Total Posts:135|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why 'Marriage Equality' Arguments Are...

SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 7:24:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hey all,

An article of mine titled "Why 'Marriage Equality' Arguments Are Either Question-Begging or False" was recently featured in Ethika Politika.

Give it a read here:

http://ethikapolitika.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 7:58:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 7:24:15 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

An article of mine titled "Why 'Marriage Equality' Arguments Are Either Question-Begging or False" was recently featured in Ethika Politika.

Give it a read here:

http://ethikapolitika.org...

Cool. I'll read it when I get a chance but right now I got a sh*tload of physics homework...
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 8:09:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 7:58:50 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 7:24:15 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

An article of mine titled "Why 'Marriage Equality' Arguments Are Either Question-Begging or False" was recently featured in Ethika Politika.

Give it a read here:

http://ethikapolitika.org...

Cool. I'll read it when I get a chance but right now I got a sh*tload of physics homework...

Much appreciated, Mike.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 8:34:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 7:24:15 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

An article of mine titled "Why 'Marriage Equality' Arguments Are Either Question-Begging or False" was recently featured in Ethika Politika.

Give it a read here:

http://ethikapolitika.org...

"So, besides whatever superficial and question-begging appearances to the contrary, homosexuals can indeed marry. What that means, though, is that they can only marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. A homosexual man, for example, could no more marry someone of the same sex than a heterosexual man. But a homosexual man may marry a woman; a homosexual woman may marry a man. But then it just becomes clear that the claim that "homosexuals cannot marry" or that "homosexuals are being treated unfairly" is false, for they can, after all, marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else."

So a clause which read "people may marry only those who belong to the same race" is, in your view, not racist? Because under such a law, everyone would be allowed to marry someone of the same race, and those wishing to marry someone of another race would face the same restrictions as those not wishing to. Brilliant thinking, by the way.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 8:36:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Read it. Generally boring. You strawmann a bit then frame the issue in terms of a "public purpose" framework yet don't actually go into the.........justifying part.

Justify the ethical imperative to define and enforce marriage in accordance with the principle: "to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend for their well-being."
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 8:52:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Will read it when I get a chance. Just out of curiosity, why don't you debate gay marriage? I'd probably be one in a long list who'd happily defend it.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 9:28:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 7:24:15 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

An article of mine titled "Why 'Marriage Equality' Arguments Are Either Question-Begging or False" was recently featured in Ethika Politika.

Give it a read here:

http://ethikapolitika.org...

I read this while eating apple pie and ice cream and listening to Lil Wayne and Eminem. That being said, I liked the article. I think you accomplished what you were trying to do, and show that many of the common arguments are question begging. I've run into those arguments alot, and said the same thing, only to be "rebutted" by "you hateful person playing wordgames." Lol, I kid you not. That and alot worse things. ;)

It didn't seem like the article was to present arguments against gay marriage, so I don't think it should be treated as such. Like I said, you accomplished what you set out to do in my opinion.

Anyways, I think the first half was best, where you made the analogies. That was very easy to read. The second part of the disjunct wasn't quite as clear and there wasn't as much attention devoted to that.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 9:28:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 8:34:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 7:24:15 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

An article of mine titled "Why 'Marriage Equality' Arguments Are Either Question-Begging or False" was recently featured in Ethika Politika.

Give it a read here:

http://ethikapolitika.org...


"So, besides whatever superficial and question-begging appearances to the contrary, homosexuals can indeed marry. What that means, though, is that they can only marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. A homosexual man, for example, could no more marry someone of the same sex than a heterosexual man. But a homosexual man may marry a woman; a homosexual woman may marry a man. But then it just becomes clear that the claim that "homosexuals cannot marry" or that "homosexuals are being treated unfairly" is false, for they can, after all, marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else."

So a clause which read "people may marry only those who belong to the same race" is, in your view, not racist? Because under such a law, everyone would be allowed to marry someone of the same race, and those wishing to marry someone of another race would face the same restrictions as those not wishing to. Brilliant thinking, by the way.

Sure, if the public purpose of marriage was to attach children to their mothers and fathers of the same race, then it would be equal, yes. But, of course, the antecedent of that conditional is false (viz. the public purpose of marriage isn't to attach children to their mothers and fathers of the same race). Brilliant thinking, by the way.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 9:30:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 8:36:06 PM, Noumena wrote:
Read it. Generally boring. You strawmann a bit then frame the issue in terms of a "public purpose" framework yet don't actually go into the.........justifying part.

Justify the ethical imperative to define and enforce marriage in accordance with the principle: "to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, upon whose stability the children depend for their well-being."

You're right to point that out; this article merely was meant to provide clarity in the marriage discourse, not to argue for that the public purpose of marriage is indeed to attach children to their mother and father. I intend to argue for that supposition in an upcoming article.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 9:33:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 8:52:11 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Will read it when I get a chance.

Thanks, Andy? (I think that's your name? If not, then awwwwwk).

Just out of curiosity, why don't you debate gay marriage? I'd probably be one in a long list who'd happily defend it.

I've given it some consideration, and I might just do so one day, but I generally prefer to have an honest and fruitful discussion in a forum-setting rather than in a setting in which the objective is to score votes.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 9:35:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 9:28:06 PM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 2/27/2014 7:24:15 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

An article of mine titled "Why 'Marriage Equality' Arguments Are Either Question-Begging or False" was recently featured in Ethika Politika.

Give it a read here:

http://ethikapolitika.org...

I read this while eating apple pie and ice cream and listening to Lil Wayne and Eminem. That being said, I liked the article. I think you accomplished what you were trying to do, and show that many of the common arguments are question begging. I've run into those arguments alot, and said the same thing, only to be "rebutted" by "you hateful person playing wordgames." Lol, I kid you not. That and alot worse things. ;)

Indeed. In fact, from my experience, I'd say that 95% of all "arguments" for or discussions about SSM all involve one question-begging quip or other like the ones I mention in the article.

It didn't seem like the article was to present arguments against gay marriage, so I don't think it should be treated as such. Like I said, you accomplished what you set out to do in my opinion.

You're right to point that out; the article wasn't meant to argue that the purpose of marriage is indeed to attach children to their mother and father.


Anyways, I think the first half was best, where you made the analogies. That was very easy to read. The second part of the disjunct wasn't quite as clear and there wasn't as much attention devoted to that.

Yeah, perhaps your right.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 9:36:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 9:28:52 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:34:30 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 2/27/2014 7:24:15 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
Hey all,

An article of mine titled "Why 'Marriage Equality' Arguments Are Either Question-Begging or False" was recently featured in Ethika Politika.

Give it a read here:

http://ethikapolitika.org...


"So, besides whatever superficial and question-begging appearances to the contrary, homosexuals can indeed marry. What that means, though, is that they can only marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. A homosexual man, for example, could no more marry someone of the same sex than a heterosexual man. But a homosexual man may marry a woman; a homosexual woman may marry a man. But then it just becomes clear that the claim that "homosexuals cannot marry" or that "homosexuals are being treated unfairly" is false, for they can, after all, marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else."

So a clause which read "people may marry only those who belong to the same race" is, in your view, not racist? Because under such a law, everyone would be allowed to marry someone of the same race, and those wishing to marry someone of another race would face the same restrictions as those not wishing to. Brilliant thinking, by the way.

Sure, if the public purpose of marriage was to attach children to their mothers and fathers of the same race, then it would be equal, yes. But, of course, the antecedent of that conditional is false (viz. the public purpose of marriage isn't to attach children to their mothers and fathers of the same race). Brilliant thinking, by the way.

You're bringing in outside reasoning. The point is that X and Y can both do Z =/= equality (necessarily), as you suggested.
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 9:36:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 9:33:17 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/27/2014 8:52:11 PM, unitedandy wrote:
Will read it when I get a chance.

Thanks, Andy? (I think that's your name? If not, then awwwwwk).

Just out of curiosity, why don't you debate gay marriage? I'd probably be one in a long list who'd happily defend it.

I've given it some consideration, and I might just do so one day, but I generally prefer to have an honest and fruitful discussion in a forum-setting rather than in a setting in which the objective is to score votes.

*Thanks Andy.*
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 9:39:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 9:36:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You're bringing in outside reasoning. The point is that X and Y can both do Z =/= equality (necessarily), as you suggested.

You cannot begin to contemplate whether something is "equal" or not if you don't know the purpose for which it exists.

Imagine a nameless government institution (akin to marriage, or the FBI, or the DEA, or the IRS). Now imagine that this institution exists for a purpose but that this purpose is completely concealed such that no one knows what its purpose is except for the few individuals in charge of it. Suppose further that individuals can become members of it at the institution's whims. Suppose, furthermore, that some individuals are members of this institution but others are not (viz. the institution is selective). Can we, with any sort of confidence, say why this institution has chosen to make some individuals members and others not? No, not really. We may suppose, for example, that this nameless institution has chosen to only make females its members and not males, and we could surely guess as to why that is (maybe this is a cozy, secret neo-nazi club for women?), but we could not say with any certainty what basis it utilizes for doing so and so we could not even ponder whether it is acting "unjustly" or "unequally" or in a "discriminatory manner" by not allowing males to become members for it may, after all, have a perfectly acceptable reason to disallow men from joining (again, say it is a women's neo-nazi club).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 9:46:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 9:39:25 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:36:18 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
You're bringing in outside reasoning. The point is that X and Y can both do Z =/= equality (necessarily), as you suggested.

You cannot begin to contemplate whether something is "equal" or not if you don't know the purpose for which it exists.


I agree. But the way you framed it indisputably implied otherwise.

Imagine a nameless government institution (akin to marriage, or the FBI, or the DEA, or the IRS). Now imagine that this institution exists for a purpose but that this purpose is completely concealed such that no one knows what its purpose is except for the few individuals in charge of it. Suppose further that individuals can become members of it at the institution's whims. Suppose, furthermore, that some individuals are members of this institution but others are not (viz. the institution is selective). Can we, with any sort of confidence, say why this institution has chosen to make some individuals members and others not? No, not really. We may suppose, for example, that this nameless institution has chosen to only make females its members and not males, and we could surely guess as to why that is (maybe this is a cozy, secret neo-nazi club for women?), but we could not say with any certainty what basis it utilizes for doing so and so we could not even ponder whether it is acting "unjustly" or "unequally" or in a "discriminatory manner" by not allowing males to become members for it may, after all, have a perfectly acceptable reason to disallow men from joining (again, say it is a women's neo-nazi club).
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 9:49:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
^ "But then it just becomes clear that the claim that "homosexuals cannot marry" or that "homosexuals are being treated unfairly" is false, for they can, after all, marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else.""
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 10:23:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 9:49:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
^ "But then it just becomes clear that the claim that "homosexuals cannot marry" or that "homosexuals are being treated unfairly" is false, for they can, after all, marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else.""

"if the public purpose is, in fact, to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another (or something akin to this), then both homosexuals and heterosexuals share the exact kind and amount of restrictions as to whom they can marry."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 10:25:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 10:23:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:49:38 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
^ "But then it just becomes clear that the claim that "homosexuals cannot marry" or that "homosexuals are being treated unfairly" is false, for they can, after all, marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else.""

"if the public purpose is, in fact, to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another (or something akin to this), then both homosexuals and heterosexuals share the exact kind and amount of restrictions as to whom they can marry."

Sigh..." for they can, after all, marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else" implies that accepting such a premise would be unnecessary to reach your conclusion.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 10:29:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Would it be unjust or unequal to disallow a man from joining the women's debate club? Well, of course not as this club exists for the purpose of being a debate club for women."

No, it wouldn't be absurd, because if they joined the club, it would now be a unisex club, which is completely normal. You see, the idea of a debate club for women seems absurd and discriminatory to me (sports teams I understand because of the locker room and sexual aspects). We might as well set up shops for only white people. It is the same thing, as there is no good reason to exclude men from the club, and there is no good reason to not let black people in your shop. Who cares about the initial reasons, when those reasons are discriminatory and faulty in the first place? lol

So, ya, the debate club for women is absurd in the first place. Once the men join, it is just a debate club. The purpose itself is to have a debate club and discriminate against males, thus it is a bad purpose. Thus, the debate club should be adjusted for equality purposes. Discrimination, for example, is unnecessarily excluding people because of a certain attribute they have, that doesn't mean you have to view them as "sub-human" to discriminate.

"Consider now drivers' licenses. Would it be unjust or unequal to disallow a blind man from getting a license? Of course not"


Of course it wouldn't, you are right, because people can get killed and it can cost lives if you let blind people drive. So, there is a good reason to exclude blind people, and it is justified (there is no good, or necessary or the well being and safety of people to exclude males from a debate club, or blacks from a shop). There is no harm if gay people get married, people aren't going to be plowed down like ants due to something like a blind driver. Some exclusions are necessary for public well being and people's safety. Excluding blind drivers is an example of one. Another necessary exclusion would be that unfit mothers shouldn't be allowed to have kids, it causes harm, abuse and pain. There are no powerful reasons not to allow gays to marry, like there are with these examples.

Please tell me, are people going to get run over? Are babies going to get beaten? No. Some exclusions are necessary for safety. You have not shown that this is the case for excluding gay people from marriage. Therefore, it seems like a false analogy.

Now, I don't agree with the homosexual community on everything. For example, I don't think gay athletes should share the same locker room as straight athletes in sports teams. I think this is a necessary exclusion, due to sexual aspects. To me, it would be just as wrong to allow that, as it would be a female in the male change room, or a male in the female one.

However, I am going to have to have a good reason for why it is necessary for public safety, and well being, like in the blindness example, or my unfit mother example , that gays do not marry.

I see no reason thus far...
YYW
Posts: 36,263
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 10:29:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 10:20:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:43:42 PM, YYW wrote:
Sovereign, I literally don't know why you bother.

With what?

The beau geste you post against homosexuality, gay rights, and the like.
Tsar of DDO
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 10:29:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 9:43:42 PM, YYW wrote:
Sovereign, I literally don't know why you bother.

The Fool: Yes he is pretty brutal.....
But he does actually make an attempt to give some support.
As irrelevant or nonsensical as it tends to be..

But perhaps that's more than quite a few people. Most particularly, people who should at least by now", know better.

People who have should have at least wrote "One"essay in their lifetime. By now.
To realize that a claim even if it is true, without an example, is worth an F an best.

But I won't mention any Noumena's.
<(8O)

For what we think in our minds, as so certain, is not so obvious to somebody else.
Once we see something, clearly for what is, It often seems like it was so obvious and silly that we couldn't see it before

Perhaps I have learned that more than anybody..
Perhaps...

But who concerns themselves with such perhaps's
<(86)

It's too bad that I have to destroy them now.

<(8P)

Against the Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 11:06:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 10:29:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Would it be unjust or unequal to disallow a man from joining the women's debate club? Well, of course not as this club exists for the purpose of being a debate club for women."

No, it wouldn't be absurd, because if they joined the club, it would now be a unisex club, which is completely normal. You see, the idea of a debate club for women seems absurd and discriminatory to me (sports teams I understand because of the locker room and sexual aspects). We might as well set up shops for only white people. It is the same thing, as there is no good reason to exclude men from the club, and there is no good reason to not let black people in your shop. Who cares about the initial reasons, when those reasons are discriminatory and faulty in the first place? lol

Right, but the entire point is that the club was created with the express purpose of making it a women's debate club, not a "unisex" debate club. Are you saying that there shouldn't exist women's debate clubs? Or men's golf clubs? Etc. If so, then this is just utterly bizarre; indeed, this is just an infringements upon one's freedom of association (a freedom, to be sure, that has been greatly undermined with these "bake us a cake or else" schemes run by the LGBT lobby and its puppets).

If there is a debate club that exists for the purpose of being a women's debate club, then for such a club to disallow men form joining wouldn't be unjust whatsoever. It would be "discriminatory," yes, but we must be careful when we use that word; not all examples of discrimination are illegal or unjust. For example, say I run a modeling agency and I am looking for women models. Some male models ask me to hire them, but I turn them down because I am looking for male models. Am I treating the male models unjustly? Well, of course not, because I am looking for female models. Am I discriminating against them? Yes, I am, but I have a rational basis for my "discrimination" -- namely, that I am looking for female models. When I use the term "discriminate," I am using it in to mean something akin to: to be selective. Likewise, a women's debate club has a rational basis for disallowing males to join the club, namely, that the debate club exists for women, not for men, and that is a perfectly good reason to disallow men from joining.

So, ya, the debate club for women is absurd in the first place.

Of course not. Not anymore than an a "men's swimming club" or a "male model club" or a "women's cooking club."

Once the men join, it is just a debate club. The purpose itself is to have a debate club and discriminate against males, thus it is a bad purpose.

No, the purpose of the hypothetical debate club wasn't to "stick it to men" or to "discriminate against males"; the club's purpose was merely to be a women's debate club. I just don't see why you are making such a big deal out of this. If I were to guess, I'd say that you (like many others) have been conditioned by the lifestyle left to go into a fetal position and whisper to yourself "it's all right, it's all right, the big bad man will go away soon" whenever you hear anything that smacks of the word "discrimination."

Thus, the debate club should be adjusted for equality purposes. Discrimination, for example, is unnecessarily excluding people because of a certain attribute they have, that doesn't mean you have to view them as "sub-human" to discriminate.

No, again to discriminate is just to be selective. There are rational basis for some examples of instances of discrimination (e.g. disallowing men to join a debate club that exists for women) and, in other cases, there are instances of discrimination that do not have a rational basis (e.g. disallowing a woman to use a women's restroom because she is a woman).


"Consider now drivers' licenses. Would it be unjust or unequal to disallow a blind man from getting a license? Of course not"


Of course it wouldn't, you are right, because people can get killed and it can cost lives if you let blind people drive. So, there is a good reason to exclude blind people, and it is justified

Right, the reason why it is not unjust to disallow blind individuals from getting licenses is because drivers' licenses exist for the purpose of providing individuals the legal permission to operate a vehicle provided they are deemed sufficiently capable of doing so. If "driver's" licenses, on the other hand, existed for the purpose of "making people feel warm fuzzy feelings," on the other hand, then it very well would be unjust to disallow blind individuals from getting "drivers' licenses."

(there is no good, or necessary or the well being and safety of people to exclude males from a debate club, or blacks from a shop).

The point is that there doesn't need to be harm in order to disallow someone from doing or joining x group/institution/club/whatever. What matters is the purpose of the institution.

There is no harm if gay people get married, people aren't going to be plowed down like ants due to something like a blind driver. Some exclusions are necessary for public well being and people's safety. Excluding blind drivers is an example of one. Another necessary exclusion would be that unfit mothers shouldn't be allowed to have kids, it causes harm, abuse and pain. There are no powerful reasons not to allow gays to marry, like there are with these examples.

First of all, I don't agree that "there is no harm if [we accept same-sex "marriage]." But, moreover, what is important for the matter at hand isn't whether allowing x will result in y bad consequences; rather what matters is "what is the public purpose of marriage?" or "what is marriage?" If marriage is inherently heterosexual, then it doesn't matter that "accepting SSM won't bring any harm"; if marriage is heterosexual in nature, then there's simply no such thing as a same-sex "marriage."


Please tell me, are people going to get run over? Are babies going to get beaten? No. Some exclusions are necessary for safety. You have not shown that this is the case for excluding gay people from marriage. Therefore, it seems like a false analogy.

This is again confused. You are building a case on a sloppy foundation; in order to determine whether, say, two men or two women can "marry," we must first now what marriage is, or what is its public purpose. Absent this information, we cannot even begin to contemplate whether it would be "unjust" or "unnecessary" to disallow two individuals of the same-sex to "marry."


Now, I don't agree with the homosexual community on everything. For example, I don't think gay athletes should share the same locker room as straight athletes in sports teams. I think this is a necessary exclusion, due to sexual aspects. To me, it would be just as wrong to allow that, as it would be a female in the male change room, or a male in the female one.

Join the club.


However, I am going to have to have a good reason for why it is necessary for public safety, and well being, like in the blindness example, or my unfit mother example , that gays do not marry.

Again, that is confused for the reasons I explain above.

I see no reason thus far...
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 11:08:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 10:29:25 PM, YYW wrote:
At 2/27/2014 10:20:48 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/27/2014 9:43:42 PM, YYW wrote:
Sovereign, I literally don't know why you bother.

With what?

The beau geste you post against homosexuality, gay rights, and the like.

I don't understand what it is you mean to imply. What is this? One of those "it's inevitable; we will paint the streets rainbow-colored and there's nothing you can do about it but stand on the 'right side of history'" quips?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 11:28:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 11:06:35 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
At 2/27/2014 10:29:10 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
"Would it be unjust or unequal to disallow a man from joining the women's debate club? Well, of course not as this club exists for the purpose of being a debate club for women."

No, it wouldn't be absurd, because if they joined the club, it would now be a unisex club, which is completely normal. You see, the idea of a debate club for women seems absurd and discriminatory to me (sports teams I understand because of the locker room and sexual aspects). We might as well set up shops for only white people. It is the same thing, as there is no good reason to exclude men from the club, and there is no good reason to not let black people in your shop. Who cares about the initial reasons, when those reasons are discriminatory and faulty in the first place? lol

Right, but the entire point is that the club was created with the express purpose of making it a women's debate club, not a "unisex" debate club. Are you saying that there shouldn't exist women's debate clubs? Or men's golf clubs? Etc. If so, then this is just utterly bizarre; indeed, this is just an infringements upon one's freedom of association (a freedom, to be sure, that has been greatly undermined with these "bake us a cake or else" schemes run by the LGBT lobby and its puppets).

If there is a debate club that exists for the purpose of being a women's debate club, then for such a club to disallow men form joining wouldn't be unjust whatsoever. It would be "discriminatory," yes, but we must be careful when we use that word; not all examples of discrimination are illegal or unjust. For example, say I run a modeling agency and I am looking for women models. Some male models ask me to hire them, but I turn them down because I am looking for male models. Am I treating the male models unjustly? Well, of course not, because I am looking for female models. Am I discriminating against them? Yes, I am, but I have a rational basis for my "discrimination" -- namely, that I am looking for female models. When I use the term "discriminate," I am using it in to mean something akin to: to be selective. Likewise, a women's debate club has a rational basis for disallowing males to join the club, namely, that the debate club exists for women, not for men, and that is a perfectly good reason to disallow men from joining.


So, ya, the debate club for women is absurd in the first place.

Of course not. Not anymore than an a "men's swimming club" or a "male model club" or a "women's cooking club."

Once the men join, it is just a debate club. The purpose itself is to have a debate club and discriminate against males, thus it is a bad purpose.

No, the purpose of the hypothetical debate club wasn't to "stick it to men" or to "discriminate against males"; the club's purpose was merely to be a women's debate club. I just don't see why you are making such a big deal out of this. If I were to guess, I'd say that you (like many others) have been conditioned by the lifestyle left to go into a fetal position and whisper to yourself "it's all right, it's all right, the big bad man will go away soon" whenever you hear anything that smacks of the word "discrimination."

Thus, the debate club should be adjusted for equality purposes. Discrimination, for example, is unnecessarily excluding people because of a certain attribute they have, that doesn't mean you have to view them as "sub-human" to discriminate.

No, again to discriminate is just to be selective. There are rational basis for some examples of instances of discrimination (e.g. disallowing men to join a debate club that exists for women) and, in other cases, there are instances of discrimination that do not have a rational basis (e.g. disallowing a woman to use a women's restroom because she is a woman).


"Consider now drivers' licenses. Would it be unjust or unequal to disallow a blind man from getting a license? Of course not"


Of course it wouldn't, you are right, because people can get killed and it can cost lives if you let blind people drive. So, there is a good reason to exclude blind people, and it is justified

Right, the reason why it is not unjust to disallow blind individuals from getting licenses is because drivers' licenses exist for the purpose of providing individuals the legal permission to operate a vehicle provided they are deemed sufficiently capable of doing so. If "driver's" licenses, on the other hand, existed for the purpose of "making people feel warm fuzzy feelings," on the other hand, then it very well would be unjust to disallow blind individuals from getting "drivers' licenses."

(there is no good, or necessary or the well being and safety of people to exclude males from a debate club, or blacks from a shop).

The point is that there doesn't need to be harm in order to disallow someone from doing or joining x group/institution/club/whatever. What matters is the purpose of the institution.

There is no harm if gay people get married, people aren't going to be plowed down like ants due to something like a blind driver. Some exclusions are necessary for public well being and people's safety. Excluding blind drivers is an example of one. Another necessary exclusion would be that unfit mothers shouldn't be allowed to have kids, it causes harm, abuse and pain. There are no powerful reasons not to allow gays to marry, like there are with these examples.

First of all, I don't agree that "there is no harm if [we accept same-sex "marriage]." But, moreover, what is important for the matter at hand isn't whether allowing x will result in y bad consequences; rather what matters is "what is the public purpose of marriage?" or "what is marriage?" If marriage is inherently heterosexual, then it doesn't matter that "accepting SSM won't bring any harm"; if marriage is heterosexual in nature, then there's simply no such thing as a same-sex "marriage."


Please tell me, are people going to get run over? Are babies going to get beaten? No. Some exclusions are necessary for safety. You have not shown that this is the case for excluding gay people from marriage. Therefore, it seems like a false analogy.

This is again confused. You are building a case on a sloppy foundation; in order to determine whether, say, two men or two women can "marry," we must first now what marriage is, or what is its public purpose. Absent this information, we cannot even begin to contemplate whether it would be "unjust" or "unnecessary" to disallow two individuals of the same-sex to "marry."




"Am I discriminating against them? Yes, I am, but I have a rational basis for my 'discrimination' -- namely, that I am looking for female models."


That's just circular reasoning.

You: "I am looking for only female models"

Me: "What rational basis do you have to for that discrimination?

You: "I am looking for only female models"

---

Now, according to this reasoning, it is alright for a shop to allow only whites like in to 60's, or schools only whites, or public services to only whites. Why? Well, they just want to services to only whites. How in the hell is that a good reason to exclude someone?! Just because you want to?

Lets be real. For one, someone would only want a female model, for example, because they can only fill a certain position. That is ok. For example, Denzel Washington will get turned down if he tries to play Lincoln, that is fine. The problem is there is no good reason to allow gays not to marry, the initial reason or purpose for X doesn't matter if it is a bad discriminatory reason to begin with.

Certain purposes are bad, and should be adjusted.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 11:33:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The whole argument here is that certain things have initial purposes, since the purpose of marriage is a man and a wife, then that's all marriage should be.

However, what was the purpose of the internet? It was a military tool.

I guess, under this logic, since we aren't in the military, it is absurd for us to use the internet. That is just absurd.

The initial purpose of a thing is irrelevant to what the thing is NOW, and what it should be, expanded.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 11:43:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are plenty of things that have initial purposes, and that aren't used for that exact purpose now. So, even if it is true that the initial purpose for marriage was for a man and a woman... SO WHAT?!

Things change. Get used to it.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 11:50:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Clothes exist, and its initial purpose and reason for existence of clothing is to keep warm and cover up, now the purpose has expanded to include fashion. The internet exists, and its purpose is to be a military tool, now the purpose has expanded, every one uses it.

Similarly, marriage's initial purpose is for a union between a man and woman, this is the reason why marriage even exists in the first place, now the purpose has expanded, to include homosexual unions.

The only question now is, what is really your beef?
SovereignDream
Posts: 1,119
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2014 11:58:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/27/2014 11:28:28 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 2/27/2014 11:06:35 PM, SovereignDream wrote:
"Am I discriminating against them? Yes, I am, but I have a rational basis for my 'discrimination' -- namely, that I am looking for female models."


That's just circular reasoning.

You: "I am looking for only female models"

Me: "What rational basis do you have to for that discrimination?

You: "I am looking for only female models"

How is that "circular reasoning"? If you are looking to buy an SUV and someone says "here, buy this, it's a Ferrari!" and you respond "sorry, I'm looking for an SUV" have you reasoned in a circle? Of course not; you have simply explained that the basis for your car search, namely, "searching for SUV's" is not compatible with buying a Ferrari. This just seems like a (pretty bad) low blow here, RT.

Now, according to this reasoning, it is alright for a shop to allow only whites like in to 60's, or schools only whites, or public services to only whites. Why? Well, they just want to services to only whites. How in the hell is that a good reason to exclude someone?! Just because you want to?

Well, if the public purpose of public schools were, in fact, to "accommodate only to them white'uns" then it would not be unjust to disallow, say, Asians from attending public schools. But, of course, public schools do not exist for that public purpose, so the antecedent is false.


Lets be real. For one, someone would only want a female model, for example, because they can only fill a certain position.

Right, if someone is seeking a female model for a female-model-related-job, then it wouldn't be "unjust" to refuse to hire a male model to do the job.

That is ok. For example, Denzel Washington will get turned down if he tries to play Lincoln, that is fine. The problem is there is no good reason to allow gays not to marry, the initial reason or purpose for X doesn't matter if it is a bad discriminatory reason to begin with.

Once again you miss the point. If the public purpose of marriage just is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then SSM is kaput; nonsensical; bizarre; inane. If the public purpose of marriage just is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then it wouldn't be unjust to deny two men to "marry" for a male-male union does not fall within the purview of the public purpose of marriage (indeed, on this view, there simply is no such thing as a "same-sex 'marriage'"). I really am at a loss as to how else explain this to you. If you want to hold on to your support of same-sex "marriage," then you either have to deny or radically modify the claim that the public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. If the public purpose of marriage was to "recognize loving commitments," for example, then you'd have a point; if that was the case, then it would be unfair to disallow two men or two women to "marry" for they could be just as much in a "loving commitment" as Bob and Susan the opposite-sex couple. So what you have to argue is that the public purpose of marriage is not to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. Anything else would just be point-missing and time-wasting.

Certain purposes are bad, and should be adjusted.

Ok now we're finally getting somewhere. Why is attaching mothers and fathers to their children and to one another "bad" or why should it "be adjusted"?