Homosexual Judge Refuses To Officiate Straight Marriages

[4588686]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1330483035' post='2394328']
How does that contradict my alleged libertarianism?
[/quote]
[url="http://www.lp.org/platform"]http://www.lp.org/platform[/url]
[list]
[*]Section 1.3 "Personal Relationships":
[/list] [i]Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."[/i][list]
[*]Section 3.5 "Rights and Discrimination"
[/list] [i]We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.[/i]

[kujo]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=4]Gotta say that Hasan is dead-on here, and has argued [color=#000000]more effectively [/color][color=#000000]than anyone I've ever seen argue this subject. I could definitely do without the gory, sarcastic bits [/color][color=#000000]mocking the Eucharist, though.[/color][/size][/font]

[4588686]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1330501521' post='2394407']
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Gotta say that Hasan is dead-on here, and has argued [color=#000000]more effectively [/color][color=#000000]than anyone I've ever seen argue this subject. I could definitely do without the gory, sarcastic bits [/color][color=#000000]mocking the Eucharist, though.[/color][/font]
[/quote]

I feel bad about that for the many individuals who did not make offensive claims about the real motives of gay couples but still read a somewhat abrasive description of Catholic dogma. I think was legitimate, though. I think that the dogma of the Eucharist is silly. I don't *want* anyone to believe things that I think are obviously false. But we don't live in a democracy. Even if 51% of the population agreed with me it would make no difference. One of the great things about a liberal representative government is that he has no need to convince me to WANT him to believe these things that I find so false. His right to hold them is totally independent of my wants. Just like gay couples should have no need to convince him to want them to get married.

I was just trying to drive that point home. But I apologize if I did it in a way that you and other people were offended by.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1330489659' post='2394379']
[url="http://www.lp.org/platform"]http://www.lp.org/platform[/url][list]
[*]Section 1.3 "Personal Relationships":
[/list]
[i]Sexual orientation, preference, gender, or gender identity should have no impact on the government's treatment of individuals, such as in current marriage, child custody, adoption, immigration or military service laws. Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships. Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships."[/i][list]
[*]Section 3.5 "Rights and Discrimination"
[/list]
[i]We condemn bigotry as irrational and repugnant. Government should not deny or abridge any individual's rights based on sex, wealth, race, color, creed, age, national origin, personal habits, political preference or sexual orientation. Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children according to their own standards and beliefs.[/i]
[/quote]
Libertarian is the party. I don't base my libertarianism on a political party.

Nonetheless, I can't see how acknowledging that interventionism turns personal sins into issues that end up changing an entire society. Our attempt to criminalize vice, and to put legal barriers up regarding marriage have made these issues public policy issues. I doubt homosexuality would be seen as a lifstyle, and that it would have risen to the level it holds in public discourse had government not passed laws against it, or had the courts enter into marriage agreements through the marriage permission system.

In other words, social conservatives who believe in these laws made this problem they're so upset about.

Edited February 29, 2012 by Winchester

[eagle_eye222001]

[i][color=#ff0000]Analogies are flawed by definition. They are meant to get a certain characteristic across, but an analogy does break down at some point. The point is not to look at where it breaks down, but to where it works to understand a point. [/color]

No, they are not. Refutation by logical analogy is a valid technique of argument. Some analogies are flawed, but there are not definitionally so.
[url="http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Refutation%20by%20Logical%20Analogy.pdf"]http://www.uta.edu/p...l%20Analogy.pdf[/url][/i]







[b] a·nal·o·gy[/b]

[color=#333333][font=verdana][size=3][left]  [/left][/size][/font][/color][color=#333333][font=verdana][size=3][left] [font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][font=Georgia, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]uh[/i][/font]-nal-[font=Georgia, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]uh[/i][/font]-jee[/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]][/font] [url=""]Show IPA[/url][/left][/size][/font][/color]

[color=#333333][font=verdana][size=3][left][size=1]
[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][b][i]noun, [/i][/b][/size][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=3][b][i]plural [/i][/b][/size][/font][size=3][b]-gies.[/b][/size][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=1]
[color=#7B7B7B][b][color=#333333]1.[/color][/b][/color][font=verdana][size=1]
a similarity between like features of two things, on [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which"]which[/url] acomparison may be based: [font=Georgia, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]the analogy between the heart anda pump.[/i][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=1]
[color=#7B7B7B][b]2.[/b][/color][font=verdana][size=1]
similarity or comparability: [font=Georgia, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]I see no analogy between yourproblem and mine.[/i][/font][/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=1]
[color=#7B7B7B][b]3.[/b][/color][font=verdana][size=1]
[font=Georgia, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]Biology [/i][/font]. an analogous relationship.[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=1]
[color=#7B7B7B][b]4.[/b][/color][font=verdana][size=1]
[font=Georgia, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]Linguistics [/i][/font].
[color=#7B7B7B][b][color=#333333]a.[/color][/b][/color]
the process by which words or [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phrases"]phrases[/url] are created orre-formed according to existing patterns in the[url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/language"]language[/url], as when [font=Georgia, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]shoon [/i][/font] was re-formed as [font=Georgia, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]shoes, [/i][/font] when[font=Georgia, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]-ize [/i][/font] is added to [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nouns"]nouns[/url] like [font=Georgia, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]winter [/i][/font] to form [url="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/verbs"]verbs[/url], orwhen a child says [font=Georgia, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]foots [/i][/font] for [font=Georgia, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]feet.[/i][/font]
[color=#7B7B7B][b]b.[/b][/color]
a form resulting from such a process.[/size][/font][/size][/font][font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][size=1]
[color=#7B7B7B][b]5.[/b][/color][font=verdana][size=1]
[font=Georgia, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][i]Logic [/i][/font]. a form of reasoning in which one thing is inferred to be similar to another thing in a certain respect, on the basisof the known similarity between the things in other respects.[/size][/font]

[/size][/font][/size][/left][/size][/font][/color]

_____

I am paying attention to the word "similarity."


[i][color=#ff0000]So what rights can a gay couple not get via a lawyer?[/color][/i]

[i]The right to marry. [/i]


Perhaps I should have phrased that as "what benefits can a gay couple not get from a lawyer." In either case, the point of the lawyer is that gay couples can get visitation rights, and other such things. Trying to redefine marriage is not their only route.



[i][color=#ff0000]Marriage isn't a constitutional right to begin with. I would argue It's in the government's favor and best interest to promote heterosexual marriage, but it's not an inherent right. [/color]

The Constitution is intended to enumerate the rights of the government, not the people. Hence the 9th Amendment. That alone, would make your argument difficult. But the USSC has explicitly stated that marriage is in fact a right. Loving v. Virginia comes to mind here. If the states are going to be in the business of recognizing marriage and conferring benefits on married couples then they have to pass a fairly strict standard in order to introduce discrimination into who can and cannot be married.[/i]

Ah, yes. So perhaps marriage is a civil right.

However from reading Loving v. Virginia, one can legitimately and soundly be against gay marriage.

Below are two quotes from Loving v. Virginia concerning the freedom to marry.


[i]There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.[/i]
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Gay marriage is not fundamental to our existence or survival and there is a legitimate purpose in keeping the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman.



[i][color=#ff0000]Why does it not apply to animals? Is that in the Constitution? We make laws protecting certain animals....we could recognize an animal and a person if we wanted too. [/color]

It doesn't apply to animals because nothing constitutionally applies to animals. Animals have no rights under the Constitution. We can make laws protecting animals if we want to. We can say that we wish to introduce legal protections for them. But they don't have any constitutional rights. Animals are incapable of participating willfully in marital activity.[/i]






1. Define marital activity
2. Should marriage be restricted to meeting this criteria?



[i][color=#ff0000]Everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex after a certain age. That is not discrimination. A law saying one can marry someone of the same-sex would apply equally to heterosexual people as well as those with same-sex attraction. [/color]

This is the exact, and I do mean exact, same logic that was used to justify bans on interracial marriage. If this logic is apt then the state can ban interracial marriage. [/i]



The logic is apt, but the state decided there really was no reason to ban interracial marriage other than discrimination basis on color. The argument for gay marriage suffers in that gay sex does not lead to children. The only real purpose in for the state to recognize marriage is to secure a stable household for the development of the next generation. If marriage is not about making children for the next generation, then there is no real meaning to "marriage" and we can re-define it all we want.



[i][color=#ff0000]Where in this thread have I invoked the Constitution or my faith? Cite the post where I do so before making more straw-men. Again, gay marriage is not in the Constitution, so it's not a "right." If this country decided to recognize gay marriage it would be a new right, not an old one.[/color]

You are telling me that your opposition to gay marriage has nothing to do with your religion?[/i]


What part of my arguments depend on my explicit faith?



[i][color=#ff0000]If you want to discuss the matter, then discuss the matter. Attacking my character and using fun potty words does not add to the discussion and does not add to your argument. What I say is my opinion, true. That doesn't logically make it irrelevant though.[/color]

I did not attack your character. What I did point out, however, is that what you 'want' does not matter. Nobody needs to convince you that you should *want* gay people to get married. Just like nobody needs to convince me that I should *want* you to be able to participate in a ritual whereby you believe that bread and wine suddenly becomes the real, true flesh and blood of Christ. You right to hold that belief is wholly and totally independent of whether or not I want you to exercise it. [/i]



Whether I believe in a spiritual belief such as the Real Presence, does not directly impact society. Marriage is an issue that affects the whole society.

[i][url="http://www.cpaulsmith.com/2007/09/26/traditional-marriage-is-best-for-rearing-children/"][color=#ff0000]http://www.cpaulsmit...aring-children/[/color][/url]

[url="http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/DaileyGayAdopt.php"][color=#ff0000]http://www.orthodoxy...leyGayAdopt.php[/color][/url]

[url="http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02"][color=#ff0000]http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02[/color][/url]

[color=#ff0000]These three links have extensive information on the data on child-raising, and the health of relationships. They also deal with some studies that claim same-sex parents are as equal as a heterosexual couple. [/color]

Those sources do not qualify as a scientific study. I'm talking about peer reviewed literature from serious scholars. [/i]



AKA, you don't want to spend time reading it. Obviously you get to define what qualifies as "serious."


[i]Moreover your argument is still deeply flawed. The government doesn't use statistic to determine which heterosexual couples are more or less fit for marriage and limit the avaliability of marriage liscences based on those results. Inter-racial marriage tend to be less stable
[url="http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/marriage/data/sipp/interracial-instability.pdf"]http://www.census.go...instability.pdf[/url]

There are also different rates of child abuse and neglect depending on demographic and socioeconomic factors of households.[/i]



The difference is not that much. Besides, the argument for heterosexual parenting comes from natural reason and law. Biologically, two opposite sex people come together in a commitment and raise children in this structure. This is natural and not based on statistics. Two opposite sex people cannot have children.....



[i][color=#ff0000]If you can't civilly discuss the matter, then don't discuss it. It's not my fault two people of the same-sex can't have children. Also this thread is about gay marriage, not about raising children, which are technically two different issues. [/color]

Then stop introducing procreation. You're the one who keeps trying to sneak that in as a disqualifying standard. And I think I was civil to you until this post where you were decidedly uncivil to gay people in relationships. [/i]



Procreation is vital to understanding marriage. Take pro-creation out of marriage, and there is no reason to stringently define it.

How was I uncivil?


[i][color=#ff0000]Opposition to gay marriage is not bullying.


[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][b] bullyingpresent participle of bul·ly[/b]

Verb: Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.

It would be successfully argued that the gay movement is bullying the religious right by forcing citizens to recognize certain new rights. [/font][/color]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]No, that would be asinine. Nobody is trying to force the religious right to abandon their personal faith that gay sexual relationships are wrong. You are, however, and have historically, tried to use the force of law and numbers to curb homosexual rights. [/font][/i]



Wrong.
The government is actively in the process of forcing religious people to abandon their faith.

[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/illinois-bishops-announce-shutdown-of-adoption-services/"]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/illinois-bishops-announce-shutdown-of-adoption-services/[/url]

[url="http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/same-sex_marriage_law_forces_d.c._catholic_charities_to_close_adoption_program/"]http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/same-sex_marriage_law_forces_d.c._catholic_charities_to_close_adoption_program/[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=19017"]http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=19017[/url]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]And need I link an article on the HSS Mandate?[/font]

[font="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"]The Senate just voted against an exemption.[/font]

[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Religious people are being bullied.[/font]



[i][color=#FF0000][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Since the argument for gay marriage is based on intimidation and influence (after all same-sex attraction was removed as a disorder not on scientific grounds but politic pressure), and there is no Constitution "right" to appeal to, I have yet to hear a comprehensive logical argument for why gay marriage should be recognized. Saying something is a "right" doesn't make it a right. It has to be explained.[/font][/color][/i]

[left][i][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I have. Marriage is a right (Loving v. Virginia, [color=#000000]Zablocki V. Redhail, Turner v. Safley)[/color][/font][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]. If states are going to discriminate between who can and cannot be married then you need compelling reasons. [/font][/i][/left]



[left][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Already adressed.[/font][/left]



[left][i][color=#FF0000]Where do I attack your friend's character? For the record, I don't hate people who experience same-sex attraction. However it is wrong to encourage behavior that is overall detrimental to one's well being, and society's structure.[/color][/i][/left]

[i][color=#000000]The gay movement is not about their ability to live their lives with their partner, but for the [b]public worship [/b]of their actions and the financial benefit of marriage......of which that benefit is NOT meant as an arbitrary reason to give people money but rather to promote the building block of the next generation.[/color]

[color=#ff0000]If someone is pre-disposed to alcoholism, and we recognize alcoholism to be negative to one's health and to society's health, then one should not just say "do whatever you want." We should treat the person with dignity and respect while charitably not promoting destructive behavior. [/color]

And who says homosexual behavior is destructive? Could it be your religion?[/i]



Yes it could be, but my arguments against it do not rely on religious teachings.