Prop. 8 and trying to defend marriage

[LotusCarsLtd]

I posted on my FB an article on the recent 9th Circuit Court Ruling overturning Prop. 8. A friend of mine posted the following statement in response to it and comments friends and I made and I have no clue how to rebut it. It’s times like these that I get frustrated because I can’t find an effective means of finding any flaws in their argument. The names were covered-up for anonymity and I added bolded quotes to provide the background surrounding the other comments.

This particular issue was very interesting to me, so I decided to read the whole decision (all 138 pages of it), and to be honest this case was the legal equivalent of Mike Tyson knocking Terry Schaivo out in the 352 millisecond.

Within this… thread I have eight separate that need to be made. One to [male friend of mine], three to [female friend of mine], two directly to [Lotus], and two in general. I will not be debating the moral issues of homosexuality because in that route madness lies. I’m going to try and be as brief as possible…but when has that ever meant anything.

First of all [male friend], many heterosexual people I have met are not interested in marriage. Most people don’t really start getting interested in marriage until about 24-28 (the average marrying age is 26). In my personal experience, gays are not much different with regards to attitude as a function of age. This is a very minor quibble, and for the most part I agree with you.

Now then onto the important stuff. The basis for a judge’s recusal is pretty well defined. Simply being a member of the class in question is not enough

I had said that the judge should have recused himself from the case

. Should Thurogood Marshall have recused himself in Loving v. Virgina, or Brown v. Board of Education because he was black. Should a female judge recuse herself on issues of women’s rights. Part of being a judge is taking an oath to consider the law without their own prejudices. If Walker needs to recuse himself because he is gay, does that mean that all Catholic judges should recuse themselves when the Church is being sued. No, recusal is for when the judge has a personal involvement with one of the respondents.

As for your opinion on the civil aspects of marriage there are two things to keep in mind. First of all, marriage (in the civil sense) is more than simply sharing property and health insurance (and I agree with you on the insurance part). Instead, it is a legal sharing of rights

My female friend has stated that much of what you gain through legal marriage in terms of marriage benefits can be gained through the writing of wills, contracts, and other legal measures that give a gay couple just about the same level of benefits of legal marriage without the actual marriage certificate

. Civil marriage ensures that spouses can extend their 5th amendment rights to the other one. They ensure that a spouse has a legal standing in matters of a life support and burial. [male friend] already talked about hospital visits. The case at hand also discusses at great length about the social aspects of marriage. How it effects people both gay and not gay. There are no sets of legal documents that can simulate, or even approximate marriage in the civil sense.

Which leads me to my second point. There are approximately 80 facts of the case that were established. Approximately 20 of them went into the state interest for allowing homosexuals to marry. In fact the state has a vested interest to promote civil marriages to their fullest. People live longer, produce more wealth, are more stable, etc., etc. These facts are independent of the orientation of the marriage

Yes, he is right here, and this could be one reason for why the state supports marriage. But there’s also the issue of protecting children

. So yes, the state does have a reason to promote marriage. Now, if you are suggesting that the entire concept of a legal marriage should be abandoned I might agree with you. It would require a restructuring of our society, but I could accept it. However, you can either have no legal concept of marriage, or you must have a legal concept of marriage that includes homosexuals. Failing that, you need a rational basis to deny gays…something that the defendants failed to do.

[Lotus], first of all you and other [random guy] are anthropomorphizing biology.

I had quoted a friend who said something like “so apparently biology is irrational now?” in regards to Judge Walker’s statement that it was irrational to differentiate between heterosexual and homosexual couples

Biology has no care about what is rational or not. It simply is. We place rationality onto the actions that deal with biology. When it comes to the law, there is a significant body of work on the matter. Griswold v. Connecticut made it clear that procreation is not the fundamental part of a legal marriage. Case in point, we allow infertile people to marry. How does the gender of the people involve change that. The fact presented in this case describe how the fundamentals of marriage in a legal sense are not impinged.

Con’t below…

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

Con’t from above:

Now I think it is time for a lesson in how the appeals process works. If the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decides to take this case then only matters of law can be discussed. The 80 facts that are documented in this case cannot be changed. And from the facts of this case there is simply no way to rule otherwise.

This isn’t some legal maneuvering. The defendants didn’t produce a case. They provided only 2 expert witnesses. One of whom had an expert domain outside of the case specifics, and the other who was discredited for lack of a rigorous methodology and having contradictory testimony. There is almost no way that a case this solid gets appealed. The only two things that can happen is that the appeals court remands this case to the lower court to retry the proceedings, or the supreme court grants cert. I seriously doubt that either of those are going to happen.

This seems to happen a lot…we try defending our views from a legal standpoint but often can’t make it work. Is really the case and what do we do about it? Or are we actually doing a good job but getting ignored?

For my general comments, the entire purpose of the court system is to analyze things rigorously. Facts must be established, and in this case there were no facts that showed any part of the defendants case passed even the barest of scientific muster. At some points the decision was downright hilarious because of this.

My final point is that this does not inhibit anyone’s first amendment right to speech of religion. Churches will continue to view this as they always have, and the world will go on. There is even science to back it up. There are a lot of stereotypes (some of which you, [Lotus], have perpetuated) that are baseless in reality. I think your worldview, and many of the more conservative Catholics, has some serious priority issues and is substantially hurting our society. I do not say this lightly, and to this day it remains one of the greatest reasons that I have left the Catholic Church.

…Whew…carry on then!

Now I didn’t respond directly to this but to another poster who had stated that since when “did people need to be married to have kids” and questioning why we the people should care about gays getting married. My response was:

The main issue with procreation is that it’s very much the business of the state to ensure the well-being of it’s future citizens and future contributors to society (hence why there is such a thing as the DCFS). Children have been shown to be best-off when their parents are married. Even if mom and dad are constantly fighting, for example, studies have shown that the child is still better off than if that child’s parents divorced (even amicably as possible) or if they were never married in the first place. So from this standpoint the state certainly has a business trying to keep the practice of childrearing inside marriage…it produces better citizens. Also because marriage is the very bedrock of society itself, much for the same reasons as above.

To which my friend from above responded again by saying the following:

Ok, that is sort of correct…but not really.

Studies have found that children raised in a two parent household have easier times adjusting. As a matter of fact, these studies were discussed at length in the case at hand.

There are three factors that are dependent on the adjustment for children. These are socioeconomic status, quality of relationship between the child and the adults in their life, and the quality of the relationship between the adults in the child’s life.

A divorce (or out of wedlock) can negatively impact all three of these factors. The divorce itself isn’t the problem…I’ll use myself as an example (note that this is anecdotal and not intended as data). My parents tried to keep their marriage alive for 8 years after I was born. In the end they found that their arguments were becoming so bad that they were severely impacting me. They got divorced, and yes their relationship was very tenuous, but they shielded me from most of it. However, my parents did the divorce cheaply and my socioeconomic status declined very little. Moreover, I still had a close contact with my Father.

You have just made a very strong statement, and such strong statements need a hell of a lot of facts behind them that you really don’t have. I’m not going to say that divorce is a good thing, but it does indirectly show some positive aspects. I think it is a good sign of a society where women can get a divorce from an abusive husband and still provide (albeit meagerly) for their family. However, blanket statements like the ones you have been making cheapen the debate and obscure the science.

And just so you know, the definition of marriage and what it means socially, legally, spiritual, and dogmatically have been in flux for centuries. That the Catholic Church does not accept gays is not to say that it forever shall be, or that marriage as you describe has been the bedrock forever. To say such a thing is pretty, well I can’t find a proper adjective to quite describe my feelings. I think the best I can do is…blarg.

How…do…I…even…begin…to rebut ANY of this, especially the stuff from above? I have nothing to rebut it with and nowhere really to begin. My arguments wouldn’t stand a chance. How would you respond?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Lotus, your FB debater is engaging in logical fallacies: for example, jumping from two-parent households negatively on the one hand, to other two-parent households positively on the other, to justify opposite points in a manipulative way. Additionally, he is applying anecdotal information as generalized “evidence.” That’s just the tip of the iceberg. It’s late. Check out our thread on the World News CAF sub-forum.

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

Lotus, your FB debater is engaging in logical fallacies: for example, jumping from two-parent households negatively on the one hand, to other two-parent households positively on the other, to justify opposite points in a manipulative way. Additionally, he is applying anecdotal information as generalized “evidence.” That’s just the tip of the iceberg. It’s late. Check out our thread on the World News CAF sub-forum.

The problem is that I can’t see the logical fallacies. All I see is philosophy that is seemingly more sound than mine despite the fact that I suspect it’s bad.

Another friend of mine said the following so I’m wondering what I did wrong:

[Lotus] started this thing by applying the Catholic reasoning to a legal happenstance: Marriage in the sense of sprituality, and not a government matter.

Plus, to be honest, not being able to defend my points makes me look like an idiot who doesn’t know what he’s talking about. That will, of course, further damage the fight against gay “marriage” by making all of us look like idiots.

 

[edwest2]

Please don’t include me or anyone else in the “all of us” category.

First, Homosexuality was removed as a disorder from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in 1973 by nonscientific vote. In other words, nobody proved that homosexuality was not a disorder using any other reason except gay people do not want to be called sexual deviants.

There would be no rational basis for same sex marriage today if that had not gotten overturned first. Then gay activists went to the states and overturned sodomy laws.

Why don’t gay people who want same sex marriage simply say, We don’t care what you think, we’ll turn gay sex into an Institution? That’s all this is.

It is not a civil rights issue, and it’s not just Catholics who say that:

jewishworldreview.com/jeff/jacoby_gay_marriage.php3

People who want gay marriage talk about commitment. Isn’t a gay marriage the same as a heterosexual marriage?

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

God bless,
Ed

 

[GratefulFred]

From the OP: I will not be debating the moral issues of homosexuality because in that route madness lies.

As a Catholic who believes in the existence of God and that He has revealed Himself to us in the Bible and in His Son Jesus Christ, and that after this life we either end in Heaven or Hell, I cannot dismiss the moral issues. I do not accept that the moral issue is the route to madness.

Good civil law MUST comport well with moral law. To the degree civil law departs from moral law, we run the risk of becoming an AMORAL social with is a huge step closer to an IMMORAL society.

When you leave out God and the limits He places on us, you are promoting a GODLESS society in which you can justify ANY behavior. That is very dangerous.

Ignore moral law at the direct risk of losing your immortal soul.

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

And sorry about the “all of us” comment. I find it very difficult arguing this issue because when objections are raised I struggle to find secular arguments against gay marriage given the audience to whom I am addressing the comments.

 

[St_Francis]

And sorry about the “all of us” comment. I find it very difficult arguing this issue because when objections are raised I struggle to find secular arguments against gay marriage given the audience to whom I am addressing the comments.

I think the main problem inn so many of these discussions is that the “opposition” has roped off a substantial part of “our” argument, forcing us instead to “prove” that we are right by using *their *standards, which are set up in such a way that there is no way that our point can be proven.

And then they call their arguments logical and ours based on the superstitions of religion.

---

OTOH, it is extremely difficult for institutions other than the Catholic Church to maintain that marriage and procreation are related, because they all accept the use of artificial birth control, which breaks the bond between sexual activity and the creation of children. Easy divorce, abortion, the acceptance of single-motherhood all stem from this original wrong turn in the road and contribute to the effect of dissolving the bond between marriage and procreation.

 

[edwest2]

I think the main problem inn so many of these discussions is that the “opposition” has roped off a substantial part of “our” argument, forcing us instead to “prove” that we are right by using *their *standards, which are set up in such a way that there is no way that our point can be proven.

And then they call their arguments logical and ours based on the superstitions of religion.

---

OTOH, it is extremely difficult for institutions other than the Catholic Church to maintain that marriage and procreation are related, because they all accept the use of artificial birth control, which breaks the bond between sexual activity and the creation of children. Easy divorce, abortion, the acceptance of single-motherhood all stem from this original wrong turn in the road and contribute to the effect of dissolving the bond between marriage and procreation.

No way? Here is the Catholic Medical Association:

narth.com/docs/hope.html

The entire premise of gay rights is built on the proposal that people are born gay and they have no choice.

The next premise is that because of their sexual attraction, they should be able to marry the same sex person of their choosing. But is it true that a gay marriage is just like a heterosexual one?

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

You are right about removing love from sex. That’s why you hear people on TV talking about ‘just sex.’ That was the goal: to turn sex into an experience of momentary pleasure with no intention of going further. On Grey’s Anatomy, a young doctor picks up a guy at a bar and has anonymous sex with him. She doesn’t even want to know his name. In an age of AIDS, I can’t think of a more irrational portrayal.

God bless,
Ed

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

No way? Here is the Catholic Medical Association:

narth.com/docs/hope.html

The entire premise of gay rights is built on the proposal that people are born gay and they have no choice.

The next premise is that because of their sexual attraction, they should be able to marry the same sex person of their choosing. But is it true that a gay marriage is just like a heterosexual one?

nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html

Thank you for the links, especially the NY Times article. This line from the article is particularly damning to the gay “marriage” movement:

None of this is news in the gay community [about the acceptance of open relationships amongst members of the community], but few will speak publicly about it. Of the dozen people in open relationships contacted for this column, no one would agree to use his or her full name, citing privacy concerns. They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.

The hypocrisy behind this movement, the pro-choice movement, etc. is so glaring I’m surprised more people don’t see it…

 

[ERose]

What happen today was to show that the American people don’t mean anything anymore. We have been made slaves to the judges of this country. The majority of people in CA voted to uphold the definition of marriage and this judge by his ruling said that these people are stupid and to shut their mouths. Welcome to slavery we Americans not of the ruling class.

 

[Carmel_B]

No way? Here is the Catholic Medical Association:

narth.com/docs/hope.html

A quote from that paper:

Pediatricians should familiarize themselves with the literature on treatment. George Rekers has written a number of books on the subject.(Rekers 1988 )

Scripture is our only true guide and Theology is the queen of science. Only when scientific results conform with revealed theological Truth as stated by the Magisterium is it to be trusted and even then the Devil will undermine that by leading those who state these truths into temptation. Many of the articles quoted by the CMA have been written by scientists involved in scandal or who have recanted their views. George Rekers is just one example Paul Cameron is another whose credibility has been undermined by the Devil changing police documents to make it appear that he has been making things up.

 

[djeter]

An amalgam of arguments I have been using on an Amazon discussion forum:

payingattentiontothesky.com/2010/08/17/discussing-prop-8/

Rather than endlessly presenting the Catholic case (which I have there) the trick (for lack of a better word) is to get your pro gay-marriage opponents to offer a moral defense of homosexuality. Having them shed the discrimination/equality arguments is what Prof Michael Sandel encourages. See what you think of the approach.

regards

dj

 

[MariaTS]

There is no logical basis to back up any of the claims that same-sex marriage is wrong. If you support opposite-sex marriage, not supporting same-sex marriage is hypocritical. Two people who are over 18 should have the legal right to marry.

 

[ERose]

There is no logical basis to back up any of the claims that same-sex marriage is wrong. If you support opposite-sex marriage, not supporting same-sex marriage is hypocritical. Two people who are over 18 should have the legal right to marry.

By your way of thinking why does it have to be two people over 18? Why does it have to be just people? Why does it have to be only between two?

If same sex marriage is allowed then why persecute or leave out the polygamist or the beastility crowd, between those that are related, or whatever? Where does it end?

The primary reason why it should stay the way it is without using Church teaching as an excuse is because it is the way that it has always been. People have always understood until recently that the primary purpose for marriage is for generating and raising children. Love has always been secondary to the marriage relationship. So unless there has been some evolutionary jump in humanity which allows a two women or two men to procreate a child without outside assistance then same sex marriage is not a legitimate marriage no matter what you would like to think.

 

[rossum]

If same sex marriage is allowed then why persecute or leave out the polygamist or the beastility crowd, between those that are related, or whatever? Where does it end?

If opposite sex marriage is allowed then why persecute or leave out dads who want to marry their daughters or mothers wanting to marry their sons? What about people who would like to marry their chosen animal of the opposite sex. Where does it end?

The ‘slippery slope’ argument fails, and it can be seen to fail as soon as it is applied in the other direction.

The primary reason why it should stay the way it is without using Church teaching as an excuse is because it is the way that it has always been.

False. Polygamy has been common through out history. The definition of marriage in the US changed to exclude racial criteria about fifty years ago. Marriage changes as times change.

rossum

 

[richardacombs]

There is no logical basis to back up any of the claims that same-sex marriage is wrong. If you support opposite-sex marriage, not supporting same-sex marriage is hypocritical. Two people who are over 18 should have the legal right to marry.

I’m glad that you accepted one restriction to marriage: age, but suppose the pair are brother and sister or father and daughter or mother and son or brother and brother. I suppose that’s another restriction: kinship.

But wait! That can’t be all the restrictions, suppose one of the two people is mentally incapacitated? Well, I think we had better make another restriction to marriage. Both people should be of sound mind.

So, a civilized society does accept restrictions to marriage. People that are closely related should not be married. Both people should be of sound mind. And on a rational basis the people should be male and female, not because of cultural conditioning, but because that’s the order of the natural biological world.

I know of no other mammalian species that engages in same-sex “coitus”–the quotation marks are placed because same-sex physical unions are not really “coitus,” they’re disordered, only human, physical unions.

That some people have homosexual tendencies is a reality we must accept. That some of them want to engage in same-sex unions is another reality we must accept, but that we somehow have to grace such a disordered union with the name of marriage only spreads disorder through our society like a plague.

According to the disordered logic presented by advocates of homosexual marriage, there is no truly rational civil reason to deny marriage to any two willing mammals.

 

[larkin31]

You are having difficulties because the poster (the one in particular) read the case carefully and understands it. I recommend that everyone do this, Catholics included. Remember, the court challenge was based on the standards for due process and equal protection. If you simply state, “Morals matter more,” then you will lose the argument and the case. To override the constitutional challenges, the defendants (supporters of Prop 8) had to demonstrate clear harm from gay marriage or clear benefits (in material, measurable terms) from excluding gays. They could do neither, and hardly even tried (the judge referred to the paucity of witnesses and evidence presented by the defense).

 

[ERose]

If opposite sex marriage is allowed then why persecute or leave out dads who want to marry their daughters or mothers wanting to marry their sons? What about people who would like to marry their chosen animal of the opposite sex. Where does it end?

The ‘slippery slope’ argument fails, and it can be seen to fail as soon as it is applied in the other direction.

False. Polygamy has been common through out history. The definition of marriage in the US changed to exclude racial criteria about fifty years ago. Marriage changes as times change.

rossum

No it doesn’t fail because of the chief function of marriage is procreating children and rearing them. If it wasn’t for this function marriage would be useless and not needed. Genetically what happens if a father and his daughter have children? Genetic damage.

The only marriages throughout all of recorded human history has been between men & women whether it is a monogamist or polygamist marriage it has always been between men & women.

Even in Rome during its highest decadence where homo & bi-sexuality was practiced and even honored in some instances never allowed marriage between same sex couples. Why? Because a man/man or woman/woman couple can never pro-create a child without a third party involved.

 

[larkin31]

…Even in Rome during its highest decadence where homo & bi-sexuality was practiced and even honored in some instances never allowed marriage between same sex couples. Why? Because a man/man or woman/woman couple can never pro-create a child without a third party involved.

Third party?

hmmmm…

:dancing: