Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause

[Betterave]

I don’t understand. Are you making an apology or are you being sarcastic?

Again, we are talking about race vs. sexual preference.

Homosexuals are not being deprived of anything. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like heterosexuals do.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

Dude, here’s the main problem with your arguments as I see it: they’re waaay too logical. How do you expect people who don’t understand logic to understand them? Give it up man.

 

[secular_freedom]

I am sorry but my conclusion did not repeat what was in dispute. I may have to re-quote myself, but I have given you 4 examples of how both heterosexuals and homosexuals cannot marry somone of the same sex.

You need to read my posts more carefully. I did not say that your conclusion merely repeated what’s in dispute. I said that your response merely repeated what’s not in dispute: that under prop 8, both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex. This fact does nothing to change the fact that under prop 8, homosexuals are denied the freedom to marry their partners, while heterosexuals are not denied this freedom. What you (still) haven’t done is explain why this difference in treatment doesn’t amount to discrimination.

Here it is again:

I think my explanation that there is no difference in treatment would be made more clear in general if I were to make the following statements:

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic heterosexual man cannot marry another non-romantic heterosexual man.

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic heterosexual woman cannot marry another non-romantic heterosexual woman.

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic homosexual man cannot marry another non-romantic homosexual man.

-Under Propostion 8 a non-romantic homosexual woman cannot marry another non-romantic homosexual woman.

Thus, both heterosexual and a homosexuals are treated the same.
[empahsis added]

Like I said, all you’re doing is repeating what’s not in dispute: that under prop 8, both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex. You want to infer (invalidly) from this that both homosexuals are given the same freedoms under prop 8. But you have yet to ***deal ***with the difference in treatment that I pointed out: under prop 8, homosexuals (but not heterosexuals) are not free to marry their partners. Merely repeating that both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same freedom to marry persons of the opposite sex does nothing to make the difference I pointed out disappear.

Heterosexuals **cannot **marry a partner if it is somone of the same sex.[empahsis added]

Again, all you’re doing is repeating what’s not in dispute and ignoring my responses. The fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry persons of the opposite sex does nothing to take away the fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals cannot marry their partners - only heterosexuals can. From the fact that both A and B can do X, it does not follow that both A and B can do Y.

This is you. “Under law L, both A and B can do X, and therefore L treats A and B the same.”

Me: “No, because under law L, both A and B cannot do Y; L permits B to do Y but not A. Hence both A and B do not have the same freedoms under law L (i.e. the freedom to do Y).”

You (merely repeating yourself: “Under law L, both A and B can do X, and therefore L treats A and B the same.”

Again, under Prop 8 heterosexuals cannot marry a partner if it is somone of the same sex.

Again, all you’re doing is repeating what’s not in dispute and failing to address the points I raised. Your response does not deal with the counter, but merely repeats what has already be countered. You claim that prop 8 does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because both heterosexuals and homosexuals are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex. My counter: under prop 8, homosexuals are treated differently because they are not permitted to marry their partners (unlike heterosexuals). Merely repeating your initial claim does nothing to counter my counter.

I’ll ask again: How do you deal with the fact that under prop 8, only heterosexuals are permitted the freedom to marry their partners? Why does this difference in treatment not amount to discrimination?

My statement said basically that just because Prop 8 does not mention sexual orientation does not mean that its discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

I know what your statement means, but it is entirely neither here nor there because I never for a second said otherwise. So why make this obvious point?

It absoutely does challenge what you wrote. I wrote a conclusion about what Prop 8 does that is different than what your conclusion wrote Prop 8 does.

I wrote: “What Prop 8 does: It prevents the marriage of a man with another man, and a woman with another woman, whether or not they are heterosexual or homosexual.”

From the fact that what you wrote about what prop 8 does differs from what I wrote about what prop 8 does, it does not follow that what you wrote challenges what I wrote. Your statement is consistent with mine, so how it challenge what I wrote? The two claims are logically consistent:

a) Prop 8 equally prevents both homosexuals and heterosexuals from being able to marry persons of the same sex.

b) Prop 8 denies homosexuals the freedom to marry their partners while permitting that freedom to heterosexuals.

Just because you wrote a) and I wrote b), it doesn’t follow that a) challenges b). In fact, I never DISPUTED a).

I challenged what you wrote by drawing a different conclusion than you about what Prop 8 was intended to do.

I wrote: “What Prop 8 was intended to do: It may have in fact overturned a California Supreme Court ruling, but so be it as long at that is permitted by the Constitution of the United States of America.”

See above. The fact that Prop 8 intended to do X doesn’t mean it wasn’t also intended to do Y.

 

[Betterave]

Response to Betterave: Part 1
It is a false assumption for precisely the reasons I stated: marriage isn’t only or mainly about procreation (duh), nor is it a requirement that people be able to procreate before they can get married (duh), nor is it a requirement that partnerships must, by their very nature, be oriented towards procreation – whatever that means – before they can be recognized as marriage (duh). So far, you have failed to challenge any of the premises of my argument.

Oh, I see. You’re ignoring my reasons and begging all the questions.

I’m afraid that as a matter of logic, you are incorrect. Read in context, the statement that procreation is not necessarily the fundamental purpose of marriage doesn’t mean merely that marriage could have had a different fundamental purpose. I was clearly indicating that for many marriages, the fundamental purpose is not procreation. Thus the fact remains that not all marriages have the fundamental purpose of procreation.

As I have already mentioned, you need to understand the distinction between marriage as a public institution with a raison d’etre and particular marriages. It does not follow from the fact that not all eating is for sustenance that sustenance is not the only fundamental purpose of eating. You repeatedly commit this non sequitur in your claims.

If this is your argument, then it is entirely irrelevant: it does nothing to challenge the premises of my original argument. Under current law, there is no requirement that before partnerships can be legally recognized as marriages, they must not be fundamentally alien to procreation. You are confusing “should not” with “is not.”

Yes, there obviously is such a requirement under current law. This requirement is embodied in the requirement that there be a “mommy” figure and a “daddy” figure as the contracting parties to a marriage.

Moreover, by your logic, many heterosexual partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation should also not be recognized as marriages. If the above argument is valid, then so is the following:

1. Partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation should not be recognized as marriages.
2. Therefore, under current law, partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation (i.e. certain heterosexual partnerships) SHOULD NOT be recognized as marriages.

So your claim is that certain heterosexual partnerships are as fundamentally alien to procreation as all same-sex partnerships. That is false.

This argument isn’t even valid. From the fact that partnerships that DO “meet a minimal requirement of conformity to the fundamental purpose of marriage can be recognized as marriages,” it doesn’t follow that partnerships *must *“meet a minimal requirement…and so on” before they can be recognized as marriages.

What you want to claim is that, under current law, partnerships must meet the “minimal requirement of conformity to the fundamental purpose of marriage” before they can be recognized as marriages. But what is the “minimal requirement?” And what authority can you cite for this proposition (other than yourself)?

Obviously you’re right about the validity. I caught most of your mistakes (), but I forgot to insert an ‘only’:

1. Under current law, ONLY partnerships that MEET A MINIMAL REQUIREMENT OF CONFORMITY TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE can be recognized as marriages.
   
2. Therefore, it is a requirement that partnerships be non-fundamentally alien [YIKES, THAT’S AWKWARD!] to procreation before they can be recognized as marriages.

As for what the minimal requirement is and the reasons for it, that has obviously already been addressed.

 

[secular_freedom]

Then you have a problem with critical reading, since I disputed your “claims” both on this thread, and as I’ve said probably 7 times now, on the collection of postings I’ve done over almost 2 years on this subject, on this forum. You’re new to the forum; I’m not. You’re too lazy to do the work to locate the answers to the questions you are asking. This is just another symptom of the self-centeredness and instant-gratification sought by the ‘Gay Marriage’ crowd, who wants an institution renamed for their private benefit, not the benefit of the larger society. If you care enough, you’ll search the threads on CAF, and you’ll find your answer. You don’t care about a true answer. You’re just into game-playing, argument for argument’s sake, and confrontation.

I feel the need to repeat myself: Which premise(s) of my argument did you dispute and in which post did you dispute them?

 

[secular_freedom]

I cannot set up a Medical practice because the State of Michigan will deny me a license because I have not been to Medical school.

If I follow your line of reasoning, that violates the equal protection clause because I am being denied the freedom to engage in a business of my choosing simply because I did not attend medical school

Is that your understanding of the Equal Protection Clause?

Or would you recognize that the State has a right to set certain criteria for the issuance of public licenses without discrimination? And those that are denied such licenses on the grounds that they do not meet the declared criteria are NOT victims of discrimination?

You are confusing the issue of discrimination with the issue of whether the discrimination is justified. In your example, the statement certainly discriminates: it denies those who have not been to medical school (but not those who have been to medical school) a license. But this fact alone does not entail a violation of the Equal Protection Clause. again, you appear to be confusing “discrimination” with “bad or unjustified discrimination” – the two are not equivalent.

 

[Betterave]

Response part II

Before I address this, it is important to note that we have moved the discussion to a side-issue. The fundamental challenge remains: what are your objections to my argument that prop 8 violates equal protection? Nothing you say here challenges the premises of my argument. With that said, I’m willing to point out fallacious reasoning where I see it.

Hmmm… Maybe you should do some re-reading of what has already been said in this thread.

Getting back to your response, you appear to miss the point of my objection. Earlier you claimed that: partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation purpose should not be recognized as marriages. Well, if this is true, then *many *heterosexual partnerships should not be recognized as marriages (because they are fundamentally alien to procreation), yet you would allow those (heterosexual) partnerships to be recognized as marriages. This is simply contradictory. It is a contradiction to hold that:

a) All partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation should not be recognized as marriages; and

b) Some partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation should be recognized as marriages.

b) begs the question. Here’s the claim - no prima facie mommy-daddy pairing is fundamentally alien to procreation, in the relevant sense.

1. You are confusing procreation with child-rearing – the two are not equivalent.

I am? How so?

1. How can a heterosexual couple "reasonably’ be said to embody the notion of “mommy-and-daddy” when: a) they don’t have kids; b) they don’t want/can’t have kids; and c) they would make poor (perhaps abusive) parents even if they did have kids? Moreover, why can’t it be said that a homosexual couple who: a) has kids, and b) is doing a great job in raising them, better embodies the notion of “mommy-and-daddy” than the previous heterosexual couple?

Obviously by the fact he is a man and she is a woman, and that procreation is obviously based on union of man and woman. (And this obviously cannot be said of same-sex couples and that’s just a biological fact.) It’s pretty simple.

1. Under current law, it is not a requirement that a couple “embody the notion of mommy-and-daddy” before they can get married. Hence your point is moot.

Yes it is; that’s why people of the same sex can’t marry.

How is your example even remotely analogous to the point I made? Women, as a matter of biological fact, can’t be sperm donors. It is not a matter of biological fact, or any fact, that homosexuals can’t marry people of the same sex.

Actually it obviously is a matter of biological fact that same-sex couples can’t embody the procreative purpose of marriage…

Are you claiming that prop 8 doesn’t intentionally discriminates against homosexuals? If so, you are asserting a blatant falsehood. Not only does prop 8 prevent homosexuals (but not heterosexuals) from being able to marry their partners, that is its intended purpose - the reason for which it was enacted.

…so your claims here are illogical and groundless.

In your next post, please indicate the specific premise of my argument that you reject and your reason for rejecting it. Here is the argument again:

1. If proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, and the discrimination is unjustified, then it violates equal protection.
2. Proposition 8 discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation (by allowing heterosexuals, but not homosexuals, to marry their partners).
3. The discrimination is unjustified.
4. Therefore, proposition 8 violates equal protection.

I leave this as an exercise for you to do yourself. (Please review the transcripts if you need to. )

 

[secular_freedom]

Oh, I see. You’re ignoring my reasons and begging all the questions.

Of course, it’s easy to assert this.

As I have already mentioned, you need to understand the distinction between marriage as a public institution with a raison d’etre and particular marriages. It does not follow from the fact that not all eating is for sustenance that the only fundamental purpose of eating is for sustenance. You repeatedly commit this non sequitur in your claims.

Actually, I haven’t committed that fallacy at all. Never did I infer from the fact that not all marriages have the fundamental purpose of procreation that procreation is the fundamental purpose of marriage. It is your claim that procreation is the fundamental purpose of marriage (sorry, but this just isn’t true for all marriages - public or otherwise).

Yes, there obviously is such a requirement under current law. This requirement is embodied in the requirement that there be a “mommy” figure and a “daddy” figure as the contracting parties to a marriage.

Oh “obviously?” Then please cite any legal authority for this requirement that before partnerships can be legally recognized as marriages, they must not be fundamentally alien to procreation.

So your claim is that certain heterosexual partnerships are as fundamentally alien to procreation as all same-sex partnerships. That is false.

Why is it false? Just because you said so? Btw, I haven’t claimed or assumed in my response that certain heterosexuals partnerships are as fundamentally alien to procreation as all same-sex partnerships. All I claimed was, by your logic, the following would be true.

1. Partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation should not be recognized as marriages.
2. Therefore, under current law, partnerships that are fundamentally alien to procreation (i.e. certain heterosexual partnerships) SHOULD NOT be recognized as marriages.

For the argument to be valid, it is not required that certain heterosexual partnerships be as fundamentally alien to procreation – it is only required that certain heterosexual partnerships are fundamentally alien to procreation. Again, given your logic, you should endorse (2). And while you’re free to endorse it, it certainly isn’t the law.

Obviously your right about the validity. I caught most of your mistakes (), but I forgot to insert an ‘only’:

1. Under current law, ONLY partnerships that MEET A MINIMAL REQUIREMENT OF CONFORMITY TO THE FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE can be recognized as marriages.
   
2. Therefore, it is a requirement that partnerships be non-fundamentally alien [YIKES, THAT’S AWKWARD!] to procreation before they can be recognized as marriages.

As for what the minimal requirement is and the reasons for it, that has obviously already been addressed.

It’s clear you are deliberately ignoring my questions. Here they are again: “What you want to claim is that, under current law, partnerships must meet the “minimal requirement of conformity to the fundamental purpose of marriage” before they can be recognized as marriages. But what is the “minimal requirement?” And what authority can you cite for this proposition (other than yourself)?”

First of all, you “obviously” haven’t addressed my first question, and as for the second, you “obviously” completely ignored it.

 

[Betterave]

See above. The fact that Prop 8 intended to do X doesn’t mean it wasn’t also intended to do Y.

I want to quickly address this point before getting back to work o): There are no women in the NBA. This is because it is, and is intended to be, an elite basketball league and no women are able to play at this level. Therefore it is also foreseen and intended that all women will be excluded from playing in the NBA. Nonetheless it is nonsense to say that the NBA discriminates against women as such. It discriminates against women, in a merely incidental and statistical sense, but not against women as such. It is only the latter kind of discrimination that is actually relevant in your syllogism and in our discussion of it. Can you see that? It’s not that the discrimination in this case is justified - it is simply not discrimination in the relevant sense.

 

[Los_Angeles]

You need to read my posts more carefully. I did not say that your conclusion merely repeated what’s in dispute. I said that your response merely repeated what’s not in dispute: that under prop 8, both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex. This fact does nothing to change the fact that under prop 8, homosexuals are denied the freedom to marry their partners, while heterosexuals are not denied this freedom. What you (still) haven’t done is explain why this difference in treatment doesn’t amount to discrimination.

I read your post, and re-read it again just to make sure that I did not miss anything.

I think that the reason I am having to repeat my position is becuase you are using the term partner to interchangably to describe either a male or a female. It is impossible to tell whether or not it is male or female just by using the term homosexual partner.

Also, you have used the term “romantic partner” but this does not solve the problem becuase a partner could be still either male or female.

Prop 8 does not discriminate against homosexuals becuase they can get married just like heterosexuals do. (This is repeating my position)

Prop 8 prohibits a male from marrying another male, or a female from marrying another female ***regardless ***of their sexual orientation. (This is repeating my postion put another way)

Like I said, all you’re doing is repeating what’s not in dispute: that under prop 8, both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry people of the opposite sex. You want to infer (invalidly) from this that both homosexuals are given the same freedoms under prop 8. But you have yet to ***deal ***with the difference in treatment that I pointed out: under prop 8, homosexuals (but not heterosexuals) are not free to marry their partners. Merely repeating that both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same freedom to marry persons of the opposite sex does nothing to make the difference I pointed out disappear.

Again you are interchangably using the term partner here, which can mean either male or female. It is impossible to tell whether or not it is male or female just by using the term homosexual partner.

Again, all you’re doing is repeating what’s not in dispute and ignoring my responses. The fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry persons of the opposite sex does nothing to take away the fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals cannot marry their partners - only heterosexuals can. From the fact that both A and B can do X, it does not follow that both A and B can do Y.

This is you. “Under law L, both A and B can do X, and therefore L treats A and B the same.”

Me: “No, because under law L, both A and B cannot do Y; L permits B to do Y but not A. Hence both A and B do not have the same freedoms under law L (i.e. the freedom to do Y).”

You (merely repeating yourself: “Under law L, both A and B can do X, and therefore L treats A and B the same.”

I am not ignoring you. Here you used the term partner with both homosexual and heterosexual. The notion of partner is still vauge. We do not know if you are talking about a male or female.

Prop 8 states that a marriage must be between a man and a woman. It prohibits a marriage of a man with another man, or a woman with another woman, ***regardless ***of sexual orientation.

Again, all you’re doing is repeating what’s not in dispute and failing to address the points I raised. Your response does not deal with the counter, but merely repeats what has already be countered. You claim that prop 8 does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because both heterosexuals and homosexuals are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex. My counter: under prop 8, homosexuals are treated differently because they are not permitted to marry their partners (unlike heterosexuals). Merely repeating your initial claim does nothing to counter my counter.

I’ll ask again: How do you deal with the fact that under prop 8, only heterosexuals are permitted the freedom to marry their partners? Why does this difference in treatment not amount to discrimination?

Again using the term partner, which could mean either male or female.

I know what your statement means, but it is entirely neither here nor there because I never for a second said otherwise. So why make this obvious point?

This statement was to counter your contention that just because Prop 8 does not mention sexual orientation means that its not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

From the fact that what you wrote about what prop 8 does differs from what I wrote about what prop 8 does, it does not follow that what you wrote challenges what I wrote. Your statement is consistent with mine, so how it challenge what I wrote? The two claims are logically consistent:

a) Prop 8 equally prevents both homosexuals and heterosexuals from being able to marry persons of the same sex.

b) Prop 8 denies homosexuals the freedom to marry their partners while permitting that freedom to heterosexuals.

Just because you wrote a) and I wrote b), it doesn’t follow that a) challenges b). In fact, I never DISPUTED a).

See above. The fact that Prop 8 intended to do X doesn’t mean it wasn’t also intended to do Y.

It challenges your conclusions because my conclusions are different.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[vsedriver]

OK I will sum up my original post if you do not want to search for it in one question"

Why should ANYONE accept the so-called “traditional” definition of marriage as the only form of marriage when the premises upon which it defended are not even true?

Are you saying that the premise of needing a mommy and a daddy to create a family is not true?

 

[secular_freedom]

Hmmm… Maybe you should do some re-reading of what has already been said in this thread.

Ignoring my responses again, I see. What are your objections to my argument that prop 8 violates equal protection? Can you indicate the particular premise you dispute?

b) begs the question.

You need to open a logic textbook and familiarize yourself with the term “begging the question.”

Here’s the claim - no prima facie mommy-daddy pairing is fundamentally alien to procreation, in the relevant sense.

Please list all the conditions that are jointly sufficient to yield a prima-facie “mommy-daddy pairing.”

I am? How so?

Because you do not see a distinction between the two.

Obviously by the fact he is a man and she is a woman, and that procreation is obviously based on union of man and woman. (And this obviously cannot be said of same-sex couples and that’s just a biological fact.) It’s pretty simple.

“Obviously,” what you find “obvious” is obviously not obvious. “Mommy-and-daddy” isn’t merely about procreation, but about child-rearing. It is certainly not obvious that the heterosexual couple in my example “reasonably” embodies the notion of “mommy-and-daddy.” (If you counter by saying that it is obvious, you are begging the question). Moreover, it is certainly not obvious that the heterosexual couple in my example “better” embodies that notion than the homosexual couple in my example. (If you counter by saying that it is obvious, you are begging the question)

I look forward to seeing your mere-assertion responses (again).

Yes it is; that’s why people of the same sex can’t marry.

Your conclusion just doesn’t follow. Your argument begs the question by assuming that the reason why homosexuals can’t marry has nothing to do with them being unfairly discriminated against, but this assumption is precisely what’s at issue. In other words, there could be reasons why homosexual couples can’t marry which have nothing to do with your so-called “requirement,” but you merely assume they don’t exist. Hence you beg the question.

If it is your contention that a couple is required to “embody the notion of mommy-and-daddy” – btw, would you phrase it like this in a court room? – before they can get married, please cite the relevant legal authority for this proposition.

Actually it obviously is a matter of biological fact that same-sex couples can’t embody the procreative purpose of marriage…

If this is your attempt to defend your analogy then it is quite the failure. In your analogy, you are comparing a law which only allows men to be sperm donors with prop 8. As I pointed out, women can’t be sperm donors but homosexual couples can marry. In your example, the law prevents women from doing something that can’t be done, as a matter of biological fact. But prop 8 does not prevent homosexuals from doing something (i.e. get married) that can’t be done, as a matter of biological fact or any fact – unlike women, it is possible for homosexuals to marry their partners.

Moreover, as I said above, you confuse procreation with child-rearing because you can’t see the distinction between the two. (Btw, is “obvious” your new favorite word? Obvious it is).

…so your claims here are illogical and groundless.

Nothing you wrote disputes what I said: Not only does prop 8 prevent homosexuals (but not heterosexuals) from being able to marry their partners, that is its intended purpose - the reason for which it was enacted.

I leave this as an exercise for you to do yourself. (Please review the transcripts if you need to. )

It is an impossible one, I’m afraid, because you have not bothered to take up the challenge.

 

[secular_freedom]

I read your post, and re-read it again just to make sure that I did not miss anything.

I think that the reason I am having to repeat my position is becuase you are using the term partner to interchangably to describe either a male or a female. It is impossible to tell whether or not it is male or female just by using the term homosexual partner.

Also, you have used the term “romantic partner” but this does not solve the problem becuase a partner could be still either male or female.

When I say that a homosexual is not free to marry his or her partner, it clearly refers to a person of the same gender. When I say that a heterosexual is free to marry his or her partner, it clearly refers to a person of the opposite gender. There is no need for “partner” to refer to a specific gender.

Prop 8 does not discriminate against homosexuals becuase they can get married just like heterosexuals do. (This is repeating my position)

Yes, you are repeating yourself, and you not making any effort to counter my responses. Again, this fact you pointed out does nothing to change the fact that under prop 8, homosexuals are denied the freedom to marry their partners, while heterosexuals are not denied this freedom. What you (still) haven’t done is explain why this difference in treatment doesn’t amount to discrimination.

Prop 8 prohibits a male from marrying another male, or a female from marrying another female ***regardless ***of their sexual orientation. (This is repeating my postion put another way)

Again, this fact you pointed out does nothing to change the fact that under prop 8, homosexuals are denied the freedom to marry their partners, while heterosexuals are not denied this freedom. What you (still) haven’t done is explain why this difference in treatment doesn’t amount to discrimination.

Again you are interchangably using the term partner here, which can mean either male or female. It is impossible to tell whether or not it is male or female just by using the term homosexual partner.

There is no need for “partner” to refer to a specific gender.

I’ll say again: you have yet to deal with the difference in treatment that I pointed out: under prop 8, homosexuals (but not heterosexuals) are not free to marry their partners. Merely repeating that both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same freedom to marry persons of the opposite sex does nothing to make the difference I pointed out disappear.

I am not ignoring you. Here you used the term partner with both homosexual and heterosexual. The notion of partner is still vauge. We do not know if you are talking about a male or female.

Yes, you are ignoring my responses, and no, I am not being vague. You don’t need to know if I’m talking about a male or a female." “Partner” in the context of homosexual relationships refers to one’s romantic partner who is of the same gender; “partner” in the context of heterosexual relationships refers to one’s romantic partner who is of the opposite gender. No vagueness at all.

The fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry persons of the opposite sex does nothing to take away the fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals cannot marry their partners - only heterosexuals can. From the fact that both A and B can do X, it does not follow that both A and B can do Y.

Again using the term partner, which could mean either male or female.

Right it could.

I’ll ask again: How do you deal with the fact that under prop 8, only heterosexuals are permitted the freedom to marry their partners? Why does this difference in treatment not amount to discrimination?

This statement was to counter your contention that just because Prop 8 does not mention sexual orientation means that its not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

But it doesn’t counter my contention at all. From the fact that prop 8 does not mention sexual orientation, it does not follow that it is not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. In order to properly counter my contention, you need to argue that the inference does follow.

It challenges your conclusions because my conclusions are different.

The fact that your conclusions are different doesn’t mean they’re inconsistent with my conclusions.

Again, from the fact that what you wrote about what prop 8 does differs from what I wrote about what prop 8 does, it does not follow that what you wrote challenges what I wrote. Your statement is consistent with mine, so how it challenge what I wrote? The two claims are logically consistent:

a) Prop 8 equally prevents both homosexuals and heterosexuals from being able to marry persons of the same sex.

b) Prop 8 denies homosexuals the freedom to marry their partners while permitting that freedom to heterosexuals.

Just because you wrote a) and I wrote b), it doesn’t follow that a) challenges b). In fact, I never DISPUTED a).

 

[gardenswithkids]

…I’ll ask again: How do you deal with the fact that under prop 8, only heterosexuals are permitted the freedom to marry their partners? Why does this difference in treatment not amount to discrimination?..
…Again, from the fact that what you wrote about what prop 8 does differs from what I wrote about what prop 8 does, it does not follow that what you wrote challenges what I wrote. Your statement is consistent with mine, so how it challenge what I wrote? The two claims are logically consistent:

a) Prop 8 equally prevents both homosexuals and heterosexuals from being able to marry persons of the same sex.

b) Prop 8 denies homosexuals the freedom to marry their partners while permitting that freedom to heterosexuals.

Just because you wrote a) and I wrote b), it doesn’t follow that a) challenges b). In fact, I never DISPUTED a).

I know, I’m probably just banging my head on the wall, but I’m going to try this one more time.

It is not discrimination. We heterosexuals **WANT homosexuals to marry us! We want them to become like us!

That is what is dramatically different between those bad laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage. Bad racist didn’t want certain minorities to mix with whites.

Heterosexuals are often willing mix in marriage with homosexuals. Homosexuals are the now ones who want to discriminate. Homosexuals often are the ones who refuse to marry someone who is too sexually different from them. Prop 8 insists that marriage be sexually diverse: one man, one woman. Think of it like a quota. The quota for one man and one woman in marriage helps prohibit discrimination.

 

[Los_Angeles]

When I say that a homosexual is not free to marry his or her partner, it clearly refers to a person of the same gender.

No, it does not clearly refer to somone of the same gender.

A homosexual man could be trying to marry a homosexual woman. This is permited under Prop 8.

When I say that a heterosexual is free to marry his or her partner, it clearly refers to a person of the opposite gender. There is no need for “partner” to refer to a specific gender.

No. If Prop 8 is not upheld then a heterosexual could marry another heterosexual.

Prop 8 is saying that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Prop 8 prohibits a male from marrying another male, or a female from marrying another female regardless of their sexual orientation

Yes, you are repeating yourself, and you not making any effort to counter my responses. Again, this fact you pointed out does nothing to change the fact that under prop 8, homosexuals are denied the freedom to marry their partners, while heterosexuals are not denied this freedom. What you (still) haven’t done is explain why this difference in treatment doesn’t amount to discrimination.

No I am not repeating myself. At times I have to re-quote myself for clarity.

You are saying that “Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause”

A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman under Prop 8.

Again, this fact you pointed out does nothing to change the fact that under prop 8, homosexuals are denied the freedom to marry their partners, while heterosexuals are not denied this freedom. What you (still) haven’t done is explain why this difference in treatment doesn’t amount to discrimination.

I have explained it above.

There is no need for “partner” to refer to a specific gender.

It depends if Prop 8 is upheld by the courts or not.

I’ll say again: you have yet to deal with the difference in treatment that I pointed out: under prop 8, homosexuals (but not heterosexuals) are not free to marry their partners. Merely repeating that both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same freedom to marry persons of the opposite sex does nothing to make the difference I pointed out disappear.

With the above arguments I have attempted to make it explicity clear to you that there is no difference in treatment for heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Yes, you are ignoring my responses, and no, I am not being vague. You don’t need to know if I’m talking about a male or a female." “Partner” in the context of homosexual relationships refers to one’s romantic partner who is of the same gender; “partner” in the context of heterosexual relationships refers to one’s romantic partner who is of the opposite gender. No vagueness at all.

You used the term partner above. Now you are using the term romantic partner.

The fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals can marry persons of the opposite sex does nothing to take away the fact that both homosexuals and heterosexuals cannot marry their partners - only heterosexuals can. From the fact that both A and B can do X, it does not follow that both A and B can do Y.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Right it could.

I’ll ask again: How do you deal with the fact that under prop 8, only heterosexuals are permitted the freedom to marry their partners? Why does this difference in treatment not amount to discrimination?

Now you are taking things out of context of the law either intentionally or unintentionally.

The law is Prop 8 defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Under Prop 8 a man and woman are free to marry.

Prop 8 prohibits a male from marrying another male, or a female from marrying another female ***regardless ***of their sexual orientation.

But it doesn’t counter my contention at all. From the fact that prop 8 does not mention sexual orientation, it does not follow that it is not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. In order to properly counter my contention, you need to argue that the inference does follow.

I have argued against your contention many times.

The fact that your conclusions are different doesn’t mean they’re inconsistent with my conclusions.

Again, from the fact that what you wrote about what prop 8 does differs from what I wrote about what prop 8 does, it does not follow that what you wrote challenges what I wrote. Your statement is consistent with mine, so how it challenge what I wrote? The two claims are logically consistent:

a) Prop 8 equally prevents both homosexuals and heterosexuals from being able to marry persons of the same sex.

b) Prop 8 denies homosexuals the freedom to marry their partners while permitting that freedom to heterosexuals.

Just because you wrote a) and I wrote b), it doesn’t follow that a) challenges b). In fact, I never DISPUTED a).

What??? If my conclusion is 1+1=2 and your conclusion is that 1+1=5 our conclusions are clearly inconsistent.

If anything I have said is against the Catholic Church, let it be anathema.

 

[rossum]

I don’t understand. Are you making an apology or are you being sarcastic?

Your inability to understand my analogy meant that I could not follow through on the analogy so I changed to a piece of British humour. It was both an apology and sarcasm at the same time. This requires interpreting a piece of text in two different ways at the same time. Presumably your inability to interpret my analogy in a non-literal manner has carried over into your inability to interpret my follow-up in two different ways. Please look back at my analogy and try to treat it as an analogy. We will communicate much better that way.

Again, we are talking about race vs. sexual preference.

You may be, but I am not. I am talking about the logical structure of your argument, not about the specific criterion which is used to select marital partners. Try “Any human can select the beetroot of their choice to marry, so there is no discrimination between humans on the question of marriage.” (Yes Betterave, I do know some French.) Race is not relevant to my point here, I am looking at the logical structure of your argument.

Homosexuals are not being deprived of anything. They can marry someone of the opposite sex just like heterosexuals do.

And in my mirror world heterosexuals are not being deprived of anything. They can marry someone of the same sex just like homosexuals do. Would you feel deprived or not if you were living in this mirror-world?

rossum

 

[secular_freedom]

I know, I’m probably just banging my head on the wall, but I’m going to try this one more time.

It is not discrimination. We heterosexuals **WANT homosexuals to marry us! We want them to become like us!

That is what is dramatically different between those bad laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage. Bad racist didn’t want certain minorities to mix with whites.

Heterosexuals are often willing mix in marriage with homosexuals. Homosexuals are the now ones who want to discriminate. Homosexuals often are the ones who refuse to marry someone who is too sexually different from them. Prop 8 insists that marriage be sexually diverse: one man, one woman. Think of it like a quota. The quota for one man and one woman in marriage helps prohibit discrimination.

I already addressed this objection. See posts 90, 99, 112, and 130. It’s clear you’re only here to repeat your talking points, not to interact with what I actually say and my responses to your fallacies.

 

[Brendan]

But requiring a person who intends to practice medicine actually know medicine (as evidence by obtaining an M.D.) has a rational relationship to the legitimate government interest (in this case of protecting public health).

So who defines what a ‘legitmate government interest’ is then, especially in light of the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[secular_freedom]

No, it does not clearly refer to somone of the same gender.

Yes, it does. It is simply how the word “partner” is understood in this context. It makes no difference if I say “homosexuals are not free to marry their partners” or “gay couples are not free to marry” – in both cases, you know I’m referring to someone of the same gender. It’s simply disingenuous to claim otherwise.

A homosexual man could be trying to marry a homosexual woman. This is permited under Prop 8.

Which is not the same thing as a homosexual man being able to marry his or her partner.

No. If Prop 8 is not upheld then a heterosexual could marry another heterosexual.

Okay.

Prop 8 is saying that marriage is between a man and a woman.

Okay. What it is also doing is preventing homosexuals – but not heterosexuals – from being able to marry their partners (or preventing gay couples from marrying each other). I’ll ask again: Why does this difference in treatment not amount to discrimination? Ignoring this question won’t make it disappear; it’ll only confirm my suspicion that you have no answer.

Prop 8 prohibits a male from marrying another male, or a female from marrying another female regardless of their sexual orientation

And Prop 8 also prohibits gay couples (but not heterosexual couples) from being able to marry each other. ***Why does this difference in treatment not amount to discrimination? ***

No I am not repeating myself.

Yes, you are. You are merely repeating the undisputed claim that prop 8 allows both homosexuals and heterosexuals the freedom to marry persons of the opposite sex. What you don’t seem to get is that repeating this point – which is not in dispute – doesn’t call into question the difference in treatment I have pointed out.

You are saying that “Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause”

A homosexual man can marry a homosexual woman under Prop 8.

And here again, you repeat yourself. So I’ll repeat what you haven’t countered: that prop 8 treats homosexuals differently because it prevents homosexuals (but not heterosexuals) from being able to marry their partners. Put it another way, prop 8 treats homosexuals differently because it prevents gay couples (but not heterosexual couples) from being able to marry each other. [And here is the question you’ll ignore.] ***Why does this difference in treatment not amount to discrimination? ***

With the above arguments I have attempted to make it explicity clear to you that there is no difference in treatment for heterosexuals and homosexuals.

Your attempts have been colossal failures, and they haven’t been “arguments” (or at the very least, valid ones). All you’ve done is repeat, like a parrot, your original talking that under prop 8, both homosexuals and heterosexuals have the same freedom to marry persons of the opposite sex. Repeating this fact does nothing to call into question the difference in treatment (which you seem to want to ignore) that I pointed out.

You used the term partner above. Now you are using the term romantic partner.

You not understanding the meaning of “partner” in the context of relationships isn’t my problem. If “romantic partner” doesn’t clear things up for you, then perhaps you can have some friends explain what it’s all about.

This doesn’t make any sense.

On the contrary, the distinction I drew sense whether or not you understand it. What is it about the distinction that you don’t understand?

Now you are taking things out of context of the law either intentionally or unintentionally.

The law is Prop 8 defines marriage as between a man and a woman.

Under Prop 8 a man and woman are free to marry.

Prop 8 prohibits a male from marrying another male, or a female from marrying another female ***regardless ***of their sexual orientation.

Repeating these original talking points does nothing to call into question the difference in treatment (which you seem to want to ignore) that I pointed out: that prop 8 treats homosexuals differently because it prevents homosexuals (but not heterosexuals) from being able to marry their partners. Put it another way, prop 8 treats homosexuals differently because it prevents gay couples (but not heterosexual couples) from being able to marry each other. [And here is the question you’ll ignore.] ***Why does this difference in treatment not amount to discrimination? ***

I have argued against your contention many times.

I guess that’s true, if you call merely repeating your original talking point over and over again “arguing.”

What??? If my conclusion is 1+1=2 and your conclusion is that 1+1=5 our conclusions are clearly inconsistent.

But it is not the case that your conclusion equals “2” and mine equals “5”
The two claims are logically consistent:

a) Prop 8 equally prevents both homosexuals and heterosexuals from being able to marry persons of the same sex.

b) Prop 8 denies homosexuals the freedom to marry their partners while permitting that freedom to heterosexuals.

Just because you wrote a) and I wrote b), it doesn’t follow that a) challenges b). In fact, I never DISPUTED a).

 

[gardenswithkids]

I already addressed this objection. See posts 90, 99, 112, and 130. It’s clear you’re only here to repeat your talking points, not to interact with what I actually say and my responses to your fallacies.

I read them. You didn’t address my objection-you dismissed it with a few brief comments.

Talk about talking points.
:banghead:

By the way, I did not simply repeat what I said. I brought up something new. But you would have actually have had to have read my post and thought about it, instead of dismissing my points immediately so you could repeat your own talking points.

 

[gardenswithkids]

Your mirror world idea breaks down for two reasons:

1. We do no live in a mirror world. (an imaginary world)
2. There would be zero population in that mirror world because homosexuals cannot reproduce. (except for adoption or artificial insemination)

Wrong. The Supreme Court was talking about race. Not sexual preference.

…

Nice work making your points!

Some people simply do not want to see it what is obvious.