|
Suggestion Box,
People argue in favor of broadening the semantics of marriage, to broaden it for the sake of objective fairness. I am trying to argue that, if you don't accept the widest definition, then you aren't truly being fair.
I do not believe marriage is subject to fairness or inclusion because it is inherently an exclusive institution. Broadening its definition literally makes it less significant.
I'm not chopping logic, I'm imitating Socrates' method.
IdrA is my pet project; so far, I've gotten from him:
- gay marriage is OK
- polygamy is OK
- non-life commitment is OK
I'm trying to get animals on that list, but we are at an impasse.
As we approach maximum fairness, marriage looks more like casual dating. When I can get someone to admit that it is no more significant than dating, then I label that person a marriage abolitionist.
Is being a marriage abolitionist a bad thing? Well that's an entirely different debate and out of scope here (it would be too much to discuss amongst these current topics and posters). I think establishing that most of the logic behind gay marriage involved dethroning the traditional marriage and nuclear family is a good enough point to make.
|
People get really offended, I've found, when you explore the consequences of their logic and imply that they are being inconsistent.
In a world with many competing paradigms and moralities, it is most effective to use one's own logic against him.
People who fail to distinguish Socratic Method from malicious trolling are sadly stupid and not worth a response.
|
On November 07 2008 19:07 HeadBangaa wrote:
People get really offended, I've found, when you explore the consequences of their logic and imply that they are being inconsistent.
In a world with many competing paradigms and moralities, it is most effective to use one's own logic against him.
Yes, the atempt will drive em off in frustration of knowing you are a unrepented ignorant
|
United States5262 Posts
My goodness.
"We're pilgrims in an unholy land."
-Sir Sean Connery to Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
The people spoke in March and voted against gay marriage.
Court overrules it.
People speak again at the polls and vote against gay marriage.
The people have spoken.
|
Basically you're both attempting to be lawyers. And while you've proved you're both intelligent, you are debating a moot point. I could argue that with the divorce rate so high, it might as well be casual dating & isn't that significant at all. Or that divorce rates are significantly higher with young people, but two intelligent gay men in their 30's, who've been around and are ready to settle down are not allowed the same rights as a knocked up teenager.
To be frank, there's too much bullshit and not enough substance to argue on.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
This is a bad argument and people should stop making it:
1. Homosexual activity occurs only amongst humans, not in the animal world.
2. Anything which occurs only in the human world and not in the animal world is "unnatural".
3. Homosexual activity is "unnatural".
Ethical claim: Since homosexuality is "unnatural" it is morally wrong.
Political claim: Morally wrong activities or acts should be prevented by the state and/or not sanctioned by the state.
Anyone who continues to make that kind of argument is simply being ridiculous.
Premise 1 is empirically false.
We have very good reason to reject premise 2, unless we are willing to condemn cooking food as "unnatural".
Therefore the conclusion (3) does not follow.
Even if premise 2 is allowed we would have good reason to reject the further ethical claim without some convincing further argument.
And even if, by some miracle, someone managed to overcome all the above objections I would say that we still have good grounds to reject the political claim.
As I said, it is a really dumb and ill thought out position to take and people really should stop trying to use it.
Trying to claim that because of the fact some act is harmful to oneself or carries a risk to oneself this is enough to make the act morally wrong is also very stupid. It is so stupid that people should stop trying to engage with it on the level of examining empirically what is and what is not harmful to oneself.
This thread is positively riddled with ignorance and bigotry in a particularly toxic combination.
And people are disqualified, on the grounds of inconsistency, from appealing to the Bible for support unless they are willing to accept every command in that book, which no even vaguely reasonable person would actually do.
|
United States5262 Posts
I'm surprised this hasn't gone to like 100+ pages already. Man.
|
...
I do truly love arguing on the internet. It's something I make time for. Is that unhealthy?
|
Didn't the Socratic method get its inventor killed? You shouldn't be surprised people are annoyed by you.
I think you are against gay marriage, because you say that if we change it's meaning to be broader, to be consistent, we will keep broadening it. This doesn't sound like a very strong argument to me, so maybe I am stating it in a weaker way than you could.
It is true that right now people are trying to change marriage to be more inclusive. They have practical reasons for expecting this, and demanding this--for the government to not discriminate them. However, they also gain some other benefits from this--legitimacy from the government, the seemingly official word "marriage" being legally allowed to apply to them.
But if we let the government define marriage, marriage has already been fucked, IMO. Because this government (in the U.S.) cannot treat people differently on the basis of race, sex, and I think we will find, sexuality. Therefore, to really protect marriage, people should want the government to have nothing to do with it. Then gays can call themselves married, and bigots can say "no you aren't, you're just butt buddies." And the government definitely shouldn't step in and take a side in something like that.
edit: Anyways my idea is this. Let's call it the Fag Bash Challenge. If you think homosexuality is wrong, make a blog post with FAGS, in the title, and then give your argument. If you convince anyone, and your unedited OP isn't utterly destroyed by elementary thought, then you win the internet.
Cause lets be honest, no one who wants to "protect marriage" likes the homos. That's what this shit is really about.
|
On November 07 2008 19:30 Suggestion Box wrote:
Didn't the Socratic method get its inventor killed? You shouldn't be surprised people are annoyed by you.
I'm not surprised. Socratic Method isn't used for making friends; it's a process of philosophical elimination.
I think you are against gay marriage, because you say that if we change it's meaning to be broader, to be consistent, we will keep broadening it. This doesn't sound like a very strong argument to me, so maybe I am stating it in a weaker way than you could.
It is true that right now people are trying to change marriage to be more inclusive. They have practical reasons for expecting this, and demanding this--for the government to not discriminate them. However, they also gain some other benefits from this--legitimacy from the government, the seemingly official word "marriage" being legally allowed to apply to them.
But if we let the government define marriage, marriage has already been fucked, IMO. Because this government (in the U.S.) cannot treat people differently on the basis of race, sex, and I think we will find, sexuality. Therefore, to really protect marriage, people should want the government to have nothing to do with it. Then gays can call themselves married, and bigots can say "no you aren't, you're just butt buddies." And the government definitely shouldn't step in and take a side in something like that.
Disagree. I addressed this concept already a few pages ago, generalizing to the problems plaguing semantic equivocation.
Cause lets be honest, no one who wants to "protect marriage" likes the homos. That's what this shit is really about.
Take my arguments at face value instead of trying to psychoanalyze. You're way off base.
"Anybody who is against affirmative action hates black people!!!!"
^ Same flavor of wrong.
|
On November 07 2008 19:21 MYM.Testie wrote:
I could argue that with the divorce rate so high, it might as well be casual dating & isn't that significant at all. Or that divorce rates are significantly higher with young people, but two intelligent gay men in their 30's, who've been around and are ready to settle down are not allowed the same rights as a knocked up teenager.
Marriage fails in the context of our current culture, no debate there. But is the problem our fast-food, insta-gratification, low attention span culture? Or is traditional marriage at fault/obsolete? Seems further analysis is needed.
|
Since this is a country where church and state are separated, and the proposition is in this country, then you MUST look at this proposition through a separated view. If the government does not recognize homosexual marriage, they are purely addressing the institutional value and the government involved actions that follow from the recognition. Whether or not a church recognizes gay marriage is purely up to the church, whence comes the freedom of the religion. So, in fact, maybe the definition in YOUR MIND of marriage can't be separated into institutional values and moral/religious values, but it certainly can in this type of government.
The reason that marriages get advantages in tax and other aspects of life is because the marriage is a practical union to raise a child. Nowadays it has changed somewhat to just living together, but originally that was the purpose of the marriage. Whatever religious matter you may attach to that reason and definition is beyond practicality. The government can define and recognize what it wants for institutional purposes, ESPECIALLY if its voted in by the people. What they cannot do, under the hippie human rights crap, is infringe on the homosexual's rights to live together, have gay sex, or whatever gay people do. Hey, if they can BAN fucking ALCOHOL for what, 4-5 years?, they can say fuck you to gay marriage.
|
On November 07 2008 19:07 HeadBangaa wrote:
People get really offended, I've found, when you explore the consequences of their logic and imply that they are being inconsistent.
In a world with many competing paradigms and moralities, it is most effective to use one's own logic against him.
People who fail to distinguish Socratic Method from malicious trolling are sadly stupid and not worth a response. LoL at this kid trying his hardest to sound like an intellectual.
Seriously, read that quote. I can't stop ROFLING!
|
It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's....
PHONED, THE ROFL MAN!
He'll ROFL you right the fuck out of here.
Logic?
Arguments?
Pshhh, get the fuck out of his way, it's....
THE ROFL MAN!
|
Yeah, I can has internetz too.
|
sweet, I wasn't "sadly stupid and not worth a response."
Retards are almost as funny as gays. Poor creatures of an unforgiving god, amirite?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is turning from epic funny to just painful fail. in the interest of preserving the funny, elect the way of the quiet watcher
|
On November 07 2008 19:15 jkillashark wrote:
My goodness.
"We're pilgrims in an unholy land."
-Sir Sean Connery to Harrison Ford in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
The people spoke in March and voted against gay marriage.
Court overrules it.
People speak again at the polls and vote against gay marriage.
The people have spoken.
Liberties and freedoms of minorities is one of few things that cannot be subject to democracy.
Prime example; nazi germany.
That's why we have the declaration of human rights. (Signed by the US as well I think?)
|
"tyranny of the majority" Klackon.
A fair criticism, though.
|
United States22883 Posts
On November 07 2008 21:32 HeadBangaa wrote:
"tyranny of the majority" Klackon.
A fair criticism, though.
It's one of the main historical purposes for the courts. Essentially you accept that marriage is an arbitrary social construct (which it is) that has now become a legal institution but just equate sexual preference to any other uncontrollable part of the human body. Whether socialization plays a role for some people is irrelevant.
You don't have to make it all inclusive to other types of preferences (polygamy) because it's our construct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i34.tinypic.com/d46rt.png)
![[image loading]](http://img388.imageshack.us/img388/9444/superretardmr7.jpg)
