iNow

I am not providing good evidence because I am not supporting my "position".

This much is obvious, and that's been my point for the last several pages.

And if ever I offer some support of that position, you completely ignore my requests for you to provide evidence for your position.

You just conceded that you haven't offered support of your position. Further, you never clarified what position I have that requires support.

You said, in different words, and among other things,

"Marriage is between a man and a woman" is either not a secular argument, not constitutionally relevant, or not an argument against gay marriage.

That's not a quote of mine. I just searched the site for those words, and I never said them. You're just making stuff up now. I never said that, nor did I ever allude to such a thing, which is probably the best reason ever why I haven't provided evidence in support of it.

Can a third party perhaps come in and help clarify the issue through their eyes? I've said what I mean so many times and in so many ways that I'm not sure how else to make it clear.

Mr Skeptic - I don't think the law says what you think it says, and I want you to either prove that the law as originally written restricts same sex marriage or retract your statement/concede the argument.

I think I hate spam.

So, iNow, are you going to support your statements or concede them? I'm getting tired of asking, and tired of telling you that I have been refusing to try to disprove you because you think it absolves you from the burden of proof. I note that once again, you have nothing to say in support of your statement, only that I didn't disprove your statement.

I am at a bit of a loss here, Mr Skeptic. You have not quoted the text of any laws in support of your position, and you have asked me to clarify statements I've made, but you have not been specific on what you want me to support.

I really don't know where to go from here. I'll be glad to support any assertions I've made so long as you quote specifically what you'd like me to address. However, that doesn't let you off the hook for finding the text of the laws which support your position.

Really, I don't know why you've made us go around and around this point for over 3 pages of thread now, and would like you to please cite the text of the laws which support your points, or retract/concede your position. Again, I will be more than happy to support or clarify any comments I've made as long as you are specific about what you want supported.

You can't expect to know why the car is making smoke if you don't look under the hood.

Sure you can if your seats are on fire from a dropped cigarette.

Just to show that the claim that gay marriage is between a man and a woman is not completely baseless, I'll offer the following:

 

.

The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised)

A Dictionary of Sociology

The Oxford Companion to American Law

[Entry for same sex marriage

]

Oxford Dictionary of Law

I was not asking you to demonstrate what the dictionary said, I was asking you to demonstrate what the laws said, specific text within the laws which support your assertion that they were written to exclude same sex marriage. I don't understand why this is so hard for you to grasp, but I do, however, understand why it's so hard for you to support <hint>.

(Also, since when is gay marriage between a man and a woman? I think that's very baseless. I know it was just a typo on your part, but it's still pretty funny. )

iNow, as I said, one of the best bits of evidence against "marriage" including same-sex couples is the lack of evidence to the contrary.

You were not asked to demonstrate that there were gay marriages back then, you were asked to cite the specific text in the laws regarding marriage.

However, the above goes a bit further by saying that marriage is between a man and a woman. It's not from the proper time, but it does suggest that this is how it was back then as well.

So, not only have you cited a dictionary to support your point about the text of the laws (instead of the laws themselves), but you concede that the dictionaries you used were not even from the correct time period. I wonder if anyone else sees this argument as unacceptable as I do.

Let's see the text of the law which supports your position that they are intended to only apply to one man and one woman.

Still, unless you want to retract the infinite set of statements you made, it is up to you to prove them. If of all of those, you can prove the one about marriage, I'll bow before your greatness. In the meantime...

The thing with chocolate is it has all kinds of chemicals that "make your brain happy." It also has caffeine which is a stimulant, so you could replace that by other means. Have some coffee or a diet soda (or, better yet, some green tea) with your dried apricots perhaps.

Well, you could sustain a similar reaction by eating fruit regularly, but it won't likely be as intense.

Well, the simple sugars give you an endorphin rush. You have the energy you do because they are easier to break down than protiens and complex sugars, but they don't last long. They spike. Then, when you went back to your normal diet, you didn't feel bad because of the food you were eating, but instead because your body was going through a bit of withdrawal from the chocolate and candy. Also, when those simple sugars went into your body, your insulin levels spiked, but then brought your blood glucose levels down really fast, and probably below the right baseline. You probably felt tired, had a hard time focussing, and were a bit irritable.

You want energy? Get a smoothie. The fruits will give you the temporary boost you crave and enjoy, and the protien (if you add protien) will give you sustainable energy.

Aren't Senators allowed to use .gov domains?

I really don't like your analogy however, feeling many practices of other primates or animals in general would be destructive to the human race.

Well, since my thread here was to demonstrate the inaccuracy of claims that homosexuality is unnatural, or that non-human animals don't pair bond for life with same sex partners and have homosexual sex with one another, your dislike is really moot. Plus, I offered no analogies, only data, so the points you raised your post are again completely irrelevant.

It also warrants mention that, in the video shared in the OP, services had already been rendered, so the option to refuse service was no longer available to the restaurant.

I thought this was interesting. It also adds data to the previous "birds only" homosexual pair bond examples we were using.

http://www.bidstrup.com/sodomy.htm

Phi - That sir, is rather brilliant.

iNow, when you misinterpret another person's argument (even if it's not deliberate) it makes your own argument less clear. In this case, when Mr Skeptic made a point about the current status of gay marriage (pointing out that they cannot currently get married), and you responded by saying that that has not been proven

Okay, thanks for that. I think I may see the source of confusion. In my estimation, Mr Skeptics point was actually about the original meaning of the laws, and that when they were written they applied only to one man and one woman (at the express exclusion of same sex couples).

You describe Mr Skeptics position differently. You suggest that his point is about the "current status of gay marriage." This is not how I read his words, since his argument assumes that we are trying to "redefine marriage." This is evidenced when he says:

How about, "I know, we can eliminate discrimination against black people by calling them white."? If the government had redefined black people as white, then it wouldn't have needed the new amendment to grant them equal rights. This is what the current pro-gay movement is trying to do -- not grant them equal rights by law, but redefine them so they have equal rights under existing laws.

 

<...>

 

does anyone have an example where a law has been changed by a fundamental change in definition? What about by a minor change in definition?

For example, the one that gay marriage is an oxymoron, and the one that "marriage" as meant in the law did not include gay marriage.

This is how I see it.

 

iNow: "There are no constitutionally relevant secular arguments against gay marriage"

Mr Skeptic: "Um, yes there are. For example, the argument that marriage means between a man and a woman, so that gay marriage is an oxymoron."

In some places it is, or was. And marriage as traditionally defined in our society does not include same sex marriage, so there is no reason that the laws about heterosexual marriage should apply to homosexual marriage either, and good reason they shouldn't. You don't change laws by redefining words, you change laws by the legislative process.

So, I've been arguing for him to prove that the original definion was, in fact, what he says it was. You have also now at least twice reinforced my request to Mr Skeptic by asking for an answer yourself, yet he still has failed to supply evidence that this definition ever existed. I would very much like to see the legal documents and text of the laws which dictates that marriage is between one man and one woman, and I think it's not unreasonable of me to ask for this support since it's such a cornerstone of his position.

He continually asserts that gay marriage is an oxymoron, but he has yet to demonstrate that the laws were ever defined in the way he suggests they were. This is the point I've been challenging, as it does not appear, as you suggest, that his position is isolated to current laws, nor about laws like Prop 8 or DOMA.

Also, just in case he was talking about current laws (I really don't think he was, but just in case), that position is also bunk.

Since his arguments were not specific to locale, I must assume (again, if this was even his original point) that he refers to the nation as a whole (as all of my arguments have been formed at the federal level, it would make sense that his replies would be set in the same context).

When viewed in terms of the entire nation, there are currently two states that recognize same-sex marriages, and a total of seven (plus the District of Columbia) that recognize some form of same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships. Hence, that point is incorrect as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_status_in_the_United_States_by_state

However, as I mentioned above, I am relatively confident that he was asserting that the original meaning and the existing text of the laws when drafted prohibited same sex couples from being married, and I would like to see the exact text of any laws which he feels supports this argument.

Until then, he may as well be asserting that purple unicorn farts cause erections in leprechauns, because he's not backed it up, and has assumed it to be a fact without any supporting evidence or documentation.

EDIT: Pangloss seemed to grasp the root of what I was saying when he posted the following:

Well setting aside the obvious effort to ridicule the opposition, I think he's asking a reasonable question, which is whether tradition, predisposition and precedent is the only valid legal argument that should be allowed on this issue.

 

Put another way, is it legally reasonable for individuals to go before a judge and ask for a marriage that doesn't fall under the narrow conditions of "man and woman", and if not, why not?

 

Or are we all agreed at this point that the law doesn't specify man-and-woman, and that the reason it's not allowed is pretty much a matter of judicial interpretation in the favor of conservatives?

I agree with Pangloss on this, iNow. This was bad form, old boy. How could you possibly misinterpret the "100% true"?

That's fair. I misrepresented Mr Skeptics position on the dinosaurs thing. I retract that interpretation, and apologize. I'd like to continue focussing on the root issue of gay marriage anyway (since it wasn't the dinosaur thing that Pangloss asked me to clarify). I hope the clarification I just offered moves us forward.

Why are the most bizarre behaviours among human beings?

Because humans are the ones creating and applying the label, and we're more likely to use the perspective given by our own sense of "normalcy" when describing that which is bizarre.

What's bizarre to a human is not necessarily bizarre to a cephalopod or a dolphin or an insect.

Make your arguments clear

If you'd be willing to point out which part of my argument you find unclear, I'd be willing to take steps to clarify it.

I also almost want to ask you where exactly you think I've been "frothing at the mouth," but that would be more just for personal entertainment and wouldn't really help us to remain focused on the subject.

Let me know where you find my points unclear and I will work with you to ameliorate that confusion.

Mr Skeptic: "Um, yes there are. For example, the argument that marriage means between a man and a woman"

Exactly when and where was this established as a fact? This has been my whole point these past several posts.

The above is 100% true -- I don't understand what problem you have with a true statement like that.

There are no dinosaurs in the Bible...

Lol. Yeah, there's always that.

Mr Skeptic: "The original meaning of the laws is marriage between one man and one woman."

iNow: "Can you prove this? Perhaps quote a legal text or the actual laws themselves to support that position?"

Mr Skeptic: "No, the burden of proof is on you since you want to change the original definition."

iNow: "WTF? I asked you to support a comment you made, specifically that the original defintion is what you said it was. Can you do this? The part you asked ME to support was an opinion in response to Pangloss."

Mr Skeptic: "I see you have clarified that you are arguing only an opinion. Facts are more important. People are less rational when they feel strongly... blah blah blah."

I challenge your assertion that the original meaning of the laws restricts marriage to one man and one woman. Will you support this assertion, or again try side stepping?

But it's not. Why is a request for further explanation treated with such hostility by you?

I actually did this experiment when I was in college. Didn't really work, though. It reminds me of something Rupert Sheldrake would try.

http://www.sheldrake.org/homepage.html

So, you agree that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time? Very interesting, Mr Skeptic. Very telling, really.

What about Rick Warren's other quote in that piece, regarding how he used to believe that god created through evolution, but once he'd spent more time with those who had studied the bible much longer than he had he realized that the two can't work together (and since he still believes in god as creator, you do the math and see which idea he must reject to resolve this apparent discrepancy).

Really, Mr Skeptic, if you can't see the problem with this, then you are part of it.

Btw - I notice that you have still failed to support your previous position. That's really quite fascinating, too.

I seem to remember being able to draw in a larger volume of air through my nose when I was working out more. Breathing through my mouth would lead to slight hyperventilation, and I never seemed to be able to draw in enough via the mouth.

I think the basis of the point, ajb, is that you are arguing on the issue of protecting society as a whole, which is both fair and admirable. However, the argument seems to break down when considered in light of alcohol, which is legal and could easily be argued to have a greater negative impact on society than pot. So, when taken in this context, we have things like alcohol which are hugely detrimental, and it seems hypocritical to single out other substances like pot for reasons which are relatively weak in support.

At least, I think that's what is happening. The point is not that "because one thing is legal, all things should be legal." The point is that the "protection of society as a whole" argument fails the test of reality since alcohol, cigarettes, pharmaceuticals, and all manner of other things ARE legal despite the detriment which they cause. Seems like a double standard to many of us, despite the fact that your intentions are without question good ones.

I fail to see how it is regarded as unreasonable to ask where the extra values came from. It is not a discrepancy that rings alarm bells with me, but the dogged resistance to providing an explanation.

I agree that it is not unreasonable to ask, so why don't you ask? I mean, seriously... you're throwing around rhetoric like "dogged resistance to providing an explanation," when (in fact) you've never even asked for one.

Go ask. Then, if they reply with something like, "We won't be sharing that because we had nefarious ends," then let's roast the bastards.

The difference is that AFACT the spinsters (that's what they are in my estimation) motivating your inquiries here asked them for the data itself, not the reason it wasn't used.

Never mind. You think I would've learned my lesson, but it's clear you're full of nothing but insults and distortions.

Well, if you're not going to remind him, bascule, I will.

Lance, in post #38, bascule asked you to be specific, as you kept stating that he was misinterpreting you and misrepresenting you, yet you never shared where, nor did you take steps to correct any of the misinterprations you asserted he was making.

Where exactly did bascule misinterpret you? On which specific point(s)? What did you actually mean so we can see the difference in bascule's interpretation and what you meant?

Also, use both the "link to post" and quote features like I did at the opening of this message to avoid future confusions or breakdowns.