Article: California Gay Couples Set To Wed
- Thread starter Mariposa
- Start date
Mariposa
Bluelight Crew
dtugg said:
We'll break this down into an "if-then" statement.
If (A) homosexuals have exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals then (B) they can marry anyone of their choosing conditioned upon (C) that person being of the opposite sex...
then which fallacy are we working with here?
The argument is invalid.Answer/link under the tag to avoid spoilers (work safe).
NSFW:
The court held similar; if one is forced to marry only a member of the opposite sex, that constitutes discrimination, prohibited (among other places) under Article Fourteen of the California Constitution.
Nice work, though, dtugg, and don't worry about giving banga any ammo; if we had a poll on "CEP Poster Most Likely To Fail Out of Basic Training By Shooting Self In Foot" he'd be in the running with a few others (or rather, not be
) but he'd find a way to win it by a nose... if he didn't shoot that off the way he does his mouth first.
Mariposa
Bluelight Crew
dtugg: it's one of the lesser caught logical fallacies and, in many circumstances, bears an element of truth. What would have been your response had I not pointed that out? I'm sure your response was better thought out than a lot of the anti-gay marriage arguments; most of which I've seen pertaining to the issue are appeals to authority, antiquity, and morality - often all three at once, a trifecta of lose if ever I've seen one. Bravo for bringing up the point, though, and I believe you can come up with a revised response worthy of discussion.
As for "banga" -- well, we have a saying around BL that it's like the Hotel California, "you can check out anytime you like... but you can never leave" -- and a search for the posts attributed to "banga" in this forum should tell you everything you need to know.
As for "banga" -- well, we have a saying around BL that it's like the Hotel California, "you can check out anytime you like... but you can never leave" -- and a search for the posts attributed to "banga" in this forum should tell you everything you need to know.
Well I had two responses to this argument.
The first was essential the same as alasdairm's. That because straight people have the right to marry someone that they love but gays don't they are still being discriminated against even though the argument I was refering to may be technically true.
Second, is that similar logic can be used to aruge against interatial marriage. One could say "Everybody has the same marriage rights. They can marry anybody that they want as long as that person is of the same race." Since these types laws have been ruled illegal because they are based upon racial discrimination, laws against same-sex marriage should also be illegal since homosexuals are granted similar protections against discrimination. I've been drinking, so this probably didnt come across as clear as I hoped, but you should get the point.
AS for a revised response based on the logical fallacy, that may have to wait until Im sober.
The first was essential the same as alasdairm's. That because straight people have the right to marry someone that they love but gays don't they are still being discriminated against even though the argument I was refering to may be technically true.
Second, is that similar logic can be used to aruge against interatial marriage. One could say "Everybody has the same marriage rights. They can marry anybody that they want as long as that person is of the same race." Since these types laws have been ruled illegal because they are based upon racial discrimination, laws against same-sex marriage should also be illegal since homosexuals are granted similar protections against discrimination. I've been drinking, so this probably didnt come across as clear as I hoped, but you should get the point.
AS for a revised response based on the logical fallacy, that may have to wait until Im sober.
Fausty
Bluelighter
Admittedly, I'm (at least) two steps removed from this issue personally. However, from this perspective the whole thing does appear simple at core:
Some straight folks want to maintain the special rights of something called "marriage" that the law has historically conferred to them - these rights, while not overwhelming, are not to be scoffed at either. Plus, there's a cultural legitimacy to the concept of "marriage" that makes them feel self-important, respected by others in society, and effectively at the center of the cultural universe.
Gay folks are not happy that straight folks have written themselves this nice little special right that only straight folks qualify for. It is, by definition, a form of discrimination - that's the whole point! An honest reading of many of our legal guidelines, in most Western countries, makes it very difficult to legally uphold this sort of explicitly discriminatory structure. So if you buy into the rule of law, you sort of have to admit that straight-only marriage spits in the eye of the laws as written.
Lots of courts, in many different jurisdictions, are acknowledging this in bits and pieces. Those who want to keep the super-special, straight-only goodies of "marriage" are trying to gum up the works and in general are using the mob rule card to push their agenda. However, essentially every Western democracy has a deep legal commitment to preventing the "tyranny of the majority" when it comes to depriving minority populations of their equal rights under the law.
So, absent other legitimate ways to fight against losing these special rights, the anti-gay folks fall back to the tried and true approach of fomenting hatred and dislike of the feared "Other." It's a pattern old as humanity itself.
Peace,
Fausty
Some straight folks want to maintain the special rights of something called "marriage" that the law has historically conferred to them - these rights, while not overwhelming, are not to be scoffed at either. Plus, there's a cultural legitimacy to the concept of "marriage" that makes them feel self-important, respected by others in society, and effectively at the center of the cultural universe.
Gay folks are not happy that straight folks have written themselves this nice little special right that only straight folks qualify for. It is, by definition, a form of discrimination - that's the whole point! An honest reading of many of our legal guidelines, in most Western countries, makes it very difficult to legally uphold this sort of explicitly discriminatory structure. So if you buy into the rule of law, you sort of have to admit that straight-only marriage spits in the eye of the laws as written.
Lots of courts, in many different jurisdictions, are acknowledging this in bits and pieces. Those who want to keep the super-special, straight-only goodies of "marriage" are trying to gum up the works and in general are using the mob rule card to push their agenda. However, essentially every Western democracy has a deep legal commitment to preventing the "tyranny of the majority" when it comes to depriving minority populations of their equal rights under the law.
So, absent other legitimate ways to fight against losing these special rights, the anti-gay folks fall back to the tried and true approach of fomenting hatred and dislike of the feared "Other." It's a pattern old as humanity itself.
Peace,
Fausty
tobala
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,385
If man-woman union is called "marriage," why not just come up with a new word for a man-man or a woman-woman union? Let's call it "garriage."
Now all the state has to do is consider "garriage" as having equal footing as "marriage" in all legal contexts, and the fundamentalists get to keep their precious little word.
(Kalash, I know this just makes your problem worse, but let's start by getting the religious and moralistic creeps off the camel's back)
Bob is garried to Tom. Susie is garried to Pam. Nos problemos, si Padre?
Now all the state has to do is consider "garriage" as having equal footing as "marriage" in all legal contexts, and the fundamentalists get to keep their precious little word.
(Kalash, I know this just makes your problem worse, but let's start by getting the religious and moralistic creeps off the camel's back)
Bob is garried to Tom. Susie is garried to Pam. Nos problemos, si Padre?
Mariposa
Bluelight Crew
tobala said:
I'm not sure where any of you are going with this, and I'm sober
It is not necessary to change the word "marriage;" it is necessary to change the definition of "marriage" and that is all the Court is presently addressing. Tobala, I believe I read some sarcasm into that, and I'll humor you in that regard.
To go to personal beliefs: it is mine that marriage is between two consenting spouses of any gender. I am in a position of some privilege being the (self-identified, mostly) potential heterosexual female human spouse of a (self-identified, mostly) heterosexual male spouse, as my partner and I could marry under nearly any law on the planet. So why haven't I worn my white dress yet? Because my partner and I are not ready, by mutual agreement, independent of political belief. Those who are ready to marry their partners and create families (families of two still count) should be able to do so whatever sex or gender either may identify as, or with. And that is the point of this ruling; when two actively choose to create a home, a life, and the reasonable prospect of so doing together, this love and devotion (the foundation of any family in the abstract) should be the driving force, and the government should not interfere, the community should embrace, and the rights of those two to enter into the union by mutual consent should be condoned, never condemned, by the force of society. As to the "state should not be involved in marriage" argument; existing law is the best we have until we change, not abolish, that existing law. California, again, is pioneering this; the means are convoluted, but the message is the same: all people are created equal, and have equal rights to define marriage as a union between two people who wish to create a family together. By working in conjunction with our closest, best friend, our spouse - we can work on whatever else from there.
Kalash
Bluelighter
Mariposa said:I'm not sure where any of you are going with this, and I'm sober
The motion, here, is to "preserve the sanctity of marriage" which is a complete and total farce onto itself.
If gay people can't get "married" - marriage preserves its sanctity.
So - again - I have to ask what straight person holds the patent on the term marriage, which, with valid standing and legitimate claim to the term "marriage," prevents its use from any non-straight person.
If marriage is a fundamental right (and it has been ruled such) that is equally possessed by everyone, both men and women, then the right to marry a man is equal to the right to marry a woman.
There is no difference.
And - according to the Cali Constitution - sexual discrimination is illegal.
If the right to marry a man is vested in a woman, denying a man this right is illegal (See Title 18 Chapter 13 Sections 241 and 242 of the U.S. Code).
If the right to marry a woman is vested in a man, denying a woman this right is illegal - under the same statutes.
Getting stuck on terminiology is ludicrois.
And the MOB RULE comment (wherever it was) was 100% accurate...
Mob rule, lead by ignorance and fear, causes minorities to suffer needlessly.
And everyone is a part of the minority on SOME issue at SOME time.
So with democracy, everyone loses.
Which is why America isn't a democracy...
And the fundamental argument -
WHAT is the difference between a RIGHT and a PRIVILEGE?
If marriage is a right (again, it's been ruled as such), how can the state create privileges for people that get married that deprive non-married people of equal protection under the laws?
How can the government PUNISH people who are NOT married by siphoning greater amounts off their income, and other means of coercing people into a contract they may not make without governmental intervention?
The powers of government are derived from the rights of the people - not superior to those rights.
Do YOU have the right to prohibit me from entering into a consensual contract with anyone (other than yourself or your children under the age of 18)?
If not, then you have no say in whom I wish to marry.
It's none of your business, you have no standing, no RIGHT to intervene - and therefore have no RIGHT through which you can grant the PRIVILEGE of intervention to the state.
What is the difference between a right and a privilege?
You have to start there if you're ever going to solve 80%+ of "the issues" in today's society.
tobala
Bluelight Crew
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2006
- Messages
- 9,385
You.....GOT ME. I particularly like this quick Googled definition:Mariposa said:I'm not sure where any of you are going with this, and I'm sober
It is not necessary to change the word "marriage;" it is necessary to change the definition of "marriage" and that is all the Court is presently addressing. Tobala, I believe I read some sarcasm into that, and I'll humor you in that regard.
SARCASM A verbal tone in which it is obvious from context that the speaker means the opposite of what he or she says. “Mom, I’d love to see Howard the Duck with you” is probably a phrase you would say sarcastically.
BTW, I didn't quote the rest of your post because I agreed with it in it's eloquent entirety (not sarcasm).
However, it's upsetting to me that Howard the Duck can't be seen with Gary the Goose.
Mariposa
Bluelight Crew
Kalash: while I commend your mission, your views are those of martyrdom to the state you purport to oppose. Your arguments have merit, but you, like Marx et al., have failed to set forth an effective mechanism to bring truth to society. Like it or not, law and society exist, and I hope that, in absence of your argument which ultimately attunes to nothing, you are spared the time with which you're faced. But that's not germane to this thread; you have your own. I know what can be reasonably expected to happen w/r/t your case and you do too. I hate to use the word "martyr" but I believe it applies here, and I respectfully request that you take it back to your own thread. We can address it more effectively there.
Tobala: nice one. I read again sarcasm, and I like sarcasm, therefore I like you.
It's important to remember that the courts and the judiciary (same fucking thing, really) look to arguments and their fallacies in order to render decisions. The decision was set forth on what amounts to a technicality; that said, a technicality is not a fallacious argument. The Supreme Court of the State of California debunked fallacious arguments w/r/t "gay marriage" (the term itself is pejorative) and did so effectively, rendering a decision that I believe will preserve the family structure. I, like the Court, believe that effective parenting produces effective families. Families come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and any other variable one might employ. The Court acted to preserve the family structure. With the right to choose a family, whether the parents be gay, straight, or any point in between, comes the responsibility to act within the structure for the benefit of all involved. We can apply this argument to just about anything, and it will still work, IMO. At the end of the day, it matters little; all people of any gender, sex (yes, there is a difference), orientation... deserve the rights that under existing law prohibit discrimination based on biological sex.
Pride Weekend is upon us in the Bay Area, and I'll let my rainbow flag fly for those who did not have the rights I chose actively not to exercise. And Fausty, just for you: I have this T-shirt - link is mildly NSFW because I haven't yet found any resolution to the argument you have not presented... so instead I'll just represent.
I'm glad we can all engage in this level of discourse without resorting to personal attacks (with one notable exception), and I'm proud of all but one of you who have participated... we'll all burn in the fires proudly together.
Tobala: nice one. I read again sarcasm, and I like sarcasm, therefore I like you.
It's important to remember that the courts and the judiciary (same fucking thing, really) look to arguments and their fallacies in order to render decisions. The decision was set forth on what amounts to a technicality; that said, a technicality is not a fallacious argument. The Supreme Court of the State of California debunked fallacious arguments w/r/t "gay marriage" (the term itself is pejorative) and did so effectively, rendering a decision that I believe will preserve the family structure. I, like the Court, believe that effective parenting produces effective families. Families come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and any other variable one might employ. The Court acted to preserve the family structure. With the right to choose a family, whether the parents be gay, straight, or any point in between, comes the responsibility to act within the structure for the benefit of all involved. We can apply this argument to just about anything, and it will still work, IMO. At the end of the day, it matters little; all people of any gender, sex (yes, there is a difference), orientation... deserve the rights that under existing law prohibit discrimination based on biological sex.
Pride Weekend is upon us in the Bay Area, and I'll let my rainbow flag fly for those who did not have the rights I chose actively not to exercise. And Fausty, just for you: I have this T-shirt - link is mildly NSFW because I haven't yet found any resolution to the argument you have not presented... so instead I'll just represent.
I'm glad we can all engage in this level of discourse without resorting to personal attacks (with one notable exception), and I'm proud of all but one of you who have participated... we'll all burn in the fires proudly together.
Fausty
Bluelighter
Mariposa said:Pride Weekend is upon us in the Bay Area, and I'll let my rainbow flag fly for those who did not have the rights I chose actively not to exercise. And Fausty, just for you: I have this T-shirt - link is mildly NSFW because I haven't yet found any resolution to the argument you have not presented... so instead I'll just represent.
Oh god damnit - that is a seriously rockin' t-shirt and I must have!
(Admittedly, some of the anatomy and positioning isn't quite right but I suspect 99.9% of folks looking at it won't be bothered by such details 8) ).
This one might work, as well:
Peace,
Fausty
Mariposa
Bluelight Crew
Fausty said:Oh god damnit - that is a seriously rockin' t-shirt and I must have!
Haha. True story. I was at a bar (straight bar that allows cigarettes to be smoked inside; rarity in my area) and I saw a guy wearing the shirt. I said I MUST KNOW WHERE YOU GOT THIS SHIRT and he told me. I ordered it the following week. I've had it for a few months. Turns out two of my friends already have the damn shirt. I actually got mad when I thought I was being original when this woman my boyfriend's former roommate used to fuck told me she had the shirt too. I was LIVID! I thought I was original. Turns out I wasn't.
But I have a variation relating to "My Little Pony" in mind. That should properly shock someone in this damned liberal town, or at least it will piss off the latents. Back on topic now. The ruling is what it is and not even banga can be "fukt" to destroy it. Pride Weekend is upon us... and I remain an unmarried woman in love and partnership with an unmarried man. It's all about choice at the end of the day.
Free love still exists in San Francisco.
Kalash
Bluelighter
Mariposa said:
I think everything political has been simplified in mind because of my situation.
I can see your point about bringing my arguments here, but this is another issue that involves me emotionally.
I swear I was the only gay person at pride that wasn't happy about the Obama stickers and marriage rights celebration.
It depressed me - seeing only how far society has fallen from its goals of personal liberty.
Everything should be broken down to the view of "what's a right and what's a privilege?"
Everything.
From taxes to marriage to war.
How can a country that claims that all men/women/etc. have a right to life wage an aggressive war against a nation, depriving citizens of that nation their right to life?
Our government has lost its collective mind.
Mariposa
Bluelight Crew
^No harm done. I continue to wish you the best.
I went to the Pride celebration in SF today... and, yes, Fausty, I wore the shirt with the unicorns and rainbow on it. I'll send a pic. There were many same sex couples dressed in suits (or wedding gowns) carrying "Just Married" signs and that made our day bigtime. It was very uplifting to see people exercising rights that they should have had all along.
Kalash, I've just got to agree to disagree with you on the "existence of authority" thing - I respect your opinion, but you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion in that I believe that the system succeeds far more often than it fails and its absence would cause further problems in addition to failing to solve existing ones. Again, we'll agree to disagree, and I respect your right to your beliefs. It is not a perfect world; order and organization are necessary, and walking away from the issue is avoidance; not reform.
I continue to wish you the best.I went to the Pride celebration in SF today... and, yes, Fausty, I wore the shirt with the unicorns and rainbow on it.
I'll send a pic. There were many same sex couples dressed in suits (or wedding gowns) carrying "Just Married" signs and that made our day bigtime. It was very uplifting to see people exercising rights that they should have had all along.Kalash, I've just got to agree to disagree with you on the "existence of authority" thing - I respect your opinion, but you and I have a fundamental difference of opinion in that I believe that the system succeeds far more often than it fails and its absence would cause further problems in addition to failing to solve existing ones. Again, we'll agree to disagree, and I respect your right to your beliefs. It is not a perfect world; order and organization are necessary, and walking away from the issue is avoidance; not reform.
i also attended part of the pride event today. i wasn't able to stay as long as i would have liked but, like mariposa, it made me feel proud to live in a city where gay people are able to marry the one they love.
i'll leave it to the governor - arnold schwarzenegger (in his message to the festival) - for my sign off: "there is no room for intolerance in our golden state..."
alasdair
i'll leave it to the governor - arnold schwarzenegger (in his message to the festival) - for my sign off: "there is no room for intolerance in our golden state..."
alasdair
SvnLyrBrto
Bluelighter
> i'll leave it to the governor - arnold schwarzenegger (in his message
> to the festival) - for my sign off: "there is no room for intolerance
> in our golden state..."
I saw that too. My jaw damn near hit the ground from the irony and the sheer amount of gall of him making a statement like that; considering that he's fought against equal rights for gays every step of the way.
Also strange to see the SFPD there with a recruiting table... as if white night never happened... the chutzpah is astounding in and of itself. Even more astounding that the Pride committee let them have the (very primely located) space.
Other than that... good times.
cya,
john
> to the festival) - for my sign off: "there is no room for intolerance
> in our golden state..."
I saw that too. My jaw damn near hit the ground from the irony and the sheer amount of gall of him making a statement like that; considering that he's fought against equal rights for gays every step of the way.
Also strange to see the SFPD there with a recruiting table... as if white night never happened... the chutzpah is astounding in and of itself. Even more astounding that the Pride committee let them have the (very primely located) space.
Other than that... good times.
cya,
john
yep - i thought it was pretty hypocritical but the sentiment is what i was going for
alasdair
alasdair