7
   

Gay Marriage & Conflict Resolution

 
 
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 03:11 pm
@joefromchicago,
Dear joefromchicago,

In reply to your post of 6/17/10:

Quote:
"OK, so you'd be in favor gay marriages as long as they are sham gay marriages."

If that's what people want when the real thing is unavailable to them, yes, but I doubt that they would agree with you that they are sham marriages. But how about you? With your use of the word "sham" are you implying that we should not permit such marriages?

Quote:
"Likewise, Prop 8 didn't establish any kind of cultural institution,..."

No, it just confirmed its validity.

Quote:
"Sexual perversion'' is a loaded term.

So are "lies" and "homophobia", but I'm not sure what your conclusion is.

Quote:
"Surely there are some practices that may deviate from the norm on a bell-curve distribution, but I'm not sure if we gain anything by calling those practices 'perverted.'"

To repeat, do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

Regards,

Jack

failures art
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 04:02 pm
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"Perhaps an even simpler question is to ask if you expect the law to protect your rights?"

Yes, and yours too. In general terms, every one has the right to marry any one person of the opposite sex who will accept him/her.

We have now established that you expect equal protection of the law.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"Do you believe in the protection of speech you do not approve of?"

It depends on the nature of the speech and the circumstances.

What nature of speech or context would not fall under the protection of free speech? If you are talking about yelling fire in a theater, we do not need to sidetrack here. If you are referring to another type of speech that should not be protected, please clarify.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"Can a culture show disapproval to certain types of speech (racism etc) without banning it?"

Yes, it can be disapproved but tolerated without legally banning it.

We have now established that you understand that the use of authority is unnecessary to disapprove of something culturally.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"Why is it necessary to ban homosexuals from marrying to convey your disapproval?"

Because, as it stands now, we either institutionalize --meaning approve of-- a sexual perversion or not.

You did not answer my question. I asked why it is NECESSARY.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"Are you incapable of disapproving without legal obstruction?"

Yes; it's called toleration. We tolerate homosexual marriages as private ceremonies but disapprove of them as part of the current cultural institution.

Private ceremonies for gay marriages would be cultural institutions still. You're contradicting yourself.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"I believe you're attempting to assert that the issue of marriage hinges on some sort of definition of sexual perversion."

One of the issues. That's true.

You've yet to defend the assertion that homosexuality is (1) a sexual perversion, and (2) that if it was how the issue would hinge upon this.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"Any restriction on individual rights and liberties must demonstrate a compelling NECESSITY."

And who determines that compelling necessity?

In a legal sense, our government. They compose, enforce, and interpret the laws based on real needs.

In a cultural sense, each individual to themselves. You may find it very important for you to not marry another man, however you can't project that upon another individual.

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"You've not justified how discussing sexual perversion is applicable to this topic."

I'm claiming that homosexuality is a sexual perversion and for that reason people don't consider it a proper basis for marriage.

What do you consider to be my error?

Your errors:

1) That legal obstruction of same sex marriages does not prohibit the establishment of cultural institutions, it only prohibits couples from obtaining a legal status.
2) That the majority has the right to impose regulation on minorities without establishing a compelling necessity.

We established that you expect equal protection of the law, but you have assumed a position contrary to your stated view on this.

We established that you can disapprove of idea/institution without banning it, and yet you choose to support the banning of same sex marriage. How do you pick and choose when to violate your stated value?

jackowens wrote:

Quote:
"You very much have the legal ability to get married regardless of approval of others, and your marriage (approved of or otherwise will retain all of the rights and privileges that come with it from the state."

I'm not sure who the "you" you're talking about is, but you seem to be saying that same sex couples can legally marry in California. Do you really consider that to be factually true? If so, how can you be shown to be mistaken?

I don't know if you're intentionally being difficult on this point, or if you just don't get it.

Jack and Jill get engaged.
Neither Jack's parents or Jill's parents approve of the engagement.
None of their friends approve of the engagement.
Strangers on the street see them, and do not approve of the engagement.

Does the disapproval of their relationship inhibit their legal ability to get married? Yes.
If they get married will they have the same legal status (rights & privileges) as other married couples? Yes.
Jack and Jill are sexual perverts. They like to **** in each others mouth. Daily.

Now you disapprove of Bert and Ernie getting married.
Why should your disapproval void Bert and Ernie's ability to legally marry while it doesn't void Jack and Jill's?

A
R
This is your ethical problem.
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 04:05 pm
@Thomas,
Dear Thomas,

In reply to your post of 6/17/10:

Quote:
"By analogy, why should California's citizenry have a vote when the marriage is between a Mr. Loving and a Mr. Loving?"

I don't think they should, since Mr. and Mrs. Loving were not involved in a sexual perversion.

Do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

Quote:
"The law doesn't care--and neither does it need to care if you marry a man and people disapprove of that marriage."

(Jack:) "How is that decided?"

Quote:
"By adhering to the due-process and free-exercise clauses of the 14th Amendment."

Homosexuals have the same rights that I do: they can marry any one person of the opposite sex who will accept them. Beyond that, they can arrange a private, same-sex marriage at their convenience.

Quote:
"a) How do old heterosexual couples support the institution of marriage in any way that homosexual couples wouldn't?"

In contrast to homosexuals the marriage of heterosexuals doesn't involve the institutionalizing of a sexual perversion.

Quote:
"b) exactly how is homosexuality unnatural?"

Homo sapiens has a reproductive system that is sexual . It doesn't work unless there is a union of a male and female. Two members of the same sex can't mate.

Quote:
"Would you therefore say that Virginia was entitled to criminalize interracial marriage?"

No. But what has that to do with now and sexual perversions?

Quote:
"d) Once a heterosexual couple is too old to reproduce anymore, they no longer have a reproductive drive---just a drive to have sex. This puts them exactly on par with homosexuals."

That's not quite true. Heterosexual couples are not involved in a sexual perversion and they support our current cultural institution of marriage.

Quote:
"So, if civil marriage was abolished for both gay and straight couples, would you be satisfied?"

No. That would be conducive to illegitimacy which we have enough of already.

jackowens wrote: And can't pretty much the same can be said of homosexual marriages: under what tradition of law can homosexuals marry?

Quote:
"Under the tradition of law that prohibits discrimination."

I haven't heard of a law which prohibits discrimination of any kind and you haven't either.

(Jack:) "Would you legally ban bestial marriages?"

"I would void them because marriages are contracts, and nonhuman animals are unable to enter into contracts of any kind---including marriage."

But would you prohibit them?

Regards,

Jack
failures art
 
  4  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 04:10 pm
@jackowens,
What make same sex marriage a sexual perversion? Specifically.

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 05:50 pm
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:
Do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

As long as all participants in the sex are consenting, mentally competent grown-ups---no, I don't.

jackowens wrote:
Homosexuals have the same rights that I do: they can marry any one person of the opposite sex who will accept them.

By the same token, the Lovings in Virginia had all the rights that everybody else did: Mr. Loving could marry any one person of the same race (white) who would accept him. Likewise, Mrs. Loving could marry any one person of the same race (black) who would accept her. Under the 14th Amendment, such "separate but equal" rights to marry aren't good enough to count as equal.

jackowens wrote:
In contrast to homosexuals the marriage of heterosexuals doesn't involve the institutionalizing of a sexual perversion.

No legal, medical, or otherwise relevant authority considers homosexuality a perversion anymore.

jackowens wrote:
Quote:
"b) exactly how is homosexuality unnatural?"

Homo sapiens has a reproductive system that is sexual . It doesn't work unless there is a union of a male and female. Two members of the same sex can't mate.

Homosexuals most certainly can mate. If you don't believe it, perhaps you want to rent some gay porn for evidence. They just can't get pregnant---but then again, neither can elderly heterosexuals. On top of being able to mate, homosexual couples can live together, love each other, adopt children, raise those children in a nourishing environment, and do all the other things that families do. Homosexual relations, just as heterosexual ones, are about so much more than just the sex. Your prurient urge to reduce them to just this one aspect does not do those relationships any justice at all.

jackowens wrote:
Quote:
"Would you therefore say that Virginia was entitled to criminalize interracial marriage?"

No. But what has that to do with now and sexual perversions?

Again, by what standard is homosexuality a sexual perversion? The truth of your assertion isn't decided by how often you repeat it. It's decided by the evidence you provide for it---which is zero.

jackowens wrote:
Quote:
"So, if civil marriage was abolished for both gay and straight couples, would you be satisfied?"

No. That would be conducive to illegitimacy which we have enough of already.

But if there's no marriage anymore, out-of-wedlock children are no longer illegitimate. The illegitimacy rate would be zero!

jackowens wrote:
Would you legally ban bestial marriages?"
Thomas wrote:
"I would void them because marriages are contracts, and nonhuman animals are unable to enter into contracts of any kind---including marriage."
jackowens wrote:
But would you prohibit them?

No, because I couldn't. You cannot prohibit what doesn't exist. And a contract between a human and a non-human animal does not exist.
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 05:51 pm
@failures art,
Dear failures art,

In reply to your post of 6/17/10:

Quote:
"I don't know if you're intentionally being difficult on this point, or if you just don't get it."

I guess with that "don't get it" remark we're going to have to go back to my first post of 6/14/10 where I suggested a flooring for our exchange that would permit us to weed out errors in our respective posts and labeled that suggestion "A".

Permit me to repeat it here:

A. Since there must --and I emphasize must-- be an error in contradictory propositions, we must have test-criteria for identifying it (or them). To get away from subjectivity, I suggest that we limit those test-criteria to fallacies and contradictions, nothing more. In other words, neither you nor I will be accused of being involved in an error unless it be a fallacy or a contradiction. And, regarding fallacies, the word is all too frequently used loosely. Fallacies have names. If the accusation of being guilty of using a fallacy is made, a) the name of the fallacy and b) how it is being applied will be given. Otherwise the only test-criterion of error will be contradictions.

In my second post of 6/14/10 I pointed out that you didn't address "A" to which, in your post of 6/14/10, you accused me of "attempting to dictate the terms in which this topic is discussed".

In my post of 6/15/10 I pointed out that I was simply trying to nail down an agreed-on method for arriving at a resolution of the controversy over homosexual marriage and that some things are taken for granted but that in this controversy we need to make sure that we're in agreement as to what they are.

From there "A", my attempt to make our discussion a bit more methodical, seems to have fallen off the table. Now, with your attempt to make "don't get it" some sort of test-criterion for error, I'd like to get back to "A" to attempt to determine what we're going to use as test-criteria for error. Frankly I don't find your saying I "don't get it" an acceptable substitute for accusing me of being involved in a fallacy or contradiction. So before being able to deal adequately with the points in your present post I would like to settle, by precedence, the neglected business of test-criteria for error given in "A".

Do you agree with my suggested "A" or do you find it faulty?

Regards,

Jack


jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 06:20 pm
@Thomas,
Dear Thomas,

In reply to your post of 6/17/10:

It looks like this is going to get sticky, so before I waste both your time and mine, let's try to put a flooring under this discussion. If we can come to an agreement methodologically, that will increase the probabilities of our arriving at an agreement regarding how to resolve the homosexual marriage controversy factually, rationally and fairly.

Here's my suggestion:

1. First, we both admit that we can be mistaken; that we may be involved in an error.

1. The exchange is to be cooperative. We each have the right to pose questions to the other with the expectation that an answer will be forthcoming. And, if the question takes a "yes" or "no" answer, it will be given or an explanation of why it can't be answered with a "yes" or "no" will be given. No evasiveness. I might point out that this avoidance of giving a "yes"/"no" answer and instead getting into detailed obliquities and tangentialities is almost a standard procedure. In fact the avoidance of "yes" or "no" answers, resulting in confusion and inconclusiveness, is probably the chief obstacle to making progress in arriving at a solution to this controversy. .

3. Since there must be an error in contradictory propositions, we must have test-criteria for identifying it (or them). To get away from subjectivity, and in the interest of simplicity, I suggest that we limit those test-criteria to fallacies and contradictions, nothing more. In other words, neither you nor I will be accused of being involved in an error unless it be a fallacy or a contradiction. And, regarding fallacies, the word is all too frequently used loosely. Fallacies have names. If the accusation of being guilty of using a fallacy is made, a) the name of the fallacy and b) how it is being applied will be given. Otherwise the only test-criterion of error will be contradictions.

4. Errors are to be sought on both sides of the issue. Progress will consist in seeking, identifying, agreeing on and discarding them. They will not be left inconclusive to clog up the exchange

5. There will be no unilateral control of the discussion, something that, sooner or later, Gay Liberation ideologues seek. There will be no trying to dictate what points will or will not be discussed.

6. If there is a disagreement as to how the matter should be approached, we divide the discussion into two, separate approaches gone into concurrently and, using those differing approaches, try to identify errors. There will be no attempt at unilaterally controling approaches for the purpose of prohibiting the use of any approach unless that approach can be shown to involve the one using it in a fallacy or contradiction.

The reason for getting into the above in such detail is that it has been my experience that those points seem to come up inevitably after one has spent quite a bit of time going over the matter. When there is really no agreed-on method for resolving the controversy one then finds that what one is involved in, as mentioned above, is a quarrel rather than a pro/con argument in search of a resolving truth.

Can we agree on the above?

Regards,

Jack
Thomas
 
  4  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 06:30 pm
@jackowens,
Here's a counter-proposals, Jack Owens: If you have specific complaints about specific answers I have given, by all means articulate them as they come up. I make no promises to accomodate you in the future, but I'll do my best.

Beyond that, I'm unwilling to subject myself to the rulebook you're throwing at me. If you ask around in the A2K community, people will confirm to you that it's unnecessary. With or without formal rules, I discuss issues with civility and fairness, and I do change my mind when confronted with good evidence. Therefore your quasi-legal approach to discussions strikes me as gratuitous, obtrusive, and quite frankly, somewhat insulting. So, no deal on the rulebook.
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 07:57 pm
@jackowens,
I'll take the moment to address your "A" but I'd greatly appriciate your reply to the growing list of questions addressed to you.

Your fallacy is the petitio principii, or "begging the question," while I've already explained the fault in your logic, apparently you're being stubborn about us using formal titles for the name of the fallacy. All this extra work, for what?

You are begging the question by using false or unestablished premises in your argument. These false premises have been brought to your attention numerous times by myself and other posters.

The big ones are (again):

1) That this issue hinges on the issue of some notion of sexual perversion.
2) That permitting civil marriage to same sex couples is cultural approval of homosexual relationships
3) That homosexuality and sexual intercourse between same sex couples are culturally a singular entity.

Your other fallacy I pointed out many posts ago. Your argumentum ad populum about the people of California voting. No amount of people can vote that 1=3, and if they did vote, it wouldn't make 1=3. Populist arguments are a fallacious. The majority is not required to be informed, reasonable, or logical.

A
R
T
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 09:24 pm
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:
If that's what people want when the real thing is unavailable to them, yes, but I doubt that they would agree with you that they are sham marriages. But how about you? With your use of the word "sham" are you implying that we should not permit such marriages?

No, I'm not implying that. Sham marriages can't be permitted because they can't be prohibited. And I can't imagine why anyone would care one way or the other.

jackowens wrote:
Quote:
"Likewise, Prop 8 didn't establish any kind of cultural institution,..."

No, it just confirmed its validity.

In what way?

jackowens wrote:
To repeat, do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

It's a useless term, so no, I don't believe there are such things as "sexual perversions."
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 09:27 pm
This reads like Foxy at her best.
joefromchicago
 
  2  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 09:30 pm
@ehBeth,
Nah, Foxfyre would be whining about how everyone was ganging up on her by now.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 09:32 pm
@joefromchicago,
it's only page 3 Cool
0 Replies
 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Jun, 2010 10:36 pm
I think the new members are refreshing. We are offered the opportunity to revisit some familiar topics with fresh faces.

(Foxy wasn't so much a legalist in her debates)

A
R
T
0 Replies
 
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 03:54 am
@failures art,
Dear failures art,

In reply to your post of 6/17/10:

Quote:
"I'll take the moment to address your 'A' but I'd greatly appriciate your reply to the growing list of questions addressed to you."

Pick out and give me what you consider to be the most pertinent question from that growing list.

Quote:
"You are begging the question by using false or unestablished premises in your argument."

Let's explore what's involved with that.

We start with our agreement that there are such things as sexual perversions. If I'm questioned as to what I mean by a "sexual perversion", my answer is that it is a misdirection of the reproductive drive.

What do you mean by "sexual perversion"?

And getting back to "A", do you find it acceptable methodologically or is it flawed?

Regards,

Jack
jackowens
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 04:11 am
@joefromchicago,
Dear joefromchicago,

In reply to your post of 6/17/10:

Quote:
"Sham marriages can't be permitted because they can't be prohibited."

That doesn't make sense. If they can't be permitted there must be some sort of prohibition that denies that permission.

What is my error?

jackowens wrote: Quote: "Likewise, Prop 8 didn't establish any kind of cultural institution,... it just confirmed its validity.

Quote:
"In what way?"

By the outcome of the vote.

jackowens wrote: To repeat, do you believe that there are such things as sexual perversions?

Quote:
"It's a useless term, so no, I don't believe there are such things as 'sexual perversions."

Do you believe that there are misdirections of Homo sapiens' reproductive drive?

Regards,

Jack

joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 07:43 am
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:
Quote:
"Sham marriages can't be permitted because they can't be prohibited."

That doesn't make sense. If they can't be permitted there must be some sort of prohibition that denies that permission.

What is my error?

Your error is in thinking that sham marriages can be permitted in the first place. There is no "permission" involved in getting sham married. The public authorities have no role in either permitting or prohibiting sham marriages, since such "marriages" have no civic function. "Permission" is an irrelevant concept when it comes to sham marriages.

jackowens wrote:
jackowens wrote: Quote: "Likewise, Prop 8 didn't establish any kind of cultural institution,... it just confirmed its validity.

Quote:
"In what way?"

By the outcome of the vote.

No, I mean, how did the vote on Prop 8 "confirm the validity" of a cultural institution? In other words, what does it mean for somebody to "confirm the validity" of something else?

jackowens wrote:
Do you believe that there are misdirections of Homo sapiens' reproductive drive?

If by "misdirection" you mean do people engage in non-procreative sex, then the answer is most certainly "yes."

Now, let me ask, do you believe that there are heterosexual "perversions?"
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 08:04 am
@jackowens,
Quote:
My vote would be to permit homosexuals to marry, which they already can and do, by means of their preferred procedure as long as others aren't obliged to approve of such marriages.


All I can say is that statement contradicts itself completely.

Marriage by it's nature is recognized by others. It requires registration with the state and requires legal action to end it. There is no such thing as a marriage without recognition and by that recognition comes tacit approval.

Quote:
My reasoning is that traditional marriage is an outgrowth of biology, anatomy, physiology, the obvious means by which Homo sapiens as a species is perpetuated and the fact that Homo sapiens has a sexual reproductive system rather than, say, a parthenogenetic or fissiparous one.
Your reasoning is based on your bias? What evidence do you have that marriage is an outgrowth of any of the things you listed. Basing your reasoning on something that can't be factually shown doesn't bode well for this thread.

I would guess this is going to be a thread where emotion is trying to hide behind reason but it won't hide very well.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 08:05 am
@jackowens,
Quote:

Yes they are. They're asking to have a sexual perversion institutionalized.


That didn't take long to show up.
0 Replies
 
William
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Jun, 2010 08:15 am
@jackowens,
jackowens wrote:
The exchange is to be cooperative. We each have the right to pose questions to the other with the expectation that an answer will be forthcoming.


Hi Jack, You want an answer? Ok, here it is. Homosexuality is a death sentence. How’s that for an answer! Now there are many death sentences to consider here. Death popularly means the “end of life” and that is from our viewpoint correct for it is not known what happens after that. You will never resolve the conflict, the behavior needs to disappear.

Two men can get along and love each other without plowing into each other’s sewer or a woman’s for that matter, either. Perhaps is just a boredom involved here in deciding just how many places there are to “PLOW INTO”. Damn! Let’s hope we do not resolve the conflict that will allow this “so called” marriage to be an overall standard accepted in the public domain. As I have said and will say again what two people choose to do in those private domains stays there provided no abuse to the young and naive are present in that private domain. Of course the laws say different and those laws are upheld by many who are participating in such RAM-IFICATIONS. If that behavior is not existent in that private domain and the two are of the same sex, it is extremely difficult to prove they are “just close friends” both seeking companionship with the opposite gender. Now if that were indeed the case then it would be less wrong for a child to reside there provided there are no available private domains where the intact loving, devoted and considerate male and female paradigm is paramount.

On a side note here, it would also be a matter to consider that universal male/female loving duality be present in all elementary classrooms for all children who are subject to any dysfunctional private domains. Perhaps we will never know that, but I assure you there are some who do understand it better and others. They should be our elementary teachers in all those classrooms. That will at least teach those young and naive and innocent to a better degree what gender devotion, respect and consideration should look like. I think that thought is well worth considering.

Since we have determined there is no creation or destruction of matter there is reasonable to determine that life goes on even after that death as we know it. Now what must be understood if that determination is indeed correct what kind of life would there be if we did resolve/rationalize such a phenomena the homosexual displays? Does the adage “Whatsoever and man soweth, that he shall also reap” have any bearing here?

Now when considering what could be said as those “ram-ifications” of where a man sows his seed and there is some truth to what self fulfilling prophecy means then one might also consider where he will go after he sows his seed into that human sewer or anywhere other than were it rightly belongs; into that natural receiving orifice that only woman provides from which life continues. It appears to be a “circle of life” for many and that may very well what it has been; but it could be that life is just a continuum and that circularity that we think it is, is a part of that misunderstanding.

Yes, Jack I do believe all are innocent and what we are observing now is the result of misunderstanding what life is. There are only two universal paradigms that create life as we now it on this planet. One is male the other is female. Any desire on any one’s part to add more than that to satisfy other desires is an indication that something is very WRONG with that understanding.

What I would suggest is to discuss that which can bring man and women closer together rather than trying to rationalize an existence of any two other unions. It does seem there are many who have a difficult time understanding just who or what to unite with. There is a lot of lonely people out there Jack and they are searching for any group that is similar to what they think and do.

Homosexuals do have their “phallic places” they congregate and frequent. If there is any place that resembles a phallic symbol that’s were you will find the majority of them; at the TIP. Exceptions noted and understood. It seems for the most part they are obsessed with themselves in more than ways than can be understood and that toy they love to play with. Perhaps all men should consider that and all the temptation that is out there that seems to be everywhere today. Kinda difficult to keep his hands off it, huh?

Man is the giver of life and there is no way life can be continued if he pumps his life he has into a sewer; better on the ground than anyplace else. What you need to discuss are ways to solidify the universal paradigm of just those two; man and woman.

Once we understand that universal standard then homosexuality will just "poof".....................disappear.

William
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/29/2021 at 04:31:17