Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

[BigBallinStalin]

@ Saxi: Can the pursuit of eqality in opportunity qualify as a valid religion?

As I said, in Evola's interpretation, if all men are created equal, then no man (individually or collectively) can impose his will on another man. If that's the case, there is no objective basis for laws. In order for laws to exist, a superman would have to create them, otherwise there's no difference between your nation and a street gang ... either a West Side Story-esque, comically inoffensive street gang (see: New Zealand), or a Gangs of New York-style, brutally violent street gang (see: Saudi Arabia).

That's all a bunch of phooey because the "choice" isn't between Superman Law and Gang of Bandits. There's also customary law, as in law without the State.

[kentington]

I think the government should be in the business of civil unions and get out of marriages. Those who consider marriages to be religious can do so at a church of their choosing. Those who don't find it religious can perform the ceremony in the way of their choosing.

That seems like an extremely rational approach. Unfortunately it would allow people, no longer distracted screaming at each other over "gonadal politics" (phrase courtesy, Ralph Nader), the luxury of time to inquire who is behind the curtain.

Yes, the government doesn't approve of rational. How can you divide and conquer that way?

[AAFitz]

I still don't understand the following with the issue on gay marriage:


(1) No religion has the legitimate right to define what a marriage is in the US. No single religion enjoys that jurisdiction. So, why do people continue to think that their own particular religion somehow has the right to define what a marriage is over an entire country? (that screams of theocracy to me).

Okay, let's clear up a confusion. There's "religious marriage" and "legal marriage" (a.k.a. civil union). I'm talking about legal marriage and religious marriages, which differ across religions (which further compounds the problem of #1). A religion can define marriage and regulate marriage, but only within in its own jurisdictions (churches, but not across the entire country), hence a "religious marriage."

(2) Suppose the US legalizes gay marriage and requires people to recognize it as a legitimate marriage (in regard to contract laws, etc.). However, the US does not force religious organizations to oversee the marriage of gay couples because those organizations are free to deny their services (e.g. no gays in the Boy Scouts case). If (2) is true, then why would people oppose gay marriage?

Actually, upon reading this, it has become clear, any real opposition, is stupid on a basic level.

[saxitoxin]

@ Saxi: Can the pursuit of eqality in opportunity qualify as a valid religion?

As I said, in Evola's interpretation, if all men are created equal, then no man (individually or collectively) can impose his will on another man. If that's the case, there is no objective basis for laws. In order for laws to exist, a superman would have to create them, otherwise there's no difference between your nation and a street gang ... either a West Side Story-esque, comically inoffensive street gang (see: New Zealand), or a Gangs of New York-style, brutally violent street gang (see: Saudi Arabia).

That's all a bunch of phooey because the "choice" isn't between Superman Law and Gang of Bandits. There's also customary law, as in law without the State.

All customary law originates from a Superman.

For instance, Tort and the four-part liability test - pretty much the foundation of all civil law in the English-speaking countries - was created by a Court that "discovered" the entire concept in a single passage in the Old Testament (Exodus 22:14): "If a man borrows anything of his neighbor's, and it is injured, or dies, its owner not being with it, he shall surely make restitution."

Thousands of tort judgments handed out just today in the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland and UK were all based on judges ritually divining the intent of a supernatural creature the Jews claim did, or does, exist.

Perhaps one day Bagger 288 will replace The Tetragrammaton?

[Woodruff]

Ok, this is my view on the thing. I didn't read all of the pages that popped up today.

I think the government should be in the business of civil unions and get out of marriages. Those who consider marriages to be religious can do so at a church of their choosing. Those who don't find it religious can perform the ceremony in the way of their choosing. I don't see the government doing that and so I don't mind if they get married.

You and I are in complete agreement.

I respect people even when I don't agree with them, hopefully that shows on here as well.

I mostly respect people even when I don't agree with them...but when I don't respect them, it has nothing at all to do with not agreeing with them.

[BigBallinStalin]

@ Saxi: Can the pursuit of eqality in opportunity qualify as a valid religion?

As I said, in Evola's interpretation, if all men are created equal, then no man (individually or collectively) can impose his will on another man. If that's the case, there is no objective basis for laws. In order for laws to exist, a superman would have to create them, otherwise there's no difference between your nation and a street gang ... either a West Side Story-esque, comically inoffensive street gang (see: New Zealand), or a Gangs of New York-style, brutally violent street gang (see: Saudi Arabia).

That's all a bunch of phooey because the "choice" isn't between Superman Law and Gang of Bandits. There's also customary law, as in law without the State.

All customary law originates from a Superman.

For instance, Tort and the four-part liability test - pretty much the foundation of all civil law in the English-speaking countries - was created by a Court that "discovered" the entire concept in a single passage in the Old Testament (Exodus 22:14): "If a man borrows anything of his neighbor's, and it is injured, or dies, its owner not being with it, he shall surely make restitution."

Thousands of tort judgments handed out just today in the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland and UK were all based on judges ritually divining the intent of a supernatural creature the Jews claim did, or does, exist.

Perhaps one day Bagger 288 will replace The Tetragrammaton. Evola might say we can pick any god we want. (Though, of course, most gods will try to impose an economic monopoly, as is the case with The Tetragrammaton using market coercion - "no gods before me.")

So, before the holy books, there was no law founded on a Superman?

And you may be right about that one particular example, but some degree of customary law deviated or is not founded upon a Superman.

And maybe the connection becomes so weak over time, that the Superman idea becomes kind of silly. E.g. what does the Superman have to say about extending extremely limited liability to nuclear power plants in the US?

[saxitoxin]

So, before the holy books, there was no law founded on a Superman?

Pre-literate societies had Law, and that Law was also based on orders that had come from a Superman. See:

http://books.google.com/books?id=awrOHv ... &q&f=false

[puppydog85]

What explains your inconsistency here? I can only wonder why

Try ignorance on your part. The Bible does not say to stone all women who have sex before they are married. I have read through the Bible multiple times and you are not going to shock me. In my circles I am the case law specialist. Again, you assume some moral standard to judge me. What moral is it that you are appealing to, Mr. Empericist? Have you observed it? Why would it be wrong to stone all women? I have my reasons for not stoning them, what would be yours?

Edit* thanks woodruff.

When you say, " What's wrong with a theocracy?"

That whole paragraph made no sense to me. I know you will challenge me and I am fine with it. That other thread I started was not about you.

Consent?

I thought you might squawk at that. Yes, I realize that we have far overgrown what the founders intended but we still elect who we want, thus matching the requirements of the consent governed people. You just don't realize how in the minority thinkers are. But I will note that you are not really disagreeing with me. You are just saying that you disagree with the degree that I take it to. You as a fan of Friedman should know that.

is morally impermissible on the grounds that consenting adults should be free to love another

Please tell me how you empirically validated that statement. Morals? From where?

It's definitely worth the costs of offending a portion of the religious

So it all comes down to a cost analysis for you? Ever watch the The Magnificent Seven? None of that made economic sense. You would have had them cave in? Ever read what happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence?

Your means for changing such laws would be fine if the laws only applied

So here you say all you are fine with my views, it is just a matter of degree that you disagree with

[BigBallinStalin]

What explains your inconsistency here? I can only wonder why

Try ignorance on your part. The Bible does not say to stone all women who have sex before they are married. I have read through the Bible multiple times and you are not going to shock me. In my circles I am the case law specialist. Again, you assume some moral standard to judge me. What moral is it that you are appealing to, Mr. Empericist? Have you observed it? Why would it be wrong to stone all women? I have my reasons for not stoning them, what would be yours?

Edit* thanks woodruff.

Right, you base your morals on an appeal to authority. That's a nice logical fallacy to start with, and finish the 1-2 with circular reasoning. Then, there's again the Euthyphro dilemma. So either your morals are arbitrarily determined by a Superman, or morality is independent of a Superman.

Yeah, I'll abandon that ship for adhering to logic and reason, but then you'll respond with "oh empiricism is based on circular reasoning." How so? Err, something connected to an existentialist argument. Great. The mouth talks, but the hand does not doubt the reality of the door knob as you open the door. And even if I assume your counter-arguments to be true, I can simply shift to a moral consequentialist mode and say, "compare empiricism v. an adherence to existentialism and religious morality." Which modes of thought brought greater benefits to humankind? Empiricism. Darn that sensual experience, amirite?

Oh, but wait! There's more! In order to read your book, you must rely on sensual experience! Oh no! The arguments against empiricism cut both ways! How can you know that the holy book is really a book from god? Boogah boogah boogah!


So, to answer your question, I don't have the presumption to dictate what method of punishment would be best for so-and-so case. I have no idea, and it would depend on the circumstances, because these matters are not absolute--no matter how much your book says so. This should be a matter of spontaneous order, through customary law--without state intervention. It's a matter of trial-and-error through a competitive process, which would not be based on the involuntary extractions of people's wealth.

Also, when are you going to sell all your earthly possessions? When are you going to start loving your fellow human being as Jesus did?

When we will you cease cherry-picking from your book?

I'm sure there's plenty of moral reasons beyond your god-given morality which you use to conveniently justify ignoring other parts of the book. Not only is your god arbitrarily giving moral commands, but apparently, you're dodging some of his arbitrary commands in whatever ways you can justify. lolwut.

When you say, " What's wrong with a theocracy?"

That whole paragraph made no sense to me. I know you will challenge me and I am fine with it. That other thread I started was not about you.

I guess you forgot the part when you said, "what's wrong with theocracy?" And all those posts where I explain what's wrong with it? Yikes. Okay, Mr. Crusader, the term aptly fits.

Consent?

I thought you might squawk at that. Yes, I realize that we have far overgrown what the founders intended but we still elect who we want, thus matching the requirements of the consent governed people. You just don't realize how in the minority thinkers are. But I will note that you are not really disagreeing with me. You are just saying that you disagree with the degree that I take it to. You as a fan of Friedman should know that.

I'm not quite a fan of Friedman. Maybe David Friedman, but not so much Milton.

Besides, this point is irrelevant. Your simply dodging the lack of effective accountability which voting has on political behavior. You don't care because only in this particular circumstance, you can use the laws to oppress a minority of people. You enjoy majority rule when it turns in your favor, but that appeal cuts both ways. It's not just, and you ignore that.

And how is your means moral? OH, right. You appeal to the authority of the arbitrary Christian God. Good job. Jesus smiles on you as you deny a minority group equal access to the benefits of marriage. Way to love your brothers and sisters as Jesus did.

is morally impermissible on the grounds that consenting adults should be free to love another

Please tell me how you empirically validated that statement. Morals? From where?

From humans. From right there. Deal with the sentence with logic and reason, but without logical fallacies like appealing to your book.

Go ahead, try it! I don't think you can.

Why can't adults give their consent on matters of love?
Why can't consenting adults be free to love another?

Why not? (without the appeal to authority, go ahead).


Oh, you left out this part: "[they] should have equal access to the state-granted benefits from marriage."

Where's your argument against that one? I'd love to hear an argument favoring your discrimination, so please go ahead. You can use the book for this one. I'd love to see you make an argument in support of discrimination based on religious "values." Haha!

It's definitely worth the costs of offending a portion of the religious

So it all comes down to a cost analysis for you? Ever watch the The Magnificent Seven? None of that made economic sense. You would have had them cave in? Ever read what happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence?

So it all comes down to a cost analysis for you? No, not always. Remember that part about me being libertarian? I guess you don't.

Ever watch the The Magnificent Seven? None of that made economic sense. I've seen the original, the Seven Samurai. It makes economic sense to me because profit is determined monetarily and psychologically. Apparently, the psychic profit offsets the monetary. I could get even deeper into this, but I still don't see how this is relevant because it doesn't always come down to a cost-benefit analysis, but surely such an analysis is useful.

Sometimes I'm a moral consequentialist, when the costs and benefits are apparently obvious:

(1) Shall I uphold equality before the law and adhere to my principles of individual freedom--concerning consenting adults and love? The benefits definitely are worth it.

(2) Or shall I uphold a discriminatory belief that denies equality before the law and denies individual freedom because a figure in a book says so? Haha, seriously?

Please. The comparison is to show how ridiculous your stance is.

So what. I offended some discriminating and seemingly hateful religious types. Big deal.

Your means for changing such laws would be fine if the laws only applied

So here you say all you are fine with my views, it is just a matter of degree that you disagree with

Sure, but my position still doesn't lend any appreciation for yours, which appeals to the State and the Federal government. Besides, the degree matters, the transaction costs of exile/defection matter, and it's an issue you've completely ignored. It's on you to defend why asking people exile themselves from a State or country is justifiable--compared to my municipal/city district level. I'd love to see that justification. Maybe it's in your book somewhere, so with any luck, your logical fallacy will rescue you again.


And the lack of reply to my last response was telling. You definitely appreciate a system where you can involuntary force people to adhere to the claims in your special book--no matter how hateful or discriminatory the views within it may be.


As much as you deny supporting a theocracy, a theocracy is the only superior means for applying your god-given moral code. It's god's morality! It must be upheld! Otherwise, we all sin, and go to hell. Aren't the costs of killing people to create a christian theocracy low compared to the benefits of salvation and restoring God's morality across the Earth? Of course, this should justify a coup d'etat in favor of Christian theocracy. Your Old Testament is ripe with examples on this, so get cracking.

But wait, why not? What's in your book that contradicts the morality of all those stories of conquest and spreading Christianity? Oh, the stories upon stories can be so vague. It's almost as if you can cherry-pick anything in that book to excuse yourself from fulfilling other parts in that book. Oh, wait! That is what you do, isn't it?

[BigBallinStalin]

So, before the holy books, there was no law founded on a Superman?

Pre-literate societies had Law, and that Law was also based on orders that had come from a Superman. See:

http://books.google.com/books?id=awrOHv ... &q&f=false

Oh blarg and a half, sax. Yeah, maybe, I'll look at that, but I can't promise you much. =P

[BigBallinStalin]

Quick summary.

(1) Apparently, the opposition appeals to a logical fallacy (appeal to authority, a special book) in order to support denying a minority of people equal access to the state-granted benefits of marriage. So, discrimination against gays is obviously a religious value for Christians, if they take their book seriously.

(2) Then, there's the cherry-picking. Oppressing gays is cool, but giving up one's earthly possessions and following Jesus' example on that whole humanly love thing? Nah, they don't need to do the latter part, but the former? Oh definitely. Homosexuality is a sin; the sanctity of marriage must be defended at all costs of decency and loving one another. Does that make any sense to you?


(3) Question 2 was frequentely dodged. They continued to assume that the state would somehow force churches to oversee the marriage of gays, and even if that possibility was assumed away, they refused to answer the question "why would people oppose gay marriage?"

I'll answer that for them based on their own responses. They use this special book to justify discriminating against a certain group of people, and they will seek any "peaceful" means (e.g. majority rule) to oppress this minority--regardless of how unjust majority rule is. Those are their stated actions, yet why no answer to " "why would people oppose gay marriage?"


Conclusion:
The answer is obvious. They're bigots--in a bad way. Before this thread, I gave them the benefit of the doubt, but after interacting with them, it's obvious. They're bigots, and they're hateful, and they use any means to support their dislike for a minority group. This explains the arbitrary cherry-picking, and the convenient jump to using political means like majority rule.



Thanks, guys. Thread's over. You bigots can pack your shit and go away.

[Baron Von PWN]

BBS in this thread.

[BigBallinStalin]

[BigBallinStalin]

Here's a nice contradiction:

I you seem to think I want to force it on someone. I don't.
...
I would be willing to use my rights as a citizen to vote a against a law that I think is immoral.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=176293&start=60#p3850018


If he doesn't want to force his morals on someone, then why even vote? Because voting comes with the expectation that future legislation will force people to behave a certain way. In turn, puppydog is in favor of forcing it on someone.

"It" being Christian Theocracy. Of course, it's not all of Christian Theocracy. He's in favor of forcing parts of Christian Theocracy at various times.


And, we already went through the problems with theocracy, but apparently, this was ignored by puppydog because no matter what, christian theocracy is still the way to go. He'll deny it--just as he "sincerely" doubts reality. He says one thing, but does another.

[spurgistan]

Why can't the B&B owner just put the gay couple up in a barn?

Why? is there no room at the inn?

That took longer than I expected.

[puppydog85]

Stalin the great has spoken. I will shut up. Nice way of dealing with opposing arguments. At least I make a claim to some higher being to get my arrogance. You seem to think that your word alone is sufficient. You might try listening to Buffalo Springfield's For What It's Worth. You know, the part about waving your little flags that say hoorah for my side.

[crispybits]

Stalin the great has spoken. I will shut up. Nice way of dealing with opposing arguments. At least I make a claim to some higher being to get my arrogance. You seem to think that your word alone is sufficient. You might try listening to Buffalo Springfield's For What It's Worth. You know, the part about waving your little flags that say hoorah for my side.

Translation: I have no comeback so I'll use another logical fallacy (ad hominem) to attack the person arguing against me instead of even attempting to use any decent, non-circular logic to make my own case....

[puppydog85]

Why waste time with someone who states that his opponents need to shut up and go home? In my experience, the time to leave a discussion is when your opponent starts cursing you instead of engaging in a discussion. Start your own thread, I will talk with you.

[InkL0sed]

In my experience, the time to leave a discussion is when your opponent starts cursing you instead of engaging in a discussion.

Wait, so that monster wall of text wasn't engaging in a discussion?

You know what "instead" means, right? You're saying he didn't engage you in the discussion, and was only "cursing" you. Except that's blatantly wrong.

Also, by the way, he wasn't engaging in ad hominem. He was reaching the conclusion that you are a bigot through logical argument. Example of the difference here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131231&hilit=ad+hominem

[Haggis_McMutton]

Also, by the way, he wasn't engaging in ad hominem. He was reaching the conclusion that you are a bigot through logical argument. Example of the difference here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=131231&hilit=ad+hominem

Forgot about that one. That was a good re-read.

[BigBallinStalin]

Stalin the great has spoken. I will shut up. Nice way of dealing with opposing arguments. At least I make a claim to some higher being to get my arrogance. You seem to think that your word alone is sufficient. You might try listening to Buffalo Springfield's For What It's Worth. You know, the part about waving your little flags that say hoorah for my side.

(1) We eagerly await your argument which supports discriminating against gays, i.e. why should equality before the law not be upheld in regard to gay couples receiving the same state-granted benefits of heterosexual married couples?

(2) Please explain why consenting adults should NOT be free to love another.

(3) Your adherence to forcing people to abide by parts of Christian Theocracy has been exposed, and theocracies have been shown to be horrid for a country--as much as you tried to deny this. You clearly did because of that contradiction. Stop being intellectually dishonest, please.

(4) An explanation on your cherry-picking habits from the Bible would be much appreciated.

(5) An argument that explains why majority rule is just whenever it applies Christian Theocratic policies would be appreciated.

(6) Explain why morality is not independent of God, and why arbitrary commands of God are the only true basis of morality.

(7) Finally, you don't have a "claim to a higher being" in that vague, deistic sense. You have a claim to an Abrahamic God as described in the Bible. And since this Bible supports bigoted and discriminatory practices, why should it be held as the word of God--as compared to other claimed works of God? Surely, the credibility of such a bigoted work of art which contradicts the teachings of Jesus should be discarded in this case.

Hey, your arrogance is based on a depiction of a bigoted God. How am I not surprised??

My arguments are sufficient. If you can't respond with anything but an ad hominem attack followed by a straw man fallacy, then I'll take that as a "yes, you're right, Stalin" or "I have no logical counter-argument, yet I feel that I'm still correct" (which isn't a logical argument). I must conclude that I can't take you seriously until you come back to logic and reason.


Conclusion:
Given all the above problems with the opposition against gay marriage and their continued failure to address the problems of their stance, it becomes clear that any reasonable person--even a sensible Christian--would find it difficult to continue supporting policies which oppress gays.

[puppydog85]

Thanks, guys. Thread's over. You bigots can pack your shit and go away.

When someone closes a spiel with that statement I take them for what they are saying. I pack up and go home.

[puppydog85]

I would be quite willing to engage in further discussion. It was just getting to the point where we were actually engaging with each other. But BBS has a limit of about 10 posts before he starts engaging in name calling and my tolerance for name calling is zero.

[BigBallinStalin]

Thanks, guys. Thread's over. You bigots can pack your shit and go away.

When someone closes a spiel with that statement I take them for what they are saying. I pack up and go home.

Hey, unless you have a logical counter-argument, then leave. Apparently, your stunning silence on my points betrays your lack of any logical counter-arguments. Thank you for inadvertently admitting to us that you're a bigot who supports discriminatory policies against gays. It was a pleasure debating with you.

I would be quite willing to engage in further discussion. It was just getting to the point where we were actually engaging with each other. But BBS has a limit of about 10 posts before he starts engaging in name calling and my tolerance for name calling is zero.

Name-calling? I've led myself through a series of logical arguments to conclude that you're a bigot. So far, it's correct, and if you don't like that, then continuing to engage in these straw man fallacies will not help you. It's only making your position look worse.

The truth is that you're not willing to engage in further discussion. You're excusing yourself from making any logical counter-arguments by throwing up straw man fallacies and lame excuses (e.g. "Clearly, I'm not wanted, but I'll disregard the condition that if I can't make any logical counter-arguments, then I must leave").

Please. Stop crying and get logical.

[AndyDufresne]

Stop crying and get logical.

This would make an excellent slogan for something. Or a bumper sticker. BBS, quick, TM that.


--Andy