NJ court stops short of gay marriage OK

[Skeba]

Okay, both sides...

If you have nothing to add that has to do with the actual subject... don't say anything at all.

[MCT]

Gaggle... ...I love it!

(insert third person MCT pun here)

[SLCPUNK]

well when you act childish people will treat you like a child, now go play.

Just because somebody says something you don't like while making a fool out of you, does not mean they are "acting like a child."

He is correct: The right wing (especially the Christian base) are a bunch of hypocrites. On one hand they preach against gays, denying their rights (which is unAmerican), and making the false argument that gay marriage would "erode the institution of marriage." At the same time, these very same people are having gay sex and doing drugs!

 

[MCT]

At the same time, these very same people are having gay sex and doing drugs!

Those bastards.

[Surfrider]

And I believe the exact same of you (though I don't think you MISSED the point, I just feel you don't want to address it)...that's why I said we were arguing in circles.? It's not that I've failed to address it, it's that you don't want to see the point I've made.? Fair enough.

Actually, your entire argument is based on a false premise.  You characterize my original post as a comparison of two things which you contend is offensive.  I have repeatedly asked you to explain how it is offensive or inflammatory.  You have failed to do so and continue to dodge the question.  I have explained how it was not meant to be offensive or inflammatory.  You fail to address any of those points.

Again, I feel I've made? my point to anyone objectively reading the discussion.? Others (like Skeba, for example) seem to have "gotten the point" quite easily, so I have no thoughts I haven't presented my point well.? Your reaction to it, all things considered, isn't surprising.

You have presented your point fine.  However, it is based on a mischaracterization of my point.  Your entire premise is that my characterization is offensive and inflammatory.  Yet, you have failed to state how.  I have repeatedly explained that it is not offensive, and in fact, quite the contrary. 

Oh, and on the "inflamatory" thing...you're right, I don't believe you.? Sorry, I just don't. And I don't think many others reading this thread will, either.?It was a clear and decisive admission when you made it.? I think you're backpedaling because it so clearly illustrates my point.....

Again, that's your problem.  I admit when I make a mistake.  I made one in responding to your post.  Your assertion that my agreement that the example was inflammatory has no basis in reason or logic.  I explained that I chose the example because it was the "strongest" example of the point I was trying to make.  I did not make it because it was offensive or inflammatory.  If you can't see the distinction based on the argument I have presented, that is your problem.  It makes no sense to characterize the example as offensive or inflammatory, and you have failed to show how the example is such.  Instead you will simply say it is so because I mistakenly agreed with you as I was trying to make another point in a quick post.  Your conclusory argument that it is so, does not make it so.  If you would rather stand on that instead of tackling the fundamental question - how is it offensive? - then that is your perogative.  However, it does show to me that you are more focused on escaping this discussion believing that you are right than actually discussing the issue at hand.  I have repeatedly stated that the exmaple was meant to show that homosexual marriage is on a separate moral platform from other things that are banned morally - most notably child pornogrpahy.  How is that offensive or inflammatory?

So here is the question: how is the example offensive or inflammatory in the context of my argument?  I don't want you to say that you have already explained how because you have not. 

You are usually a pretty stand-up guy, however, your failure to actually address these issues, your mischaracterization of my argument, and your failure to address or counter my explanation for the mistake I made is particularly illuminating.  You have chosen to simply stand on that mistake as the entire basis that you are correct in your characterization.  I have repeatedly explained how you are wrong.  You fail to address these points in every one of your posts, and instead choose to simply argue the same rehtoric with the same conclusory arguments.  Again, I will believe that your position and failure to address the points that I have made is based on stubborness rather than a lack of understanding.

[Surfrider]

well when you act childish people will treat you like a child, now go play.

Just because somebody says something you don't like while making a fool out of you, does not mean they are "acting like a child."

He is correct: The right wing (especially the Christian base) are a bunch of hypocrites. On one hand they preach against gays, denying their rights (which is unAmerican), and making the false argument that gay marriage would "erode the institution of marriage." At the same time, these very same people are having gay sex and doing drugs!

How is it a false argument?  Just because the institution of marriage has been eroding over the years, does not support eroding it more. 

[SLCPUNK]

It is a false argument because nobody can explain how it is "eroding" the institute of marriage.

Let me ask again: How is it eroding marriage?

Nobody has ever been able to answer that.

How do two men getting married erode my relationship with my wife? With you and your wife?

Please tell us all.

[Surfrider]

It is a false argument because nobody can explain how it is "eroding" the institute of marriage.

Let me ask again: How is it eroding marriage?

Nobody has ever been able to answer that.

How do two men getting married erode my relationship with my wife? With you and your wife?

Please tell us all.

No one said that it affects individual relationships.  Again, I am kind of indifferent on the issue.  I recognize the argument on both sides.  The argument is that marriage is, and always has been between a man and a woman.  It is a religious relationship that dates back centuries.  Most religions - Islam, Christianity, and Judaism - believe that homosexuality is immoral and goes against the traditional man/woman relationship.  Now, it is one thing for these relationships to exist and for them to be sponsored by the state.  It is another thing for them to be called marriage - a term symbolizing a relgious relationship.  Most religions promote the traditional family.  The marriage between the man and the woman is at the center of the traditional family.  Allowing two same-sex people to marry undercuts this traditional family relationship.  There are many moral judgments that occur everyday in regards to relationships between people.  I am sure that you make your own as well.  Whether or not the government should pick and choose morality is a debateable issue and one that is at the center of today's culture war.  However, I think it is naive and insensitive to say that allowing a relationship which is considered immoral by most all religious standards to take part in the most sacred of all religious activities does not and should not have any effect on these religious people or their sacred institution of marriage.

Overtime, there have been numerous things that have undermined or has begun to tear away at the traditional religious institution of marriage.  For example, the high divorce rate which has been a result of no-fault divorces has undermined the institution of marriage by allowing any easy exit from the institution of marriage.  Does this damage my relationship with my wife or your relationship with yours?  No.  Nevertheless, it does affect the overall institution.

Recognizing these arguments, and the fact that I believe it is a good thing to promote commitments between gay couples, I think there is an alternative.  Whether we want to call it civil unions or, to quote a paper I once read, "smarriage", I think we definately should provide the couples the same rights that we provide heterosexual couples.  This is the easiest way to solve the issue and to be sensitive to both sides.

[The Dog]

Berkeley you're assuming all people that get married are involving religion.  Half the weddings I've been to thats been the case, the other half there was no place of worship, no priest/rabbi, no praying - nothing at all to do with religion - it was simply about the love of the husband/wife getting married.  You don't need to be religious in America to be married under the eyes of the government.  If religious people don't understand that some people aren't as religious as they are or simply not religious at all that is their problem - and as said before, it doesn't undermind or weaken their marriage whatsoever.

As for "calling it something else" for gays - that is not an answer.  Its either equal for everyone or not equal at all.  If someone told you, you can have the same rights as this person, but you had to call it something else, I'm sure it would bother you.  To those who would argue, well its just a word who cares - well, then just call it marriage!

I'll never understand why people get SO upset over what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.  It just blows me away (not saying anyone in particular, just people in general).

[Surfrider]

Berkeley you're assuming all people that get married are involving religion.? Half the weddings I've been to thats been the case, the other half there was no place of worship, no priest/rabbi, no praying - nothing at all to do with religion - it was simply about the love of the husband/wife getting married.? You don't need to be religious in America to be married under the eyes of the government.? If religious people don't understand that some people aren't as religious as they are or simply not religious at all that is their problem - and as said before, it doesn't undermind or weaken their marriage whatsoever.

I am not making that assumption; I am simply outlining the argument by those that disagree with gay marriiage.? I agree that not all married people are religious.? However, most people do get married to start a traditional family.?

Marriage is an area where the government now takes part in what has traditionally been a religious institution.? I agree that this complicates the issue.? Nonetheless, marriage is a relgious institution that came from religion.? The more that the tradition of marriage moves away from this, the more that religious people may take offense.? As you well? know, the traditional family is what underlies these religions and marriage.? Homosexual marriage is a clear step away from the tradition of marriage.? I understand the argument made by the religious people, and I think that people should be sensitive to it.

As for "calling it something else" for gays - that is not an answer.? Its either equal for everyone or not equal at all.? If someone told you, you can have the same rights as this person, but you had to call it something else, I'm sure it would bother you.? To those who would argue, well its just a word who cares - well, then just call it marriage!

But why does it have to be called marriage?? Every gay couple I have ever heard speak on the issue has said that they merely want the same rights such as social security, taxation, and other rights.? I think it is the only way to be sensitive to both sides, and it is surely the quickest way to get equal rights.  If it is just a word, and not actual rights, then why is it such a big deal to call it marriage.  The american public wants to provide equal rights, but they agree with me on the use of  the term.  I don't see why it is such a big deal to call it marriage. ?

I'll never understand why people get SO upset over what other people do in the privacy of their own homes.? It just blows me away (not saying anyone in particular, just people in general).

I agree.? I am not a big advocate of legislating what people do in the privacy of their own homes, although there are lines that should not be crossed.? However, that is not really what is at issue with this debate.?

[pilferk]

Actually, your entire argument is based on a false premise.? You characterize my original post as a comparison of two things which you contend is offensive.? I have repeatedly asked you to explain how it is offensive or inflammatory.? You have failed to do so and continue to dodge the question.? I have explained how it was not meant to be offensive or inflammatory.? You fail to address any of those points.

You have presented your point fine.? However, it is based on a mischaracterization of my point.? Your entire premise is that my characterization is offensive and inflammatory.? Yet, you have failed to state how.? I have repeatedly explained that it is not offensive, and in fact, quite the contrary.?

I did address them.? Repeatedly.? That's what I mean about you not WANTING to get the point.? Reread my posts.? It's all laid out, right there.? Skeba understood it just fine.? Other posters seem to understand it to.? I think your inability to view your own words objectively is clouding your comprehension. But you wish to distract from the initial point and drag the conversation to other avenues, rather than actually discuss my point.

 As for "how is it inflamatory and offensive"....are you serious?? How is an implied or conjured juxtaposition with pedophelia, simply to garner attention and pander to your audience, offensive?? Why is pedophelia, as an example, inflamatory?? You seriously need me to explain that?

By using a purposefully inflamatory example (again, it's not a false premise, you admitted to it and backpedaled....say, again, you were mistaken.? I doubt many reasonable people will believe you), simply to garner attention, you are pandering.? You are also inviting a comparison, based on your juxtaposition, an ability to comprehend it and reach a conclusion, on a moral level (witness the discussion immediately after your posts) which has nothing to do with your point but is, instead, salacious, inflamatory, and offensive.? You do all this because you, admittedly, lack respect for your "audience" and their ability to see your point, so you feel the need to offer them something that will grab their attention, rather than make your point. You wave the red flag, rather than stand on the merit of the point itself, using a less inflamatory, but equally strong, example.? And, rest assured, there were other ones out there....hell, you've mentioned at least one of them in this thread.

Again, that's your problem.? I admit when I make a mistake.? I made one in responding to your post.? Your assertion that my agreement that the example was inflammatory has no basis in reason or logic.? I explained that I chose the example because it was the "strongest" example of the point I was trying to make.? I did not make it because it was offensive or inflammatory.? If you can't see the distinction based on the argument I have presented, that is your problem.? It makes no sense to characterize the example as offensive or inflammatory, and you have failed to show how the example is such.? Instead you will simply say it is so because I mistakenly agreed with you as I was trying to make another point in a quick post.? Your conclusory argument that it is so, does not make it so.? If you would rather stand on that instead of tackling the fundamental question - how is it offensive? - then that is your perogative.? However, it does show to me that you are more focused on escaping this discussion believing that you are right than actually discussing the issue at hand.? I have repeatedly stated that the exmaple was meant to show that homosexual marriage is on a separate moral platform from other things that are banned morally - most notably child pornogrpahy.? How is that offensive or inflammatory?

No, it's your problem, actually....just as the problem of the offensive construct is yours...and just as the problem with your "audience" comprehending your argument is yours.?You were the author of the original post(s)...so, whether you want the responsibility or not, you have it.? ?You were the one who made the admission so now have to take the lumps, so to speak.? First off, if the situations were reversed, you would come to the exact same conclusion:? That someone was backpedaling.? Second, logically, I'm left to assume one of two things: a) That you, an intelligent person who is usually quite reasonable and "crafts" their responses, misread my post, misstated your intent, and misrepresented his viewpoint or b) you're backpedaling because you realize the admission proves my point.? I have more respect for you than to believe a) and I've seen you discuss things enough, sticking closely to your original opinion, to believe b) to be more likely.

 And I have explained why it's offensive.? In at least 3 different posts.? Why should I explain it yet again if you refuse to understand it thus far?? If others weren't grasping the point, I'd wonder if I was making myself clear.? But, given the comprehension displayed by anyone LEFT in this thread, at this point, I have to think the issue lies elsewhere...

So here is the question: how is the example offensive or inflammatory in the context of my argument?? I don't want you to say that you have already explained how because you have not.?

I sure have, and I'm not going to do it for a 4th time.? Reread my posts.  Heck, you even admitted it was...backpedal or not.? You can't just say I haven't when my previous posts contain the information you're asking for....because saying it simply doesn't make it true.
 

You are usually a pretty stand-up guy, however, your failure to actually address these issues, your mischaracterization of my argument, and your failure to address or counter my explanation for the mistake I made is particularly illuminating.? You have chosen to simply stand on that mistake as the entire basis that you are correct in your characterization.? I have repeatedly explained how you are wrong.? You fail to address these points in every one of your posts, and instead choose to simply argue the same rehtoric with the same conclusory arguments.? Again, I will believe that your position and failure to address the points that I have made is based on stubborness rather than a lack of understanding.

I have addressed the issues.? You just refuse to comprehend my argument.? Fair enough.

I have not mischaracterized your argument.? I summarized it quite well in a previous post.? Your own admissions, backpeddaling or not, prove that summary quite well.

You haven't explained how I was wrong.? You say "I don't understand'.? That's not true.? I do..and layed out your argument in pretty straightforward terms to prove it.? But you haven't addressed my point because you refuse to comprehend it.? And I would offer you have given me nothing to comprehend, besides "no, you're wrong" or "no, you don't understand" because of your OWN stubborness (are you projecting?).? In re-reading YOUR posts, you've essentially admitted almost everthing I've asserted so I'm not even sure why you continue to argue the point.....

Here's what the entire discussion now boils down to:? I say you've admitted to every assertion I've made, pretty much, in my reasoning, and you don't even argue that point.? Your only argument is that you "made a mistake" when copping to purposefully using an inflamatory argument.? So that's where we're at....the entire dicussion hinges on that....You're going to say you made a mistake, and no matter how much you do, I'm not going to believe you.? So...why are we continuing to talk in circles again?? I think reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion in reading what's already been written. Don't you?

[pilferk]

No one said that it affects individual relationships.? Again, I am kind of indifferent on the issue.? I recognize the argument on both sides.? The argument is that marriage is, and always has been between a man and a woman.? It is a religious relationship that dates back centuries.? Most religions - Islam, Christianity, and Judaism - believe that homosexuality is immoral and goes against the traditional man/woman relationship.? Now, it is one thing for these relationships to exist and for them to be sponsored by the state.? It is another thing for them to be called marriage - a term symbolizing a relgious relationship.? Most religions promote the traditional family.? The marriage between the man and the woman is at the center of the traditional family.? Allowing two same-sex people to marry undercuts this traditional family relationship.? There are many moral judgments that occur everyday in regards to relationships between people.? I am sure that you make your own as well.? Whether or not the government should pick and choose morality is a debateable issue and one that is at the center of today's culture war.? However, I think it is naive and insensitive to say that allowing a relationship which is considered immoral by most all religious standards to take part in the most sacred of all religious activities does not and should not have any effect on these religious people or their sacred institution of marriage.

Overtime, there have been numerous things that have undermined or has begun to tear away at the traditional religious institution of marriage.? For example, the high divorce rate which has been a result of no-fault divorces has undermined the institution of marriage by allowing any easy exit from the institution of marriage.? Does this damage my relationship with my wife or your relationship with yours?? No.? Nevertheless, it does affect the overall institution.

Recognizing these arguments, and the fact that I believe it is a good thing to promote commitments between gay couples, I think there is an alternative.? Whether we want to call it civil unions or, to quote a paper I once read, "smarriage", I think we definately should provide the couples the same rights that we provide heterosexual couples.? This is the easiest way to solve the issue and to be sensitive to both sides.

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying.

The problem is we're really talking about 2 seperate instituations with the same name.? There is "marriage", the religious institution, and "marriage", the state sponsored institution.?While they cover, in a broad manner, the same sort of thing (a commitment to a relationship) they really have completely seperate "domains", rules, and benefits. Homosexuals are not, necessarily, asking for blanket endorsement of the first but would like the benefits of the 2nd.

I'm not really for reinventing the wheel, and rewriting all the tons of legislation that exists, to create a "new institution".? If the legislators could find a way to do it with minimal fuss and fudget....that's fine.? But, realize, I think if there is a change in terminology, it should apply to EVERYONE: gay or straight.? That way marriage remains a religious sacrement/institution and the "state sponsored" institution, "smarriage" is a good a name as any, becomes the governmental institution.? And never the two shall meet, if you get my meaning.? I mean, other than terminology, I think we pretty much have that now.

All that being said, I think the recognition of marriage (or "smarriage", if you'd rather) is a state right, not anything the fed should get involved in, at this level.

[The Dog]

I hear what you're saying Berkeley and you make some great points... but I think we're forgetting another group of people who wouldn't be ok with calling their union something other then marriage: Homosexuals who are religious.

There are plenty of homosexuals who are deeply religious and their take on god (lets face it, there are dozens) is that god loves everyone and what not.  So to tell them they can have rights is one thing, but to tell them they can't be married.  I don't think they'd find that acceptable.  Just food for thought. 

[pilferk]

I hear what you're saying Berkeley and you make some great points... but I think we're forgetting another group of people who wouldn't be ok with calling their union something other then marriage: Homosexuals who are religious.

There are plenty of homosexuals who are deeply religious and their take on god (lets face it, there are dozens) is that god loves everyone and what not.? So to tell them they can have rights is one thing, but to tell them they can't be married.? I don't think they'd find that acceptable.? Just food for thought.?

Again, if you change, completely, the terminology in the realm of governmental oversight...you then leave the sactioning of "marriage", rather than "smarriage", up to the individual churches. 

[Surfrider]

Here's what the entire discussion now boils down to:? I say you've admitted to every assertion I've made, pretty much, in my reasoning, and you don't even argue that point.? Your only argument is that you "made a mistake" when copping to purposefully using an inflamatory argument.? So that's where we're at....the entire dicussion hinges on that....You're going to say you made a mistake, and no matter how much you do, I'm not going to believe you.? So...why are we continuing to talk in circles again?? I think reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion in reading what's already been written. Don't you?

I wil pretty much take your post as a concession that you cannot demonstrate that the example was offensive or inflammatory.  I pretty much anticipated that you would not be able to prove that it was in the context of my argument.  Instead, you go back to your original misreading of the argument.  Again, "my mistake" does not make it inflammatory or offensive.  In my last post, I demonstrated that it could not be offensive or inflammatory in the context of my argument.  Rather than addressing those points, you decided to simply stand on a post that I said was mistaken.  I would understand your position if it made sense in the context of my argument.  However, it does not.  And you cannot show that it does, and you continue to refuse to attempt to do so. 

The reason we are talking in circles is because you fail to address an issue that is the basis for your entire argument.  Instead you assume it to be true and simply stand on my mistaken agreement.  I admit that I made a mistake.  However, that in itself does not make it inflammatory or offensive.  You still cannot prove this to be true. 

I explained how this example was the strongest example and how lesser examples were inadequate.  I placed the two together to demonstrate that there certain areas where things are outlawed/not permitted because of moral reasons.  My example demonstrated that there is a wide spectrum of things that are banned morally.  The exmaple was to actually place homosexual marriage on a higher platform, not degrade.  Nevertheless, you continue to state that I am comparing the two in a degrading way.  I am tired of explaining to you that I have done no such thing.  You will not address these points; thus I assume you cannot.  Tell me how it is offensive in the context of my argument.  You have still failed to prove this point which your entire argument is based on. 

[Surfrider]

No one said that it affects individual relationships.? Again, I am kind of indifferent on the issue.? I recognize the argument on both sides.? The argument is that marriage is, and always has been between a man and a woman.? It is a religious relationship that dates back centuries.? Most religions - Islam, Christianity, and Judaism - believe that homosexuality is immoral and goes against the traditional man/woman relationship.? Now, it is one thing for these relationships to exist and for them to be sponsored by the state.? It is another thing for them to be called marriage - a term symbolizing a relgious relationship.? Most religions promote the traditional family.? The marriage between the man and the woman is at the center of the traditional family.? Allowing two same-sex people to marry undercuts this traditional family relationship.? There are many moral judgments that occur everyday in regards to relationships between people.? I am sure that you make your own as well.? Whether or not the government should pick and choose morality is a debateable issue and one that is at the center of today's culture war.? However, I think it is naive and insensitive to say that allowing a relationship which is considered immoral by most all religious standards to take part in the most sacred of all religious activities does not and should not have any effect on these religious people or their sacred institution of marriage.

Overtime, there have been numerous things that have undermined or has begun to tear away at the traditional religious institution of marriage.? For example, the high divorce rate which has been a result of no-fault divorces has undermined the institution of marriage by allowing any easy exit from the institution of marriage.? Does this damage my relationship with my wife or your relationship with yours?? No.? Nevertheless, it does affect the overall institution.

Recognizing these arguments, and the fact that I believe it is a good thing to promote commitments between gay couples, I think there is an alternative.? Whether we want to call it civil unions or, to quote a paper I once read, "smarriage", I think we definately should provide the couples the same rights that we provide heterosexual couples.? This is the easiest way to solve the issue and to be sensitive to both sides.

I agree with pretty much everything you're saying.

The problem is we're really talking about 2 seperate instituations with the same name.? There is "marriage", the religious institution, and "marriage", the state sponsored institution.?While they cover, in a broad manner, the same sort of thing (a commitment to a relationship) they really have completely seperate "domains", rules, and benefits. Homosexuals are not, necessarily, asking for blanket endorsement of the first but would like the benefits of the 2nd.

I'm not really for reinventing the wheel, and rewriting all the tons of legislation that exists, to create a "new institution".? If the legislators could find a way to do it with minimal fuss and fudget....that's fine.? But, realize, I think if there is a change in terminology, it should apply to EVERYONE: gay or straight.? That way marriage remains a religious sacrement/institution and the "state sponsored" institution, "smarriage" is a good a name as any, becomes the governmental institution.? And never the two shall meet, if you get my meaning.? I mean, other than terminology, I think we pretty much have that now.

All that being said, I think the recognition of marriage (or "smarriage", if you'd rather) is a state right, not anything the fed should get involved in, at this level.

I agree with you 100%.  That is another logical step that can be taken to minimize the fuss on both sides.  Don't call it marriage for either group.

I also agree with you on your last point.  What do you believe legally?  Is there a basis in the federal Constitution to overturn the state laws prohibiting gay marriage?

[Surfrider]

I hear what you're saying Berkeley and you make some great points... but I think we're forgetting another group of people who wouldn't be ok with calling their union something other then marriage: Homosexuals who are religious.

There are plenty of homosexuals who are deeply religious and their take on god (lets face it, there are dozens) is that god loves everyone and what not.? So to tell them they can have rights is one thing, but to tell them they can't be married.? I don't think they'd find that acceptable.? Just food for thought.?

Again, if you change, completely, the terminology in the realm of governmental oversight...you then leave the sactioning of "marriage", rather than "smarriage", up to the individual churches.?

I think Pilferk answered this question sufficiently.  Let me just add, individual churches can still marry gay couples today.  They are just not recognized legally today.  The main problem is that gay couples are treated differently than heterosexual couples under state law.  Calling both institutions something different under state law solves this problem.  It also is sensitive to the religious people that don't want the term marriage to be changed by the state.

[pilferk]

The reason we are talking in circles is because you fail to address an issue that is the basis for your entire argument.? Instead you assume it to be true and simply stand on my mistaken agreement.? I admit that I made a mistake.? However, that in itself does not make it inflammatory or offensive.? You still cannot prove this to be true.?

I explained how this example was the strongest example and how lesser examples were inadequate.? I placed the two together to demonstrate that there certain areas where things are outlawed/not permitted because of moral reasons.? My example demonstrated that there is a wide spectrum of things that are banned morally.? The exmaple was to actually place homosexual marriage on a higher platform, not degrade.? Nevertheless, you continue to state that I am comparing the two in a degrading way.? I am tired of explaining to you that I have done no such thing.? You will not address these points; thus I assume you cannot.? Tell me how it is offensive in the context of my argument.? You have still failed to prove this point which your entire argument is based on.?

No, I've pretty much layed out why we're talking in circles....and you continue to do so anyway. Just because you SAY I haven't addressed the basis of my argument doesn't make it so....no matter how many times you say it.? I invite any objective reader/poster in this thread to re-read my posts and offer up the same objection...I doubt you'll have any takers.? Skeba, on the other hand, while disagreeing with me, immediately saw my point, and your tactics, and pointed them out.? I think that speaks volumes, here.

And I take YOUR post as a concession that you are unwilling to actually understand what's been written....and your desire to drag the discussion's focus off your initial post, in general.? Every assertion you make, above, concerning me not addressing the issue is false and the proof is in my posts. Others understand it, and have commented on it.? You saying otherwise doesn't make it so, and, actually, just makes you look foolish.? It astounds me that you continue to flat out ignore what I've written simply because it attacks your construct.? Using pedophelia, in an example such as the one you portray, is inflammatory. Do I need to provide you a definition? Inflammatory:? tending to cause anger, animosity, or indignation.? Ignore, for a moment, the topic itself is inherently inflammatory....How can you, a reasonable person, NOT think the discussion of pedophelia, in justaposition to homosexuality or homosexual marraige....and inviting a moral comparison of the two, no matter what conclusion you WANT your "audience" to come to ,isn't inflammatory?? The answer is...you can't.? You know full well the make up of these discussions.? You know full well some of the belief sets espoused here. You can't bury your head in the sand and shirk responsibility for what your audience is going to take away (and be drawn to) in your words...hell, you WANTED them to be drawn to them so you pandered to them..and you then admitted it.? It's absolutely cut and dry, no matter how much you deny it.

 You saw the results immediately following your post..how can you even argue it was NOT inflamatory? Your "I dont' take responsiblity for them" argument is a complete cop out...you wrote it.? They're your audience. You know the make up of it. It "inflamed" the suffixing poster(s), for gods sake.? It's the very definition of inflamatory, and you used it BECAUSE YOU KNEW IT WOULD BE. And you admitted it, no matter how much backpedaling you want to do now.? Using that argument, in the manner you did, is offensive because it's intellectually dishonest and it conjured a comparsion, regardless of whether or not that comparison was related to the original point or not, that was offensive.? And you did it all for shock value to draw in an audience you admittedly have no respect for.? What more proof needs to be offered up?

But, of course, I've said the same things over and over and you just refuse to comprehend them...instead choosing to continue to unproductively argue in circles.

As for standing on your "mistaken agreement"....in truth, the confession is all, really, any reasonable person needs.? And your backpedaling, quite frankly, seems further proof of it's definitiveness.? You're right in that you did make a mistake....the mistake was owning up to the real reason for using the argument rather than the backpedal stance you've now adopted.? But now, it's the crux of the matter.? Say what you want.? I don't believe you were "mistaken".? So...there you have it. I'm pretty content, at this point, to let the "jury" decide....but you do keep protesting.? Again, the boiled down reason we're still arguing in circles.

As for the "purpose of your example", we've covered that in your own admissions.? I understand your original point and argument, no matter how much you seem to want to convey otherwise.? It was recklessly, irresponsibly, and intellectually dishonestly constructed to draw attention to it, rather than provide good foundation for it.? You can argue that other comparisons are "weaker", but I think you're wrong.? That's demonstrated by the fact you made the same point using those examples later, and everyone "got it" with no problems and you certainly haven't proven otherwise (your explanation is simply opinion based on your closeness to the construct being discussed, rather than an objective view of strength). The other examples illustrate the point just fine....better, in fact, because they don't draw attention away from the point, itself, because they are not as inflammatory.? They just don't draw as much attention to your point.....which you knew when you constructed your post, and is entirely the reason you used the example you did.  Shock value.

What you dislike is that you were "called" on it......and thus, the discussion that has ensued, and your recent attempt to deflect the conversation a bit to what I've said (or, as you claim, not said) rather than what you have, in fact, said.

[pilferk]

I agree with you 100%.? That is another logical step that can be taken to minimize the fuss on both sides.? Don't call it marriage for either group.

I also agree with you on your last point.? What do you believe legally?? Is there a basis in the federal Constitution to overturn the state laws prohibiting gay marriage?

I don't think there is any Constitutional point that would give the fed the right to overturn laws prohibiting (or allowing) state sanctioning of gay marriage, per se.? Marriage has always, pretty much, been within the realm of state rights, to the point that it is up to the individual states to even recognize marriages from another state or not.? Short of some sort of Constitutional Ammendment, I think the fed has no basis to get involved because, unlike other areas where they've stepped in in relation to marriage, this version does nothing to harm the federal government or take advantage of federal programs.

Now, whether someone could argue that there was discrimination, or not, to get the state to offer the same rights to gay couples (but not call it marriage...perhaps "legal cohabitation with companion rights"..something like that) that they offer to married couples...I don't know.? I tend to think not, but that would surprise me less than the Court "taking on" the actual institution of marriage, in general.? The court has been known, in the past, to do things like that...though the current make up of the Court makes them more of an enigma right now...not alot of bench precedent as SCJ's for the newbies, ya know.

[Surfrider]

OK, one last attempt.

The reason we are talking in circles is because you fail to address an issue that is the basis for your entire argument.? Instead you assume it to be true and simply stand on my mistaken agreement.? I admit that I made a mistake.? However, that in itself does not make it inflammatory or offensive.? You still cannot prove this to be true.?

I explained how this example was the strongest example and how lesser examples were inadequate.? I placed the two together to demonstrate that there certain areas where things are outlawed/not permitted because of moral reasons.? My example demonstrated that there is a wide spectrum of things that are banned morally.? The exmaple was to actually place homosexual marriage on a higher platform, not degrade.? Nevertheless, you continue to state that I am comparing the two in a degrading way.? I am tired of explaining to you that I have done no such thing.? You will not address these points; thus I assume you cannot.? Tell me how it is offensive in the context of my argument.? You have still failed to prove this point which your entire argument is based on.?

No, I've pretty much layed out why we're talking in circles....and you continue to do so anyway. Just because you SAY I haven't addressed the basis of my argument doesn't make it so....no matter how many times you say it.? I invite any objective reader/poster in this thread to re-read my posts and offer up the same objection...I doubt you'll have any takers.? Skeba, on the other hand, while disagreeing with me, immediately saw my point, and your tactics, and pointed them out.? I think that speaks volumes, here.

With all due respect, I don't believe that many people on this board have an understanding of the argument that was made. ?It was a legal argument. ?I have tried to explain it. ?You are one person that I would have expected to understand it considering some of our past discussions. ?Whether you do not, or refuse to, I am not sure.

And I take YOUR post as a concession that you are unwilling to actually understand what's been written....and your desire to drag the discussion's focus off your initial post, in general.

Actually, my friend, you have drawn the discussion off the initial post. ?You have not once discussed the merit of the actual argument presented in the post. ?Instead, you have attacked construction of the argument through a mischaracterization of an example that was made in the post.?

Every assertion you make, above, concerning me not addressing the issue is false and the proof is in my posts. Others understand it, and have commented on it.

Actually, I don't think they have. ?Skeba wrote a broad post on using extreme examples. ?His conclusion was that extreme examples are sometimes needed. ?I still do not characterize my example as an extreme one as I have explained repeatedly. ?I don't think anyone has followed our posts or our arguments to a level to come to a conclusion on who is right.

? You saying otherwise doesn't make it so, and, actually, just makes you look foolish.?

Actually you look foolish for failing to tackle a question that is the root of the entire disagreement. ?I asked it in about four or five posts in a row. ?Everytime, you say that you answered it. ?Call me all of the names you want, but you never answered this question.

It astounds me that you continue to flat out ignore what I've written simply because it attacks your construct.? Using pedophelia, in an example such as the one you portray, is inflammatory.

Actually, the example was child pornography, not pedophelia. ?Here you go, more conclusory arguments. ?I will attack your argument line by line:

Do I need to provide you a definition? Inflammatory:? tending to cause anger, animosity, or indignation.

How does my example cause anger, animosity, or indignation? ?And against whom does it cause it??

Ignore, for a moment, the topic itself is inherently inflammatory....How can you, a reasonable person, NOT think the discussion of pedophelia, in justaposition to homosexuality or homosexual marraige....and inviting a moral comparison of the two, no matter what conclusion you WANT your "audience" to come to ,isn't inflammatory?? The answer is...you can't.?

Again, the comparison was of things that are banned/not permitted because of moral reasons. ?My argument is that not all things that are banned for these reasons are at the same level. ?I gave an example of two prime things. ?I can understand your argument if I was arguing that these two things are similar. ?But I was not. ?In fact, I was arguing that they are no where near similar, yet they are treated the same under the law. ?So who is that inflammaroty to? ?Who does that offend? ?

Are these things not both banned because of moral reasons?

Are these things not at different levels morally?

Does the fact that these things are different morally support my argument that not all moral things are at the same level?

Does my argument offend homosexuals? ?If so, how? ?I am arguing that it is on a different moral level than other things that are banned for moral reasons. ?Please explain how this is offfensive to homosexuals?

Tell me how my construct is flawed. ?You simply cannot do so.

The conclusion that I want my audience to come to is that these things are on a different level. ?The fact that they are treated the same under the law is not my problem. ?I think your problem is that they are treated the same under the law - banned/not permitted. ?I am pointing that out. ?This makes me dishonest? ?This makes my example inflammatory? ?The fact that I pointed this out does not make my argument inflammatory. ?In fact, quite the opposite; it supports my argument that they should be treated differently. ?I think the motive of the writer and the conclusion that I am trying to draw from the argument is very important in determining the merit and motivation of the example that I have used. ?Unfortunately, my argument does call one to compare two things that are on a different level morally. ?However, the example is used to show that currently these things are treated the same, and they should not be treated the same. ?I don't know how else you can construct the argument that I have constructed. ?