FA+
Shop
PWNED
17 years ago
So, I usually avoid starting arguments on forums, but this one was irresistible, and it felt so good to cream his argument.
Original Journal post by miupix on Fur Affinity:
Hi again everyone,
normally I don't make two journal posts in a day, but I had something I wanted to talk about.
This morning ponygirl and myself went to attend the protests against Prop 8 in front of the Bakersfield Court House. As I'm sure you guys could tell from my Everyone Loves post, I'm a pretty big advocate of equality, especially when it comes to basic human rights like sexuality and marriage. While we were there I'd say somewhere in the range of 60+ people showed up all waving flags and holding up signs and all were extremely nice and doing their best to make their feelings heard while not letting anything get out of hand and turn the event into a negative spiral of craziness. We also got to meet two of the main organizers who were also really nice guys; one driving through multiple road detours to get through the cali wild fires that are burning down in Pamona right now.
It was very nice too that many of the people driving by and passers were in support of what everyone was out there for. Only occasionally was there anyone negative and for the most part they were completely forgettable.
I also urge anyone that believes in this cause who lives in the Bakersfield area to attend the vigil that will be held tonight from 5:30PM-8PM at Truxtun Park-Across from 5801 Truxtun Avenue between Mohawk & Truxton.
Civil rights and equality are an important thing to fight for. There's always someone out there that wants to take them away from you and I say don't let those people have their way. Let's keep ourselves free.
Now I'll leave you with a flyer ponygirl made this morning for the event, more reading ahead, but its just for those that would like to see:
Beliefs Should Not Be Governed By Law
The legal regulation of gay marriage should never be any more a religious issue than interracial marriage, cross-denominational marriage, or even heterosexual marriage as a whole.
The decision to get married belongs to individuals, not outsiders. These people who choose to join their families, share their property, and unite their lives do not always choose to do so for financial reasons, or religious reasons, or any of a list of other ideas.
Decisions on the religious aspects of marriage (if any) should lie solely between the people entering into that union, and the person or persons performing the ceremony. If marriage can be performed in a courthouse as easily as a church, clearly it is NOT solely the domain of any one religion to claim.
Decisions on the legal aspects of marriage should lie solely in enabling all married families to enjoy the same rights and recognitions. The government is an institution meant to protect the rights of individuals to practice their own personal beliefs.
Not all marriages happen in churches. Not all marriages are entered into for the same reasons. The one unifying factor that all marriages possess is the decision made by people to spend their lives together, supporting each other and the household they choose to create.
The personal beliefs of people who will never be involved in a homosexual marriage should NOT decide the fate of those who desire to be involved in one.
Cigarskunk's reply:
Here's some questions then -
If you don't feel that democracy is the proper way to go, then why bother at all - why not just go with the courts and force your beliefs upon others and do away with the whole freedom of choice thing all together?
Beliefs Should Not Be Governed By Law
What makes your beliefs any more valid then that of the majority?
If even a state as far left and open minded and pro-gay as CA opposes violating the separation of church and state and legalizing gay marriage, doesn't that give a hint that maybe there's a problem here?
unite their lives do not always choose to do so for financial reasons, or religious reasons, or any of a list of other ideas.
Then why do they need a peice of paper from the state to do so?
You're telling me that the only way Adam and Steve can love each other is if they have a certificate from the local magistrate, a guy that's not even a real judge, much less a priest?
Tell you what - if a peice of paper is all it takes to make their love eternal then why not draw up a certificate as an artist and post it for free, then tens of millions of dollars wont have to be wasted trying to legalize gay marriage - they can just download your form, fill it out and call thier lives complete.
The one unifying factor that all marriages possess is the decision made by people to spend their lives together, supporting each other and the household they choose to create.
Again - why the need for a legal document then - why not just have a party and announce Jen and Betty are declaring themselves together forever so no more playing around on the side? Why do these gay couples need a form from the state to do this? Are you saying that no gay couple has been able to stay together for the past 200 years in America due to the lack of this certificate, that love alone isn't enough to keep them together?
The personal beliefs of people...
Again, why are your personal beliefs so superior that after having lost the popular vote you're taking to the streets in protest?
So in other words, screw the feelings of those who disagree, screw democracy - you want what you want and everyone else can be damned and go to hell, right?
My reply:
You're a dickhead, and you're not as smart as you think. "Majority Rules with Minority Rights" is one of the fundamental ideals of America's system of government. If anthro conventions, art, and websites were outlawed by popular vote, wouldn't you protest? At least a little bit?
Popular votes are not the be-all and end-all of the American government because sometimes people need to be protected from discriminating idiots like you.
Cigarskunk's rebuttal:
And you're a facist for wanting to trash the democratic process when it doesn't go your way - you're point?
You're not asking for equal rights with gay marriage, you're asking for special rights.
If gays can be married then why can't Mormons have multiple wives?
Why can't beasties marry thier dogs?
Why can't peds marry that cute 13 year old?
My counter:
I'm hardly a facist (which isn't a word), or a fascist for that matter. (Making such a statement completely undermines your argument down the page about someone calling you a bigot, by the way.)
What makes two men or two women wanting to be joined in matrimony a demand for special rights? I thought the point of marriage was to recognize, legally and socially, stable relationships between pairs of individuals. Often these people want to share their possessions, or start a family, or have recognition from the government that they are now family. I don't see why this couldn't apply to people of the same sex just as well as people of opposite sex.
As for your next few points, it is first of all a faulty analogy, a big no-no in any formal debate, and it is indicative of a lack of logical reasoning. It is often used by underhanded politicians in an attempt to distract from the issue. Nevertheless, I will address your points for the sake of argument:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stopped sanctioning polygamous marriages in the 19th Century. It excommunicates people who practice plural marriage.
The consummation of a relationship between a human and a non-human animal has many risks, including allergic reaction to bodily fluids and a high risk of infection. More importantly, from a legal perspective on marriage, a beast is incapable of handling joint-custody of children, filing for divorce, charging with rape or assault, or even showing consent to marriage in the first place.
As for pedophilia, the marriage age is quite low in some states. In North Carolina, the minimum age is unlimited if the child is pregnant and has parental consent. I for one find such situations appalling, but that's how the law stands; so a pedophile can in fact marry "that cute 13 year old," as long as he manages to keep the sex secret until she's pregnant and he's convinced her parents he'll take care of her.
In conclusion, my previous points stand: you are a dickhead, and you are not as smart as you think.
END
In other news, I bought the new WoW expansion last week. I'm gonna play my Death Knight for a bit! ^_^
Original Journal post by miupix on Fur Affinity:
Hi again everyone,
normally I don't make two journal posts in a day, but I had something I wanted to talk about.
This morning ponygirl and myself went to attend the protests against Prop 8 in front of the Bakersfield Court House. As I'm sure you guys could tell from my Everyone Loves post, I'm a pretty big advocate of equality, especially when it comes to basic human rights like sexuality and marriage. While we were there I'd say somewhere in the range of 60+ people showed up all waving flags and holding up signs and all were extremely nice and doing their best to make their feelings heard while not letting anything get out of hand and turn the event into a negative spiral of craziness. We also got to meet two of the main organizers who were also really nice guys; one driving through multiple road detours to get through the cali wild fires that are burning down in Pamona right now.
It was very nice too that many of the people driving by and passers were in support of what everyone was out there for. Only occasionally was there anyone negative and for the most part they were completely forgettable.
I also urge anyone that believes in this cause who lives in the Bakersfield area to attend the vigil that will be held tonight from 5:30PM-8PM at Truxtun Park-Across from 5801 Truxtun Avenue between Mohawk & Truxton.
Civil rights and equality are an important thing to fight for. There's always someone out there that wants to take them away from you and I say don't let those people have their way. Let's keep ourselves free.
Now I'll leave you with a flyer ponygirl made this morning for the event, more reading ahead, but its just for those that would like to see:
Beliefs Should Not Be Governed By Law
The legal regulation of gay marriage should never be any more a religious issue than interracial marriage, cross-denominational marriage, or even heterosexual marriage as a whole.
The decision to get married belongs to individuals, not outsiders. These people who choose to join their families, share their property, and unite their lives do not always choose to do so for financial reasons, or religious reasons, or any of a list of other ideas.
Decisions on the religious aspects of marriage (if any) should lie solely between the people entering into that union, and the person or persons performing the ceremony. If marriage can be performed in a courthouse as easily as a church, clearly it is NOT solely the domain of any one religion to claim.
Decisions on the legal aspects of marriage should lie solely in enabling all married families to enjoy the same rights and recognitions. The government is an institution meant to protect the rights of individuals to practice their own personal beliefs.
Not all marriages happen in churches. Not all marriages are entered into for the same reasons. The one unifying factor that all marriages possess is the decision made by people to spend their lives together, supporting each other and the household they choose to create.
The personal beliefs of people who will never be involved in a homosexual marriage should NOT decide the fate of those who desire to be involved in one.
Cigarskunk's reply:
Here's some questions then -
If you don't feel that democracy is the proper way to go, then why bother at all - why not just go with the courts and force your beliefs upon others and do away with the whole freedom of choice thing all together?
Beliefs Should Not Be Governed By Law
What makes your beliefs any more valid then that of the majority?
If even a state as far left and open minded and pro-gay as CA opposes violating the separation of church and state and legalizing gay marriage, doesn't that give a hint that maybe there's a problem here?
unite their lives do not always choose to do so for financial reasons, or religious reasons, or any of a list of other ideas.
Then why do they need a peice of paper from the state to do so?
You're telling me that the only way Adam and Steve can love each other is if they have a certificate from the local magistrate, a guy that's not even a real judge, much less a priest?
Tell you what - if a peice of paper is all it takes to make their love eternal then why not draw up a certificate as an artist and post it for free, then tens of millions of dollars wont have to be wasted trying to legalize gay marriage - they can just download your form, fill it out and call thier lives complete.
The one unifying factor that all marriages possess is the decision made by people to spend their lives together, supporting each other and the household they choose to create.
Again - why the need for a legal document then - why not just have a party and announce Jen and Betty are declaring themselves together forever so no more playing around on the side? Why do these gay couples need a form from the state to do this? Are you saying that no gay couple has been able to stay together for the past 200 years in America due to the lack of this certificate, that love alone isn't enough to keep them together?
The personal beliefs of people...
Again, why are your personal beliefs so superior that after having lost the popular vote you're taking to the streets in protest?
So in other words, screw the feelings of those who disagree, screw democracy - you want what you want and everyone else can be damned and go to hell, right?
My reply:
You're a dickhead, and you're not as smart as you think. "Majority Rules with Minority Rights" is one of the fundamental ideals of America's system of government. If anthro conventions, art, and websites were outlawed by popular vote, wouldn't you protest? At least a little bit?
Popular votes are not the be-all and end-all of the American government because sometimes people need to be protected from discriminating idiots like you.
Cigarskunk's rebuttal:
And you're a facist for wanting to trash the democratic process when it doesn't go your way - you're point?
You're not asking for equal rights with gay marriage, you're asking for special rights.
If gays can be married then why can't Mormons have multiple wives?
Why can't beasties marry thier dogs?
Why can't peds marry that cute 13 year old?
My counter:
I'm hardly a facist (which isn't a word), or a fascist for that matter. (Making such a statement completely undermines your argument down the page about someone calling you a bigot, by the way.)
What makes two men or two women wanting to be joined in matrimony a demand for special rights? I thought the point of marriage was to recognize, legally and socially, stable relationships between pairs of individuals. Often these people want to share their possessions, or start a family, or have recognition from the government that they are now family. I don't see why this couldn't apply to people of the same sex just as well as people of opposite sex.
As for your next few points, it is first of all a faulty analogy, a big no-no in any formal debate, and it is indicative of a lack of logical reasoning. It is often used by underhanded politicians in an attempt to distract from the issue. Nevertheless, I will address your points for the sake of argument:
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints stopped sanctioning polygamous marriages in the 19th Century. It excommunicates people who practice plural marriage.
The consummation of a relationship between a human and a non-human animal has many risks, including allergic reaction to bodily fluids and a high risk of infection. More importantly, from a legal perspective on marriage, a beast is incapable of handling joint-custody of children, filing for divorce, charging with rape or assault, or even showing consent to marriage in the first place.
As for pedophilia, the marriage age is quite low in some states. In North Carolina, the minimum age is unlimited if the child is pregnant and has parental consent. I for one find such situations appalling, but that's how the law stands; so a pedophile can in fact marry "that cute 13 year old," as long as he manages to keep the sex secret until she's pregnant and he's convinced her parents he'll take care of her.
In conclusion, my previous points stand: you are a dickhead, and you are not as smart as you think.
END
In other news, I bought the new WoW expansion last week. I'm gonna play my Death Knight for a bit! ^_^
I just feel like I can see both sides of the argument. It's funny that we're even in the place we are now. I mean, gay rights have come a long way, and they'll get gay marriage eventually. Of that I have no doubt.
I trapped him in fewer words. Do I get points for style?
If you don't feel that democracy is the proper way to go, then why bother at all - why not just go with the courts and force your beliefs upon others and do away with the whole freedom of choice thing all together?
The laws that prevented whites and blacks from marrying were passed by the democratic process. The court overturned them in Loving v. Virginia.
Now, Cigarskunk, don't run away from this question.
Should the democratically enacted people's will have been upheld, or was the court right to overturn the people's will in Loving?
At the moment, he has run away from both of us.
Unfortunately, he's an idiot, and if he can't come up with a decent response, he'll ignore it and simply get angry. It's a sad fact that internet arguments don't really work, at least not most of the time :( People with his point of view are unlikely to change it, certainly not over what we've said to him...
Still, it's good practice in articulating our argument. Maybe we'll get to use it in a forum or political debate that matters!
I don't think this is unrealistic, because reading others' arguments is actually how I've learned a lot over the years.
Cigarskunk, like Fisk, is usually too self-absorbed to consider the possibility of being wrong. The best reason to argue with him is to amuse yourself.
Incidentally, have you noticed that concerning the rights of women, gays, and people of color, conservatives say it's up to the vote of the majority... but should the poor and middle-class majority vote to tax the rich, suddenly that's anti-democratic, unamerican communism?
This is just for your reference, then, because you'll often see a sort of argument similar to "I DO believe that gay couples should be awarded every right as straight couples. Ironically under a literal sense, they are. I mean, I'm not allowed to marry a man either."
Did you know that you just made the exact same argument that white supremacists made to defend anti-miscegenation laws? I quote:
"the State [of Virginia] argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip.....88&invol=1
Congratulations. You just used an argument invented by white supremacists.