|
On July 13 2012 05:34 Elsid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 05:33 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:26 Elsid wrote:On July 13 2012 05:23 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:21 Elsid wrote:On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:17 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:16 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:14 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:11 BobbyT wrote:
[quote]
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that? It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness. I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with. You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not. That is an absolutely ridiculous line of argument considering they can't pass a test to get a drivers license. My whole point is that we have a test in the first place. A drivers test unfairly excludes those who by no fault of their own, due to some physical condition are unable to pass. Yet we still have a test because making sure we have competent drivers is more important than preventing unfairness. I think it is a bit amusing that people are so troubled by my pointing out how we are unfair in all sorts of ways. What are you talking about? Driving is a privilege not a right, you cannot drive on public roads if you're going to endanger other people through incompetence that's not unfair in any manner whatsoever. If anything allowing blind people to drive would be unfair on the people they share the road with. I'm sure we're unfair in many ways but that is one of them. This is some weird pretzel logic here. So it's not unfair to deny the privilege of driving to a blind person, even though it's not their fault, because they cannot pass a test which we have crafted, which is designed so that blind people cannot pass.... What is unfair then? It'd be unfair if they could pass the test and drive fine and we still denied them driving privileges.
It's unfair in both instances. The key component of unfairness is lack of ability to pass due to discrimination on some characteristic that, at no fault of their own, they have.
|
On July 13 2012 05:23 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 05:06 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:03 Joedaddy wrote:On July 13 2012 05:00 Starshaped wrote:On July 13 2012 04:56 Joedaddy wrote:On July 13 2012 04:47 Starshaped wrote:On July 13 2012 04:28 Joedaddy wrote:On July 13 2012 04:22 AdamBanks wrote:On July 13 2012 04:04 MindBreaker wrote:On July 13 2012 03:56 Joedaddy wrote:[quote] Wow! Google owns soooo much stuff. Anywho~ not really fair to label people who don't agree with gay marriage as "underdeveloped." There are a large number of people in this world who are well educated and hold power who don't support gay marriage. If it weren't so, then this wouldn't even be a debate. Let's not resort to name calling just because someone disagrees with us  As a Christian I don't believe I'n same-sex marriage. According to the bible marriage Is a holy union between a man and a woman. That doesn't make me undeveloped. Anyways this won't make me stop using google products. I can deal with citing a 2000 year old book but please say what you mean. When you say you don't believe in gay marriage your wrong, cause I'm pretty sure it exist. I think what you mean to say is that gay marriage is not ethical? I'm not sure please clarify. I can only speak for myself but.... Obviously Gay marriage "exists," but as a Christian I believe that having physical/sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral, against God, and a sin. If you ever hear me say "I don't believe in gay marriage," that is what I mean. Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents. Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else. Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person. Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see. And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other. Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking. Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol. Personally, I don't work on Sunday's. Never have and hopefully never will. If there were a debate on working on Sundays then I would put my 2 cents in and encourage my politicians etc etc etc. So, then you actually DON'T have a problem with meddling in the lives of consenting adults, if your book seems to tell you to do so? Sorry to disappoint, but there is no " aha gotcha!" moment here or in the future. Let me try to explain... I have ideas and beliefs about what is best for our society and my/our(?) country. You have ideas and beliefs about what is best for our society and your/our(?) country. Those ideas and beliefs are not always the same. That doesn't make one or the other sub-human. You feel strongly enough about your particular beliefs on gay marriage to post your opinions on this forum. I do too. I believe that gay marriage has consequences that reach outside of the personal space of an individual couple. Speaking out in non-support of gay marriage isn't meddling in the personal lives of anyone, anymore than your support of gay marriage is meddling in my personal life. People are allowed to have opinions and beliefs. In a democratic society, people are allowed to persuade their elected officials and those around them to enact policies that align with their personal beliefs/ideas. I don't have to like your ideas, and you don't have to like mine. We should however be respectful of one another because anything less than that only heightens tensions and further divides us. There really is no point to this "tit for tat" back and forth.
You made the claim: I am not meddling in the affairs of consenting adults (I presume to get sympathy, because the belief that you shouldn't do this is very popular)
You also made the claim: I would support representives that want to outlaw working on Sundays.
In my view these are contradictory claims. And I called you on it. To show that there is no ''haha, gotcha'' moment, you would have to say that you did not make one of these claims, or, you would have to argue that these claims are not contradictory.
Instead, you once again, and very elaborately, point out that you have a right to hold an opinion. Nobody here is disputing that. So I don't know why you keep bringing it up. ''I am allowed to have this opinion" is not actually an argument.
|
On July 13 2012 05:35 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 05:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:17 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:16 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:14 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:11 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:00 Starshaped wrote:On July 13 2012 04:56 Joedaddy wrote:On July 13 2012 04:47 Starshaped wrote:
[quote]
Why is it a sin? As has been mentioned there are a fuckton of 'sins' in the bible and you're just cherry-picking. Homosexuality is just as much a 'sin' as working on the Sabbath or rebelling against your parents.
Also, if your only justification for condemning gay marriage is "it's in the bible lul" then you must realize how little that means. Believe what you want, but don't meddle in the affairs of consenting adults who deserve the same rights as everyone else. Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person. Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see. And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other. Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking. Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol. This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do. This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard. Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society. The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude. The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc. What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that? It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness. I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with. You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not. I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women. I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one. Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason.
I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent.
For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots.
For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other.
Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
|
You made the claim: I am not meddling in the affairs of consenting adults (I presume to get sympathy, because the belief that you shouldn't do this is very popular)
You also made the claim: I would support representives that want to outlaw working on Sundays.
Personally, I don't work on Sunday's. Never have and hopefully never will. If there were a debate on working on Sundays then I would put my 2 cents in and encourage my politicians etc etc etc.
Tell me exactly which part said I would "outlaw" working on Sundays. Please.
Edit: Nope~ wasn't implying that.
|
On July 13 2012 05:54 Joedaddy wrote:Show nested quote +You made the claim: I am not meddling in the affairs of consenting adults (I presume to get sympathy, because the belief that you shouldn't do this is very popular)
You also made the claim: I would support representives that want to outlaw working on Sundays. Show nested quote +Personally, I don't work on Sunday's. Never have and hopefully never will. If there were a debate on working on Sundays then I would put my 2 cents in and encourage my politicians etc etc etc. Tell me exactly which part said I would "outlaw" working on Sundays. Please.
I was not directly quoting. I thought you had implied it when you said something like ''If there was a debate about working on sunday I would support my representative etcetc''.
Edit: Very well then.
|
On July 13 2012 05:50 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 05:35 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:17 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:16 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:14 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:11 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:00 Starshaped wrote:On July 13 2012 04:56 Joedaddy wrote:
[quote]
Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.
Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.
And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking. Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol. This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do. This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard. Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society. The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude. The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc. What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that? It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness. I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with. You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not. I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women. I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one. Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason. I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent. For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots. For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other. Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion.
I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards.
But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail.
Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
|
In the ideal society, we would all have fairness, all have opportunity, all have the right to express ourselves, to live, and all other rights that we have been endowed with. In that society, people would be free-minded, their thoughts unconstrained by bias, hatred, greed.
But such a perfect society cannot and never will exist. Why? Without these things, a society cannot function peoperly-people have no motivation to work to better themselves, to help others. Without everyone being totally altruistic, it is impossible to achieve equality.
Google has done something here which I am high in favor of. This is not a matter of sin, sodomy, ungodly acts. This is a matter of having EQUALITY. I do not presume to lord my religious views over anyone else on this earth. There have been many times when I have thought about expressing my dissatisfaction with someone's choices by hurting them, lashing at the with both my mind and my body.
Why didn't I?
Because I respect the right of other humans to choose how they want to live. I do not believe that any deity who expressly gave humanity free will to choose their own fate would be in favor of his moral agents attempting to take away free will, to create the perfect and moral society.
Without free will, what are we to be?
I don't believe that we ought interfere and impose rules when it is obvious that we ought make our own decisions.
If you believe the teachings of the Bible, remember this-we were endowed with free will to make a choice. It is up to us to make that choice for ourselves, and not proper to impose such a belief on others.
It is unjust for them.
|
On July 13 2012 06:00 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 05:50 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:35 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:17 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:16 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:14 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:11 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:00 Starshaped wrote:
[quote]
Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.
Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do. This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard. Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society. The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude. The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc. What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that? It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness. I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with. You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not. I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women. I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one. Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason. I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent. For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots. For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other. Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion. I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards. But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail. Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults...
I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them.
|
On July 13 2012 06:02 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 06:00 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:50 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:35 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:17 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:16 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:14 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:11 BobbyT wrote:
[quote]
This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.
This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.
Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.
The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.
The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that? It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness. I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with. You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not. I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women. I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one. Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason. I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent. For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots. For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other. Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion. I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards. But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail. Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults... I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them.
And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc..
By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair.
That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays.
|
On July 13 2012 06:06 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 06:02 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 06:00 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:50 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:35 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:17 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:16 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:14 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that? It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness. I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with. You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not. I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women. I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one. Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason. I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent. For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots. For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other. Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion. I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards. But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail. Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults... I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them. And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc.. By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays.
How is marriage a benefit to society? It's an atiquated notion of monogamous bonding/ownership of a female that was invented because sanctimonious and sexually insecure men of power wanted to make sex and procreation to be the remit of the church, or the rabbi, or mullah, whatever nature the local superstitious nonsense might have taken.
Marriage is not, has never been, and will never be an intrinsic component to procreation. Humans were fucking away just fine before it was forced upon our species, and we'll be fucking happily tomorrow if it were to disappear overnight. Which is also why the analogies to beastiality are so nonsensical, animals just don't bother with this inane stupidity, they'll get jiggy with it whenever the opportunity presents itself. Just like we did for the majority of our existence.
It's kind of sad that this even a debate in 2012, it's like having to explain why evolution isn't, "just a theory".
|
As a thought experiment, as some people seem to be using the "limiting peoples options over something they have no control over is fundamentally false"
If we presume that homosexuality, or homosexual desires//tendancies are entirely and completely an issue of nurture. There is no "out of our control" influence or genetic, biological aspects that create such.
Would those using the idea sexuality is genetic and non choosable, change their mind on this or relating issues?
|
On July 13 2012 06:06 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 06:02 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 06:00 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:50 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:35 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:17 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:16 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:14 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that? It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness. I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with. You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not. I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women. I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one. Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason. I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent. For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots. For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other. Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion. I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards. But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail. Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults... I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them. And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc.. By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays.
Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for.
|
On July 13 2012 06:37 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 06:06 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 06:02 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 06:00 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:50 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:35 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:17 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:16 BobbyT wrote:
[quote]
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness. I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with. You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not. I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women. I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one. Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason. I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent. For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots. For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other. Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion. I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards. But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail. Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults... I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them. And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc.. By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays. How is marriage a benefit to society? It's an atiquated notion of monogamous bonding/ownership of a female that was invented because sanctimonious and sexually insecure men of power wanted to make sex and procreation to be the remit of the church, or the rabbi, or mullah, whatever nature the local superstitious nonsense might have taken. Marriage is not, has never been, and will never be an intrinsic component to procreation. Humans were fucking away just fine before it was forced upon our species, and we'll be fucking happily tomorrow if it were to disappear overnight. Which is also why the analogies to beastiality are so nonsensical, animals just don't bother with this inane stupidity, they'll get jiggy with it whenever the opportunity presents itself. Just like we did for the majority of our existence. It's kind of sad that this even a debate in 2012, it's like having to explain why evolution isn't, "just a theory".
I don't think it's sad to have a discussion about something. I think most people, including gay marriage advocates and traditional marriage advocates, would disagree with you and say that marriage is fundamental to the raising of children, the passing on of values of society to the next generation, and maintaining an orderly society.
Obviously you do not need to be marriage to procreate, but I'd advise you to take a look at the statistics of poverty, crime, etc. for childrnen who were raised out of wedlock, and then make an opinion as to whether marriage is an intrinsic component to procreation.
|
On July 13 2012 06:53 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 06:06 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 06:02 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 06:00 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:50 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:35 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:17 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:16 BobbyT wrote:
[quote]
It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness. I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with. You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not. I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women. I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one. Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason. I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent. For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots. For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other. Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion. I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards. But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail. Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults... I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them. And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc.. By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays. Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for.
My point is that I believe there is a benefit to society from maintaining the traditional marriage definition. There is also unfairness in it, which is what all my standards talk was about. Civil unions are a way to decrease the unfairness of the traditional marriage defintion, while also keeping the benefit of maintaining the traditional marriage defintion. And sure, I see no reason why to limit civil unions to gays. I actually have no idea how you would tell/prove if someone is gay unless they told you, so im not sure how you would limit it to gays in the first place.
Although I would keep civil unions exclusively for same sex couples and marriage for heterosexual couples. I don't think I made that clear.
|
On July 13 2012 07:00 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 06:53 DoubleReed wrote:On July 13 2012 06:06 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 06:02 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 06:00 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:50 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:35 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:17 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with. You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not. I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women. I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one. Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason. I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent. For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots. For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other. Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion. I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards. But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail. Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults... I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them. And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc.. By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays. Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for. My point is that I believe there is a benefit to society from maintaining the traditional marriage definition. There is also unfairness in it, which is what all my standards talk was about. Civil unions are a way to decrease the unfairness of the traditional marriage defintion, while also keeping the benefit of maintaining the traditional marriage defintion. And sure, I see no reason why to limit civil unions to gays. I actually have no idea how you would tell/prove if someone is gay unless they told you, so im not sure how you would limit it to gays in the first place. Although I would keep civil unions exclusively for same sex couples and marriage for heterosexual couples. I don't think I made that clear.
...right, so the purpose of that, the entire purpose of that construction is to put homosexuals in a different section from heterosexuals, despite being treated exactly the same. Explain to me the purpose of this legal construction other than to demean homosexuals with different language.
|
On July 13 2012 07:00 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 06:53 DoubleReed wrote:On July 13 2012 06:06 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 06:02 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 06:00 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:50 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:35 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:17 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with. You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not. I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women. I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one. Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason. I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent. For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots. For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other. Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion. I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards. But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail. Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults... I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them. And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc.. By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays. Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for. Although I would keep civil unions exclusively for same sex couples and marriage for heterosexual couples. I don't think I made that clear.
Your right you didnt make that clear, on the justifications you have just outlined on what basis would you keep civil unions exclusive for gay couples and marriage exclusive for heterosexual couples?
|
On July 13 2012 07:06 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 07:00 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 06:53 DoubleReed wrote:On July 13 2012 06:06 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 06:02 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 06:00 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:50 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:35 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:27 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:
[quote]
You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not. I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women. I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one. Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason. I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent. For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots. For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other. Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion. I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards. But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail. Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults... I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them. And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc.. By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays. Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for. My point is that I believe there is a benefit to society from maintaining the traditional marriage definition. There is also unfairness in it, which is what all my standards talk was about. Civil unions are a way to decrease the unfairness of the traditional marriage defintion, while also keeping the benefit of maintaining the traditional marriage defintion. And sure, I see no reason why to limit civil unions to gays. I actually have no idea how you would tell/prove if someone is gay unless they told you, so im not sure how you would limit it to gays in the first place. What? I'm confused. Are you suggesting we get rid of civil marriage altogether and have civil unions for everybody? Or are you suggesting that straight people get married and gay people get unioned? There really isn't a benefit to maintaining the traditional marriage definition. Maybe for religious purposes, but the government doesn't get involved in that. Gays and Lesbians are just as much married as straight people are. They just happen to have the same genitalia. Let's just drop the sexism from marriage. I know it's a hard concept, considering its origins, but we do live in a modern society.
Im not interested in maintaining it for religious purposes. I would maintain the distinction between hetero couples and same sex couples because I believe the governement should prefer that the ideal familial unit be a heterosexual couple because it brings the most benefit to society. The reason why heterosexual couples have that benefit in contrast to same sex couples is because men and women are inherently different in material ways beyond mere sexual genitalia, and those differences create the best enviroment for raising children, let alone the fact that those relationships create children in the first place.
This is not to say that the government should discourage same sex relationships, or that they are bad or any nonsense like that. But I do think that heterosexual unions should be the ideal. Obviously not eveyone can have those unions, and it's not their fault either, but I'm not willing to eliminate having an ideal family relationship on purely arguments of fairness.
Anyways, thats my take. If you don't think men and women are any differnet except for sexual organs then this goes out the window, and you should support gay marriage.
|
There is no evidential basis that shows heterosexual relationships being the "ideal" towards the development of a child.
If your argument is based, as it seems to be, in this notion then at least cite your sources that justify the claim.
Secondly, on the basis you have just given heterosexual couples who openly and actively do not want to, and take measures to stop themselves, having children should not be allowed to marry and perhaps instead be forced to have a civil partnership in order to maintain the primary function of marriage which is to create an ideal structure for the raising of children.
In which case, again I ask you, why would you state so bluntly that hetersoexual couples alone should be allowed to marry, and civil partnerships should be reserved completely for homosexual couples.
This is by no means the only flaw in your argument and justification but it is a pretty easy one to highlight as self contradictory.
..Not to mention the laughable way you end your post, essentially saying "If you think men are the same as women thats fine, otherwise I'm right"....
|
On July 13 2012 07:15 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2012 07:06 DoubleReed wrote:On July 13 2012 07:00 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 06:53 DoubleReed wrote:On July 13 2012 06:06 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 06:02 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 06:00 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:50 Crushinator wrote:On July 13 2012 05:35 BobbyT wrote:On July 13 2012 05:27 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.
Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women. I agree it with you. It does indeed discriminate based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary. That makes it a good idea, but it doesnt make it a fair one. Good standards do not automatically make for fair standards. I think you are equating the two for some reason. I don't know if I am equating the two. Unfairness comes in when you make distinctions based on completely arbitrary or vague criteria, or when you denying competent indivduals rights based on the fact that their group generally is incompetent. For example: Dutch women cannot be fighter pilots. This is a rule, and for budget reasons it may be a good standard (selection process is expensive), but is not fair, because some women may infact be good fighter pilots. For example: A judge makes a completely different ruling in similar cases, perhaps because he liked one defendent more than the other. Edit: we should probably stop this, it is quite a stupid semantics discussion. I don't see any reason why to limit unfairness to just arbitrary or vague standards. But you're right, this stuff is a bit of a derail. Regardless of whether you think stopping a little blind 16 year old orphan who's only dream in life is to drive a car legally up and down a driveway for a few minutes is fair to him... jk . Like I said earlier it all comes down to what standard of marriage we should have and why you think that standard produces the best result for society, because both sides want a standard, they just want different standards. And I assume we would agree that both sides want an unfair standard becuase both arbitrarily limit it to two consenting adults... I can sort of agree with all of that. Though I would argue that including homosexuals is more fair than not including them. And I would agree with that. I also think that fairness of the standard should be considered when creating one. If you had no benefit to society and a lot of unfairness, then it's probably a bad standard. If you had a big benefit and small unfairness then you probably have a good standard. etc.. By nature of any standard the less restrictive it is the more fair it is. So eliminating the requirement of having one male and one female by definition makes it more fair. That's why I'm in favor of civil unions. That way you keep (in my opinion, obviously not everyone thinks there is a benefit) the benefit to society of having the traditional definition of marriage, while also limiting the inherent unfairness of that standard to gays. Unless you're saying you're in favor of civil unions for all couples, I don't see your point. I guess you're trying to abstractify your point with all this talk about standards. If you separate gay couples out with civil unions for the only purpose of giving them a different nominal status then that is a terrible law. That means the only purpose of that construct is to demean people. That's not what the law is for. My point is that I believe there is a benefit to society from maintaining the traditional marriage definition. There is also unfairness in it, which is what all my standards talk was about. Civil unions are a way to decrease the unfairness of the traditional marriage defintion, while also keeping the benefit of maintaining the traditional marriage defintion. And sure, I see no reason why to limit civil unions to gays. I actually have no idea how you would tell/prove if someone is gay unless they told you, so im not sure how you would limit it to gays in the first place. What? I'm confused. Are you suggesting we get rid of civil marriage altogether and have civil unions for everybody? Or are you suggesting that straight people get married and gay people get unioned? There really isn't a benefit to maintaining the traditional marriage definition. Maybe for religious purposes, but the government doesn't get involved in that. Gays and Lesbians are just as much married as straight people are. They just happen to have the same genitalia. Let's just drop the sexism from marriage. I know it's a hard concept, considering its origins, but we do live in a modern society. Im not interested in maintaining it for religious purposes. I would maintain the distinction between hetero couples and same sex couples because I believe the governement should prefer that the ideal familial unit be a heterosexual couple because it brings the most benefit to society. The reason why heterosexual couples have that benefit in contrast to same sex couples is because men and women are inherently different in material ways beyond mere sexual genitalia, and those differences create the best enviroment for raising children, let alone the fact that those relationships create children in the first place. This is not to say that the government should discourage same sex relationships, or that they are bad or any nonsense like that. But I do think that heterosexual unions should be the ideal. Obviously not eveyone can have those unions, and it's not their fault either, but I'm not willing to eliminate having an ideal family relationship on purely arguments of fairness. Anyways, thats my take. If you don't think men and women are any differnet except for sexual organs then this goes out the window, and you should support gay marriage.
Saying men and women are different besides sexual organs is not what I'm talking about. I never said men and women are the same. However, codifying law that differentiates between the two for arbitrary reasons like this one is illegal and goes against the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. I don't think you understand that. There is massive difference between sexism and institutionalized sexism.
Again, I see no reason why a homosexual couple would be inherently worse for raising children than a heterosexual couple. There is no evidence or logical basis for that assertion (besides for the is-ought fallacy).
|
On July 13 2012 07:21 XeliN wrote:
There is no evidential basis that shows heterosexual relationships being the "ideal" towards the development of a child.
If your argument is based, as it seems to be, in this notion then at least cite your sources that justify the claim.
Secondly, on the basis you have just given heterosexual couples who openly and actively do not want to, and take measures to stop themselves, having children should not be allowed to marry and perhaps instead be forced to have a civil partnership in order to maintain the primary function of marriage which is to create an ideal structure for the raising of children.
In which case, again I ask you, why would you state so bluntly that hetersoexual couples alone should be allowed to marry, and civil partnerships should be reserved completely for homosexual couples.
This is by no means the only flaw in your argument and justification but it is a pretty easy one to highlight as self contradictory.
Yes, I do not have any sources on hand to support my claim that men and women are the best for raising children. But I think evolutionary biology suggests it as do the inherent differences between men and women. Obviously, you may disagree and think that there are no differences between men and women beside sexual organs, but there are no sources for that claim either. I'm never a huge fan of the "cite sources" argument unless it's something very technical. Most statements about preference etc. can be supported by examples from real life and observations.
I did not say anything about limiting marriage to people who have children. I merely stated that the government can logically prefer hetero couples to same sex couples because hetero couples are the kind of couples that have children and same sex cannot. Because some people choose to not have children has nothing to do with the biological ability of men and women to procreate.
So because of that I would restate my argument above. Hetero couples should be preferred and distinguished from other types of relationships. I don't think we're going to agree though, but that's cool. I'm not really trying to convince people, I'm more interested in getting the traditional marriage viewpoint out there because I think it's severely lacking in everyday life. (Probably especially in the U.K. )
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
