LDS letter on same-sex marriage

[fantome profane]

Love is irrelevant to Proposition 8.

You can say that again. It is about oppression, discrimination, inequality, and bigotry.

If the argument was "Homosexual marriage is wrong because most people think it is" then you would be right. I'm sure some are trying to make that argument - but I don't believe Orontes is one of them.

This is a legal issue that can be decided by the voice of the people. "X is illegal because most people want it to be illegal" is not a fallacious statement. "X is wrong because most people believe it is wrong" is.

It is interesting to see how easily you separate morality from legality. You are saying you can pass any immoral, unethical law as long as you have the votes.



Earlier in this thread people were arguing that this law was motivated by love and morality. And now after seeing that such absurdities cannot be defended (this law is not about love or morality, it is about preserving bigotry), they turn and argue from strict legality and the brute force of greater numbers. Well they are going to lose this argument as well.

 

[SoyLeche]

It is interesting to see how easily you separate morality from legality. You are saying you can pass any immoral, unethical law as long as you have the votes.

I'm saying that the morality of something is not determined by whether or not it is legal, and that the legality is not determined by the morality. The two should be related, but they do not depend on one another. Immoral, unethical laws get passed all the time. Of course, what I view as immoral and unethical you may well view as moral and ethical...

All I'm getting at is that the argument ad numerum does not fit in this case.

Earlier in this thread people were arguing that this law was motivated by love and morality. And now after seeing that such absurdities cannot be defended (this law is not about love or morality, it is about preserving bigotry), they turn and argue from strict legality and the brute force of greater numbers. Well they are going to lose this argument as well.

I still believe that I am on the side of morality here. That hasn't changed. I am trying to get away from only using the moral angle though, and I believe Orontes has been pretty good about keeping the morality of homosexuality out of the discussion entirely.

 

[fantome profane]

I still believe that I am on the side of morality here. That hasn't changed. I am trying to get away from only using the moral angle though, and I believe Orontes has been pretty good about keeping the morality of homosexuality out of the discussion entirely.

Because neither of you can defend the immoral positions you have chosen. You may believe that you are on the side of morality but you cannot demonstrate it rationally so you decide to argue that morality doesn’t matter. I am here to tell you morality matters, and so does rationality.

 

[Magic Man]

I don't live in California so I don't follow it's politics all that much. Is Prop 22 the one that was recently overturned? If so, then the court overstepped its bounds and overturned it.

You're right. What was the Supreme Court doing, stepping in and doing their job by upholding the Constitution? They should just let everyone go as much against the Constitution as they want to. If that's what the people want, right?

But, seriously, enough with the "the Supreme Court overstepped their bounds" crap. The Constitution is there for a reason, and that's to stop any "majority rules" stuff. Think of them as a referee or umpire. There are rules to the game, which they are supposed to uphold, whether or not there are a bunch of people who don't want the rules. If the majority voted in a law banning the practice of the LDS religion, would you be OK with that? Would that be fair? Should the Supreme Court just let that go, even though it goes against the Constitution?

 

[Magic Man]

Something is not legal because the majority wants it to be. Something is only legal because it goes along with the Constitution.

 

[SoyLeche]

Because neither of you can defend the immoral positions you have chosen. You may believe that you are on the side of morality but you cannot demonstrate it rationally so you decide to argue that morality doesn’t matter. I am here to tell you morality matters, and so does rationality.

No, because what I believe about the morality of homosexual relations should have little to nothing to do with the legal aspect. I can accept that.

Do I believe that homosexual relations are immoral? Yes. Do I believe that homosexual marriage should not be recognized by the state because I believe the relations to be immoral? No. There are other reasons. Orontes has gone into them, and he's much better at it than I am so I'll let him continue and not muddy the waters though.

I agree that morality matters. The problem is that there are different ideas about what is and is not moral. I have no desire to impose my morals on you. I do have a desire and a responsibility to support legal actions that I view to be in the best interest of society though.

 

[SoyLeche]

Actually, the first one is fallacious, too. Something is not legal because the majority wants it to be. Something is only legal because it goes along with the Constitution.

Yeah, but the Constitution is dependant upon the voice of the people too. If enough people agree, the Constitution can be changed.

I really am not following it all that well, but isn't that what this is about - a change to California's Constitution?

 

[Magic Man]

Yeah, but the Constitution is dependant upon the voice of the people too. If enough people agree, the Constitution can be changed.

I really am not following it all that well, but isn't that what this is about - a change to California's Constitution?

The Constitution can be amended, but it needs to be more than just a huge number of people agreeing that it needs to be amended. The courts have to rule that there is good reason, too.

 

[SoyLeche]

The Constitution can be amended, but it needs to be more than just a huge number of people agreeing that it needs to be amended. The courts have to rule that there is good reason, too.

Unless the people revolt and overthrow the government entirely.

Ultimately, sovereignty lies with the people.

This tangent is pretty useless though. I'll leave it with this: If someone says "homosexual marriage is wrong because most people say it is wrong", or even "I support Prop. 8 because most people support Prop. 8" - then they are committing the fallacy in question. As far as I can tell, Orontes has never stated anything of the sort and has not committed the fallacy.

 

[Magic Man]

Unless the people revolt and overthrow the government entirely.

Ultimately, sovereignty lies with the people.

Obviously, but that negates the whole discussion anyway. That's like saying "If I kill you, it won't matter what you believe". Sure, but that shouldn't even be a possibility in the discussion.

This tangent is pretty useless though.

Why? It's about the fact that the majority doesn't rule, which is itself an argument for the banning of gay marriage.

 

[Autodidact]

The above doesn't address my point which was that a jurisprudential argument may be couched under Federal or California law. This is due to the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment. As to my arguments: as explained: they concern California's Constitution.

I'm not sure who "We're" is, but if you are familiar with basic arguments on the law, my statement should be quite clear. If it is not, ask and I can explain.

In general, arguments may be couched that way. However, in this case, it is purely a question of state law, so it doesn't matter what other arguments may be couched that way. The case was decided by the California Supreme court applying the California Constitution to a California statute. There are other Constitutional and policy arguments, but they are not at issue here. Now please explain IN PLAIN ENGLISH why you think the court's interpretation of their Constitution was incorrect.

 

[Autodidact]

Love is irrelevant to Proposition 8.

Only if you think that love and marriage are not related.

 

[madhatter85]

Only if you think that love and marriage are not related.

they are not inherently related

 

[Autodidact]

they are not inherently related

Sad for you.

 

[madhatter85]

Sad for you.

How is it sad?

I would not marry someone unless i loved them But they do not go hand in hand, you can love someone and not marry them. just as you can marry someone and not love them.

 

[Starfish]

Auto, your whole premise, as it appears, is that there is no difference between males and females, that the two are entirely interchangable. Whether it be in society, law, or in families, there is no difference. Adults are adults. Gender means nothing.

We disagree.

 

[Autodidact]

Auto, your whole premise, as it appears, is that there is no difference between males and females, that the two are entirely interchangable. Whether it be in society, law, or in families, there is no difference. Adults are adults. Gender means nothing.

We disagree.

Please show where that is my premise. In fact I strongly disagree with this sentiment. My premises are that homosexuality is moral, that gay marriage is a good thing, that the only opposition is both religious and irrational, and therefore inappropriate, and that love is to be encouraged, not feared.

 

[Autodidact]

How is it sad?

I would not marry someone unless i loved them But they do not go hand in hand, you can love someone and not marry them. just as you can marry someone and not love them.

You can, legally. It's a good way to screw up your life. Don't you believe that the appropriate form for a loving and sexual lifetime bond between two adults is marriage?

 

[Starfish]

Please show where that is my premise. In fact I strongly disagree with this sentiment. My premises are that homosexuality is moral, that gay marriage is a good thing, that the only opposition is both religious and irrational, and therefore inappropriate, and that love is to be encouraged, not feared.

Everything I have read from you in the past says this. I'm not trying to criticize, but this seems to be what you believe. In past discussions about same-sex parenting, you always maintained that the gender of the parents does not matter, as long as there are two parents. I would assume you believe this in the job market as well.

Am I wrong here? Are there some roles that require specifically males or females, in your opinion?

 

[Autodidact]

Everything I have read from you in the past says this. I'm not trying to criticize, but this seems to be what you believe. In past discussions about same-sex parenting, you always maintained that the gender of the parents does not matter, as long as there are two parents. I would assume you believe this in the job market as well.

Am I wrong here? Are there some roles that require specifically males or females, in your opinion?

No, it is not what I believe, and I don't know where you got this idea. Now would you like to respond to the many, many points that I actually made in this thread?

The gender of the parents actually does not matter. Good solid research has shown this to be true, and I would be happy to provide you with the references.

Other than that, I prefer not to go chasing after red herrings, but to discuss the issues actually at hand. If you want to start a thread on whether there are real differences between men and women and whether they matter, please do.

Legally, there are few instances in which gender-based discrimination is appropriate. You will note that it was not me who made the argument in this thread that this is an instance of gender-based discrimination. I think we have enough controversy on our plates here without going back and arguing the ERA.