NJ court stops short of gay marriage OK

[Surfrider]

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.

Pandered to who?  Those that are against homosexuality?  My argument goes completely against the thoughts of that crowd.  How can you sit there with an honest face and say that I am trying to pander to them.  I will bet you that everyone of them disagrees with the conclusion and argument that I have presented.  That is the fundamental flaw in your argument.  You are comparing the two things in my example and assume that I am arguing that they are similar.  In fact, I am saying they are treated similarly by are completely different.  There is no flaw in that argument whatsoever.  Just because people want to compare the two and argue that they are the same is not my problem.  It is completely inapposite to the argument I have made.  I strongly disagree with those people.

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?

Your arguing that it is so does not make it so.  People's arguments get taken out of context all of the time.  That is what happened here.  I have repeatedly said that I disagree with the comparisons that were made after my post.

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.

I have explained myself. You refuse to understand or read that explanation, but choose to believe what you want because it supports your position.  I have explained how it makes no sense in the context of my argument. 

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.

I used it because it was the strongest example.  Many people believe that polygmay and bygamy are the same as homosexual marriage.  Thus, that example was not as strong.  No one agrees that child pornography should be legal.

[pilferk]

Pandered to who?? Those that are against homosexuality?? My argument goes completely against the thoughts of that crowd.? How can you sit there with an honest face and say that I am trying to pander to them.? I will bet you that everyone of them disagrees with the conclusion and argument that I have presented.? That is the fundamental flaw in your argument.? You are comparing the two things in my example and assume that I am arguing that they are similar.? In fact, I am saying they are treated similarly by are completely different.? There is no flaw in that argument whatsoever.? Just because people want to compare the two and argue that they are the same is not my problem.? It is completely inapposite to the argument I have made.? I strongly disagree with those people.

You're pandering to the audience you admittedly don't respect.? You admitted to it in an earlier post.? You chose the example because you had no faith they would "get it" otherwise, or pay attention to it.? Why are we revisiting something you already admitted to and conceeded?

I am not saying you're comparing them as similar. You keep saying I do, and that it's the basis for my argument, but it's not.? In fact, I say the opposite. Say it over and over again. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.? I'm not sure how many more times I need to say it.? I'm saying, by conjuring the comparison AT ALL, you are inviting the moral lines to be drawn in opposition to the conclusion you're trying to make. That's irresponsible.? It's inflammatory because you know (and now, again, admit you know) it's likely some of your audience, with a particular viewpoint, is going to draw that conclusion/make that juxtaposition. Creating a construct you KNOW is going to invite that comparison is offensive and intellectually dishonest.? That's entirely the point.? You've now just made it for me, admitted you know it exists, and acknowledged it's validity.? I realize it was unwitting, but.....

Thanks, once again, for proving my point with your own words.? I'm sure you'll now backpedal.

Once again, I'm not saying your overall POINT is wrong.? The two things ARE quite different.? I'm saying the CONSTRUCT of your argument is "wrong".? I'm not sure how many times I have to say it before you abandon the "but my point is right" stance.? I agree.? Your point is right.? I've said it ad nauseum.

YOU conjured the comparison to the audience.....that your conclusion is different than theirs doesn't matter, especially when trying to make a point.? Just that fact you knew some readers very well WOULD reach a different, offensive conclusion is reason enough not to use the example because, when coming to that conclusion, it obliterates your point, obfuscating it behind the wrongheaded conclusion it can lead to.

It's the contstruct that caused it. You created it.? Not taking responsibility for that contstruct is a cop out....and I rather think you know it.

Your arguing that it is so does not make it so.? People's arguments get taken out of context all of the time.? That is what happened here.? I have repeatedly said that I disagree with the comparisons that were made after my post.

No, but you doing it makes it so.? Demonstrably doing it...right there, in black and white (or grey an black, as the case may be).? They didn't take it out of context, actually.? They drew their own conclusion FROM the context you provided them with (as you just admitted you thought they would) and with the conclusion you left them to make....granted, in opposition of your own opinion.? And THAT'S what happened.?

I have explained myself. You refuse to understand or read that explanation, but choose to believe what you want because it supports your position.? I have explained how it makes no sense in the context of my argument.?

On the contrary...I have read what you wrote and believed it.? I have read your later explanation and believe it to be a cop out backpedal because, quite frankly, within the context of this discussion, and the post in question, it did make sense within the context of your argument...until you changed the context when conforted with your admission.? So now I'm left to choose one statement of yours to believe:? The initial one that made sense withint the context of the discussion, your tone, and the actual context of that post OR the one that appears disingenious, later, once confronted by your own words and their ramifications.? I think, all things considered, that's an easy call...no matter how much you protest to the contrary.? But, again, that's the boiled down crux of the matter...and I'm not sure why we're still discussing it.? He said....he said.? Do you really expect to get anywhere by continuing to rehash it?

You can assert it's only because it supports my postion that I adopt this stance...but your proof of that is your own biased opinion.? My proof, to the contrary, is contained within your own posts.? In this, again, I think I'm content to let the "jury" decide on their own...I know I'm not going to change YOUR mind...but you don't seem to be willing to do the same. Perhaps it's because you view your "explanation" the same way I do.

I used it because it was the strongest example.? Many people believe that polygmay and bygamy are the same as homosexual marriage.? Thus, that example was not as strong.? No one agrees that child pornography should be legal.

Obviously there are many people who believe (as evidenced by the posts after yours) pedophelia and homosexuality are the same thing, too....or roughly equivalent.? Using your own logic about strength, how is that example any stronger? More inflamatory...yes.? More offensive...yes.? More salacious...yes.? But stronger?? You've not provided evidence of that by a long shot....only your opinion that it is so.? Of course, that doesn't MAKE it so.

Oh, and your last sentence isn't exactly true, nor does it fit into your statement other than to be some sort of redirection.? There are probably roughly the same % of people that believe child porn should be legal as believe bigamy should be legal....I'm not sure of the exact number of bigamists or pedophiles but I'll bet both are relatively small numbers. Given the Christian Rights' opinion of bigamists.....I'd say it's a pretty strong parallel to draw.? ?Legality has nothing to do with the moral comparison you conjured, though.....other than to depict "moral" based legislation (which, FYI, I'm not so sure the child porn laws soley are...and I know the bigamy laws aren't) so it's all pretty much a moot point.

[Surfrider]

Pandered to who?? Those that are against homosexuality?? My argument goes completely against the thoughts of that crowd.? How can you sit there with an honest face and say that I am trying to pander to them.? I will bet you that everyone of them disagrees with the conclusion and argument that I have presented.? That is the fundamental flaw in your argument.? You are comparing the two things in my example and assume that I am arguing that they are similar.? In fact, I am saying they are treated similarly by are completely different.? There is no flaw in that argument whatsoever.? Just because people want to compare the two and argue that they are the same is not my problem.? It is completely inapposite to the argument I have made.? I strongly disagree with those people.

You're pandering to the audience you admittedly don't respect.? You admitted to it in an earlier post.? You chose the example because you had no faith they would "get it" otherwise, or pay attention to it.? Why are we revisiting something you already admitted to and conceeded?

So I am making a comparison to people that I know won't be able to grasp the comparison in the context I am making it so that they make their own comparison that is completely inapposite to the point I was trying to make. ?Do you realize how ridiculous that is?

Creating a construct you KNOW is going to invite that comparison is offensive and intellectually dishonest.

I constructed the argument to prove the point I was making the best that I could. ?People used compared the two things in ways that were opposite to my own. ?I think everyone did a good job in countering those arguments. ?To call me intellectually dishonest because people made a comparison that contradicts mine is patently ridiculous. ?You are better than that.

That's entirely the point.? You've now just made it for me, admitted you know it exists, and acknowledged it's validity.? I realize it was unwitting, but.....

Thanks for clarifying it. ?It has nothing to do with my argument or the example that I made in the context of my argument. ?Your entire quibble is that you have somehow decided that I had an evil motivation for comparing the two things. ?Ironically, that motivation completely contradicts the argument that the example was meant to prove.

Thanks, once again, for proving my point with your own words.? I'm sure you'll now backpedal.

Actually you have just proved mine. ?All I can say, is that your argument is ridiculous and that I had no such motivation. ?You can believe it or not. ?I will soundly stand on all of the posts I have ever made in this forum as proof that I never write posts with underlying motivations as you allege. ?

Once again, I'm not saying your overall POINT is wrong.? The two things ARE quite different.? I'm saying the CONSTRUCT of your argument is "wrong".?

Actually that is not what you are arguing. ?You admit that my argument is correct. ?You even admit that my example proves my argument. ?You simply call me wrong and intellectually dishonest because you contend that I made the example in order to pander to those that are against homosexuality even though my argument was meant to contradict the arguments from that crowd.

I'm not sure how many times I have to say it before you abandon the "but my point is right" stance.? I agree.? Your point is right.? I've said it ad nauseum.

Thanks. ?My argument is sound as well. ?Regardless if my motivation was as you believe, the construct of the argument is not incorrect.

YOU conjured the comparison to the audience.....that your conclusion is different than theirs doesn't matter, especially when trying to make a point.

I think it is very important. ?I will disagree with you on this point. ?How can you blame me for viewpoints that are in clear contradiction to my own? ?When ever a point is made there are certainly those that will disagree with that point. ?Is it my problem that others do so? ?If someone posts an article or makes an argument that regarding the historical facts behind the holocaust, is that person responsible for those that are anti-semitic and make anti-jewish comments? ?If someone questions the language of the Koran and the use of Islam by Al Qaeda, is that person responsible for anti-muslim comments that may follow? ?If someone argues that Bush and the United States made a mistake in going into Iraq, is that person also responsible for anti-Bush or anti-american comments that follow? ?In each one of these cases, the resulting comments can be predicted. ?Nevertheless, I don't think it is fair to blame the person making the original argument. ?More importantly, in my case, the comments that came afterward are more contradictory to the argument that I made than the resulting comments in each of the example just stated. ?Again, these are big boy discussions. ?I will not refrain from discussing matters or arguing a viewpoint just because someone may take me out of context or present the opposite viewpoint.

? Just that fact you knew some readers very well WOULD reach a different, offensive conclusion is reason enough not to use the example because, when coming to that conclusion, it obliterates your point, obfuscating it behind the wrongheaded conclusion it can lead to.

As just stated, I don't believe this is the case, and franly, I am surprised that you do.

Your arguing that it is so does not make it so.? People's arguments get taken out of context all of the time.? That is what happened here.? I have repeatedly said that I disagree with the comparisons that were made after my post.

No, but you doing it makes it so.? Demonstrably doing it...right there, in black and white (or grey an black, as the case may be).? They didn't take it out of context, actually.? They drew their own conclusion FROM the context you provided them with (as you just admitted you thought they would) and with the conclusion you left them to make....granted, in opposition of your own opinion.? And THAT'S what happened.

Yes they did take it out of context. ?My argument was based on how both things are treated legally and how two separate the two. ?Not one person has commented or addressed the argument that I have presented. ?Instead, they made their own comparisons regarding different issues. ?Again, I disagree with those comparisons, ?However, those comparisons are irrelevant to the point that I was making.

[Surfrider]

On the contrary...I have read what you wrote and believed it.? I have read your later explanation and believe it to be a cop out backpedal because, quite frankly, within the context of this discussion, and the post in question, it did make sense within the context of your argument...until you changed the context when conforted with your admission.? So now I'm left to choose one statement of yours to believe:? The initial one that made sense withint the context of the discussion, your tone, and the actual context of that post OR the one that appears disingenious, later, once confronted by your own words and their ramifications.? I think, all things considered, that's an easy call...no matter how much you protest to the contrary.? But, again, that's the boiled down crux of the matter...and I'm not sure why we're still discussing it.? He said....he said.? Do you really expect to get anywhere by continuing to rehash it?

Again, that's your decision.? Considering that I never usually argue at that level, I am surprised you are so confident in determining my motivation.? I guess we will just have disagree.? I have explained my argument and why your characterization is wrong the best that I can.

You can assert it's only because it supports my postion that I adopt this stance...but your proof of that is your own biased opinion.? My proof, to the contrary, is contained within your own posts.? In this, again, I think I'm content to let the "jury" decide on their own...I know I'm not going to change YOUR mind...but you don't seem to be willing to do the same. Perhaps it's because you view your "explanation" the same way I do.

That's fine.? Let people decide if they believe I had the motivation - which is opposite to the argument that I presented - that you say I had.? I guess I am the only person that knows what my motivation was for sure.? You don't seem willing to listen to my explanation.

Obviously there are many people who believe (as evidenced by the posts after yours) pedophelia and homosexuality are the same thing, too....or roughly equivalent.

There probably are.? How does this undercut my argument.? Remember, my argument clearly contradicts this viewpoint.? So to argue that I am pandering to this viewpoint is ridiculous.

Using your own logic about strength, how is that example any stronger? More inflamatory...yes.? More offensive...yes.? More salacious...yes.? But stronger?? You've not provided evidence of that by a long shot....only your opinion that it is so.? Of course, that doesn't MAKE it so.

Bigamy and pologamy a relationships that occur between two consenting adults.? Although many people don't consider them on the same moral leval as homosexual marriage, many do.? If I used that example there would be some, such as Hanna in a recent post, that may argue that he doesn't care what people do in the privacy of their own home.? Unlike, homosexual marriage, pologamy, and bigamy, the state interest behind outlawing child pornography is much stronger.? Even though a lot of child pornography is viewed in the privacy of one's own home, people still find it morally repugnant.  Not only does it affect the kids that are used in the child pornography setting, but it also may push people to act on the images that they see on the computer.? No one is in favor of child pornography.? Many people are in favor of homosexual marriage.? Most people in favor of homosexual marriage realize that it is difficult to argue that people should be able to marry who they choose and then in the same breadth say that we should ban polygamy or bygamy.? Thus, most people would not buy into the "pick and choose" argument I was making with the use of one of those examples.? On the contrary, child pornography clearly demonstrates that morality clearly is a state interest and that we may still want to ban things because of moral reasons.

Oh, and your last sentence isn't exactly true, nor does it fit into your statement other than to be some sort of redirection.? There are probably roughly the same % of people that believe child porn should be legal as believe bigamy should be legal....I'm not sure of the exact number of bigamists or pedophiles but I'll bet both are relatively small numbers.

As I just explained, I think the people that make this argument are somewhat hypocritical.? You may be right, I would not expect too many people to hold that position if they look at the arguments logically.?

Given the Christian Rights' opinion of bigamists.....I'd say it's a pretty strong parallel to draw.? ?Legality has nothing to do with the moral comparison you conjured, though.....other than to depict "moral" based legislation (which, FYI, I'm not so sure the child porn laws soley are...and I know the bigamy laws aren't) so it's all pretty much a moot point.

You can argue that there are secondary effects to these things.? You can also argue that there are secondary effects to homosexuality and homosexual marriage.? The argument over the secondary effects of these things is debateable.?

[pilferk]

Once again, you intentionally ignore what I actually said, and instead, adopt your own incorrect viewpoint on what I said.? You refuse to comprehend what's actually written, and instead project what you WANT the words to say, rather than what they actually say.? The words I actually wrote, and most of your responses to them, are at complete odds.?

Which is fine (and obvious)....but it's getting monotonous.

Not to mention your rationalization for your viewpoint is wrongheaded, flawed, and filled with examples in no way similar to this one.? ?You're talking about the discussion of issues, not the use of specific examples.? Yes, if someone compared Bush to Hitler, even if to illustrate Bush is "not as bad", as in the manner you used your examples, I would, if I noticed it, have the same issues with their construct...because it invites a certain comparison that you know, when making the construct, is going to invite those in your audience, with a particular political 'bent" to start drawing comparisons and come to a different, offensive, conclusion. I do think the author, or the speaker, has a responsibility to their audience in crafting their words...and any "splatter effect" they might cause.? ? That you do not pretty much speaks to the disconnect here.

As to your motivation...evil is certainly too strong a word.? Disingenious, certainly.? What I find amusing is that in your post you protest that the motivation (to use the most inflammatory example simply to garner more attention and comprehension from an audience you don't respect (ie: pandering)) I've brought forth isn't right...but yet you admit to it all in an earlier post.

As to your construct..again, I haven't contended it's incorrect..at least not in the conclusion it MIGHT lead to, and, in your mind, does lead to.  It's simply pandering, inflammatory, sensationalistic, intellectually dishonest and offensive.

Again, I'm content to stand on the discussion, as it is, rather than continue to argue in circles.  I think we've said the same thing over, and over, and over....

You seem to be unwilling to do the same, and the motivations behind that is, I think, pretty obvious.

PS: Nice job on the predictable backpedal.....

[Surfrider]

Once again, you intentionally ignore what I actually said, and instead, adopt your own incorrect viewpoint on what I said.? You refuse to comprehend what's actually written, and instead project what you WANT the words to say, rather than what they actually say.? The words I actually wrote, and most of your responses to them, are at complete odds.?

Which is fine (and obvious)....but it's getting monotonous.

Not to mention your rationalization for your viewpoint is wrongheaded, flawed, and filled with examples in no way similar to this one.? ?You're talking about the discussion of issues, not the use of specific examples.? Yes, if someone compared Bush to Hitler, even if to illustrate Bush is "not as bad", as in the manner you used your examples, I would, if I noticed it, have the same issues with their construct...because it invites a certain comparison that you know, when making the construct, is going to invite those in your audience, with a particular political 'bent" to start drawing comparisons and come to a different, offensive, conclusion. I do think the author, or the speaker, has a responsibility to their audience in crafting their words...and any "splatter effect" they might cause.? ? That you do not pretty much speaks to the disconnect here.

As to your motivation...evil is certainly too strong a word.? Disingenious, certainly.? What I find amusing is that in your post you protest that the motivation (to use the most inflammatory example simply to garner more attention and comprehension from an audience you don't respect (ie: pandering)) I've brought forth isn't right...but yet you admit to it all in an earlier post.

As to your construct..again, I haven't contended it's incorrect..at least not in the conclusion it MIGHT lead to, and, in your mind, does lead to.? It's simply pandering, inflammatory, sensationalistic, intellectually dishonest and offensive.

Again, I'm content to stand on the discussion, as it is, rather than continue to argue in circles.? I think we've said the same thing over, and over, and over....

You seem to be unwilling to do the same, and the motivations behind that is, I think, pretty obvious.

PS: Nice job on the predictable backpedal.....

I will agree to disagree.  I think your last post pretty much revealed how ridiculous your argument is.  I will stand on my rebuttal to that post.

No hard feelings.

[Skeba]

Okay...

Let's try to focus on the subject itself. If you wish to continue this discussion. Please do it in PMs as it has very little to do with the subject itself.

[The Dog]

Well with the NJ court ruling and last nights rejection of the gay marriage ban in Arizona I wonder if things are starting to steer back towards the middle. 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061108/ap_on_el_st_lo/eln_ballot_measures

[pilferk]

No hard feelings.

Of course not! 

By the by...which state constitutional ban, approved last night, banning gay marriage, do you think will be the first tested in the courts?  I'm thinking Wisconsin....

[Surfrider]

No hard feelings.

Of course not!?

By the by...which state constitutional ban, approved last night, banning gay marriage, do you think will be the first tested in the courts?? I'm thinking Wisconsin....

To tell you the truth, I haven't read the text on too many of them.  I am sure they will choose the one that is most likely to prevail. 

By the way, two interesting oral arguments took place today on partial birth abortion. 

[pilferk]

No hard feelings.

Of course not!?

By the by...which state constitutional ban, approved last night, banning gay marriage, do you think will be the first tested in the courts?? I'm thinking Wisconsin....

To tell you the truth, I haven't read the text on too many of them.? I am sure they will choose the one that is most likely to prevail.?

By the way, two interesting oral arguments took place today on partial birth abortion.?

Wisconsin's was the one that activists targeted as being the most vulverabel during the campaign cycle, partially, at least, because of it's wording.  It was the one they thought they had a real shot at defeating because of it's shortcomings...but they didn't.  So I think it's the first one, as a "test case" they'll run through the courts.  I think they'll lose....though something may come of it that's not an entire loss for them.  We'll see.