|
The only reason why anyone would ever think that enabling the marriage of same-sex couples is nihilistic is because they fall into an eternally rolling slippery slope due to their own personal prejudices rooted in their culture. Any notions of "transcending" is meaningless in the face of the law. If you find the act of creating meaning to be nihilistic then I can only accuse you of either not understanding what nihilism is or to be rooted in an irrational or nonrational idea of exclusivity that you use to rationalize what simply is in the end, being a bigot.
On the contrary, having prejudices rooted in culture means accepting the wealth of meanings prescribed by culture. Let us make this straight: even the most insufferable nonsense can be called "creation of meaning." If I strike down canterbury cathedral in order to build a stone hut, I am creating meaning. Similarly, if I abandon sanity, and begin to believe that the world is a dream, I am creating meaning, although the originality there is less than in the imagination of the dullest realist.
It is the same idiocy as the man who speaks up for freedom of speech, and when that has been granted, has nothing left to say.
Equating love with prejudice, as a preconception, is laughably nihilistic. Sorry, but using metaphysical concepts as your arguments for an anthropological institution is all rather meaningless in this social issue.
I did not equate love with prejudice, but cast love as a specimen of prejudice. It is not nihilistic at all. Your fallacy on the other hand, is to equate meaning with reason, which does have a tendency to nihilism.
|
Wait, there's people that argue against gay marriage on teamliquid? I thought there were only intelligent writers / readers here.
|
On June 29 2010 03:13 PanN wrote:
Wait, there's people that argue against gay marriage on teamliquid? I thought there were only intelligent writers / readers here.
>implying everyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent 
|
No, I just thought human rights were generally accepted.
|
On June 29 2010 03:18 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 03:13 PanN wrote:
Wait, there's people that argue against gay marriage on teamliquid? I thought there were only intelligent writers / readers here. >implying everyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent
Anyone who takes actions that screw with equal rights are either unintelligent or messed up enough that I see no problem in calling them idiots.
|
Marriage isn't generally accepted as a "right" for anyone
Certainly not when it comes with tax benefits.
|
On June 29 2010 03:25 kzn wrote:
Marriage isn't generally accepted as a "right" for anyone
Certainly not when it comes with tax benefits.
Rationalize why. Let's see this.
|
On June 29 2010 03:25 kzn wrote:
Marriage isn't generally accepted as a "right" for anyone
Certainly not when it comes with tax benefits.
Straight people can get married.
Gays can't.
Straight people have the right to get married, yet gay's dont.
It's a right.
Don't you dare say else wise, otherwise there wouldn't be a debate about this subject at all.
|
On June 29 2010 03:30 PanN wrote:Straight people can get married.
Gays can't.
Straight people have the right to get married, yet gay's dont.
It's a right.
Don't you dare say else wise, otherwise there wouldn't be a debate about this subject at all.
"Can" doesn't mean they have a right to do it. It means they can.
A right implies duties imposed on others, which doesn't really apply to marriage of any kind.
[edit] Not to mention gay people _can_ get married. They just cant get the tax benefits associated with official recognition of the marriage.
|
On June 29 2010 03:32 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 03:30 PanN wrote:Straight people can get married.
Gays can't.
Straight people have the right to get married, yet gay's dont.
It's a right.
Don't you dare say else wise, otherwise there wouldn't be a debate about this subject at all. "Can" doesn't mean they have a right to do it. It means they can. A right implies duties imposed on others, which doesn't really apply to marriage of any kind. [edit] Not to mention gay people _can_ get married. They just cant get the tax benefits associated with official recognition of the marriage.
They don't have the RIGHT to get the tax benefits associated with official recognition of the marriage.
Correct? There you go sweetcakes!
|
On June 29 2010 03:34 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 03:32 kzn wrote:On June 29 2010 03:30 PanN wrote:Straight people can get married.
Gays can't.
Straight people have the right to get married, yet gay's dont.
It's a right.
Don't you dare say else wise, otherwise there wouldn't be a debate about this subject at all. "Can" doesn't mean they have a right to do it. It means they can. A right implies duties imposed on others, which doesn't really apply to marriage of any kind. [edit] Not to mention gay people _can_ get married. They just cant get the tax benefits associated with official recognition of the marriage. They don't have the RIGHT to get the tax benefits associated with official recognition of the marriage. Correct? There you go sweetcakes!
I can't believe we have to spell everything out for him.
The same people that cannot read are the same people that impose on human equality. Coincidence?
|
On June 29 2010 03:34 Djzapz wrote:They don't have the RIGHT to get the tax benefits associated with official recognition of the marriage.
Correct? There you go sweetcakes!
More that they don't deserve to get them.
If people got tax benefits for marriage because they had a "right" to them, that "right" would have to be justified. It never has been. The reason people get tax benefits with marriage is because marriage does a number of things the state deems desirable, and thus the state seeks to incentivize marriage, thus tax benefits.
If two different marriages dont do the same things, or do them in different amounts, under no circumstances do both marriages deserve or "have a right to" the same benefits.
|
On June 29 2010 03:37 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 03:34 Djzapz wrote:They don't have the RIGHT to get the tax benefits associated with official recognition of the marriage.
Correct? There you go sweetcakes! More that they don't deserve to get them. If people got tax benefits for marriage because they had a "right" to them, that "right" would have to be justified. It never has been. The reason people get tax benefits with marriage is because marriage does a number of things the state deems desirable, and thus the state seeks to incentivize marriage, thus tax benefits. If two different marriages dont do the same things, or do them in different amounts, under no circumstances do both marriages deserve or "have a right to" the same benefits.
How and why do they not deserve to get marriage benefits?
Quit being vague.
|
On June 29 2010 03:37 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 03:34 Djzapz wrote:They don't have the RIGHT to get the tax benefits associated with official recognition of the marriage.
Correct? There you go sweetcakes! More that they don't deserve to get them. If people got tax benefits for marriage because they had a "right" to them, that "right" would have to be justified. It never has been. The reason people get tax benefits with marriage is because marriage does a number of things the state deems desirable, and thus the state seeks to incentivize marriage, thus tax benefits. If two different marriages dont do the same things, or do them in different amounts, under no circumstances do both marriages deserve or "have a right to" the same benefits.
What are the things that the state deems desirable in ALL heterosexual couples that you can't find in homosexual couples??
|
On June 29 2010 03:39 PanN wrote:How and why do they not deserve to get marriage benefits?
Quit being vague.
The argument has been made to me that heterosexual marriages are the most stable societal unit upon which to build a society. I can't actually find a source for this that isn't ridiculous, so you can take it with a grain of salt, but certainly full 4 person families are more stable and more likely to produce competent and well-adjusted children than families with missing parents.
There is the obvious point that heterosexual marriages are capable of procreation, an act in which the state has a vested interest as it insures the continued survival of said state. Granted, this technically means that tax benefits should attach to couples at the point of childbirth rather than at the point of marriage, but just because the current system isn't done perfectly doesn't mean that its not done for the same reasons.
A more radical but somewhat convincing argument (found in this article) is that heterosexual marriages represent exchanges of labor between men and women, and these exchanges are mutually beneficial as well as benefitting the state. It is not explicitly stated in the article what the author thinks would be true of a homosexual marriage as well, but certainly the lack of reproductive capabilities in a homosexual marriage to begin with will alter the nature of such a labor exchange, thus altering the benefits seen by the state.
There isn't a lot of data on any of these points, and most of the data that does exist is obviously flawed in some way. I don't have much of an opinion on the issue in either direction, but it is entirely possible to hold either side of this argument for both intelligent and completely retarded reasons.
|
On June 29 2010 03:42 Djzapz wrote:What are the things that the state deems desirable in ALL heterosexual couples that you can't find in homosexual couples??
I don't have to name a single thing that isn't present in homosexual couples. The only thing that needs to be true for my argument to hold is that the state benefits received from a heterosexual marriage are different, even only in quantity. That alone justifies separate sets of tax benefits for each type of marriage.
|
On June 29 2010 03:49 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 03:42 Djzapz wrote:What are the things that the state deems desirable in ALL heterosexual couples that you can't find in homosexual couples?? I don't have to name a single thing that isn't present in homosexual couples. The only thing that needs to be true for my argument to hold is that the state benefits received from a heterosexual marriage are different, even only in quantity. That alone justifies separate sets of tax benefits for each type of marriage.
Your point is homosexuals shouldn't have the right to get tax cuts from their marriage because their marriage isn't as profitable to the state as an heterosexual marriage.
I ask "how so" and you just drooled all over your shirt. Get working because so far you're doing nothing but discriminating against homosexual couples who would like to benefit from those tax cuts.
|
On June 29 2010 03:53 Djzapz wrote:
Your point is homosexuals shouldn't have the right to get tax cuts from their marriage because their marriage isn't as profitable to the state as an heterosexual marriage.
I ask "how so" and you just drooled all over your shirt. Get working because so far you're doing nothing but discriminating against homosexual couples who would like to benefit from those tax cuts.
Kid can't read.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 29 2010 03:55 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 03:53 Djzapz wrote:
Your point is homosexuals shouldn't have the right to get tax cuts from their marriage because their marriage isn't as profitable to the state as an heterosexual marriage.
I ask "how so" and you just drooled all over your shirt. Get working because so far you're doing nothing but discriminating against homosexual couples who would like to benefit from those tax cuts. Kid can't read.
I can read. You're being vague again.
Your argument is "you're wrong" and I don't think it works. If you're 14 year old I'll let it slide though. Let me know and I'll give you some argument points.
|
On June 29 2010 03:25 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2010 03:18 kzn wrote:On June 29 2010 03:13 PanN wrote:
Wait, there's people that argue against gay marriage on teamliquid? I thought there were only intelligent writers / readers here. >implying everyone who disagrees with you is unintelligent Anyone who takes actions that screw with equal rights are either unintelligent or messed up enough that I see no problem in calling them idiots. you are assuming an awful lot of things here without supporting either of them in a sufficient amount to resolve this issue.
among your assumptions are:
- heterosexual couples are the same as homosexual couples
- the meaning of the word marriage is clear and undisputed
- you know what that meaning is
- you can discard all other possible meanings of the word
- there is no difference between heterosexual couples and homosexual couples that matters before the meaning of the word
and you go on to make that your fundament to insult others from.
edit: also:
On June 29 2010 03:30 PanN wrote:
Straight people can get married.
Gays can't.
Straight people have the right to get married, yet gay's dont.
homosexual people have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex just as everyone else has. the ability to do that is a reasonable claim and denying them that would give us a civil/equal rights issue.
that is not what they complain about though. their complain is that they are not allowed to change or define the meaning of the term without considering what it means for everybody else. it will eventually boil down to a case of opinion versus opinion, at which point i would still argue that it is better to keep the meaning as it is (in this case), because changing it would cause the meaning of the concept as it was before to be lost. if that doesnt satisfy people, then one can only resolve the issue by having government withdraw from this private matter alltogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
