wigblog ramblings of a philomathic polymath

Prop 8 Thoughts Followup

This post was also placed on Facebook where it garnered some commentary. This post is a followup to that commentary.

First of all, let me say I've very much enjoyed the conversation that has developed from my original post.

@Lia:
It's more than apparent that this is an emotional issue for you. Your initial comments (which you've since deleted) threw the other definitions under "marriage" from the pages I referenced at me and accused me of being selective. Obviously you hadn't read my entire post which later included the other definitions and decided to react quickly and defensively. Kudos to you for continuing on and correcting yourself.

However, in your first comment that is still posted here at the time of this writing, you accuse my arguments of being logical fallacies and then immediately retort with non-sequiturs.

While I know you believe in your heart you've argued this until you're blue in the face making emotional appeal upon emotional appeal, I still find that my original claims still stand. None of the followups I've seen have been able to tear down the arguments presented. As such, I hope at some point the idea might fire in your mind (as well as others who have taken issue with my argument) that it's possible your ideas on this are not solidly grounded and perhaps deserve some re-thought. If so, I'm more than willing to talk it out.

Further on you state you're tired of "working around this type of logic". Why is it you feel you must "work around" it? You claim your linked discussion contains "true logic", but your own rationality within the scope of this issue is already suspect given the non-sequiturs you led off with in the comments. As Alex states, throwing out stop-words like "racism", "sexism", and "antisemitism" makes it seem as if you're attempting to deflect head on debate about the issues at hand and would rather machine-gun me with red herrings.

@Amy:
Agreed that more dialog is good. I do have ideas for you. Unfortunately, I don't write quickly, have a 3 year old at home, a baby due in a month and am in a high-stress job that doesn't allow me to spend my days responding to stuff like this. Obviously as it took a few days to get this follow-up together...

Your questions lend themselves toward answers in the realm of morality. I think before we jump there, we need to address what the 1st Amendment actually means as some here appear to be confused on the matter. I do this below...

@Mark Urich:
Despite the fact that you don't know me, it's very important to me that you really read and think through these things as you wield influence on someone I care about very much. It's very clear that your thinking here has been manipulated into equating claims against same-sex "marriage" as being discriminatory against homosexuals. This is precisely the way that opponents of Prop 8 want people to think. The two are not the same any more than being brothers is discriminatory against women. With this in mind, re-read what you wrote and I think the logical mistakes in your statements will become apparent. I address your claims below also, so please, keep reading.

Claim:
Prop 8 boils down to a "rights" issue.

Refutation:
The text of the proposed amendment does nothing to alter any existing rights of same-sex couples. For your reference, here is the text of California Family code, section 297.5 (a):

Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

This is not changed by the passage of Proposition 8. No need to wave the magic wand, Ricky. There is no argument that can be made against Prop 8 based on "rights". It's readily apparent that same-sex couples can already enjoy all of the "same rights, protections, and benefits" as married couples. The claim Prop 8 boils down to rights is patently and absurdly false.

Claim:
"the general population ... is basing their definition by what they were taught on Sunday."

Counterclaim:
Please reference one of the last paragraphs in the post:

"Please note here folks, there's nothing here you can claim as a religious argument. An atheist, a Christian and anyone else from any other walk of life could have come up with this stuff. It's just a matter of stopping to think through what's actually being said before you get wrapped up in any impassioned dogma."

The definitions provided in the post referenced their sources and are not from any religious texts. Perhaps you did not mean to lump me in with "the general population". But if what the general population learns about what "marriage" is on Sunday happens to be the same as what marriage is in reality, what's wrong with this?

Claim:
"the first amendment declares religions are equal"

Refutation:
The text of the 1st amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

This claim is a non-sequitur. Perhaps I'm missing it here, but I don't see any part of this statement that could remotely be spun as to say that "religions are equal". Rather, after reviewing this text and the responses I received, I wonder if the forced acceptance of same-sex "marriage" would continue to allow the people "the free exercise thereof"?

Claim:
"So we have a legal defintion determined by the morality of judeo-christian religious law"

Refutation:
False. There are much earlier examples of non-judeo-christian religious and secular law showing marriage to clearly be between a man and a woman. For example, the code of Hammurabi. (Nod @Inger for supporting refutation.)

Claim:
"Since times have changed such that judeo-christian moral code is only one aspect of our society and inheritance is no longer tied to paternal lines...one would think our concept of marriage should change as well."

Refutation:
This is also a non-sequitur. This doesn't make any more sense than saying "Since times have changed such that judeo-christian moral code is only one aspect of our society and slavery is no longer tolerated...one would think our concept of freedom should change as well."

However on this note, let it be said then that the burden of proof that the definition of marriage should change lies with those who wish to change it. It is not a requirement that those who are in favor of the historically valid definition present a defense as to why it should remain such as it has for millennia.

Claim:
"in any case, the mere act of specifing a legal relationship between two individuals inherently creates inequality and denies liberty..therefore unconstitutional."

Refutation:
Having already shown that no argument against Prop 8 can be made on the basis of "rights", this claim is a red herring. (I have also shown that passage of prop 8 would not deny anyone the libery of getting married to anyone of the opposite sex that they choose.)

Claim:
"If same-sex couples want to self-identify as married because they live in a culture that values marriage, who are we to impose another term on them, just so we can feel special?"

Refutation:
Now knowing how marriage has been defined for millennia, who are you to say same-sex couples should be allowed to identify themselves as "married"? This claim reeks of relativism for which I have great distaste. I could just as easily say I wish to self-identify as "rich" because I live in a culture that values material wealth. This desire, however, does not change reality.

Claim:
Wikipedia is an authoritative source for the definition of marriage.

Counterclaim:
Wikipedia authoritative? 60 seconds of googling should resolve his question for everyone.

Claim:
"Mostly everyone saying yes" to Prop 8 is driven by monetary issues.

Refutation:
A case in favor of Prop 8 that does not mention money anywhere has been presented. While there may be litigious action triggered by passage of Prop 8, there is obviously a case to be made that does not center around monetary issues. This claim is a red herring.

Claim:
Same-sex couples deserve respect.

Counterclaim:
I agree that homosexuals deserve (and have my) respect on the basis of their humanity. However, homosexuals as individuals are clearly distinct from the relationship between same-sex couples. I don't understand the claim as to why same-sex "couplehood" or any constructed social institution recognizing it deserves respect. No supporting statements are given for this claim so it can be dismissed out of hand.

Claim:
Claiming that allowing same-sex unions to be called "marriage" undermines the value of marriage is discriminatory against homosexuals.

Refutation:
My argument does not discriminate against homosexuals, nor does the one from protectmarriage.com. I clearly state that homosexuals are allowed to get married to anyone of the opposite sex that they choose. Homosexuals are certainly worthy of having a marriage.

Claim:
"Same-sex marriage itself is undermined by being referred to as Domestic Partnership instead of a marriage."

Refutation:
I have presented an apparently clear argument claiming there is no such thing as "same-sex marriage". I have not seen this argument torn down by any counter-arguments so far so my argument still stands. This claim ignores this fact. Something that does not exist cannot be undermined.

Claim:
"as law currently stands same-sex marriage is equal with heterosexual marriage"

Clarification:
As law currently stands, same-sex domestic partnerships have the same rights, protections, and benefits as married couples.

Claim:
"Your reasons for voting are however on a moral issue. One, that seems, would rather lower homosexuals and label them as not equals than it would support equality among all people. A moral value that is shared across religion and legislation."

Counterclaim:
Again, there is no discrimination against homosexuals in prop 8 any more than there is discrimination against two female siblings who would want to be called brothers. Seems we have yet another case of ignoratio elenchi.

Great conversation people! I hope I've been able to get some of you to think hard about this. I sure wish I had more time to write! And honestly, if anyone does have a solid argument as to why same-sex unions should be called marriages, I'd very much like to hear it. I don't feel anyone has really presented any refutation of my arguments that has been able to stand.