Let's relax and calmly discuss homophobic people...

Penis removal? Sounds like a metaphor for marriage.

It should go without saying, but I don't support marital rape. That's a no-brainer. It's also a poor comparison because marital rape was outlawed, or the laws that allowed it struck down, State by State. I don't feel like there's anything to engage here. I've made my opinion on the court ruling pretty clear: I don't think the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment precludes a traditional legal definition of marriage, and that's obviously not an issue the amendment was originally intended to address.

 

So... you're fine with courts declaring that certain marriage-related things are unconstitutional, you just think that it should be state courts rather than federal courts that do it? That's a little strange - either something is unconstitutional or it is not. Surely it doesn't matter which court decides that.

And of course you may say, well, that's fair enough, but in the case of gay marriage it is not "unconstitutional", so no court should be saying that. But the reason you gave, quoting Justice Scalia, seemed to be that it can't be unconstitutional because otherwise someone else would have noticed before now. And I'm saying you could have applied exactly the same reasoning to the issue of marital rape, which stayed legal for a hundred years before anyone realised that maybe it went against the spirit of the 14th amendment.

So I'm saying you need a better reason than that, basically.

 

Stop trying to put words in my mouth bruh, it's obnoxious.

Marital rape isn't a marriage issue. I'ts a rape issue. Shouldn't have even been injected into this conversation.

The salient points of the Scalia quote were: a) the majority justices basically invented a new 'fundamental right' on the loose pretext of the 14th Amendment. b) the majority overstepped their intended role and hindered democratic process. c) the majority acts like it's just so plain-as-day that only ignorant bigots could support a traditional definition of marriage, when history and precedent indicate otherwise.

I've made my opinion clear, I'm done talking about it. I disagree with you; live with that. My reasoning is good enough for me; if you need me to have a better reason than the ones I have stated, well, that's your problem.

 

Certainly what governs and guides consenting adults shouldn't be dictated by a kindergartener. This example was meant to point out that the opposite of what you claim to be laughable is also laughable. It's laughable because it is not obvious--even to a child--and it is not obvious because it contradicts years of precedent that has influenced people's expectations and assumptions.
In the same way if I were to meet a man and he told me he was married I would assume he is married to a woman. All things being equal, it should not be obvious to me that a man's spouse is also male and this is because it breaks the pattern of countless opposite-sex unions that have shaped what I anticipate a marriage to be. This isn't an argument against same-sex marriage, just that your dismissal of sex as a factor in marriage as laughable is disturbingly convenient.

This wasn't meant to imply anything about your agency (or criticize your parents), it's just strange for me to think that anybody would not have an immediate association between love and marriage.

 

Japes may be done talking about this, but luckily for everyone else in this thread, I'm not.

"Marital rape isn't a marriage issue. It's a rape issue." Um... I think you do better when I'm putting words in your mouth. But if that's how you want to play it then fine - I hereby declare that gay marriage isn't a marriage issue either, it's a gay rights issue. And gay rights is not a new fundamental right invented by the majority justices just now, it's been around since... ooh... at least the sixties. Homosexual couples have the right to form the same kind of protected-by-law unions as heterosexual couples. Case closed.

And it seems that you and Scalia and perhaps other people in this thread need a history lesson. Marriage being limited to one man and one woman is not the "unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies". There have been societies with polygamy, polyandry, child marriage, group marriage, and no marriage at all. There are polygamous marriages in Utah right now. Furthermore, the concept of marriage having any kind of legal significance is pretty recent in historical terms. Prior to that, for poor people "marriage" just meant "hey we're hooking up now", while for rich people it represented a symbolic political union between noble families. So to imply that marriage is some kind of timeless concept that modern society is suddenly perverting is silly. Every human society has its own set of rules concerning what is acceptable for people to do. Gay marriage is now one of our rules. If you don't like it, well, that's your problem.

 

With the new forums and avatars I sometimes forget past history around here and who I'm talking to. I've changed my stance and am now purely enjoying this thread for it's 100% entertainment value.

 

I think it's pretty clear that that's not what TDC said. To use Smuel's earlier example, we might being saying some years from now that it is laughable that coincidentally and arbitrarily being part of the same family as someone else should be a factor barring individuals from entering marriage unions; but it is not laughable now. (And don't forget: marriage ≠ having children.) Or if you don't like that, you have Smuel's other example: polygamy. We could some day be saying that it is laughable that someone is restricted to one marriage at a time when it is perfectly possible to partake in a three-or-more-way loving relationship, etc.; right now, though, it's a bit of a contentious issue.

Lastly, most of us find it laughable that race ever stood in the way of a marriage union; but it wasn't so funny in 1950. It's the 20/20 hindsight that promotes the obviousness that TDC read into your comment. The fact that such a thing is obvious to you, to the extent that you are dismissive about it, is as much a product of your time and culture as the "old" view is a product of "theirs".

I liked the life-story you mentioned enough to quote the whole of your summary. Yes, you're right that the marriage is an affirmation of what's already there; in fact, it's not much of a marriage if that's not the case (I think we agree on this point). But the ceremony etc. is a celebration of that love, hardship, strength and so on; the whole business is more than just dry legalities. You'll recall that people renew their wedding vows, or have ceremonies long after they've been officially married; these usually have nothing legal about them. I acknowledge that you alluded to this in your earlier comment; but I'm not convinced by your opinion that the significance of the occasion is over-inflated.

We're all familiar with your tendency to take your ball and go home, but the frequency with which you do this and the points in the argument at which you do it are telling. Rather than literally trying to put words in your mouth, Smuel is trying to make you see that your arguments simply don't adequately support your opinions and, I think, that you're reacting from an emotive prejudice rather than a rational consideration: If you have drawn your conclusion about the issue from your argument, and if you find this argument convincing, then it stands to reason that your opinions should also include other conclusions which follow from the same convincing argument, such as what he's pointed out about marital rape. I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you don't understand how the marital rape thing is a conclusion of your argument; Smuel has already explained this. The fact that you don't hold such views, however, means either that your views are inconsistent with your underlying reasons, or that you're simply marshaling any arguments you can think of to protect or validate a decision you've come to irrationally.

This is fine, I think (we all do that); but the problem arises when you say things like "My reasoning is good enough for me". This implies both that you're unwilling to consider an opposing rational viewpoint which may lead to revising your own, and that you're content to stew in your own biases without any proper reasoning to back them up (it also seems to confirm the above assessment of your attitude, which suggests that you're merely parroting any arguments you've come across to back-up an ultimately unexamined opinion).

Now, I agree that in many arguments there comes a point at which we have to agree to disagree; but I don't think you quite made it there before you stormed off with your fingers in your ears.

 

Perhaps you're right wayne. I guess I should take a moment to expound further on what I think I've already stated pretty clearly.

I disagree with the suggestion that the legality of marital rape is in any way connected to any of the positions or opinions I've stated. Let me break it down:
1) The constitutional illegality of marital rape has little or nothing to do with marriage, and everything to do with the fact that rape is simply not permissible under any circumstances. So suggesting that the constitution precludes defining what parties may or may not be married because it precludes marital rape, or vise versa, is a preposterous argument.

2) The laws that allowed marital rape were not struck down nationwide by a blanket ruling from the Supreme Court. They were struck down or changed state by state. So I'm not seeing a parallel on that point.

3) I have not at any point suggested that the Supreme Court should not strike down unconstitutional laws. That's one of their primary functions, and it is a crucial one. And I'm not suggesting that outdated laws should not be stricken just because nobody noticed before that they were unconstitutional. What I have suggested is that it's a stretch to strike down laws prohibiting same-sex marriage under the pretense of the equal protection clause (obviously there is disagreement over that point, even amongst the Supreme Court Justices, since the court was spit 5-4). Whereas, it is no stretch at all to apply the same equal protection clause to marital rape.

In conclusion, I maintain that the marital rape issue has no place in this discussion, my views on the (unrelated) subjects of marital rape and same-sex marriage are not inconsistent, and you all remain entitled to your own opinions just as I am entitled to mine.

If it seems like I often take my ball and go home, it's because I'm usually either arguing with five people at once, or arguing with smuel. Or both. It's wearisome. Apparently I can't voice an opinion on a Supreme Court ruling without also spending half a page talking about marital rape. So yeah, I'm done now.

 

Okay, now I'm curious. Is there something in particular about my argument style that is objectionable to you? This is an honest attempt by me to improve myself, so please take it as such. Is it that you feel I deliberately misinterpret your position in order to argue against it? I admit I did misinterpret you one time in the "the bible says that men and women aren't equal" thread, but as soon as I realised I apologised and backed down. It wasn't deliberate. Or maybe you feel I just like arguing for the sake of it and so it's not a real debate as such, and is therefore pointless? I admit I do like arguing, but I rarely play devil's advocate - I mean I am nearly always promoting a point of view that I actually hold. On this particular issue you could say that since I'm not a US citizen I don't have any real skin in the game so maybe we're not on equal footing. Or is it something else?

Do any of you other guys feel similarly?

 

You sometimes bring in arguments from way out in left field (e.g. marital rape), which shifts focus away from the original topic and requires additional application of brainpower to either dismiss or counter-argue. You sometimes latch on to something that isn't the point of contention, and pick at it until it becomes the point of contention, or take something said in passing and blow it way up. Reductio/argumentum ad absurdum. And yes, sometimes it seems you're putting words in my mouth, deliberately misinterpreting, or arguing for the sake of argument. Some would call these effective debate tools, and they might win some coolpoints and me-toos from bystanders. But they're not likely to change the mind of your opponent, and you don't come across as genuinely interested in learning where your opponent stands on an issue; it just seems like you're tenaciously trying to win.

As I said, it's tiresome. I'm not saying you should change, or start throwing softballs. Just don't be surprised if I'm the one to 'agree to disagree' and walk away.

 

I, for one, understand why Smuel started harping on about marital rape and its relevance to the argument, and I think he was right to do so. I think Japes misunderstands him when he thinks that Smuel is trying to put words in his mouth, as I've already said; I don't for a second believe that Smuel was suggesting that Japes stood for any such thing. It was the law that it was not illegal to rape one's wife; and this exemption was in place until it was removed state by state, as Japes said, for various reasons. One of those reasons was that it was determined unconstitutional. However, for this to be the case, it seems that one has to accept that an unconstitutional law must have been in place for a fair amount of time without anybody noticing, just like with marriage between persons of the same sex. This is the connection, and that is why Smuel started going on about it.

 

This is what annoys me the most about people today who are self-congratulatory about believing that slavery is immoral. Of course you believe slavery is immoral! You are immersed in a society that preaches the immorality of slavery! You mean to tell me that had you existed in the 1700s, the thought that slavery is immoral would have originated from you? You: the person who waits to see what version of iPhone your friends get before settling on one for yourself? Give me a break...

That's how the game is played.

 

I assumed the worst. Really, "the worst" is par for the course here in most discussions - I don't happen to know you well enough to not think you're serious when a conversation goes from zero to rape in .5 seconds, and I apologize for that.

See, I knew this would come up eventually. I'm glad to be singled out in this case. Especially since, as you quoted me, I actually agreed with Smuel's point and only disagreed with how he presented it.

Edit: I can't remember when you stopped lecturing people in proper debate strategy and just started slinging insults, but in the context of this conversation; my assumption doesn't matter. My conclusion was off base, but it has no effect on my point.

 

I think the marital rape point, even if it is a good point in countering how Scalia mentioned that by over-turning laws you question the judgement of all lawmakers who came previously (marital rape being an instance where that was assuredly a good thing to do, therefore demonstrating it's not a strong stance to argue against gay marriage from and is a bit of a straw man), was too shocking in content to receive anything but a cold response. Really, civil rights of black americans would have probably accomplished the same thing - where discrimination was overturned by legal rulings - and been much more palatable as well as being mostly as analogous to this situation as marital rape is; just because marital rape has the word "marital" in the title does not make in much of marital issue, as Japes pointed out it's really still a rape issue.

I think dropping rape into a situation, whether the point you are making for it strengthens your argument or not, does come across as a bit of a callous manipulation of the person you're arguing against as for most people not looking at it in a purely logical sense (which is difficult to do with a shocking issue like rape) it feels as though you're using the negative connotations that the shocking point has to taint the initial point by association. I'd imagine such a tactic goes over well with idiots ("Well if it's anything to do with rape it's got to be bad.") but most people aren't going to enjoy what they think you're trying to do and will likely disengage. If you were trying to argue on purely logical grounds, then asking people to be logical and put emotion aside over extreme subject matter is a big ask - making your logical underpinning fall on deaf ears.

You were also baiting Japes by calling him inconsistent, strengthening the notion that you're after an emotional response to the point you just raised. In a meta sense, I guess maybe you did that so you could come back later and say, "Look at all the logic that was there too, he's the one in the wrong because he didn't rationally consider the point straight away." However that doesn't change the fact you were personally calling him out, asking for an emotional rather than rational response and so you shouldn't be too surprised he didn't take to your point in the first instance.

 

Okay, I apologise to everyone for bringing up marital rape. I remember when wayne-scales was the one arguing in a weird logical style that nobody could follow, so having him patiently explain my reasoning to other people makes it seem like something has gone very wrong indeed.

For the record, I'm not a fan of either marriage or rape, and I look forward to one day living in a society where neither is deemed acceptable.

 

I was much less bothered by that when I understood how you were bringing it into the conversation, from your comment on page 6.

If someone's arguing in a way that can be described as "a weird logical style that nobody could follow," it makes the word "logical" appear to be a courtesy that has a loose attachment to the style in question. Your point was easily understood, but it was presented in a fairly abrasive way.

There's a society in China where people don't get married. They still have long-term relationships, and still have kids, but there's no ceremony combining families. I'd think rape happens there about as much as anywhere else, but at least half your dream has come true if you decide to relocate.

 

Hi are you the guy who could tell the future?

 

I was, until I realized I couldn't. You know, after my psychotic break subsided. 4 years ago.

 

Yeah so I dunno if I'm comfortable just taking your word for what makes sense or not

 

I don't recall saying my debate skills made any sense back then. Also, when Smuel is the person I quoted in saying that...why are you grilling me?