Melchior, you’ve clearly established that you believe judicial rulings that legalize gay marriage are illegitimate.
What about the other ways gay marriage has been legalized – by legislative action, and by ballot initiative? Do you believe those methods of legalizing gay marriage are legitimate, or not?
That’s probably a better way of phrasing the question I was asking earlier.
If your arguments in support of your challenge are fallacious, then you have no leg to stand on and your challenge fails. I don’t have to *prove *anything.
Dou you understand? If I claim that I am being unfairly treated and my claim is supported by fallacious arguments, the claim falls. End of story.
The judge’s ruling rests on fallacious reasoning. His use of terms such as ‘demeaning’ is clearly out of line and shows he is an idiot.
That’s all well and good in the hypothetical. However, in the here and now, you have not demonstrated a competent grasp of fallacies, the law, linguistics or any other subject you have seen fit to expound upon.
Melchior appoints himself an expert in yet another field.
Problem is, you haven’t countered a single argument for gay marriage in this entire thread. He’ll, countered nothing - you’ve never even addressed them. Your own argument is the purest tautology (“marriage is between men and women because marriage is between men and women,”) and when people have presented you with arguments for why this discrimination is unfair, you’ve posted the names of logical fallacies that you appear to have selected at random.
If you do, in fact, have a degree in philosophy, you should, in good conscience, return it to the institution from which you received it. It was clearly granted to you in error.
What you feel to be fallacious is irrelevant to the law. I suppose that when the Texas ruling is challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court, you will continue to consider it fallacious and idiotic. And you’re welcome to. But it will nevertheless be the law of the land. Merry Christmas!
Edited to add: What about the other ways gay marriage has been legalized – by legislative action, and by ballot initiative? Do you believe those methods of legalizing gay marriage are legitimate, or not?
.
Your are failing to distinguish between the state constitution and the United States Constitution. Voters of a state can vote for a change to their state constitution, but if that change violates the FEDERAL constitution, it is absolutely the judges business to overrule that amendment. Its called the balance of power, a cornerstone of our government system, and something most American kids learn before high school.
If requiring a black person to use a different drinking fountain or sit at the rear of the bus is considered demeaning (if you don’t think it is, then I guess we have nothing more to talk about), how can denial of marriage rights—which are infinitely more significant than where to quench your thirst or rest your weary legs–NOT be considered demeaning? How is the judge’s use of this term out of line?
Don’t be too harsh. I don’t think you need to have a 4.0 average to get a degree. A “D” is passing, right?
Gay marriage and polygamy are entirely irrelevant to each other. I guarantee you that most of the people worldwide who support polygamy (i.e. Muslims and Sub-Saharan Africans, mostly) also strongly oppose gay marriage. You can have either one of the two without the other (whether you should is a different question).
We’ve already moved into an era in which the meaning of marriage is largely defined by the two people involved, rather than by the Bible, romantic comedies, troubadour poems, the writings of Plato, or anyone else. Legalizing gay marriages is simply a recognition of that fact. You don’t have to particularly be fond of the idea of gay people marrying each other, to believe that they should be entitled to the same state recognition of their relationships as anyone else. After all, the state lets lots of people marry each other whose marriages I might not approve of.
(bolding mine)
I dunno…my partner and I like to think we model our relationship on William Powell and Myrna Loy. 
Yes, how dare that judge use things like current law, legal precedent, and English to specify why his ruling is as it is. He should have done the complete opposite: thrown the people out of court while growling like a Wookie, ignoring all law and legal precedent.
That is certainly the epitome of intelligence. :rolleyes:
For all your talk of fallacies, your trot THIS out?
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, so could you please clarify: You seem to be saying that same-sex couple CANNOT be discriminated against by being denied a marriage license (a right or privilege) because by definition they aren’t eligible for a marriage license (they don’t fit the criteria established for that privilege)… sort of like a child under 16 can’t get a drivers’ license because the government has said that you have to be at least 16 to get a license. We wouldn’t say the child is being discriminated against by being denied a driver’s license–he’s just not eligible, you see.
Is this what you mean? If not, could you clarify what you mean by saying that same sex couples are not being discriminated against or demeaned? Thanks.
But that doesn’t mean that the claim isn’t true. It just means the argument in favor of the claim doesn’t prove that it’s true. You’re asserting that your position is correct because arguments in opposition are based on fallacies, which, in fact, is a fallacy.
You keep saying that you don’t need to prove anything, but you do.
This is what you need to prove. The burden of proof is on you to prove that marriage is between people of opposite sex since you’re the one making the claim. Evidence to the contrary is being presented to you. For examples, there are states in the union such as Maryland where the definition of marriage was expanded to include same-sex couples by a vote of the people. Therefore, marriage in Maryland is NOT just an institution between one man and one woman.
If you would like to argue that it SHOULD be, then do that. If you would like to argue that judges shouldn’t be allowed to overturn a vote of the people, then do that too. You could even argue that marriage is between one man and one woman despite what the law says it is. But regardless, make an argument to support your claim. You cannot simply declare something to be true just because nobody has proven you wrong to your satisfaction.
This fallacy is the straw man. That word was hardly his entire argument.
I disagree.
If marriage is a right, it’s a right. Anyone who supports gay marriage because they think it’s a right should also support polygamous marriage.
Not any more.
And yet, nobody considers the family to be the property of the man now, do they? So things can, like, change?
Why do we allow old people to marry who have no hope of children? Because marriage isn’t just about children either.
Things change. Get over it.
Now, you may have managed to argue that one can’t demand gay marriage, but you’ve failed miserably to argue for why it shouldn’t be allowed.
And he is not afraid to use every one of them.
LOL! I hope he is! That would make it even funnier when his ruling is upheld! 