Agreed.
…when there is no good reason to deny a group of people from engaging in an activity based on a particular trait, this is unfair discrimination…
Agreed.
And the corollary is that when the word “discriminate” is used in its primary context/meaning society has the right and the duty to do just THAT, (
Discriminate - To make a clear distinction; distinguish: discriminate among the options available. To make sensible decisions; judge wisely. To perceive the distinguishing features of; recognize as distinct)
Lion takes pain to remind us all of the definition of discrimination. Yet this completely ignores that I have already stated that laws can, do and should discriminate. I went on to talk about what I define as unfair discrimination and explained why I view the illegality of same-sex marriage as being unfair...
This is not an explanation. It’s circuitous special pleading – you simply said it was unfair because you couldn’t think of any reason not to think that it was unfair.
Lion's disingenuous position...it displeases me that he appears to be arguing at odds with the positions [that we know ?] he holds...he obviously holds marriage as necessary institution that should be honoured and respected…
It’s not disingenuous. Do I think it is a necessary institution? Yes.
“I do.” I respect and honor the institution of marriage. If I didn’t think there was anything to respect and honor, I wouldn’t be in this debate. It’s the people who want to change
the definition of marriage who have, ironically, mastered the double-think necessary to claim that the
institution of marriage is so important to gays that its definition has to be watered down sufficiently to permit SSM........
then locked in stone to prevent its further dilution.…he has argued in a manner thus far that can easily lead one to the conclusion that all marriage is bad for society…
No. You’ve just self-contradicted the
previous quote acknowledging my support for the long-standing institution of marriage. What
isn’t long-standing is the notion that marriage is for everyone and anyone, anywhere, anytime for any duration or any imaginable combination of participants or species – at will - regardless of what their fellow members of human society (and their children) think.
...If Lion' s previous post was a trainwreck, then his most recent effort could only be described as the Challenger disaster...
I can take the sarcasm but
that’s pretty insensitive.
Lion investigated what 'gay' and 'hetero' really mean, whether there is a specturm, [sic] and whether we can classify anyone into any category. I merely wonder whether any of that really matters.
This is a formal debate about whether it “matters” ....and you are still wondering what your position is?
What I and other proponents would like to see is for the law to be changed to allow one woman to marry another woman, or one man to marry another man. Whether those men and women are full-blown homosexual, bisexual, or even heterosexual doesn't matter.
Full-blown? Lion also investigated the idea of homosexuality being a choice. He cites examples of people choosing to be or becoming gay. This is a red herring. Whether people are "born that way" is irrelevant.
Judge Walker
in Perry vs. Schwarzenegger said it is
entirely relevant to the case for SSM. (See FF 44 and FF 46)
Lion explored the slippery slope fallacy. I couldn't give two figs whether Lion's argument amounts to a slippery slope fallacy.
No, I explained the legal and logical mechanisms of
how the slope itself functions using actual documented events from the past. A fallacy would have been if I had
specifically asserted where the slope leads to in the future.
There's no reason as to why anyone shouldn't be allowed to state their case for their desired definition of marriage, even if it were people wanting to marry goats. The test should be, as it should be in the case of gay marriage, whether there is good reason not to broaden the laws.
You heard it here first.
Give people the opportunity to argue for inter-species marriage. Now THAT’S Marriage Equality
If it's found that there is (such as the inability of the goat to consent to such an arrangement) then the law should not be broadened. If there isn't, then it should.
The
“arrangement” as you call it, is a warm bed, regular feeding times, lots of hugs, annual Vet check-ups, RSPCA verification that no animal suffering is involved, and a promise not to make Youtubes. Yuck factor for this “arrangement”
? Mind your own BUSINESS you bigot! In many jurisdictions there are notable legal differences between civil unions and marriage. These range from tax benefits to hospital visitation rights and survivorship rights.
Where’s the evidence? Countries? Statutes? Charts? Graphs? In .au there is NO taxation or social security disadvantage AT ALL. And
here’s the proof to back MY assertion. ..Yet such an arrangement would still not be equitable. By not allowing same-sex marriage, the idea that same-sex relationships are less than is created. That their love is less than heterosexual couples. That their bond is somehow less valid.
Circular reasoning. ...don’t like being treated differently just because people think we are different.
Dividing the two groups based on nothing other than the gender of the people involved creates the stigma that there is something unusual or abnormal about gay relationships.
Gender isn’t trivial. Nor is it “
just” something in the imagination of opponents of SSM. As a species we proceed by opposite gender mating / sexual selection.
Dividing the two groups based on nothing other than the gender of the people involved creates the stigma that there is something unusual or abnormal about gay relationships.
Stigma? Says who?
Particularly when those who argue against same-sex marriage and call homosexuals abnormal are likely to argue that it will open the door to beastiality (something that Lion has hinted at). This is a deeply offensive proposition...
Hang on! You’re contradicting yourself. You said…
There's no reason as to why anyone shouldn't be allowed to state their case for their desired definition of marriage, even if it were people wanting to marry goats.
You said…
If it's found that there is (such as the inability of the goat to consent to such an arrangement) then the law should not be broadened. If there isn't, then it should.
and....
So what's the problem with the stigma created by creating two classes of relationship - those who are worthy of marriage and those who aren't?
Strawman fallacy. Crocodile Gandhi is the one proposing the existence of a uniquely “gay” stigma. He is debating his own proposition.
The problem is that people LGBT community are more likely to have mental health issues, ranging from depression to suicide. The National survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing conducted by the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that homosexual/bisexual people are:
•more likely to have had a chronic condition in the last 12 months (51.3% v. 46.9%)
•twice as likely to have a high/very high level of psychological distress (18.2% v. 9.2%)
•almost 3 times as likely to have had suicidal thoughts (34.7% v. 12.9%)
•5 times as likely to have had suicidal plans (17.1% v. 3.7%)
•4 times as likely to have attempted suicide (12.6% v. 3.1%) .
Yes. Mental illness. Social pathologies. Dysfunctional families.
How is this an argument
for LBGT marriage?
People will self-harm if we don’t let them get married?
There’s an obvious ad baculum fallacy here.
By the way, you forgot the
statistical evidence about gay-on-gay
domestic violence, infidelity, STD’s and promiscuity.
…being seen as a seperate [sic] and unequal group in the eyes of the law, the stigma created feeds into such undesirable outcomes. It's not hard to imagine that a stigma exists when the mere idea of gay marriage possibly being legalised causes so many to state that it will be the very downfall of all civilisation…
The only thing
imaginary is your strawman.
You are not debating
imaginary stuff said by an
imaginary opponent.
Ventriloquist hyperbole isn’t proof.
Biblical theists visiting rationalskepticism.org might feel stigmatized too and threaten self-harm because of the depressing stuff they hear nasty atheists saying.
Does that “argument” persuade you? 
It's clear that Lion holds marriage in high regard.
Yes. And I have explained why.Furthermore, it's clear that he believes that marriage is something that there should be more of, else he wouldn't have spent so long irrelevantly bemoaning the high rates and negative effects of divorce… if you love marriage so much, you should be wanting more people to do it.
That is an equivocation fallacy called switch-referencing. (Similar to Amphibology) Getting married and divorced and re-married and divorced is not
“better than nothing”.
“Marriage equality for all” – means exactly that. It's an argument for
everyone.And anyone
Anywhere.
Anytime.
For any duration.
For any imaginable combination of participants
The argument that
only gay people are discriminated against fails philosophically because it rests on a vast spectrum of sexual orientation/proclivity where no clear line exists indicating where choice stops and “born that way” compulsion begins.
Add to that the very real scenarios in which people
involuntarily change their sexual preference, like the example case of Chris Birch above, or incarcerated heterosexual people who are
forced into a choice between no sex or homosexual sex, and we find that the (fairly recent) claim about
“all gay people” being a distinct “born that way” class of people being denied marriage, now becomes
philosophically as well as legally problematic.
“pros hen legomenon”What
exactly is being discriminated against?
Philosophers from Bertrand Russell back to Plato have asked…what actually is a thing?
What really is marriage? In what does marriage really consist?
What is real and what is fake?
What is really real and what is really not real?
A wig? A toupee? 
A counterfeit $100 note? 
Does
a man dressed as a woman with breast implants and a Dolly Parton wig have the universal “civil right” to be called a woman?
No matter how that person might honestly think of themself, I don’t regard them as being truly female?
And neither does a human sperm. When did it become legally or philosophically “OK” to
take something unreal and pass it off as if it were exactly the same “thing” as a “thing” we know (empirically) is REAL?
Bible skeptics fiercely challenge the biblical use of the word “bat” in the same category as “birds”
Bird? Bat? Fairy?
Rational skeptics rail against propositions which aren’t based in verifiable, empirical reality and literal TRUTH.
Now, consider the irony, the HYPOCRISY of a person who strictly says no, you
can’t call atheism a “religion” now arguing a WIDER, more liberal definition of the word “marriage”. (Slippery as jelly fish on a floor covered in soap water.)
The tolerance of fake. What is actually going on here?
Can we
call a spade a spade? Is atheism a religion or not?
Human and Bonobo are
not the same word. They don’t have the same meaning.
And “mother nature” says they can’t mate – produce fertile offspring.
Human homosexual behavior is biologically incompatible with the
MEANING of heterosexual mating and the words used to describe it - partnering/matrimony/family.
What
MEANING does the evidence tell us when we see a wedding ring?
"Keep your scumbag husband from venturing off with any other women...."
Watering down the definition of “marriage” is not a laughing matter.
We should oppose changing the definition of
marriage for the same reason that we should oppose changing the definition of
“under-age” We should oppose changing the definition of
marriage for the same reason that we should oppose
anthropomorphically changing the definition of
“consent” Anthropomorphism?
We should oppose Lawrence Krauss’ attempt to change the definition of
“something” for the same reason we should oppose changing the definition of “existence”. Nothing means “not a thing”.
Invent your own new word/taxonomy – but don’t revert to this lame, politically correct agenda where
Words, Meaning, Clarity and Truth get butchered on the sacrificial altar of
Tolerance Uber Alles. Words, Meaning, Clarity and Truth? or Orwellian Newspeak.If you cant change the meaning of the word religion to include atheism, how can you justify changing the meaning
...of the word marriage? Biology. Mother nature/celestial dictator/God is a great teacher.
And it can spot a fake from a mile off and the evidence indicates that homosexual relationships are radically different from married couples
in several key respects:• relationship duration
• monogamy vs. promiscuity
• relationship commitment
• number of children being raised
• health risks
• rates of intimate partner violence
by 
