[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, to recap. They have to come across as bigots. Or, they have to give legitimacy to the slipperty slope arguement they often criticize. They’re stuck.[/quote]
LOL! i LOVE this forum! Yes, yes, “they” are coming across as “anti-bigot bigots” as we’ve discussed.
Some hate “homos” …some hate “blacks” …Sloth’s big issue? Those who hate “bigots”
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Kidding aside, I thought someone would actually take up the question and present an intelligent analysis, even if it didn’t agree with mine. Oh well.
[/quote]
You’ve had for forlife taking you FAR more seriously than you deserve for some time now. “Kidding aside?” No thank you.
Despite your opinion of yourself, you’re not worth the slightest of efforts. …You’d better start to appreciate forlife, he’s about the only one who’ll be kind enough to give you the credit you think you deserve, my special snowflake.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Ahhh, I see. When I said, “You give him a lot more credit than I do.” you see this as an example of “horseshit.” You be real gud at arguin’ ain’tcha? [/quote]
Correct. Forlife said he thought I was acting in good faith, you do not. Ad hominem - look it up.
Nope - because it is irrelevant.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
You’ve had for forlife taking you FAR more seriously than you deserve for some time now. “Kidding aside?” No thank you.
Despite your opinion of yourself, you’re not worth the slightest of efforts. …You’d better start to appreciate forlife, he’s about the only one who’ll be kind enough to give you the credit you think you deserve, my special snowflake. [/quote]
Sure thing, junior. Run along - the adults are talking.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, to recap. They have to come across as bigots. Or, they have to give legitimacy to the slipperty slope arguement they often criticize. They’re stuck.
LOL! i LOVE this forum! Yes, yes, “they” are coming across as “anti-bigot bigots” as we’ve discussed.
Some hate “homos” …some hate “blacks” …Sloth’s big issue? Those who hate “bigots”
[/quote]
Honestly, you’re completely lost on this thread.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, to recap. They have to come across as bigots. Or, they have to give legitimacy to the slipperty slope arguement they often criticize. They’re stuck.
LOL! i LOVE this forum! Yes, yes, “they” are coming across as “anti-bigot bigots” as we’ve discussed.
Some hate “homos” …some hate “blacks” …Sloth’s big issue? Those who hate “bigots”
Honestly, you’re completely lost on this thread.[/quote]
lol
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, to recap. They have to come across as bigots. Or, they have to give legitimacy to the slipperty slope arguement they often criticize. They’re stuck.
LOL! i LOVE this forum! Yes, yes, “they” are coming across as “anti-bigot bigots” as we’ve discussed.
Some hate “homos” …some hate “blacks” …Sloth’s big issue? Those who hate “bigots”
Honestly, you’re completely lost on this thread.
lol[/quote]
That’s what I was thinking.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
You’ve had for forlife taking you FAR more seriously than you deserve for some time now. “Kidding aside?” No thank you.
Despite your opinion of yourself, you’re not worth the slightest of efforts. …You’d better start to appreciate forlife, he’s about the only one who’ll be kind enough to give you the credit you think you deserve, my special snowflake.
Sure thing, junior. Run along - the adults are talking.
[/quote]
lol. You think you’re having an “adult” conversation.
Right. Looks like the lol!trolls got a hold of this thread. One liners don’t make for good agruement, so it seems we’re done here.
Funny, I hadn’t realized we had started.
Weren’t we still on the part where you tell us how you are the one to explain what is “natural” and what is not and how that interpretation should be the basis for our moral thoughts, laws, and institutions?
and, and, and, wait, no we hadn’t really started had we?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Funny, I hadn’t realized we had started.
Weren’t we still on the part where you tell us how you are the one to explain what is “natural” and what is not and how that interpretation should be the basis for our moral thoughts, laws, and institutions?
and, and, and, wait, no we hadn’t really started had we? [/quote]
No, “we” weren’t. We’re way past where you got stuck wondering if you could pleasure yourself with your hand, and how you could tie that into a debate about what forms of relationships should be recognized by the state as marriage. We’re discussing the purpose of recognizing which forms of relationships, if any (for some of our anarcho members), while you’re staring into your palm.
My position is that the state’s only interest in marriage is in seeing our citizenry propogated, with our newest citizens raised in intact homes with both bio parents present. Gee, I wonder what the smallest unit capable of doing this could possibly be. Oh, I don’t know, maybe 1 male and 1 female!? That’s not even a question of morality. It’s anatomical fact. For Pete’s sake, this is sad.
Again, you got stuck way back with your hand and some heavy breathing, trying to ridicule cold anatomical reality with with something you heard in Phil 101. “What is my hand for? Huh? How about that? What can I do with my hand?! Because I can wax the dolphin, state recognized and rewarded marriage should be open to any, and every, conceivable arrangment consenting adults can think of! Hetero, homo, bisexual, 2 person, 50 people? Whatever! Because I can masterbate!”
Yikes!
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Funny, I hadn’t realized we had started.
Weren’t we still on the part where you tell us how you are the one to explain what is “natural” and what is not and how that interpretation should be the basis for our moral thoughts, laws, and institutions?
and, and, and, wait, no we hadn’t really started had we?
No, “we” weren’t. We’re way past where you got stuck wondering if you could pleasure yourself with your hand, and how you could tie that into a debate about what forms of relationships should be recognized by the state as marriage. [/quote]
“a fist” my friend. Do try and keep up. Or have you not yet figured out what I was speaking about? If you ask nice and say “pretty please” I may help you to catch up.
[quote]
My position is that the state’s only interest in marriage is in seeing our citizenry propogated, with our newest citizens raised in intact homes with both bio parents present. Gee, I wonder what the smallest unit capable of doing this could possibly be. Oh, I don’t know, maybe 1 male and 1 female!? That’s not even a question of morality. It’s anatomical fact. For Pete’s sake, this is sad. [/quote]
This is sad. Hope you don’t mind if not everyone agrees with your beliefs about “the state’s only interest in marriage.”
[quote]
Again, you got stuck way back with your hand and some heavy breathing, trying to ridicule cold anatomical reality with with something you heard in Phil 101.[/quote]
Actually it was well before phil 101. In my high school theology class…haven’t we already discussed this?
btw, how does this “anatomical reality” relate to marriage again? Oh yeah, by the thinnest of threads you’ve constructed: “because I think so!”
[quote]
“What is my hand for? Huh? How about that? What can I do with my hand?! Because I can wax the dolphin, state recognized and rewarded marriage should be open to any, and every, conceivable arrangment consenting adults can think of! Hetero, homo, bisexual, 2 person, 50 people? Whatever! Because I can masterbate!”
Yikes![/quote]
Bro, seriously, I let on that it was masterbation and all, but I let out the “fist” comment a long, long time ago. Are you seriously this dense?
I’ll type slow and in big letters for you: I’M ATTACKING THE “ONLY” IN YOUR STATEMENT ABOVE. that I’m doing so in a sarcastic way that you, apparently, are unable to follow is just me fvcking around another pointless ass thread.
Am we is havin’ a “adult” conversation now?!?11!!?
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Funny, I hadn’t realized we had started.
Weren’t we still on the part where you tell us how you are the one to explain what is “natural” and what is not and how that interpretation should be the basis for our moral thoughts, laws, and institutions?
and, and, and, wait, no we hadn’t really started had we?
No, “we” weren’t. We’re way past where you got stuck wondering if you could pleasure yourself with your hand, and how you could tie that into a debate about what forms of relationships should be recognized by the state as marriage.
“a fist” my friend. Do try and keep up. Or have you not yet figured out what I was speaking about? If you ask nice and say “pretty please” I may help you to catch up.
My position is that the state’s only interest in marriage is in seeing our citizenry propogated, with our newest citizens raised in intact homes with both bio parents present. Gee, I wonder what the smallest unit capable of doing this could possibly be. Oh, I don’t know, maybe 1 male and 1 female!? That’s not even a question of morality. It’s anatomical fact. For Pete’s sake, this is sad.
This is sad. Hope you don’t mind if not everyone agrees with your beliefs about “the state’s only interest in marriage.”
Again, you got stuck way back with your hand and some heavy breathing, trying to ridicule cold anatomical reality with with something you heard in Phil 101.
Actually it was well before phil 101. In my high school theology class…haven’t we already discussed this?
btw, how does this “anatomical reality” relate to marriage again? Oh yeah, by the thinnest of threads you’ve constructed: “because I think so!”
“What is my hand for? Huh? How about that? What can I do with my hand?! Because I can wax the dolphin, state recognized and rewarded marriage should be open to any, and every, conceivable arrangment consenting adults can think of! Hetero, homo, bisexual, 2 person, 50 people? Whatever! Because I can masterbate!”
Yikes!
Bro, seriously, I let on that it was masterbation and all, but I let out the “fist” comment a long, long time ago. Are you seriously this dense?
I’ll type slow and in big letters for you: I’M ATTACKING THE “ONLY” IN YOUR STATEMENT ABOVE. that I’m doing so in a sarcastic way that you, apparently, are unable to follow is just me fvcking around another pointless ass thread.
Am we is havin’ a “adult” conversation now?!?11!!?
[/quote]
Well, you’re tenacious. You’ve spent alot of time saying nothing. When you actually have a coherent point to make-- instead of pretending such is the case–please feel free to submit it. Your most passionate counter attack seems to be over saying “fist” instead of “hand.”
Great, I’m having a disagreement with a masterbation obsessed Gungan with a faulty shift key.
replying to this a little out of order because I want the meat first and the pedantry later. Also, I’m stating again that I think any consenting adult should be able to marry any other consenting adult. Polygamist, gay, or otherwise (or both!)
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
as such, I am asking gay marriage advocates to put on fictional judicial robes - and not a legislature’s - and tell me, as a matter of right under the Equal Protection clause, why gay marriage, what a court should tell a polygamist who has sued for a marriage right under the Equal Protection clause.[/quote]
I am addressing this from the standpoint of the Iowa ruling only, simply because that was the start of this thread. Vermont will have to wait because gay marriage right was a legislation issue there, and not judicial.
Any reference I’m making to the ruling is from this link: http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20090403/07-1499.pdf
The question is whether allowing same-sex marriage leads to allowing polygamy, so we have to look at why the Iowa marriage language was under-inclusive, and try to stretch that to polygamy.
According to the Iowa ruling, equal protection stated another way is that “all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.”
Our main debate in this thread is based precisely on whether “similarly situated” is the case here. I’m not rehashing this, because the Iowa SC found that same-sex couples are similarly situated enough to grant equal protection.
For this ruling to lead to polygamist marriage, polygamists would also need to be found to be similarly situated. As the Iowa SC states, “This requirement of equal protection ‘that the law must treat all similarly situated people the same’ has generated a narrow threshold test. Under this threshold test, if plaintiffs cannot show as a preliminary matter that they are similarly situated, courts do not further consider whether their
different treatment under a statute is permitted under the equal protection clause.”
Polygamists are similarly situated in that they are in a committed, loving relationship, however I believe they are not similarly situated in status given that one party seeking to marry is already married. In monogamous marriage, all parties are seeking to enter a marriage status, as opposed to one party already being in that status. In my opinion, polygamy already fails the similar situation threshold here, as this is a significant point. Furthermore, “similarly situated” requires classification of groups to compare. In the same-sex marriage decision, the classification is fairly obvious - homosexual and heterosexual. The classification is less distinct with regards to polygamists, because homosexuality and heterosexuality are a matter of personal identity, but polygamy is a state of relationship rather than the inherent identity of a citizen. Is the single individual looking to enter a plural marriage a polygamist before they marry? Is a polygamist who has divorced still a polygamist? I would argue the answer to both is, “No.” For polygamy to be allowed via EP, polygamists must bear a legal classification that is roundly denied entry into marriage without plausible reason.
Another basis for the reversal of the same-sex ban was that while the County claims “one man and one woman” does not seek to deny homosexuals the right to marriage - because a lesbian has the right to enter into marriage with a man etc - the Court found that homosexuality is a matter of personal identity and “one man and one woman” specifically puts marriage out of the reach of GLBT solely based on sexual orientation. Reason being, a homosexual can only gain marriage rights by denial of the very trait that defines their legal classification. With one party in a plural marriage already being married, it is hard to point out where the current law is denying rights based on classification alone, as one part to the polygamy has already taken advantage of their right.
I think that polygamy fails the “similarly situated” test, and also fails to be a classification which the law is apparent in targeting and denying rights to.
Again, I think that consenting adults should be able to do what they like, but it is wrong to state that allowing gays to marry immediately legitimizes claims by any and all other alternative groups.
===============================================================
Now, on to regularly scheduled internet snippiness:
yes, that is a slippery slope.
Wrong. A slippery slope is always fallacious. If you support the causation, then your argument is no longer a slippery slope. As you said earlier, “I am precisely using a slippery slope argument here,” which I took as an admission of purposefully lacking a connective argument. If that isn’t what you meant, that’s fine, it just wasn’t a slippery slope then. However…*
[quote]Here, that has been done over and over and over: the principle that judicially establishes gay marriage - that society must afford marriage to validate a gay individual’s relationship - is a principle that applies to other non-traditional relationships…like polygamy.
[/quote]
*…I disagree that you’ve done anything to link the arguments against polygamy to the arguments against same-sex marriage. All you’ve done is lump them all together as alternatives which aren’t the societal mirror image of hetero-marriage. That isn’t enough for me, and that wasn’t enough for the Iowa SC. You’ve never once stated that "the decisions allowing gay marriage now allow for polygamy “because {x,y,z}”
With no “because {x,y,z}”, you fail to support the so-called inevitabilities, and you are using the full on slippery slope fallacy.
[quote]Exactly wrong. Courts do not make such evaluations on factual bases - courts do not “individually address” which relationships are “better” or “worse”. They decide the nature of rights as a constitutional matter on legal principles.
[/quote]
The courts do individually address the case at hand, without offering opinion on any other matter. For example, the same-sex marriage opinion makes no mention of any other marriage alternatives. I never once said, or meant to imply, that the courts offered any single opinion that individually addressed each alternatives, I meant that the courts addressed each alternative on its own constitutional merits, one case at a time without regard to others “on down the slope”
Do yourself a favor; read the opinion. There is a whole section on factual bases.
I’ve jumped through your hoops, so now jump through mine. Within the constructs of the Iowa ruling (as that is the original purpose of this thread) what facet allowing same-sex marriage opens the proverbial barn door? And, for the love of God, someone please explain where this nonsense about single people achieving marriage rights comes from.
[EDIT: some spelling, and added “without plausible reason” to “…denied entry into marriage…”]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Right. Looks like the lol!trolls got a hold of this thread. One liners don’t make for good agruement, so it seems we’re done here.[/quote]
No, you’re done when you realize you can’t summon a counter argument.
OMFG!!1! HE’S BIGOTED AGAINST BIGOTS!! THAT’S HYPOCRITICAL SO THE BIGOTS ARE FREE TO BE BIGOTED I WIN LULZ!!!1!
That seems to be your argument here.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Right. Looks like the lol!trolls got a hold of this thread. One liners don’t make for good agruement, so it seems we’re done here.
No, you’re done when you realize you can’t summon a counter argument.
OMFG!!1! HE’S BIGOTED AGAINST BIGOTS!! THAT’S HYPOCRITICAL SO THE BIGOTS ARE FREE TO BE BIGOTED I WIN LULZ!!!1!
That seems to be your argument here.[/quote]
What are you even trying to say? The anti-bigotry bigot comment was poking fun at the notion of stereotyping a person as a slack jawed, closeted homosexual, country bumpkin because you disagree with them. Did you really miss this? Instead, of stereotyping, (hence the anti-bigotry bigot snark) put forth arguements, maybe?
And what counter arguement do I need to summon? Neither you, or Gambit, have made any serious effort to put foward an arguement that I might counter. All caps, and the !!11!! routine, are not arguements.
[quote]
Sloth wrote:
Right. Looks like the lol!trolls got a hold of this thread. One liners don’t make for good agruement, so it seems we’re done here.[/quote]
lol
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What are you even trying to say? The anti-bigotry bigot comment was poking fun at the notion of stereotyping a person as a slack jawed, closeted homosexual, country bumpkin because you disagree with them. Did you really miss this? Instead, of stereotyping, (hence the anti-bigotry bigot snark) put forth arguements, maybe?
And what counter arguement do I need to summon? Neither you, or Gambit, have made any serious effort to put foward an arguement that I might counter. All caps, and the !!11!! routine, are not arguements.[/quote]
You seem to be stuck on that fact that I and other people on this site dislike bigots. You put a lot into making sure we come across as bigots for this.
I bet you’re bigoted against Nazis. Or least I hope you are.
Also, it’s argument, not arguement. That’s not a jab at you, that’s OCD.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
What are you even trying to say? The anti-bigotry bigot comment was poking fun at the notion of stereotyping a person as a slack jawed, closeted homosexual, country bumpkin because you disagree with them. Did you really miss this? Instead, of stereotyping, (hence the anti-bigotry bigot snark) put forth arguements, maybe?
And what counter arguement do I need to summon? Neither you, or Gambit, have made any serious effort to put foward an arguement that I might counter. All caps, and the !!11!! routine, are not arguements.[/quote]
You seem to be stuck on that fact that I and other people on this site dislike bigots. You put a lot into making sure we come across as bigots for this.
I bet you’re bigoted against Nazis. Or least I hope you are.
Also, it’s argument, not arguement. That’s not a jab at you, that’s OCD.
[quote]forlife wrote:
My arguments stand or fall on their own merit, just as yours do. The education level either of us has obtained is irrelevant to the validity of the argument. You brought it up, not me.[/quote]
So, if I’m a trained psychiatrist, that education would be irrelevant to the validity of my(our) argument?
And technically, your arguments don’t stand or fall of their own merit, they only stand or fall when you unreasonably tie them to meritorious aspects of race relations and prop them up against examples of bad heterosexual marriage.