Jump to content

Marriage equality, and the SCotUS


Ember

Recommended Posts

Gay marriage isn't comparable to parent/child relationships, both in consent issues that would arise and biological issues that would arise in any offspring.

 

Biological issues arriving from incestual reproduction tend to not manifest themselves until the process is repeated several times: so a daughter bearing a father's child isn't likely to cause genetic problems unless that child then bears the father's child, etc...

 

EDIT: Upon further research it seems this may not be entirely accurate. I'd be curious to learn more about it...

 

As for polygamy, I don't really have any strong opinion in the matter, though there's some interesting stuff here.

 

One interesting thing to note from that ruling is this snippet:

 

I have concluded that this case is essentially about harm; more specifically, Parliament’s reasoned apprehension of harm arising out of the practice of polygamy. This includes harm to women, to children, to society and to the institution of monogamous marriage.

 

How long ago might this have said "the institution of heterosexual marriage" in reference to a homosexual case?

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, curious question, that personally I just want your guys' thoughts on:

 

What makes two the magic number?

How come the marriage of two, male/male, female/female, male/female, is the basis o all these arguments?

The positive answer is that that's how many people you need to procreate. The prescriptive one is that it doesn't matter, but for simplicity's sake we should probably call those less common cases something else.

What if three people want to live together and want each other to receive property if they decease? Should they be married?

They should sign some sort of contract, just like marriage is essentially a contract with a lot of fluff.

 

Also another curious question:

If gay marriage is allowed, for the sake of love per se, is it ok for mothers to marry daughters or fathers/sons, etc.?

Again, marriage is just a contract; all it really defines is property rights. What you're asking is whether incest is okay. I would say yes, for consensual cases.

 

 

And what about when they become common?

 

 

Also what makes something wrong or right then?

I don't care who you want to marry. I'm not a big fan of traditional marriage either, but you don't see me getting all huffy.

 

I would argue something is wrong (moral issue vs. legal issue is a false dichotomy) if it involves aggression. The reason why, in short, is that if you're arguing with me, you've implicitly said that violence won't solve this issue. Therefore you can't use it (by putting people in jail or otherwise taking their property) to stop people from doing X peaceful activity. AFAIK this is the only way to go beyond the is/ought problem. More: http://en.wikipedia....entation_ethics

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, curious question, that personally I just want your guys' thoughts on:

 

What makes two the magic number?

How come the marriage of two, male/male, female/female, male/female, is the basis o all these arguments?

The positive answer is that that's how many people you need to procreate. The prescriptive one is that it doesn't matter, but for simplicity's sake we should probably call those less common cases something else.

What if three people want to live together and want each other to receive property if they decease? Should they be married?

They should sign some sort of contract, just like marriage is essentially a contract with a lot of fluff.

 

Also another curious question:

If gay marriage is allowed, for the sake of love per se, is it ok for mothers to marry daughters or fathers/sons, etc.?

Again, marriage is just a contract; all it really defines is property rights. What you're asking is whether incest is okay. I would say yes, for consensual cases.

 

 

And what about when they become common?

 

 

Also what makes something wrong or right then?

I don't care who you want to marry. I'm not a big fan of traditional marriage either, but you don't see me getting all huffy.

 

I would argue something is wrong (moral issue vs. legal issue is a false dichotomy) if it involves aggression. The reason why, in short, is that if you're arguing with me, you've implicitly said that violence won't solve this issue. Therefore you can't use it (by putting people in jail or otherwise taking their property) to stop people from doing X peaceful activity. AFAIK this is the only way to go beyond the is/ought problem. More: http://en.wikipedia....entation_ethics

 

 

Interesting..I am on my phone so I did not read the article, however, if I am understanding your condensed summary, you were saying that something is morally "wrong/right" if it doesn't/does convey aggression, respectively?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

So from that logic, what if someone is falsely convicted? And how do you define aggression?

 

It is a hypothetical question, and in hypothetical questions generalizations are entirely applicable. So if you were building a hypothetical situation about fastfood and generalized that Americans eat more of it blahblahblah, that is entirely ok, as long as it is hypothetical and not a claim to fact.

It's not my "opinion" on the term Christianity; it's established fact that different denominations of the Christian faith feel differently about marriage. Your hypothetical style of arguing is deeply inaccurate because you're suggesting, in essence, that Quakers and Catholics think "generally" the same things as each other because they just so happen to both be Christian as well.

 

You're treating the Christian faith itself as completely black or completely white, when in reality, some parts of the Christian faith are darker shades of grey than other parts. The fact you're doing so hypothetically doesn't remove from the fallacy you're committing.

 

The reason I used Christianity is because as a whole, it is a large group that can, more or less, sway a good portion of society. I was in no way trying to corner their views beyond implication. Apologies.

 

I will for now on just say use a different, but large, group of society that could hypothetically fit the situation.

Examples could be democrats, teens, republicans, independents, whatever. Just go with the example and think through it some.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, curious question, that personally I just want your guys' thoughts on:

 

What makes two the magic number?

How come the marriage of two, male/male, female/female, male/female, is the basis o all these arguments?

The positive answer is that that's how many people you need to procreate. The prescriptive one is that it doesn't matter, but for simplicity's sake we should probably call those less common cases something else.

What if three people want to live together and want each other to receive property if they decease? Should they be married?

They should sign some sort of contract, just like marriage is essentially a contract with a lot of fluff.

 

Also another curious question:

If gay marriage is allowed, for the sake of love per se, is it ok for mothers to marry daughters or fathers/sons, etc.?

Again, marriage is just a contract; all it really defines is property rights. What you're asking is whether incest is okay. I would say yes, for consensual cases.

 

 

And what about when they become common?

 

 

Also what makes something wrong or right then?

I don't care who you want to marry. I'm not a big fan of traditional marriage either, but you don't see me getting all huffy.

 

I would argue something is wrong (moral issue vs. legal issue is a false dichotomy) if it involves aggression. The reason why, in short, is that if you're arguing with me, you've implicitly said that violence won't solve this issue. Therefore you can't use it (by putting people in jail or otherwise taking their property) to stop people from doing X peaceful activity. AFAIK this is the only way to go beyond the is/ought problem. More: http://en.wikipedia....entation_ethics

 

 

Interesting..I am on my phone so I did not read the article, however, if I am understanding your condensed summary, you were saying that something is morally "wrong/right" if it doesn't/does convey aggression, respectively?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

So from that logic, what if someone is falsely convicted? And how do you define aggression?

Basically, if you're arguing, for example, that gay marriage should be illegal, you've implicitly agreed that punching me and anyone who wants to marry someone of the same sex is not a solution, and we need to come to a reasoned solution. But by arguing that gay marriage should be illegal, you're saying that we shouldn't come to a reasoned solution and that instead those who commit what you're saying is a crime should be put in a cage, which is aggression (as defined as breach of property rights, considering your body is part of your property). Therefore you've said aggression is and isn't the solution. Those two things can't be true at the same time, so whenever you argue that aggression is okay, you contradict yourself.

The takeaway from argumentation ethics (if you agree with it) is that the state--which is the group of people which has a monopoly on the initiation of force, and which generally uses it to tax, jail, and kill--is immoral and that anarcho-capitalism is the only moral order. False convictions are subordinate to that issue.

  • Like 1

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, curious question, that personally I just want your guys' thoughts on:

 

What makes two the magic number?

How come the marriage of two, male/male, female/female, male/female, is the basis o all these arguments?

The positive answer is that that's how many people you need to procreate. The prescriptive one is that it doesn't matter, but for simplicity's sake we should probably call those less common cases something else.

What if three people want to live together and want each other to receive property if they decease? Should they be married?

They should sign some sort of contract, just like marriage is essentially a contract with a lot of fluff.

 

Also another curious question:

If gay marriage is allowed, for the sake of love per se, is it ok for mothers to marry daughters or fathers/sons, etc.?

Again, marriage is just a contract; all it really defines is property rights. What you're asking is whether incest is okay. I would say yes, for consensual cases.

 

 

And what about when they become common?

 

 

Also what makes something wrong or right then?

I don't care who you want to marry. I'm not a big fan of traditional marriage either, but you don't see me getting all huffy.

 

I would argue something is wrong (moral issue vs. legal issue is a false dichotomy) if it involves aggression. The reason why, in short, is that if you're arguing with me, you've implicitly said that violence won't solve this issue. Therefore you can't use it (by putting people in jail or otherwise taking their property) to stop people from doing X peaceful activity. AFAIK this is the only way to go beyond the is/ought problem. More: http://en.wikipedia....entation_ethics

 

 

Interesting..I am on my phone so I did not read the article, however, if I am understanding your condensed summary, you were saying that something is morally "wrong/right" if it doesn't/does convey aggression, respectively?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

So from that logic, what if someone is falsely convicted? And how do you define aggression?

Basically, if you're arguing, for example, that gay marriage should be illegal, you've implicitly agreed that punching me and anyone who wants to marry someone of the same sex is not a solution, and we need to come to a reasoned solution. But by arguing that gay marriage should be illegal, you're saying that we shouldn't come to a reasoned solution and that instead those who commit what you're saying is a crime should be put in a cage, which is aggression (as defined as breach of property rights, considering your body is part of your property). Therefore you've said aggression is and isn't the solution. Those two things can't be true at the same time, so whenever you argue that aggression is okay, you contradict yourself.

The takeaway from argumentation ethics (if you agree with it) is that the state--which is the group of people which has a monopoly on the initiation of force, and which generally uses it to tax, jail, and kill--is immoral and that anarcho-capitalism is the only moral order. False convictions are subordinate to that issue.

 

Damn. That honestly may be one of the most interesting things i have ever heard.

Out of curiosity, let's pull it to an extreme.

 

I am unsure if you have yet to define aggression, but what it seemed to be in your explanation is a breach of property either through abuse (punching someone in the face), jailing, etc.

 

However, that is yourdefinition for aggression. What if someone else's opinion differs?

Better yet, what if a major group of individual's opinions think, per se, that aggression is not breach of property?

 

EDIT: are they not then being equally as ostracized by their views as gays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aggression is a concept. You don't argue about that. You define it, and then you go from there.

Suppose they were right, and that aggression is not breaching property rights. Then all I would say is: "Alright, fine. Let's call the breach of property rights 'bleep-bloop'." And then I would restate the argument by replacing "aggression" with "bleep-bloop" everywhere. It wouldn't make sense for anyone to deny argumentation ethics by saying "no, that's not what bleep-bloop is". Better yet, I could simply replace "aggression" with "breach of property rights". There's no natural link between the words (both as sounds and as doodles) we use and the messages we communicate through them, so anyone who uses that kind of argument to debunk an idea is just spouting nonsense.

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem with argumentation ethics is that arguing something doesn't mean you've implicitly rejected violence, it just means that argumentation suits your needs more than violence at that point.

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aggression is a concept. You don't argue about that. You define it, and then you go from there.

Suppose they were right, and that aggression is not breaching property rights. Then all I would say is: "Alright, fine. Let's call the breach of property rights 'bleep-bloop'." And then I would restate the argument by replacing "aggression" with "bleep-bloop" everywhere. It wouldn't make sense for anyone to deny argumentation ethics by saying "no, that's not what bleep-bloop is". There's no natural link between the words we use and the messages we communicate through them, so anyone who uses that kind of argument to debunk an idea is just spouting nonsense.

 

Interesting. So language does not change the moral ideology behind the aggression.

This is obvious, duh, but it still remains to not answer why aggression is not ok.

 

Or maybe I am missing something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obfuscator, truth be told, I started reading up on the matter yesterday and I'm not quite done; I've just been arguing for the non-aggression principle because I like it (and so has anyone who did so before Hoppe came up with the idea, really). I would be very surprised if Hoppe or Kinsella had not yet taken this into account. Their replies probably have a lot to do with universalizability.

constrictor, aggression is wrong because you said so when you started arguing. But obfuscator makes a good point, maybe coming all the way over here and punching me in the face wasn't a possibility.

 

[Edit] Skimming this, I think Kinsella at least implicitly replies: http://www.anti-stat...?article_id=312

[Edit] At the very least, you're agreeing to self-ownership.

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obfuscator, truth be told, I started reading up on the matter yesterday and I'm not quite done; I've just been arguing for the non-aggression principle because I like it (and so has anyone who did so before Hoppe came up with the idea, really). I would be very surprised if Hoppe or Kinsella had not yet taken this into account. Their replies probably have a lot to do with universalizability.

constrictor, aggression is wrong because you said so when you started arguing. But obfuscator makes a good point, maybe coming all the way over here and punching me in the face wasn't a possibility.

[Edit] Skimming this, I think Kinsella at least implicitly replies: http://www.anti-state.com/article.php?article_id=312

 

Wrong or just not worth the consequences?

 

Just because you don't make an action (ie me not punching you in order to solve the conflict) does not mean that I made a necessarily good or bad decision.

 

I'd say if anything, it's just choosing to end conflict by means of ease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't homosexuals have civil unions? if it's all about being able to love who you want and having legal rights, why must it be called "marriage"? Honestly, if the reason is to force people to consider homosexuality "normal", nobody's buying that.

And yeah I know, flame away...gays and closet gays (who typically are the loudest supporters of the lifestyle) are allowed to do that. I'm not allowed to disagree with the lifestyle choice, but it's ok that I be called bigot, insensitive, ignorant (and/or worse) for not subscribing to the idea a deviant sexual fetish is normal.

All that aside I understand the arguments on both sides...I just can't grasp why it MUST be called and compared to a traditional marriage. It's not.

1. Civil unions offer far fewer benefits than marriage does.

2. Nice bit about the closet gays there. The "oh if you support gay marriage you must be closeted" implications totally add to your credibility.

3. It's not a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality isn't a choice. Gay people are born gay (although obviously this isn't obvious until they've had time to hit puberty and figure out which people they want to screw around with.

4. As Sprint said, the fact that you're calling it sexual deviancy just shows your ignorance on the topic. Frankly you sound pretty bigoted so far.

5. That's for the same reason that interracial couples demanded to be included in traditional marriage, that "separate but equal" policies are never the answer (not to mention the fact that the equal half never happens), and that women keep demanding equal rights even over seemingly unimportant issues. Because no-one likes being discriminated against.

 

I was not aware that conclusive scientific evidence has been found to prove homosexuals are "born that way". Would you mind posting that? Even though I do not condone the behavior, I think categorizing gays as "born that way" is akin to saying they have a sickness, a disease of sorts.

And...as I knew would happen with the flaming, your "bigoted" comment is uncalled for. Just because I disagree with someones bedroom kink (Sprint was right, I used the word fetish, it's actually a kink), and that lifestyle being forced upon us as "normal" does NOT color me a bigot. From the technical definition, which is a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his/her own, I am a bigot, as are you for your your use of the bigot as well as the word ignorance.

Homosexuals are equal from a standpoint of getting a job, eating at the same restaurants, etc...but as to the natural union which defines humans they most certainly are not. No more than one who marries their own brother, or multiple partners, the Eiffel Tower (silly as it sounds Google that, a woman actually did that)

If civil unions are legally different then they should be updated to give the same benefits as a marriage and let homosexuals have civil unions. Problem solved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their lifestyle isn't being forced upon you. That's like saying I'm forcing my taste in clothing upon you by wearing an ugly Christmas sweater. Believe it or not, this doesn't force you to wear one as well!

 

Obfuscator, truth be told, I started reading up on the matter yesterday and I'm not quite done; I've just been arguing for the non-aggression principle because I like it (and so has anyone who did so before Hoppe came up with the idea, really). I would be very surprised if Hoppe or Kinsella had not yet taken this into account. Their replies probably have a lot to do with universalizability.

constrictor, aggression is wrong because you said so when you started arguing. But obfuscator makes a good point, maybe coming all the way over here and punching me in the face wasn't a possibility.

[Edit] Skimming this, I think Kinsella at least implicitly replies: http://www.anti-stat...?article_id=312

 

Wrong or just not worth the consequences?

 

Just because you don't make an action (ie me not punching you in order to solve the conflict) does not mean that I made a necessarily good or bad decision.

 

I'd say if anything, it's just choosing to end conflict by means of ease.

Read the second link. By arguing, you presuppose self-ownership (that you have the right to use your body as a means), which is pretty much sufficient for the NAP.

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't homosexuals have civil unions? if it's all about being able to love who you want and having legal rights, why must it be called "marriage"? Honestly, if the reason is to force people to consider homosexuality "normal", nobody's buying that.

And yeah I know, flame away...gays and closet gays (who typically are the loudest supporters of the lifestyle) are allowed to do that. I'm not allowed to disagree with the lifestyle choice, but it's ok that I be called bigot, insensitive, ignorant (and/or worse) for not subscribing to the idea a deviant sexual fetish is normal.

All that aside I understand the arguments on both sides...I just can't grasp why it MUST be called and compared to a traditional marriage. It's not.

1. Civil unions offer far fewer benefits than marriage does.

2. Nice bit about the closet gays there. The "oh if you support gay marriage you must be closeted" implications totally add to your credibility.

3. It's not a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality isn't a choice. Gay people are born gay (although obviously this isn't obvious until they've had time to hit puberty and figure out which people they want to screw around with.

4. As Sprint said, the fact that you're calling it sexual deviancy just shows your ignorance on the topic. Frankly you sound pretty bigoted so far.

5. That's for the same reason that interracial couples demanded to be included in traditional marriage, that "separate but equal" policies are never the answer (not to mention the fact that the equal half never happens), and that women keep demanding equal rights even over seemingly unimportant issues. Because no-one likes being discriminated against.

 

I was not aware that conclusive scientific evidence has been found to prove homosexuals are "born that way". Would you mind posting that? Even though I do not condone the behavior, I think categorizing gays as "born that way" is akin to saying they have a sickness, a disease of sorts.

And...as I knew would happen with the flaming, your "bigoted" comment is uncalled for. Just because I disagree with someones bedroom kink (Sprint was right, I used the word fetish, it's actually a kink), and that lifestyle being forced upon us as "normal" does NOT color me a bigot. From the technical definition, which is a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his/her own, I am a bigot, as are you for your your use of the bigot as well as the word ignorance.

Homosexuals are equal from a standpoint of getting a job, eating at the same restaurants, etc...but as to the natural union which defines humans they most certainly are not. No more than one who marries their own brother, or multiple partners, the Eiffel Tower (silly as it sounds Google that, a woman actually did that)

If civil unions are legally different then they should be updated to give the same benefits as a marriage and let homosexuals have civil unions. Problem solved.

 

The reason, as stated by someone earlier, why a person should never be allowed to wed/be in union with something, like the eiffel tower, is that it cannot give consent.

 

As for your assumption that marriage is a "natural union", please explain why that defines humans? What about the celibate/unmarried?

 

 

EDIT:

 

Their lifestyle isn't being forced upon you. That's like saying I'm forcing my taste in clothing upon you by wearing an ugly Christmas sweater. Believe it or not, this doesn't force you to wear one as well!

 

Obfuscator, truth be told, I started reading up on the matter yesterday and I'm not quite done; I've just been arguing for the non-aggression principle because I like it (and so has anyone who did so before Hoppe came up with the idea, really). I would be very surprised if Hoppe or Kinsella had not yet taken this into account. Their replies probably have a lot to do with universalizability.

constrictor, aggression is wrong because you said so when you started arguing. But obfuscator makes a good point, maybe coming all the way over here and punching me in the face wasn't a possibility.

[Edit] Skimming this, I think Kinsella at least implicitly replies: http://www.anti-stat...?article_id=312

 

Wrong or just not worth the consequences?

 

Just because you don't make an action (ie me not punching you in order to solve the conflict) does not mean that I made a necessarily good or bad decision.

 

I'd say if anything, it's just choosing to end conflict by means of ease.

Read the second link. By arguing, you presuppose self-ownership, which is pretty much sufficient for the NAP.

 

 

But how does that allow us to define good from bad?

Is it entirely based upon our perspective of aggression/action?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And...as I knew would happen with the flaming, your "bigoted" comment is uncalled for. Just because I disagree with someones bedroom kink (Sprint was right, I used the word fetish, it's actually a kink), and that lifestyle being forced upon us as "normal" does NOT color me a bigot.

I take it that you haven't quite figured out yet that intolerance is a one way street, you're only intolerant if you disagree with the "progressive" vision for the future.

 

I say let them keep up the name calling. Every time they call you a name without basis, they're dulling their ammunition as well as letting their ugly hatred and real intolerance show through.

  • Like 1

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't homosexuals have civil unions? if it's all about being able to love who you want and having legal rights, why must it be called "marriage"? Honestly, if the reason is to force people to consider homosexuality "normal", nobody's buying that.

And yeah I know, flame away...gays and closet gays (who typically are the loudest supporters of the lifestyle) are allowed to do that. I'm not allowed to disagree with the lifestyle choice, but it's ok that I be called bigot, insensitive, ignorant (and/or worse) for not subscribing to the idea a deviant sexual fetish is normal.

All that aside I understand the arguments on both sides...I just can't grasp why it MUST be called and compared to a traditional marriage. It's not.

1. Civil unions offer far fewer benefits than marriage does.

2. Nice bit about the closet gays there. The "oh if you support gay marriage you must be closeted" implications totally add to your credibility.

3. It's not a lifestyle choice. Homosexuality isn't a choice. Gay people are born gay (although obviously this isn't obvious until they've had time to hit puberty and figure out which people they want to screw around with.

4. As Sprint said, the fact that you're calling it sexual deviancy just shows your ignorance on the topic. Frankly you sound pretty bigoted so far.

5. That's for the same reason that interracial couples demanded to be included in traditional marriage, that "separate but equal" policies are never the answer (not to mention the fact that the equal half never happens), and that women keep demanding equal rights even over seemingly unimportant issues. Because no-one likes being discriminated against.

 

I was not aware that conclusive scientific evidence has been found to prove homosexuals are "born that way". Would you mind posting that? Even though I do not condone the behavior, I think categorizing gays as "born that way" is akin to saying they have a sickness, a disease of sorts.

And...as I knew would happen with the flaming, your "bigoted" comment is uncalled for. Just because I disagree with someones bedroom kink (Sprint was right, I used the word fetish, it's actually a kink), and that lifestyle being forced upon us as "normal" does NOT color me a bigot. From the technical definition, which is a person who is intolerant of any ideas other than his/her own, I am a bigot, as are you for your your use of the bigot as well as the word ignorance.

Homosexuals are equal from a standpoint of getting a job, eating at the same restaurants, etc...but as to the natural union which defines humans they most certainly are not. No more than one who marries their own brother, or multiple partners, the Eiffel Tower (silly as it sounds Google that, a woman actually did that)

If civil unions are legally different then they should be updated to give the same benefits as a marriage and let homosexuals have civil unions. Problem solved.

 

Except for the fact that people have been asked to leave public eateries for being gay.

 

You're being called bigoted because you literally asked to in your first stupid post, and now you make a second stupid post whining about it?

 

If you're going to post as many dumb words as you have, surely you can spend the 20 seconds it would take to check the wikipedia page for homosexuality or w/e so you don't come off looking stupider than you already do.

 

god bless

FBqTDdL.jpg

sleep like dead men

wake up like dead men

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And...as I knew would happen with the flaming, your "bigoted" comment is uncalled for. Just because I disagree with someones bedroom kink (Sprint was right, I used the word fetish, it's actually a kink), and that lifestyle being forced upon us as "normal" does NOT color me a bigot.

I take it that you haven't quite figured out yet that intolerance is a one way street, you're only intolerant if you disagree with the "progressive" vision for the future.

 

I say let them keep up the name calling. Every time they call you a name without basis, they're dulling their ammunition as well as letting their ugly hatred and real intolerance show through.

I think we shall see in 30-50 years who is bigoted. The same argument was made by the racists during the Civil Rights era.

  • Like 2

phpFffu7GPM.jpg
 

"He could climb to it, if he climbed alone, and once there he could suck on the pap of life, gulp down the incomparable milk of wonder."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason, as stated by someone earlier, why a person should never be allowed to wed/be in union with something, like the eiffel tower, is that it cannot give consent.

Not really. You don't need consent from your computer to use it because it has no property rights over itself. You can do anything to your property. I doubt the owners of the Eiffel towers gave their consent though.

EDIT:

 

Their lifestyle isn't being forced upon you. That's like saying I'm forcing my taste in clothing upon you by wearing an ugly Christmas sweater. Believe it or not, this doesn't force you to wear one as well!

 

Obfuscator, truth be told, I started reading up on the matter yesterday and I'm not quite done; I've just been arguing for the non-aggression principle because I like it (and so has anyone who did so before Hoppe came up with the idea, really). I would be very surprised if Hoppe or Kinsella had not yet taken this into account. Their replies probably have a lot to do with universalizability.

constrictor, aggression is wrong because you said so when you started arguing. But obfuscator makes a good point, maybe coming all the way over here and punching me in the face wasn't a possibility.

[Edit] Skimming this, I think Kinsella at least implicitly replies: http://www.anti-stat...?article_id=312

 

Wrong or just not worth the consequences?

 

Just because you don't make an action (ie me not punching you in order to solve the conflict) does not mean that I made a necessarily good or bad decision.

 

I'd say if anything, it's just choosing to end conflict by means of ease.

Read the second link. By arguing, you presuppose self-ownership, which is pretty much sufficient for the NAP.

 

 

But how does that allow us to define good from bad?

Is it entirely based upon our perspective of aggression/action?

All it means is that by arguing, you've agreed that you have a right to make use of your body as a means. You can't disagree with this, because in order to disagree you have to use your body as a means. In addition, the only correct normative statements are universal. Now you've implicitly said both of us are self-owners. Therefore you can't jail/kill me because you'd be going against the statement you based yourself on. You can extend this to property other than your body using the homestead principle.

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason, as stated by someone earlier, why a person should never be allowed to wed/be in union with something, like the eiffel tower, is that it cannot give consent.

Not really. You don't need consent from your computer to use it because it has no property rights over itself. You can do anything to your property. I doubt the owners of the Eiffel towers gave their consent though.

EDIT:

 

Their lifestyle isn't being forced upon you. That's like saying I'm forcing my taste in clothing upon you by wearing an ugly Christmas sweater. Believe it or not, this doesn't force you to wear one as well!

 

Obfuscator, truth be told, I started reading up on the matter yesterday and I'm not quite done; I've just been arguing for the non-aggression principle because I like it (and so has anyone who did so before Hoppe came up with the idea, really). I would be very surprised if Hoppe or Kinsella had not yet taken this into account. Their replies probably have a lot to do with universalizability.

constrictor, aggression is wrong because you said so when you started arguing. But obfuscator makes a good point, maybe coming all the way over here and punching me in the face wasn't a possibility.

[Edit] Skimming this, I think Kinsella at least implicitly replies: http://www.anti-stat...?article_id=312

 

Wrong or just not worth the consequences?

 

Just because you don't make an action (ie me not punching you in order to solve the conflict) does not mean that I made a necessarily good or bad decision.

 

I'd say if anything, it's just choosing to end conflict by means of ease.

Read the second link. By arguing, you presuppose self-ownership, which is pretty much sufficient for the NAP.

 

 

But how does that allow us to define good from bad?

Is it entirely based upon our perspective of aggression/action?

All it means is that by arguing, you've agreed that you have a right to make use of your body as a means. You can't disagree with this, because in order to disagree you have to use your body as a means. In addition, the only correct normative statements are universal. Now you've implicitly said both of us are self-owners. Therefore you can't jail/kill me because you'd be going against the statement you based yourself on. You can extend this to property other than your body using the homestead principle.

 

Who's to say that me going against my original statement is illogical then?

Or more so, why can't I do that and it be ok?

 

Sorry I'm just being a asshat about it now, but You are quite brilliant with your responses and it's fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You did. Because by arguing with me, you're saying you decide what you do with your body. By saying you're allowed to initiate force against me, you say I don't decide what I do with my body. Those two normative statements are incompatible because normative statements are universal.

 

I guess this isn't so much about finding what is right and what is wrong. It's about finding the only internally consistent normative position. Any other position, if the argument is correct, is just nonsense, literally the same as gibberish.

 

Don't credit me for this, I'm just mindlessly repeating what Hoppe wrote.

  • Like 1

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because by arguing with me, you're saying you decide what you do with your body. By saying you're allowed to initiate force against me, you say I don't decide what I do with my body. Those two normative statements are incompatible because normative statements are universal.

 

Don't credit me for this, I'm just mindlessly repeating what Hoppe wrote.

 

OT: I should read more up on him.

 

Anyways, but that's assuming that logic is always correct. And who is to say logic is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And...as I knew would happen with the flaming, your "bigoted" comment is uncalled for. Just because I disagree with someones bedroom kink (Sprint was right, I used the word fetish, it's actually a kink), and that lifestyle being forced upon us as "normal" does NOT color me a bigot.

I take it that you haven't quite figured out yet that intolerance is a one way street, you're only intolerant if you disagree with the "progressive" vision for the future.

 

I say let them keep up the name calling. Every time they call you a name without basis, they're dulling their ammunition as well as letting their ugly hatred and real intolerance show through.

I think we shall see in 30-50 years who is bigoted. The same argument was made by the racists during the Civil Rights era.

 

Yeah, but you'd think that with the number of times the words "racist," "bigot," "homophobe," and "misogynist" are thrown around, I'd have lynched a black lesbian about every other week.

 

I don't hate people that disagree with me, and I don't think they're evil. Wrong or misguided? Maybe. I don't think it's wise to show contempt in a discussion.

99 dungeoneering achieved, thanks to everyone that celebrated with me!

 

♪♪ Don't interrupt me as I struggle to complete this thought
Have some respect for someone more forgetful than yourself ♪♪

♪♪ And I'm not done
And I won't be till my head falls off ♪♪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hide=constrictor]Assuming that premises A and B are incontrovertibly correct, then the conclusion C must also be correct.

 

A: Lucy is a female.

B: All females are mortal.

C: Therefore Lucy is mortal.

 

But how do we know that the system of logic itself (A and B will lead to C), or more specifically deductive argument is correct?

 

I mean we all accept the system of logic itself to be true, how do we know it's correct?

 

Hm, that's a thinker.

 

-------------------------

 

This is actually a pretty nasty problem (contrary to the quick "well duh!" responses you are bound to get).

 

There seem to be two distinct problems, too. The first is an "internal" problem: how do we know that any "logically valid" (calling it that is somewhat question begging) sentence is true? E.g., "((A->B)&A)->B)", -- how do we know that this sentence is true? It might be said that it "corresponds" with a valid deductive proof, but the order of justification is unclear; why isn't the deductive proof justified because it "corresponds" with the logically true sentence.

 

The second problem is "external", and can be seen in Lewis Carroll's Tortoise/Achilles paradox. Given that one accepts "(A->B)&A", why should one accept "B"? It isn't sufficient to point out that one also believes "((A->B)&A)->B)" -- You can grant that this, but still wonder "Why think B?" (It might be pointed out, next, that one believes "((A->B)&A)->B)->B)" but even here you can still wonder "B?") Unless you "plug" the gap between the growing hierarchy of deductive proofs and "B", you lose the epistemic force of deduction. This is where many appeal to the distinction between beliefs and rules (Quine doesn't; everything is a belief to Quine; and that's why Quine has such a hard time with this problem), and deductive inference gets justified by the underlying rules; but it's unclear how a rule can justify an inference if there's no justification for the rule.[/hide]

 

Bleeding from the ears yet?

  • Like 1

Matt: You want that eh? You want everything good for you. You want everything that's--falls off garbage can

Camera guy: Whoa, haha, are you okay dude?

Matt: You want anything funny that happens, don't you?

Camera guy: still laughing

Matt: You want the funny shit that happens here and there, you think it comes out of your [bleep]ing [wagon] pushes garbage can down, don't you? You think it's funny? It comes out of here! running towards Camera guy

Camera guy: runs away still laughing

Matt: You think the funny comes out of your mother[bleep]ing creativity? Comes out of Satan, mother[bleep]er! nn--ngh! pushes Camera guy down

Camera guy: Hoooholy [bleep]!

Matt: FUNNY ISN'T REAL! FUNNY ISN'T REAL!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And...as I knew would happen with the flaming, your "bigoted" comment is uncalled for. Just because I disagree with someones bedroom kink (Sprint was right, I used the word fetish, it's actually a kink), and that lifestyle being forced upon us as "normal" does NOT color me a bigot.

I take it that you haven't quite figured out yet that intolerance is a one way street, you're only intolerant if you disagree with the "progressive" vision for the future.

 

I say let them keep up the name calling. Every time they call you a name without basis, they're dulling their ammunition as well as letting their ugly hatred and real intolerance show through.

I think we shall see in 30-50 years who is bigoted. The same argument was made by the racists during the Civil Rights era.

 

People seem to like comparing public perception of interracial marriage to that of homosexual marriage, but I imagine the future looks more like the way society currently views abortion: a large percentage are still opposed despite the majority being fine with it.

 

The catholic church was never against interracial marriage, in fact purely from a doctrinal standpoint it should have encouraged it (not sure what the actual reaction from the catholic church at large was at the time). Whereas here (as with abortion) it's vehemently opposed and probably always will be.

  • Like 1

polvCwJ.gif
"It's not a rest for me, it's a rest for the weights." - Dom Mazzetti

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[hide=constrictor]Assuming that premises A and B are incontrovertibly correct, then the conclusion C must also be correct.

 

A: Lucy is a female.

B: All females are mortal.

C: Therefore Lucy is mortal.

 

But how do we know that the system of logic itself (A and B will lead to C), or more specifically deductive argument is correct?

 

I mean we all accept the system of logic itself to be true, how do we know it's correct?

 

Hm, that's a thinker.

 

-------------------------

 

This is actually a pretty nasty problem (contrary to the quick "well duh!" responses you are bound to get).

 

There seem to be two distinct problems, too. The first is an "internal" problem: how do we know that any "logically valid" (calling it that is somewhat question begging) sentence is true? E.g., "((A->B)&A)->B)", -- how do we know that this sentence is true? It might be said that it "corresponds" with a valid deductive proof, but the order of justification is unclear; why isn't the deductive proof justified because it "corresponds" with the logically true sentence.

 

The second problem is "external", and can be seen in Lewis Carroll's Tortoise/Achilles paradox. Given that one accepts "(A->B)&A", why should one accept "B"? It isn't sufficient to point out that one also believes "((A->B)&A)->B)" -- You can grant that this, but still wonder "Why think B?" (It might be pointed out, next, that one believes "((A->B)&A)->B)->B)" but even here you can still wonder "B?") Unless you "plug" the gap between the growing hierarchy of deductive proofs and "B", you lose the epistemic force of deduction. This is where many appeal to the distinction between beliefs and rules (Quine doesn't; everything is a belief to Quine; and that's why Quine has such a hard time with this problem), and deductive inference gets justified by the underlying rules; but it's unclear how a rule can justify an inference if there's no justification for the rule.[/hide]

 

Bleeding from the ears yet?

 

This is brilliant.

 

I will post further thoughts later when I have access to more sources.

 

 

Reasons why I want to go to into Philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderators Note:

 

First I am actually going to lead off that despite the tension and passion involved in this debate, the lack of trouble people have gotten into over it has so far been commendable and dare I say surprising. However, it does seem to be inching along further and further into grounds where moderation will most certainly be happening, and in this case I expect that moderation will necessitate that the debate itself be ended forcefully.

 

Keep in mind that only posts and opinions are fair game, and only so far as without implying insult to the people behind them. Attempting to edge around the rules with implied insults only raises tensions further, and only shortens the life of this debate. The expectation here is that people can voice their own opinion, withing the rules, and expect not to be attacked personally for them.

 

Also keep in mind that the more passion people bring to this, the less likely the other side is to listen. This is not a formal debate, there is no judging panel that will decide how well each side has presented their argument and who has won. If you are to convince other people, you should avoid putting them on the defensive, and are best ignoring anyone who enters the argument with passion out of the gates as they only act to the detriment of both sides by causing a chain reaction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.