CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Your arguments are so inane that they can't possibly be the real justification for your bigotry. You're basically either intellectually dishonest or a fool, and I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, you're not making it very easy for any of us.

Personally I think he is arguing the position of his religion but trying to do so without appealing to a supreme truth. Sadly, that doesn't work well in this type of argument. Ben had the same problem trying to argue natural rights in another thread. Tough to do without the belief in a higher power.

Summary, I don't think he is a fool but "intellectually dishonest" might fit.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
That's due process, not explicitly guarenteeing a right to life and liberty .

...but for the express purpose of protecting life, liberty and property.

[Theben]

I'm curious, Ben, if a woman had a straight marriage with children, got divorced and later sought a homosexual marriage, would you deny her? Or her children the benefits that come with a legal marriage? Would you say she is any less competent to raise her children after seeking a homosexual parntership?

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm curious, Ben, if a woman had a straight marriage with children, got divorced and later sought a homosexual marriage, would you deny her? Or her children the benefits that come with a legal marriage? Would you say she is any less competent to raise her children after seeking a homosexual parntership

1. It's not up to me to deny her. If you were to ask me I'd deny her the divorce, since it isn't in the best interest of the children.

That's the first issue here.

Secondly, I would have a huge problem with the divorce, unless there was a compelling reason for it, say abuse or lack of spousal support or abandonment. I would say she was hurting her children just through the divorce, regardless of what came after it.

[Asher]

1. It's not up to me to deny her. If you were to ask me I'd deny her the divorce, since it isn't in the best interest of the children.

Yes, having two parents who hate eachother but are staying together "for the children" is optimal.

[Q Classic]

I would actually think that what you label the second issue should be the first--wouldn't that be the critical factor as to whether the woman gets a divorce?

Regardless of what came afterwards?

Or is it because you're so anti-gay that the possibility she was a lesbian was more important?

Let's couple that with the fact that continual denial of the self isn't always healthy. What would the children learn in a toxic environment, that it's okay to hate yourself and live with a person you do not care for, simply to fit in better with society?

Isn't that the sort of self-repression that leads to people like Larry Craig?

[Ben Kenobi]

Personally I think he is arguing the position of his religion but trying to do so without appealing to a supreme truth. Sadly, that doesn't work well in this type of argument. Ben had the same problem trying to argue natural rights in another thread. Tough to do without the belief in a higher power.

It's a secular argument I am making here, and yes, it's like fighting with gloves on. It's not intellectually dishonest, but it is a requirement of the terms of the debate.

What is dishonest is immediately tossing out arguments that you feel appeal to 'religion' when they don't mention it at all. I don't mind debating under these terms, but please don't accuse me of intellectual dishonesty when I try to accommodate you.

[Wezil]

I appreciate that you understand a religious argument will be unconvincing. What you fail to understand is that the same argument without the religious trappings appears even more foolish.

You are making it difficult.

[Ben Kenobi]

Gay marriage will not have any significant effect on reproduction; the human race has a compulsion to reproduce and making gay marriage legal won't change that. Even if it did, you seem to assume that population growth is an unqualified good in this age of world overpopulation and diminishing resources.

It's not going to increase reproduction. It will depress the marriage rates, and fewer people are going to get married.

Yes, I do believe that it is an unqualified good to have more people in the world, and I think that there is a very serious population control movement out there that would see nothing better then getting rid of as many people as possible. This is just one step among many to achieve this goal.

Sure it is. Most people in California are Christian, and most people in California are bigots.

You disagree with me, which is fine. I don't call you names because I believe you honestly disagree with me. I am simply trying to show you another valid argument which comes to a different conclusion.

I don't believe it is bigotry to disagree, and I hope you don't feel that way either. Neither is every man and woman in California who disagrees with you is a bigot.

[Ben Kenobi]

I would actually think that what you label the second issue should be the first--wouldn't that be the critical factor as to whether the woman gets a divorce?

To me the most important issue is the divorce.

Let's couple that with the fact that continual denial of the self isn't always healthy. What would the children learn in a toxic environment, that it's okay to hate yourself and live with a person you do not care for, simply to fit in better with society?

All marriages have rough patches. It's important that the children, girls and boys have their father. You might not see that or agree with me, but it is important to them. In a divorce, you are rejecting that role and you are hurting them no matter what.

Yes, it's difficult, but from their perspective, they had no choice. They don't get to pick their moms and dads. Yet you are the one getting hurt here for something that had nothing to do with you.

Isn't that the sort of self-repression that leads to people like Larry Craig?

Self-denial is essential in any marriage. Giving yourself is a huge part of being a parent and a spouse.

[Asher]

Ben: You're not a bigot because you disagree, you're a bigot because you're using your PERSONAL, unobjective viewpoints to impose pain on others, directly or indirectly. You're a bigot because you're unreasonable, tremendously selfish, and completely ignorant about the real world around you. You're a bigot because you think your lifestyle should be the lifestyle of everyone else, even though yours is easily the most sad out of everyone here.

Don't pretend you're not a bigot because you act polite. It's dishonest. It's a waste of everyone's time.

Self-denial is essential in any marriage.

That is easily the most obvious reason why so many republicans are closet homosexuals that have sex in public restrooms.

It's a sure-fire way to **** yourself up psychologically and a sure-fire way to raise equally ****ed up kids. Kids deserve to be raised in a loving environment, not an environment filled with self-repression and disdain.

Thank God it's highly unlikely you'll ever have kids...

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
1. It's not up to me to deny her. If you were to ask me I'd deny her the divorce, since in my opinion it isn't in the best interest of the children.

Deleted the rest b/c you just repeated yourself. Also note my fixing of your quote- with all the talk of intellectual (dis)honesty floating about.

Main point is: you dodged the question. Could you answer it please?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's a secular argument I am making here, and yes, it's like fighting with gloves on. It's not intellectually dishonest, but it is a requirement of the terms of the debate.

You'd honestly be more respectable if you took the gloves off, said "I don't agree with this because I think it's immoral," and left it at that. The difference is that you're entitled to your own religious beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own logic.

What is dishonest is immediately tossing out arguments that you feel appeal to 'religion' when they don't mention it at all. I don't mind debating under these terms, but please don't accuse me of intellectual dishonesty when I try to accommodate you.

What's wrong with calling a spade a spade? Why do we have to take everything you say at face value when it's pretty apparent that you have other motives?

Yes, I do believe that it is an unqualified good to have more people in the world, and I think that there is a very serious population control movement out there that would see nothing better then getting rid of as many people as possible. This is just one step among many to achieve this goal.

Three things are absurd here:

Firstly, that uncontrolled population growth is an unqualified good thing. The earth's resources are not infinite. It's absurd to suggest that having more people is an unqualified good, considering the war, hunger, and disease that can be directly traced to overpopulation. It's immoral to be pro-uncontrolled growth.

Secondly, that the anti-growth movement wants to "get rid" of people, as if we're going to just murder people to get things down to size. I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but the inference is there.

Thirdly, that gay marriage has anything to do with NPG or any other anti-growth movement. There is no vast left-wing conspiracy to decrease population growth by letting gay people marry each other; there is no demonstrated connection between those things anyway.

I don't believe it is bigotry to disagree, and I hope you don't feel that way either. Neither is every man and woman in California who disagrees with you is a bigot.

It's not about me, Ben. People who think other people should be denied basic rights are bigots. It doesn't matter if the source of that objection is religious, or economic, or social. There were people that objected to civil rights for Blacks on all those grounds; an appeal to God or the public good has no bearing on the fact that it's a bigoted stance.

[Theben]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
All marriages have rough patches. It's important that the children, girls and boys have their father. You might not see that or agree with me, but it is important to them. In a divorce, you are rejecting that role and you are hurting them no matter what.

Yes, it's difficult, but from their perspective, they had no choice. They don't get to pick their moms and dads. Yet you are the one getting hurt here for something that had nothing to do with you.

My parents divorced, and yes it was a very rough period in my life. But the truth of the matter is it would've been much worse for everyone involved had they stayed married.

And my father was (and is) still in my life.

[Ben Kenobi]

Main point is: you dodged the question. Could you answer it please?

You need to answer one for me. Is her desire to be in a lesbian relationship her justification for divorce?