i dont have to see it .. who cares?

 

[VictimOfScience]

...so what's it going to be ...the will of the people or the will of big business?

Hahaha! I think we all know the answer to that. ;(

And yeah, discrimination doesn't belong in the Constitution. :|

And no worries, this is done...for now.

 

[Manhack #5678]

I believe that someones personal convictions are the perfect basis for political views, because what you feel is exactly what they're asking. They're not asking, "what do you think will benefit the nation most?" They're asking "What do you believe about this topic?"

 

[The Monkey]

I heard that Dick Cheney's daughter is a lesbian... That would be such a smack in the face for the homophobic Bush administration.

 

[CptStern]

yup ..but he's an apolgist to his own daughter's homosexuality ..I've seen a few interviews with cheney about homosexuality, I doubt there's much mutual respect between father and daughter ..in fact if you listen closely you can hear her say something in this video

 

[DeusExMachina]

Yeah, I always found it ironic that his daughter was a lesbian.

His daughter only wants his love and he won't love her

 

[VictimOfScience]

Here's Jon Stewart talking to one of these idiots about this issue...

clip

Jon Stewart is my hero.

 

[Ludah]

Hmm.. that link doesn't work for me.

I want to see Stewart pwn face.

 

[JNightshade]

Originally Posted by gh0st
redefining it to a minority lifestyle

And THERE'S where you are COMPLETELY wrong. Beyond reason, even. Legalizing gay marriage doesn't force straight men to get married. It's not "confining" or "redefining" marriage- it's strengthening it so that everyone can express their love for one another in matrimony.

Marriage should not be "between a man and a woman". It should be between a human and a human.

 

[dys4iK]

You know, I think that when the american insistence on the 'nuclear family' started was when the decline started.

Maybe they should accept that family is about more than who gave birth to who... That's so technical and dry and ignores human nature.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Hi, my name is Mechagodzilla, author if the Logical Fallacy Thread. Welcome to the forums, gh0st!

Here's why what you propose is not only logically invald and filled with factual inaccuracies, but fundamentally unconstitutional:



"im in love with a dog, why cant i marry it?"

FALSE ANALOGY. Bestiality is non-consentual.
SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY. No valid cause/effect chain exists between legalized marriage and legalized bestiality.

"it is a [purely] religious institution."

INACCURACY. Marriages are fundamentally secular in america. Many people give the process additional religious significance, but that is their choice. Not the law.

"if a civilization determines that one thing is [..] wrong, then certainly the outcome of their thought should then be translated into law..."

INACCURACY. Christianity is not the only civilization in america.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. A majority cannot vote to impose religious law onto secular government.

"scary men in black robes [shouldn't] tell us how to lead our lives."

UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Judges exist in part to prevent theocracy, single-party states and similar types of unjust majority rule.

"if the people dont decide what is right or wrong, who does?"

FALSE CHOICE. The voting public and judges complement each other as checks and balances. The current american legal system is invalid without the input of both parties.

"both are fundamentally "incorrect" in that both sex with a dog, and with a similar gender are anatomically incompatible."

NATURALISTIC FALLACY. / REIFICATION. "Anatomically incompatible" and "incorrect" are undefined nonsensical terms.
WISDOM OF REPUGNANCE. Personal dislike is not a valid reason to ban something.
FALSE ANALOGY. Consentual sex and non-consentual sex are mutually exclusive.

"marriage [...] is a priviledge afforded by our government. its the same principle as getting a drivers license."

FALSE ANALOGY. Licenses exist to prevent dangerous driving. Marriages are not dangerous. Liberty is not a privilege

"things cannot ever be equal, because to do so would doom society. we would have the blind driving cars, we would have people with no legs on skateboards. we would have people marrying dogs."

FALSE ANALOGY. Bestiality is non-consentual, and thus harmful.
FALSE ANALOGY. Impaired drivers pose a risk to public safety.
INACCURACY. There is no law preventing parapalegics using skateboards.
PERFECT SOLUTION FALLACY. "Complete equality" is not required for gay marriage to be fully justifiable and legal.

"the difference between gay marriage and segregation, is that blacks at the time were denied essential rights of liberty and health. the gay movement is being denied one priviledge. one which they do not meet the requirements for, meet them any more than a blind person and an automobile."

INACCURACY. Marriage, as it does no harm, is a liberty by definition.

Liberty:
a. The condition of being free from restriction or control.
b.The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.

FALSE ANALOGY. Impaired driving is restricted for a logical reason. Gay marriage is not.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In america, you cannot restrict a liberty without a valid logical reason.

"also, it was the majority who ended segregation, and the majority who ended slavery. so perhaps youre statement about how the people should not decide human rights was false."

STRAW MAN. Stern did not say the role of the people should be excluded from the american legal system.
Only, correctly, that they are not allowed to abuse their status.
FALSE ANALOGY. Slavery was unconstitutional, so the majority was correct. Gay marriage is not unconstitutional, so the majority is incorrect.

"id rather have the average american dictate my policy than a judge who does not feel or experience what the common american does. i think the average american would."

FALSE CHOICE. The role of judges and the people are, by design, not mutually exclusive in the legal system.
UNCONSTITUTIONALITY. The "average american" is not allowed to dictate the removal of liberty without justifiable cause to do so.
REIFICATION. "Average american" is undefined.

"the peoples qualifications are irrelevant. it is still up to them to decide law."

UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The majority cannot enact a law that removes liberties without a valid reason.

"wow what is with these people saying the people arent fit to decide anything?"

STRAW MAN. "People aren't fit to decide anything" is not the argument. The argument is that the people aren't fit to remove liberties without a valid reason to do so.

"do you guys live in iran or something? i dont understand why you are so submissive, or why you want a judge to decide for you how to live your life."

FALSE ANALOGY. Iran is a theocracy. America's legal system uses judges to prevent theocracy.
"We guys" are arguing against the unconstitutional theocratic law.
You are arguing against judges.
FALSE CHOICE. Again, both judges and people are required for the legal system to function properly. They are not mutually exclusive.

"its like me trying to use the courts to ban gay marriage. you guys would cry foul at my abuse of our judicial system. "

FALSE ANALOGY. We do not support the removal of freedoms for no logical reason. You do.
INACCURACY. Supporting a liberty which causes no harm is not an abuse.

"its all about the issues with you guys and never about the overarching problem of government: getting good policy passed in the ways our founding fathers meant for them to be."

APPEAL TO AUTHORITY. The founding fathers are not correct just because they're old. Their decisions, such as the US constitution, all had a very strong logical basis.
Gay marriage was not an issue in their time due to societal taboo. Thus the founder's personal opinions on homosexuality are not relevant to this (or any) discussion. Only their logic is relevant.
INACCURACY. The sole purpose of the constitution is to ensure that all citizens have equal life, liberty and pursuit of happiness under the law. The law is designed to only restrict certain liberties (such as murder) for rational, secular reasons. Thus, the logic of the founders supports gay marriage.
REIFICATION. "Good policy" is an undefined abstract term. Logic states that banning gay marriage is an unconstitutional policy.

"homosexuals are not considered second class citizens or lesser beings in america."

INACCURACY. Logically, equal citizens should be subject to equal application the law. Banning gay marriage is, by definition, not an equal application of the law as it limits specific liberties specific to a minority group for no valid reason. What you consider them to be is irrelevant in the face of how you treat them.

"women are not allowed to serve on the front lines in battle. [...]
the blind arent allowed to drive. men arent allowed to have multiple wives, people arent allowed to have sex with a monkey. the right to vote can be taken away for a crime. the drinking age is 21. we have these systems in place for safety/moral/ethical reasons that society has determined."

AGREEMENT. Barring women from the front lines is similarly illogical. Women should be allowed on the front lines, as I know of no reason to ban their access to such a position
FALSE ANALOGY. Blind drivers pose a risk to society. Gay marriage does not.
FALSE ANALOGY. Although polygamous lifestyles are generally legal (although rarely officially recognized) in areas across the world, it was made illegal in the US to as a measure against cultism, and is currently the subject of debate. Gay marriage was never illegal for any logical reason.
FALSE ANALOGY. Bestiality poses a danger to animals, and is banned for that reason. Gay marriage poses no danger to anything.
FALSE ANALOGY. Disenfranchisement of criminals is a method of punishment. Gays have commited no crime deserving a punishment.
FALSE ANALOGY. The drinking age is designed to prevent dangerous alchohol abuse in minors. Marriages are not dangerous.
REIFICATION. "Morality" is an abstract, undefined term. The logical use of the constitution always supercedes personal beliefs and prejudices.
FALSE ANALOGY. Gay marriage is not unsafe or unethical.

"'equality' and 'fairness' translate directly into communism."

FALSE ANALOGY. Economic equality is not the same as legal equality.
Excuse the emphasis, but:

The US constitution is not a communist document.

"just because 2 people agree to do something to each other doesnt make it right or legal. if i want to kill you and you want to be killed its still murder."

FALSE ANALOGY. Murder poses a danger to society. Gay marriage does not.
UNCONSTITUTIONAL. What two people decide to do is a liberty unless it is dangerous. Gay marriage is not dangerous.
STRAW MAN. Consent was never argued to be the sole source of legality. The constitution is, however, and it contradicts your assertations.

"the argument goes beyond 2 people and whatever arrangements they want to make with themselves."

SLIPPERY SLOPE FALLACY. The argument is limited to what two people do. Support of polygamy and support of bestiality (etc.) are false analogies. No logical chain exists between them and between support of homosexuality.


Conclusion:
It seems you're having some trouble with the US Constitution and logical fallacies. Especially false analogies.
Here are some links to help you.

Logical Fallacy And You (AKA How To Tell When You Aren't Making Sense)
http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=102348

Logic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

The United States Constitution (see: 14th Amendment)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_constitution

United States Law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_law

Analogy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogy

False Analogy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy

 

[Ikerous]

FALSE ANALOGY. Bestiality is non-consentual, and thus harmful.

Neih!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

That's a whole other issue for a whole other thread, Ike.

Suffice it to say, in your odd case, that all cases where consent cannot be confirmed carry, at minimum, the possibility of harm and are therefore a risk.

 

[Raeven0]

Mental note: in the event of my untimely death, Mechagodzilla, Sulkdodds, and CptStern must form a triumvirate to rule the earth in my place.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Who says we don't already?

 

[CptStern]

Hi, my name is Mechagodzilla, author if the Logical Fallacy Thread. Welcome to the forums, gh0st!

bravo! ..that was an impresssive display of slicing his post to shreds ....you have the precision of a surgeon