Strawman
THE STRAWMAN
georgeob1 wrote:Some here argue that the government has no right making any distinctions among people or the choices they make in their lives. This is manifestly contrary to the facts and an absurd bit of semantical trickery.
Government makes and acts on distinctions among people every day in numerous ways ---
Based on established constitutional law, I pointed out that there are certain lines that the government may not cross. When the government makes and enforces a law that infringes upon a fundamental right (e.g., the fundamental right to marry), the government must have a compelling interest in doing so and the means used must be necessary and narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest.
The government has no compelling interest in making and enforcing a law that limits eligibility to marry based on the gender of an individual's intended spouse. The eligibility requirements that limit marriage to opposite-sex couples discriminate against same-sex couples. Moral disapproval alone is never a sufficient reason to discriminate. The government has failed to express any legitimate (let alone, compelling) interest that makes it necessary to limit marriage to opposite-sex couples.
To counter the arguments based on the supreme law of the land, Georgeob1 constructed a strawman argument. He totally misrepresented the constitutional argument and created the following FALSE argument:
"Some here argue that the government has no right making any distinctions among people or the choices they make in their lives."
This isn't what any of us argued. George constructed a false argument -- a dishonest argument. He then attacked the false argument that he constructed by claiming:
"This is manifestly contrary to the facts and an absurd bit of semantical trickery."
ROFL. George created a false argument and then attacked the false argument that he himself created by declaring it to be "semantical trickery." The only one guilty of semantical trickery is George.
Then George states that the "Government makes and acts on distinctions among people every day in numerous ways."
What he has done is avoided the real argument through the use of a strawman that merely begs the question.
So what if the government makes and acts on distinctions among people all the time?
The fact that the government may make distinctions among people according to their income for tax purposes doesn't address the issue of whether the government may make distinctions among people according to the gender of their intended spouses for marriage purposes.
Blatham challenged: "No, george, it is your argument which doesn't hold together because you don't take care to even take the time to mount much more than a loud "Sophistry!!" as you stumble out the door. Debra's arguments are clear, sequential and grounded in constitutional law/argument (quoted).
But George declares victory:
georgeob1 wrote:Nonsense. I have clearly identified the false premise on which her rather lengthy argument is based and demonstrated the contradictions it entails.
I'll agree the structure of her argument is complex and substantial, but once it collapses on its foundations, it is so much rubble.
Again, George did not clearly identify a "false premise." No one here argues with the fact that the government makes distinctions all the time. George . . . that's not the debate.
The debate is whether the majority of the people may constitutionally impose their religious views or moral disapproval on society as a whole through the power of the state -- through the enactment and enforcement of laws that discriminate against and oppress homosexuals and deprive them of the fundamental right to marry.
