Help me for another message board?

[Bertha Venation]

I waded in with this guy and I can't figure out how to answer his latest.

I'm not looking for a big long response, but if someone could give me an answer to a paragraph, or point out some logical fallacies (I fail to find them if they're there), I'd be grateful.

About Loving v. Virginia, I wrote in response to him:

That the subject was segregation does not nullify the simple, powerful validity of these statements:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

"Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival."

A "basic civil right" does not mean "a basic civil right that applies only in order to prevent segregation."

He wrote:

As there has never been same sex marriage in our Western culture, the SCOTUS could only have been referring to marriage as we have known it up until very recently, i.e., one man+one woman.

When the SCOTUS specifically says that marriage is a basic civil right necessary to our very existence and survival, they are clearly saying that the marriage of a man to a woman is basic to our very existence and survival because that marriage is procreative. This is the civil right they are talking about. A romantic relationship between any two consenting adults is clearly not essential to our very existence and survival.

Whether we change the definition of heterosexual marriage, which the court has stated is essential to our very existence and survival, to include any romantic relationship between any two consenting adults is a completely separate issue.

We already have marriage equality within the current state restrictions on marriage. Marriage does not exist without restrictions anywhere in the Western world.

Whether changing the definition of marriage, to include the marriage of any two people of any sex, is a major social issue outside of anything the SCOTUS was writing about as a civil right in Loving.

Oh, and by the way a basic civil right or fundamental right does have a legal definition. It is generally accepted as to mean a right which has deep and fundamental roots in our culture. Same sex marriage has no such roots in our culture. It would be a new right, if our society deems it to be in the broad interests of society.

Any help is appreciated, thanks.

Signed,

Weak Of The Pen

[T Wolf]

1. TRying to come up with a logical argument to counter a repuke is like searching

for the secret of turning lead into gold. It is a fool's task that will only waste your time and energy.

They cannot be reasoned with. They do not understand facts. They are never open to changing their outlook.

Better to ignore.

[merh]

2. Tell him that the ability to procreate has nothing to do with happiness

and that this one sentence alone defeats his efforts to pervert the Loving case.

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Pursuit of happiness is our right, the freedom to marry is a personal right that is essential to our pursuit of that right.


Edit to add: Ask him if the law should prohibit people that are unable to procreate from marrying?

[Lex]

3. " Same sex marriage has no such roots in our culture."

Neither did inter-racial marriage either.

"major social issue"
So was inter-racial marriage.

"man to a woman is basic to our very existence and survival because that marriage is procreative."
So it wouldn't be a basic right if you are straight but unable to have children?

"Marriage does not exist without restrictions anywhere in the Western world."
It's not being restricted, it is being expanded. Several other countries have same-sex marriage now.

[izquierdista]

4. A reference

There is a book entitled "The Knight, the Priest, and the Lady" which concerns the Church's invention of monogamous marriage around the beginning of the second millennium. Before 1000AD, marriage was ill-defined and little more than shacking up, cohabitating, or "jumping the broom". The Church decided that in order to increase their power, they would make a monopoly on what was a "legal marriage", who could marry and who couldn't. This pissed off a number of royals, but by being mostly celibate and pontificating on the sacredness of it, they persevered and ended up winning the day.

Fast forward a thousand years, and now there is a group of people who have been excluded for a long time who now want in on the social benefits. The "deep and fundamental roots" just aren't there. Poor people who had no estates to leave to their children rarely got formally married in a church ceremony; there would be no point to it. Slaves could "jump the broom", but if the master wanted to sell them to different buyers, they had no recourse.

What is in italics in the OP is a romanticized, idealized caricature of marriage; i.e., bullshit. You would do well to point out that the purpose marriage serves to society is to regularize property and inheritance disputes along with identifying a next of kin for emergency notifications and medical decision making. Gay couples need these features just as much as straight couples, even more so, since backwards thinking people can end up being assholes when asked to honor a gay person's will or joint property agreement.

And if this boob is so stuck on procreation, does that make impotent men, women with hysterectomies, and people past reproductive age unfit for marriage?

[jgraz]

5. Looks like Junior's gotten into the talking points jar again.

As there has never been same sex marriage in our Western culture, the SCOTUS could only have been referring to marriage as we have known it up until very recently, i.e., one man+one woman.

In biblical times, marriage was a property arrangement between a man and however many wives he could afford to own. Maybe he should ask his wife if she'd sign up for that.

Until recently, the "until death do we part" bit was taken seriously, and divorce was very difficult, if not impossible to obtain. Should we outlaw divorce?

When the SCOTUS specifically says that marriage is a basic civil right necessary to our very existence and survival, they are clearly saying that the marriage of a man to a woman is basic to our very existence and survival because that marriage is procreative. This is the civil right they are talking about. A romantic relationship between any two consenting adults is clearly not essential to our very existence and survival.

So it would be OK to outlaw marriage between senior citizens, couples who can't have children or couples who simply choose to remain childless?

Whether we change the definition of heterosexual marriage, which the court has stated is essential to our very existence and survival, to include any romantic relationship between any two consenting adults is a completely separate issue

Do you know where the quote "essential to our very existence and survival" comes from? Loving v Virginia: the case that voided state laws against interracial marriage. This sick fuck is actually using Loving v Virginia as a talking point against marriage rights. :grr:

Maybe he should include the entire quote:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Now tell me why that shouldn't apply to same-sex couples.

Oh, and by the way a basic civil right or fundamental right does have a legal definition. It is generally accepted as to mean a right which has deep and fundamental roots in our culture. Same sex marriage has no such roots in our culture. It would be a new right, if our society deems it to be in the broad interests of society.

This is total crap. In fact, most of the amendments in the Bill of Rights were written specifically because there were no deep and fundamental roots protecting people's free speech or right to an attorney.

This is why I avoid arguing with Repukes. They give me a headache in my eye.

[Bertha Venation]

6. "Looks like Junior's gotten into the talking points jar again."

:rofl:

"headache in my eye" :rofl:

Thanks for the laughs. They've been few and far between today.

But hey - the sun is shining! Right on!

[Believing Is Art]

7. Eh I'll give it a shot

"As there has never been same sex marriage in our Western culture, the SCOTUS could only have been referring to marriage as we have known it up until very recently, i.e., one man+one woman."

This is a terrible argument. Justices very often use precedent from past cases to rule on issues that were not around at the time of the original ruling.

"When the SCOTUS specifically says that marriage is a basic civil right necessary to our very existence and survival, they are clearly saying that the marriage of a man to a woman is basic to our very existence and survival because that marriage is procreative. This is the civil right they are talking about. A romantic relationship between any two consenting adults is clearly not essential to our very existence and survival."

This is his interpretation and not the letter of the ruling. Marriage is clearly not necessary for procreation and by his strict interpretation, marriage should only be granted to young, fertile heterosexual couples. Your interpretation - that marriage is essential to survival as it is tied to the pursuit of happiness - is more in line with the wording of the ruling and does not require the leap that his interpretation did.

"We already have marriage equality within the current state restrictions on marriage. Marriage does not exist without restrictions anywhere in the Western world."

Okay, true, a man can't marry twenty underage goats and three hens anywhere in the western world, but same-sex marriage is legal in Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden, etc.

"Whether changing the definition of marriage, to include the marriage of any two people of any sex, is a major social issue outside of anything the SCOTUS was writing about as a civil right in Loving."

True, but it does not mean that the language of Loving is not applicable to the issue of same-sex marriage. See point number one.

"Oh, and by the way a basic civil right or fundamental right does have a legal definition. It is generally accepted as to mean a right which has deep and fundamental roots in our culture. Same sex marriage has no such roots in our culture. It would be a new right, if our society deems it to be in the broad interests of society."

Umm, that's a bit of a stretch. Shall we scrap the Bill of Rights because we assume they're understood? The whole roots in our culture thing is bunk, too. The women's rights and civil rights movements both argued that their respective groups had more rights than those with "deep and fundamental roots in our culture." Same-sex marriage is gaining roots in our culture, just as interracial marriage started to gain roots prior to Loving. Just as our culture evolved to overcome racial barriers, we are evolving to overcome sexual orientation barriers whether everyone likes it or not.

[hwmnbn]

8. by this logic then...

When the SCOTUS specifically says that marriage is a basic civil right necessary to our very existence and survival, they are clearly saying that the marriage of a man to a woman is basic to our very existence and survival because that marriage is procreative.

Any couple who choose not to, or are physically unable to procreate would not meet the requirements to qualify for that basic civil right of marriage. Taken to its logical conclusion, his position dictates that a marriage should only be valid and legally recognized if and when the couple is popping out spawns. Once the marriage becomes unecessary to our existence and survival, it loses the underpinning reason for its protection as a civil right.

Oh, and by the way a basic civil right or fundamental right does have a legal definition. It is generally accepted as to mean a right which has deep and fundamental roots in our culture.

Bullshit. Slavery was as fundamental and rooted in our culture as was marriage when the Constitution was written. So if marriage is still a basic civil right, by that yardstick, slavery must also still be a basic civil right. Treating humans as chattel would still be a basic civil right for some but not all. Just like today, marriage is a basic civil right for some, but not all.

Equal protection under the law FOR EVERYONE is now the LAW OF THE LAND.

Slaves got their freedom, gays will get their marriage. Tell your buddy to get over it!