SCOTUS strikes down ban on gay marriage

[Ron]

Courts on 1.

On the second, how is that any different from saying "it should be this way because this is how many people did it?"

Arguing that we should keep discriminating because lots of societies have engaged in a particular kind of discrimination is no argument at all.  Just think of how many cultures have practiced racism - is that a good argument for it?

Marriage being between a man and a woman is not discrimination.

It is what the institution is, not because it says so in the dictionary. The dictionary agrees because it is defining the word as it has been used.

There are hundreds of years of jurisprudence and thousands of years of religious and cultural meaning contained in the word that the court is trying to redefine by fiat.

You will always have to say "gay" marriage because it is an absurdity that has only just relatively recently been foisted upon us.

[zxcvbob]

Mocking the mods usually doesn't end well.

https://youtu.be/LLrTPrp-fW8?t=17s

[Perd Hapley]

Mocking the mods usually doesn't end well.

Well, somebody could explain the issue, I guess. Or not. I don't object to rules I don't understand, but being expected to follow unwritten ones I didn't know about seems a little odd.

I've changed my name a few times, just for fun. I don't see why anyone would be embarrassed about it. I may have used his former name recently, but I didn't know it would be a problem. I'll try to remember the guy's current name. [shrug]

[roo_ster]

Mocking the mods usually doesn't end well.

Heh. 

I think mocking requires more than making points of fact.  Or it used to mean more than that.  Who knows nowadays.  Maybe recalling the past is a microaggression or micromocking.

[Ron]

Even though I rarely agree with him I still don't understand the frustration felt towards DeSelby.

Oftentimes he is just articulating the position held by many in the center and left of the political spectrum. He comes here and does it without personal insults or attacks and does a pretty good job of it considering it is usually 10 to 1 against him.

Arguing with him is healthier and more fun than sitting around the echo chamber stroking our egos in a philosophical circle jerk. 

[Perd Hapley]

Well, no, I guess he doesn't attack. I think we'd all prefer verbal attacks to his brand of condescension. Well, that and the trolling.

[SADShooter]

Even though I rarely agree with him I still don't understand the frustration felt towards DeSelby.

Oftentimes he is just articulating the position held by many in the center and left of the political spectrum. He comes here and does it without personal insults or attacks and does a pretty good job of it considering it is usually 10 to 1 against him.

Arguing with him is healthier and more fun than sitting around the echo chamber stroking our egos in a philosophical circle jerk. 

(Cue obligatory jokes re: ego size.)

Agree with the above. De Selby is an engaging practice dumm, er, debate foil, if seemingly sometimes obdurate and obtuse in his argument.

[mtnbkr]

I think mocking requires more than making points of fact.  Or it used to mean more than that.  Who knows nowadays.  Maybe recalling the past is a microaggression or micromocking.

Funny, you were one I had in mind regarding old usernames and not bringing them up.  Seems you had a relevant reason for changing yours and not tying it to your new name publicly.  That scenario is exactly what I had in mind when I pointed out the repeated use of De Selby's old name.

Chris

[Tallpine]

Even though I rarely agree with him I still don't understand the frustration felt towards DeSelby.

Oftentimes he is just articulating the position held by many in the center and left of the political spectrum. He comes here and does it without personal insults or attacks and does a pretty good job of it considering it is usually 10 to 1 against him.

Arguing with him is healthier and more fun than sitting around the echo chamber stroking our egos in a philosophical circle jerk. 

I should have just walked away last night ...    My apologies to the other members here.

My frustration is not with disagreement over a topic, but the changing direction of discussion whenever he is asked to support an argument.  It's like trying to argue with a cloud.  

[charby]

Well, no, I guess he doesn't attack. I think we'd all prefer verbal attacks to his brand of condescension. Well, that and the trolling.

Is it really trolling? Or, do you call it trolling because you don't agree with him and because he attacks your core beliefs? I don't see it as trolling. He does have a interesting way to expressing his counter points and it does get you worked up.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Is it really trolling? Or, do you call it trolling because you don't agree with him and because he attacks your core beliefs? I don't see it as trolling. He does have a interesting way to expressing his counter points and it does get you worked up.

He comes off as disingenuous and condescending.  Don't know whether he means to or not, but I suspect he does.  He's smart enough to know what he does is rude and he consistently chooses to do it anyway.

He's not interested in an honest back and forth discussion using reason or facts.  His MO is to lob an absurdity into a reasonable discussion and expect others to prove the ridiculousness of it.  If anyone bothers, he doesn't give serious consideration to their points, he just ignores them and lobs in different absurdity.  

His usual strategy for debating his opponents is to derail the discussion.  The more his opponents try to make salient points, the more he tries to throw the discussion off track.  It's highbrow method of shouting down people he disagrees with rather than addressing the merits of their positions.

In real life that's called "stirring up *expletive deleted*it".  In da innernetz that's called trolling.  It's cleverer trolling than most, subtler, but it's still just trolling.

[De Selby]

What's most ironic about the turn this thread has taken is that it's gone to discussing personalities, methods of debate, the definition of trolling, etc...everything except how the issue of gay marriage is somehow other than a religious or dictionary (or majority survey of ancient peoples) question. 

The mere suggestion that maybe, just maybe there isn't much beyond "I was raised to disapprove of gays and the bible backs me" to the Supreme Court bashing has led to some incredibly emotional reactions.  It should give the posters behind the rants pause for thought.

[makattak]

What's most ironic about the turn this thread has taken is that it's gone to discussing personalities, methods of debate, the definition of trolling, etc...everything except how the issue of gay marriage is somehow other than a religious or dictionary (or majority survey of ancient peoples) question. 

The mere suggestion that maybe, just maybe there isn't much beyond "I was raised to disapprove of gays and the bible backs me" to the Supreme Court bashing has led to some incredibly emotional reactions.  It should give the posters behind the rants pause for thought.

No, it was a distraction, like most of your arguing tactics. Just as this one is. You successfully derailed the thread. Congratulations.

Personally, I find the arguing style quite telling. Mr. De Selby is practicing his craft on us and it's interesting to note the evading and avoiding. Always coming back with questions rather than fleshing out his point.

The style seems to be attempting to win the argument without proving the point. I must assume it's a technique taught in law schools to forever avoid the point and attack the opposing argument rather than taking the opposing arguments seriously and providing counter points to them.

[Balog]

Balog's use of DS's previous SN is not "in jest", but an attempt to call him out on something he feels DS is concealing.  It's not a pet name.

People change their names here all the time, frequently for some very legitimate reasons.  Unless they're attempting to conceal who they are, I see no reason we shouldn't abide by their wishes.  DS has been DS for longer than he was SS, but people seem to bring up his former moniker from time to time.  Not sure why other than to prove a point with a particular poster because it doesn't happen with others.

Chris

So he's trans-nomenclatured? Am I micro-agressing him? Is my privilege in need of checking here?

I mostly do it so people can find his old posts, he has quite a history under that moniker. But, whatever. Your board your rules and all that.

[zxcvbob]

[Balog]

He comes off as disingenuous and condescending.  Don't know whether he means to or not, but I suspect he does.  He's smart enough to know what he does is rude and he consistently chooses to do it anyway.

He's not interested in an honest back and forth discussion using reason or facts.  His MO is to lob an absurdity into a reasonable discussion and expect others to prove the ridiculousness of it.  If anyone bothers, he doesn't give serious consideration to their points, he just ignores them and lobs in different absurdity.  

His usual strategy for debating his opponents is to derail the discussion.  The more his opponents try to make salient points, the more he tries to throw the discussion off track.  It's highbrow method of shouting down people he disagrees with rather than addressing the merits of their positions.

In real life that's called "stirring up *expletive deleted*it".  In da innernetz that's called trolling.  It's cleverer trolling than most, subtler, but it's still just trolling.

My feelings towards HTG are pretty well established, but this is an excellent post and exactly correct.

[De Selby]

No, it was a distraction, like most of your arguing tactics. Just as this one is. You successfully derailed the thread. Congratulations.

Personally, I find the arguing style quite telling. Mr. De Selby is practicing his craft on us and it's interesting to note the evading and avoiding. Always coming back with questions rather than fleshing out his point.

The style seems to be attempting to win the argument without proving the point. I must assume it's a technique taught in law schools to forever avoid the point and attack the opposing argument rather than taking the opposing arguments seriously and providing counter points to them.

Okay, well let's try this.  I'll summarise the arguments against the Supreme Court decision here.  Tell me where I've gone wrong.

1.  Most societies prohibit gay marriage

2.  The dictionary adopts this prohibition in its definition of marriage

3.  Procreation - only relationships that could result in biological children of the married deserve legal protection

4.  There is no discrimination against gays to remedy because they could choose to enter straight marriages

5. There is no legal difference between marriage and some fancy contract

Therefore:  banning gay marriage is fine and the Supreme Court got it wrong.

It looks to me like every single one of those points has been addressed explicitly and directly here.  

[cordex]

[...]everything except how the issue of gay marriage is somehow other than a religious or dictionary (or majority survey of ancient peoples) question. 

The mere suggestion that maybe, just maybe there isn't much beyond "I was raised to disapprove of gays and the bible backs me" to the Supreme Court bashing has led to some incredibly emotional reactions.

Personally, my sole objection to homosexual marriage per se is that it has historically been and assuredly will continue to be used as a club to attack people and businesses for their religious beliefs.  I wouldn't like it if people got away with suing Jewish and Muslim butchers for not carrying bacon either.  If I were reasonably convinced that it would not I wouldn't have an issue with states changing their laws to allow it.  Truthfully this complaint has more to do with the application (and indeed existence) of laws against discrimination than with homosexual marriage specifically.

As for this particular ruling, my objection is that the court has taken an issue that is rightly the provenance of States and wrongly (in my opinion) turned it into a Constitutional issue.

[Balog]

What's most ironic about the turn this thread has taken is that it's gone to discussing personalities, methods of debate, the definition of trolling, etc...everything except how the issue of gay marriage is somehow other than a religious or dictionary (or majority survey of ancient peoples) question. 

The mere suggestion that maybe, just maybe there isn't much beyond "I was raised to disapprove of gays and the bible backs me" to the Supreme Court bashing has led to some incredibly emotional reactions.  It should give the posters behind the rants pause for thought.

Well, De Selby, perhaps that is because you refuse to engage in any actual discussion. For example, you have yet to tell me what you believe the purpose of the .gov recognizing marriage for anyone is. But I don't really expect you to do so.

[TommyGunn]

What's most ironic about the turn this thread has taken is that it's gone to discussing personalities, methods of debate, the definition of trolling, etc...everything except how the issue of gay marriage is somehow other than a religious or dictionary (or majority survey of ancient peoples) question. 

The mere suggestion that maybe, just maybe there isn't much beyond "I was raised to disapprove of gays and the bible backs me" to the Supreme Court bashing has led to some incredibly emotional reactions.  It should give the posters behind the rants pause for thought.

Why?  Why is the "I was raised to disapprove of  gays any less "emotional" than a "I was raised to approve of gays" an     emotional reaction??
And since when has being  "backed by the bible" become anathema?
The good book says "woe to those who call evil good and good evil."

Don't you believe the Bible contains God's word?


 

The bible also says; "first thing let's   do,  let's kill all the lawyers."
 
Ooooops.  That was Shakespeare.   Oh well......he was almost as smart.

[De Selby]

Well, De Selby, perhaps that is because you refuse to engage in any actual discussion. For example, you have yet to tell me what you believe the purpose of the .gov recognizing marriage for anyone is. But I don't really expect you to do so.

Sorry, I thought that was addressed by pointing out that marriage grants some legal rights between the married couple that are unobtainable by other means, and many that would require extensive and difficult to execute contracts by default.  

So why recognise marriage?  So your spouse can make decisions about your medical care if you're out, automatically inherit your wealth if you die, and rightfully deal with your shared property without question.  Among other major differences from an unrecognised relationship.

Whatever importance you attach to those things, they are not more or less important just because the couple is same sex or not.

[De Selby]

Why?  Why is the "I was raised to disapprove of  gays any less "emotional" than a "I was raised to approve of gays" an     emotional reaction??
And since when has being  "backed by the bible" become anathema?
The good book says "woe to those who call evil good and good evil."

Don't you believe the Bible contains God's word?


 

The bible also says; "first thing let's   do,  let's kill all the lawyers."
 
Ooooops.  That was Shakespeare.   Oh well......he was almost as smart.

The issue isn't that the bible is wrong or right, it's that not every believes in it, yet everyone is bound by our laws.  Hence our laws shouldn't force people to behave a certain way just because the bible says so.

[TommyGunn]

Sorry, I thought that was addressed by pointing out that marriage grants some legal rights between the married couple that are unobtainable by other means, and many that would require extensive and difficult to execute contracts by default.  .......

Oh geeeesh,  contracts are hard to do.Boo-hoo.  Let's make things EASIER  for 1.5%  of the population by disrupting 98.5%  of the population.
It isn't as though anything worthwhile should require a little work........

[De Selby]

Oh geeeesh,  contracts are hard to do.Boo-hoo.  Let's make things EASIER  for 1.5%  of the population by disrupting 98.5%  of the population.
It isn't as though anything worthwhile should require a little work........

How does allowing gay marriage disrupt 98 percent of the population?

[TommyGunn]

The issue isn't that the bible is wrong or right, it's that not every believes in it, yet everyone is bound by our laws.  Hence our laws shouldn't force people to behave a certain way just because the bible says so.

In as much our proscription against  murder is Biblically based,  then let's  do away with that as well......it would make some things in life so much easier to deal with.
Such as some politicians and lawyers....for example....