Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Wacky

Now, I think that it is appropriate to point to a logical fallacy.
I would say that you present an argument that marriage should include love, etc. -- Perhaps, more formally, that for a marriage relationship to be recognized by law, it should be a relationship based on love.

Let M represent "A relationship that should be allowed to be recognized as marriage", and
L represents "A relationship based on love and wanting to build a life with someone"

If we view your position, "M implies L",

we can conclude "Not L implies Not M". (Relationships lacking love ... should not be recognized as marriages.)

However, from the first, you seem to be arguing for
"R implies L", therefore "R implies M", where R is a properly committed same-sex relationship.

(Also, by the definition of bigotry, I am unconvinced that your attitude on "The definition of marriage" falls outside the requirements)

There's one main reason I am directing my point in this manner. The Naturalization and Immigration Service in the US checks for marriages of convenience by trying to show evidence of the couple actually loving each other and not just for one of the couple to get legal status and a green card. That being true, the government already does this in that case, so it should logically do it in all cases for it to be allowed to be considered legal. If not, why not? Otherwise, it's unfair and judgemental, even if it is necessary in our era.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Let me put it in black and white. Massachusetts already did what you suggested would be the cure to this ill--legalized same-sex marriage. I would suggest that your suggested cure does nothing to help the problem.

Nothing? Well, I know why you say that, but it's a step in the right direction.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Christenson

Let's put it in black and white:
The article I cited puts 25% of GAY Massachusetts teenagers as having "no fixed address". The same article puts the number for teenagers overall at, IIRC, 3%. You should have no trouble with the idea that these teens will not do as well in the various future measures of success as a consequence of their no longer sharing a house (or being able to share a house) with one and probably both parents.

Failure to accept gayness as normal causes real harm to gay children, RIGHT NOW, not in some possible future, by your own measures. Legalizing gay marriage is an important symbolic measure from the state indicating that being gay is, in fact, socially acceptable.

Not to be purposely ironic about it, or whatever you want to call it, but i could kiss you for this comment.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Parental training.

As sensible as this suggestion is, there's no legal way to force a parent to accept that his or her child is gay without brainwashing, if it isn't accepted naturally.

[Christenson]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

Everyone?

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

Not to be purposely ironic about it, or whatever you want to call it, but i could kiss you for this comment.

Please don't kiss me; walruses aren't my type.....especially not male ones.....and my wife will be jealous!

My actual thinking on this, having just seen how a "computer" was supposed to be the solution to the educational problems in my well-to-do district (and without "no child left behind" they wouldn't have wasted the $$), is that some hard work and hard thinking has to be put into education. Start with why we have all these prescriptions, but never seem to ask the teachers, especially the good ones, just what it is they might need? And while I'm at it, I'd like to point out that a classroom full of kids, all the same age and supposedly the same knowledge level, teaches all the wrong lessons to kids about diversity of all kinds.

[Wacky]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

There's one main reason I am directing my point in this manner. The Naturalization and Immigration Service in the US checks for marriages of convenience by trying to show evidence of the couple actually loving each other and not just for one of the couple to get legal status and a green card. That being true, the government already does this in that case, so it should logically do it in all cases for it to be allowed to be considered legal. If not, why not? Otherwise, it's unfair and judgemental, even if it is necessary in our era.

But, it is just your opinion that it should be a requirement that "M" implies "L".
Although you have reasoned argument to advocate it, that is not a presently accepted requirement.

And, you are still missing the point that, logically, your desired outcome does not automatically derive from the requirement (even if it were accepted).

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Wacky

But, it is just your opinion that it should be a requirement that "M" implies "L".
Although you have reasoned argument to advocate it, that is not a presently accepted requirement.

And, you are still missing the point that, logically, your desired outcome does not automatically derive from the requirement (even if it were accepted).

I understand that my "desired outcome" doesn't do squat, but if the government is already using love as a determination of real marriages for NIS purposes, it's only fair that they do it for every marriage. If they require it for one, it has to be required for all or it is discriminatory, which is supposed to be illegal.

[Wacky]

Originally Posted by Jwb52z

but if the government is already using love as a determination of real marriages for NIS purposes

The NIS is tasked with detecting fraudulent marriages. Rather than REQUIRING "love", the assessment of that, along with other aspects of the relationship, is utilized as an indicator of the nature of the relationship.

Some marriages, lacking "love" do exist, but still are recognized by the government as valid marriages.

Rather than accepting the established definition, you seem to be continuing to attempt to morph the definition of "marriage" to fit your personal interpretation of what it should be.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Wacky

Rather than accepting the established definition, you seem to be continuing to attempt to morph the definition of "marriage" to fit your personal interpretation of what it should be.

If Jwb52z is doing this then in my opinion he is right to do so. No progress can be made on any human rights issue anywhere unless established definitions which are based on inherent discrimination are challenged. The recent success in Saudi Arabia, where women are now allowed to vote and will shortly be allowed to stand for election, will also have been opposed by people there who considered that an election was by definition voting by men for male candidates for office.

I would be interested to read your own views on who should and should not be allowed to marry by the way, Wacky, rather than only comments on the logic of what other people write. If you want to share those views, that is.

[Jwb52z]

Originally Posted by Wacky

The NIS is tasked with detecting fraudulent marriages. Rather than REQUIRING "love", the assessment of that, along with other aspects of the relationship, is utilized as an indicator of the nature of the relationship.

Some marriages, lacking "love" do exist, but still are recognized by the government as valid marriages.

Rather than accepting the established definition, you seem to be continuing to attempt to morph the definition of "marriage" to fit your personal interpretation of what it should be.

Why is the NIS allowed to use one definition that is different if I'm not and have both be valid somehow?

[Zeta-Flux]

Well, it appears (sadly) that nobody can accuse my arguments of being of the slippery slope kind: Mexico lawmaker proposes short-term renewable marriages.