Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Progressives Are Wrong About Gay Marriage

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 3:38:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me preface by saying I'm not a Christian nor against gay people nor do I desire to tell people what to do in the bedroom. I'm a Right-Wing Libertarian Buddhist.

Simply, the gay rights movement has mass numbers, vehement fervor and yet their premise is wrong and they misdiagnosed the issue.

1. They have diluted the meaning of Liberty, lied about rights, falsely cry out discrimination, proudly hails the ideal of equality over Liberty, promote collectivism and ignore the concept of individual rights. Rothbard explained that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature. Egalitarianism is intellectually bankrupt. The only valid sliver of equality is equal protection under the law, but that's not the same as the principle and ideal of equality that is rooted in Progressivism. There's a reason we have a Statue of Liberty, not a Statue of Equality.

2. Couples don't have rights. Groups don't have rights. Individuals have rights.

3. The 14th Amendment, equal protection clause was never violated. ALL individuals could engage in marriage contract "A" and ALL individuals are barred from marriage contract "B." The law is not treating any individual different than another.

4. Gay marriage activists aren't complaining about government coercion against them, they are complaining that they don't get the same tax benefits and government blessings as those couples over there. If there was no straight marriage they wouldn't compassion. So it's not a government infraction against them, it's a lack of government goodies for them.

5. If they really wanted hospital visitation abilities, rally for that. It's less divisive and more likely to pass and quicker. Plus, that issue exists not because gay marriage isn't legal, that problem exists because government got involved in the first place. As it stands, single men can't visit their girlfriend in the hospital either. The great irony in all that is from what I've researched, 90% of the time, if not unanimously, upon special request, gays can have hospital visits.

6. If gay marriage activists said ban straight marriage and rallied for private marriage contracts while eliminating marriage from the tax code, then I'd be with them. And if they admitted its not a civil rights issue.

That is why progressives are wrong. The ruling is wrong because they said that couples were not being treated equally under the law per the 5th Amendment. In fact, it's a contract that is barred, not people. And couples aren't a unit, there are only individuals. And the 5th Amendment doesn't have an equal protection clause, that's the 14th Amendment.

All of you who said to me, times are changing, this is progress, I'm dumb, etc. You're wrong.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 3:43:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let also cite the great economist, Thomas Sowell, a black intellectual who lived through the civil rights era.

"The 'equal protection of the laws' provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions. Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated. They are considered to be none of the law's business.

Homosexuals were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior. But no one is entitled to anyone else's approval.

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place? Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

In the absence of the institution of marriage, the individuals could arrange their relationship whatever way they wanted to, making it temporary or permanent, and sharing their worldly belongings in whatever way they chose.

Marriage means that the government steps in, limiting or even prescribing various aspects of their relations with each other -- and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have. Yet 'gay marriage' advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus. Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions."

-- Thomas Sowell

http://townhall.com...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 3:48:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:38:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
They have diluted the meaning of Liberty, lied about rights, falsely cry out discrimination, proudly hails the ideal of equality over Liberty, promote collectivism and ignore the concept of individual rights.

Jesus Christ! I can't think of any more buzzwords to add in to make this sound more convincing. Errmmm... "Gays are fighting against democracy, and want to burn the constitution and the flag to the ground"? "God bless America"? Errmm...

I am sorry, I have failed you, community of DDO, to make this argument more full of bullsh!t. It's a difficult task to achieve, but when one listens to Alex Jones so much, people adopt his native tongue of rhetoric, and I simply cannot compete whilst maintaining a second secret life as a rational person. I apologise, and bow out gracefully.

(If I am not being clear, I am calling this turgid pile of arse entirely rhetorical and ultimately meaningless).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 3:53:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:38:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Let me preface by saying I'm not a Christian nor against gay people nor do I desire to tell people what to do in the bedroom. I'm a Right-Wing Libertarian Buddhist.

Simply, the gay rights movement has mass numbers, vehement fervor and yet their premise is wrong and they misdiagnosed the issue.

This should be interesting...

1. They have diluted the meaning of Liberty, lied about rights, falsely cry out discrimination, proudly hails the ideal of equality over Liberty, promote collectivism and ignore the concept of individual rights.

So, it is your claim that progress towards individual equality and equal protection before the law for all without regard to sexual identity somehow 'dilutes' "the meaning of liberty"?

Rothbard explained that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature. Egalitarianism is intellectually bankrupt. The only valid sliver of equality is equal protection under the law, but that's not the same as the principle and ideal of equality that is rooted in Progressivism.

Geo, I think that you have fundamentally misunderstood what the gay rights movement is about.

There's a reason we have a Statue of Liberty, not a Statue of Equality.

And you missed that whole part of "we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equally..."?

2. Couples don't have rights. Groups don't have rights. Individuals have rights.

No one is saying that couples or groups have rights. That I would take issue with that contention aside, this is about the right of individual gay and lesbian CITIZENS not to be discriminated against -which is to say, to not receive unequal treatment under the law.

3. The 14th Amendment, equal protection clause was never violated. ALL individuals could engage in marriage contract "A" and ALL individuals are barred from marriage contract "B." The law is not treating any individual different than another.

So, if two people who are married in one state, let's call them A and B receive X but two other people, C and D receive ~X it is your claim that they are being treated "equally"? Do you know what the meaning of the word "equal" is?

4. Gay marriage activists aren't complaining about government coercion against them, they are complaining that they don't get the same tax benefits and government blessings as those couples over there. If there was no straight marriage they wouldn't compassion. So it's not a government infraction against them, it's a lack of government goodies for them.

So your issue is the state's involvement in marriage. If that is your point, why make a post lambasting gay rights?

5. If they really wanted hospital visitation abilities, rally for that. It's less divisive and more likely to pass and quicker. Plus, that issue exists not because gay marriage isn't legal, that problem exists because government got involved in the first place. As it stands, single men can't visit their girlfriend in the hospital either. The great irony in all that is from what I've researched, 90% of the time, if not unanimously, upon special request, gays can have hospital visits.

That is one SMALL part of it. You're missing the bigger picture.

6. If gay marriage activists said ban straight marriage and rallied for private marriage contracts while eliminating marriage from the tax code, then I'd be with them. And if they admitted its not a civil rights issue.

As long as government IS involved in marriage, this IS a civil rights issue. Are you capable of understanding that? If not, please ask questions. I'd be happy to sort the matter out for you.

That is why progressives are wrong. The ruling is wrong because they said that couples were not being treated equally under the law per the 5th Amendment. In fact, it's a contract that is barred, not people. And couples aren't a unit, there are only individuals. And the 5th Amendment doesn't have an equal protection clause, that's the 14th Amendment.

Again... if two people who are married in one state, let's call them A and B receive X but two other people, C and D receive ~X it is your claim that they are being treated "equally"? Do you know what the meaning of the word "equal" is?

All of you who said to me, times are changing, this is progress, I'm dumb, etc. You're wrong.

Times are changing, progress was made today, and I've never said you were dumb but you have fundamentally misunderstood this issue. And, btw. I'm not wrong. lol
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 3:57:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I have to agree with S_H here. I'm not sure where the platitudes end and the argument begins. You seem to think that if you embellish your thesis, if this rubbish can be dignified as such, with words like "wrong" and "liberty" every other sentence, it will seem more convincing. This is DDO, not a tea party rally. Please produce a reason why homosexual marriage should be inferior before the law - with the provisions of the 14th Amendment still governing this nation.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:02:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:48:04 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:38:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
They have diluted the meaning of Liberty, lied about rights, falsely cry out discrimination, proudly hails the ideal of equality over Liberty, promote collectivism and ignore the concept of individual rights.

Jesus Christ! I can't think of any more buzzwords to add in to make this sound more convincing. Errmmm... "Gays are fighting against democracy, and want to burn the constitution and the flag to the ground"? "God bless America"? Errmm...

I am sorry, I have failed you, community of DDO, to make this argument more full of bullsh!t. It's a difficult task to achieve, but when one listens to Alex Jones so much, people adopt his native tongue of rhetoric, and I simply cannot compete whilst maintaining a second secret life as a rational person. I apologise, and bow out gracefully.

(If I am not being clear, I am calling this turgid pile of arse entirely rhetorical and ultimately meaningless).

So rather than debate his arguments, you're just going to spew a bunch of ad hominem attacks and pretend that it still makes you a rational, perhaps more moral person?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:03:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:48:04 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
Jesus Christ! I can't think of any more buzzwords to add in to make this sound more convincing. Errmmm... "Gays are fighting against democracy, and want to burn the constitution and the flag to the ground"? "God bless America"? Errmm...

I am sorry, I have failed you, community of DDO, to make this argument more full of bullsh!t. It's a difficult task to achieve, but when one listens to Alex Jones so much, people adopt his native tongue of rhetoric, and I simply cannot compete whilst maintaining a second secret life as a rational person. I apologise, and bow out gracefully.

I should have noted that point #1 was merely the intro statement explaining why I strongly oppose it. I concede that point #1 isn't a logical refutation, rather a reasoning behind the sentiment and the desire to debunk progressive gay marriage.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:05:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:48:04 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
(If I am not being clear, I am calling this turgid pile of arse entirely rhetorical and ultimately meaningless).

lol, brilliant!
Tsar of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:05:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 4:02:51 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:48:04 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:38:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
They have diluted the meaning of Liberty, lied about rights, falsely cry out discrimination, proudly hails the ideal of equality over Liberty, promote collectivism and ignore the concept of individual rights.

Jesus Christ! I can't think of any more buzzwords to add in to make this sound more convincing. Errmmm... "Gays are fighting against democracy, and want to burn the constitution and the flag to the ground"? "God bless America"? Errmm...

I am sorry, I have failed you, community of DDO, to make this argument more full of bullsh!t. It's a difficult task to achieve, but when one listens to Alex Jones so much, people adopt his native tongue of rhetoric, and I simply cannot compete whilst maintaining a second secret life as a rational person. I apologise, and bow out gracefully.

(If I am not being clear, I am calling this turgid pile of arse entirely rhetorical and ultimately meaningless).

So rather than debate his arguments, you're just going to spew a bunch of ad hominem attacks and pretend that it still makes you a rational, perhaps more moral person?

I believe hawkin's point was that there was no argument to debate. A wall of text does not an argument make.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:05:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"2. Couples don't have rights. Groups don't have rights. Individuals have rights."

Gay marriage isn't predicated on the bond between two individuals, it's predicated on the right of individuals to establish that bond.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:07:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:57:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
I have to agree with S_H here. I'm not sure where the platitudes end and the argument begins.

Then your ability to discern is incredibly lacking. In Critical Thinking 101 (I've taken the course) you are required to properly identify arguments contained with in paragraphs. Since not all arguments are laid out in syllogisms, it's necessary to have the ability to pin point arguments.

You seem to think that if you embellish your thesis, if this rubbish can be dignified as such, with words like "wrong" and "liberty" every other sentence, it will seem more convincing. This is DDO, not a tea party rally. Please produce a reason why homosexual marriage should be inferior before the law - with the provisions of the 14th Amendment still governing this nation.

You have failed to negate a single one of my arguments.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:08:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 4:07:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:57:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
I have to agree with S_H here. I'm not sure where the platitudes end and the argument begins.

Then your ability to discern is incredibly lacking. In Critical Thinking 101 (I've taken the course) you are required to properly identify arguments contained with in paragraphs. Since not all arguments are laid out in syllogisms, it's necessary to have the ability to pin point arguments.

You should ask for your money back.

You seem to think that if you embellish your thesis, if this rubbish can be dignified as such, with words like "wrong" and "liberty" every other sentence, it will seem more convincing. This is DDO, not a tea party rally. Please produce a reason why homosexual marriage should be inferior before the law - with the provisions of the 14th Amendment still governing this nation.

You have failed to negate a single one of my arguments.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:11:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 4:05:07 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:02:51 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:48:04 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:38:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
They have diluted the meaning of Liberty, lied about rights, falsely cry out discrimination, proudly hails the ideal of equality over Liberty, promote collectivism and ignore the concept of individual rights.

Jesus Christ! I can't think of any more buzzwords to add in to make this sound more convincing. Errmmm... "Gays are fighting against democracy, and want to burn the constitution and the flag to the ground"? "God bless America"? Errmm...

I am sorry, I have failed you, community of DDO, to make this argument more full of bullsh!t. It's a difficult task to achieve, but when one listens to Alex Jones so much, people adopt his native tongue of rhetoric, and I simply cannot compete whilst maintaining a second secret life as a rational person. I apologise, and bow out gracefully.

(If I am not being clear, I am calling this turgid pile of arse entirely rhetorical and ultimately meaningless).

So rather than debate his arguments, you're just going to spew a bunch of ad hominem attacks and pretend that it still makes you a rational, perhaps more moral person?

I believe hawkin's point was that there was no argument to debate. A wall of text does not an argument make.

He said: "I am sorry, I have failed you, community of DDO, to make this argument more full of bullsh!t"

He calls BS, but doesn't actually refute anything he said. His post is ultimately meaningless.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:13:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 4:07:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:57:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
I have to agree with S_H here. I'm not sure where the platitudes end and the argument begins.

Then your ability to discern is incredibly lacking. In Critical Thinking 101 (I've taken the course) you are required to properly identify arguments contained with in paragraphs. Since not all arguments are laid out in syllogisms, it's necessary to have the ability to pin point arguments.]

Is Critical Thinking 101 a prereq for "How to Make Bold and Baseless Claims while pretending they are arguments" 102?
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:20:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 4:13:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:07:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:57:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
I have to agree with S_H here. I'm not sure where the platitudes end and the argument begins.

Then your ability to discern is incredibly lacking. In Critical Thinking 101 (I've taken the course) you are required to properly identify arguments contained with in paragraphs. Since not all arguments are laid out in syllogisms, it's necessary to have the ability to pin point arguments.]

Is Critical Thinking 101 a prereq for "How to Make Bold and Baseless Claims while pretending they are arguments" 102?

Apparently they're replacing Intro to Logic with Critical Thinking (or some such quackery) at my school. My frustration will not be ignored.
http://www.reactiongifs.com...
: 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.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:27:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 4:20:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:13:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:07:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:57:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
I have to agree with S_H here. I'm not sure where the platitudes end and the argument begins.

Then your ability to discern is incredibly lacking. In Critical Thinking 101 (I've taken the course) you are required to properly identify arguments contained with in paragraphs. Since not all arguments are laid out in syllogisms, it's necessary to have the ability to pin point arguments.]

Is Critical Thinking 101 a prereq for "How to Make Bold and Baseless Claims while pretending they are arguments" 102?

Apparently they're replacing Intro to Logic with Critical Thinking (or some such quackery) at my school. My frustration will not be ignored.
http://www.reactiongifs.com...

I had Deductive Reasoning and Symbolic Logic and Inductive Reasoning as a freshman.
Tsar of DDO
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:30:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 4:27:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:20:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:13:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:07:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:57:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
I have to agree with S_H here. I'm not sure where the platitudes end and the argument begins.

Then your ability to discern is incredibly lacking. In Critical Thinking 101 (I've taken the course) you are required to properly identify arguments contained with in paragraphs. Since not all arguments are laid out in syllogisms, it's necessary to have the ability to pin point arguments.]

Is Critical Thinking 101 a prereq for "How to Make Bold and Baseless Claims while pretending they are arguments" 102?

Apparently they're replacing Intro to Logic with Critical Thinking (or some such quackery) at my school. My frustration will not be ignored.
http://www.reactiongifs.com...

I had Deductive Reasoning and Symbolic Logic and Inductive Reasoning as a freshman.

Inductive Reasoning? How was that? I'd love to know that there was some die-hard Hume fan just yelling about cue balls and the sun rising.
: 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.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:37:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 4:30:48 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:27:15 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:20:21 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:13:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:07:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:57:44 PM, 000ike wrote:
I have to agree with S_H here. I'm not sure where the platitudes end and the argument begins.

Then your ability to discern is incredibly lacking. In Critical Thinking 101 (I've taken the course) you are required to properly identify arguments contained with in paragraphs. Since not all arguments are laid out in syllogisms, it's necessary to have the ability to pin point arguments.]

Is Critical Thinking 101 a prereq for "How to Make Bold and Baseless Claims while pretending they are arguments" 102?

Apparently they're replacing Intro to Logic with Critical Thinking (or some such quackery) at my school. My frustration will not be ignored.
http://www.reactiongifs.com...

I had Deductive Reasoning and Symbolic Logic and Inductive Reasoning as a freshman.

Inductive Reasoning? How was that?

About the same level of difficulty as a stat class. Mostly decision/potability theory, Bayes' theorem, and stuff like that. Not too bad. We hit game theory about two weeks before the class ended, but it wasn't on the final.

I'd love to know that there was some die-hard Hume fan just yelling about cue balls and the sun rising.

Not really, lol. It was a freshman class that was a prereq for some math class (I think?) I had to take that I don't remember.
Tsar of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:39:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:38:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Let me preface by saying I'm not a Christian nor against gay people nor do I desire to tell people what to do in the bedroom. I'm a Right-Wing Libertarian Buddhist.

Coolio. I'm a right-wing libertarian Daoist.

Simply, the gay rights movement has mass numbers, vehement fervor and yet their premise is wrong and they misdiagnosed the issue.

I agree with you in some facets. Same sex marriage is not one of said facets in which I agree with you.

1. They have diluted the meaning of Liberty, lied about rights, falsely cry out discrimination, proudly hails the ideal of equality over Liberty, promote collectivism and ignore the concept of individual rights. Rothbard explained that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature. Egalitarianism is intellectually bankrupt. The only valid sliver of equality is equal protection under the law, but that's not the same as the principle and ideal of equality that is rooted in Progressivism. There's a reason we have a Statue of Liberty, not a Statue of Equality.

They aren't hailing equality itself over liberty (by the by, why do you feel the need to capitalize "liberty?" It's not a god). They're hailing equality before the law and the state. Equality before the law is one of the prerequisites to valuing liberty--if some are seen by the state as inherently better than others, those considered inherently lesser are denied liberties that those who are considered better will have. And that's NOT valuing liberty.

Plus, in this case, equality before the law is manifested as giving all persons the liberty to marry another person with all associated rights.

2. Couples don't have rights. Groups don't have rights. Individuals have rights.

Exactly. And two individuals have the right to enter into a legal and economic contract with each other (which is what marriage at its heart is in terms of the state).

3. The 14th Amendment, equal protection clause was never violated. ALL individuals could engage in marriage contract "A" and ALL individuals are barred from marriage contract "B." The law is not treating any individual different than another.

I think that the ultimate issue is more that all marriage contracts, whether with the opposite sex or with the same sex should be valued equally by the state.

4. Gay marriage activists aren't complaining about government coercion against them, they are complaining that they don't get the same tax benefits and government blessings as those couples over there. If there was no straight marriage they wouldn't compassion. So it's not a government infraction against them, it's a lack of government goodies for them.

A "lack of government goodies" that are given to some people who decide to marry and not others, yes. In fact, those others aren't even given the liberty to marry each other in the first place. Further, those goodies aren't even goodies for the most part: they're rights.

5. If they really wanted hospital visitation abilities, rally for that. It's less divisive and more likely to pass and quicker. Plus, that issue exists not because gay marriage isn't legal, that problem exists because government got involved in the first place. As it stands, single men can't visit their girlfriend in the hospital either. The great irony in all that is from what I've researched, 90% of the time, if not unanimously, upon special request, gays can have hospital visits.

The man and the girlfriend chose, whether by default or by active choice, not to marry and receive such rights. The same applies to same sex couples. Rallying for hospital rights is just one specific issue, and further would be a bureaucratic nightmare: at what point are same sex couples allowed to get visitation rights? At what point are opposite sex couples, similarly? It'd be a mess with no clear definition of who gets what rights when.

Also, source on that 90%?

6. If gay marriage activists said ban straight marriage and rallied for private marriage contracts while eliminating marriage from the tax code, then I'd be with them. And if they admitted its not a civil rights issue.

That'd be an acceptable alternative too. Although SSM IS a civil liberties issue, see my above responses.

That is why progressives are wrong. The ruling is wrong because they said that couples were not being treated equally under the law per the 5th Amendment. In fact, it's a contract that is barred, not people. And couples aren't a unit, there are only individuals. And the 5th Amendment doesn't have an equal protection clause, that's the 14th Amendment.

All of you who said to me, times are changing, this is progress, I'm dumb, etc. You're wrong.

If you say so.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:40:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
3. The 14th Amendment, equal protection clause was never violated. ALL individuals could engage in marriage contract "A" and ALL individuals are barred from marriage contract "B." The law is not treating any individual different than another.

So I suppose you'd find no problem with a clause which read "All citizens may only enter contracts of marriage with someone of the opposite gender and who in addition belong to the same race." How are "opposite" and "same" any different here? I mean, EVERYONE has the option to marry someone of their own race just as EVERYONE has the option to marry someone of the opposite gender.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:40:47 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 4:37:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:30:48 PM, Noumena wrote:

Inductive Reasoning? How was that?

About the same level of difficulty as a stat class. Mostly decision/potability theory, Bayes' theorem, and stuff like that. Not too bad. We hit game theory about two weeks before the class ended, but it wasn't on the final.

I'd love to know that there was some die-hard Hume fan just yelling about cue balls and the sun rising.

Not really, lol. It was a freshman class that was a prereq for some math class (I think?) I had to take that I don't remember.

That doesn't sound fun. I was thinking it would cover things like epistemology, logical positivism, and the philosophical foundations of (or drawbacks to) induction. I don't like da math.

Did you enjoy it?
: 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.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:40:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sorry, I didn't actually read this when I posted my first comment. I want to instead take the time to go through and analyse the absolutely unique piece of arse that is found on this site.

I'm playing "How much arse is there in one post". Score:

1 (one) point for meaningless rhetoric.
3 (three) points for factually being incorrect.
5 (five) points for explicit contradiction.

With that in mind, let's begin!

At 6/26/2013 3:38:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Let me preface by saying I'm not a Christian nor against gay people nor do I desire to tell people what to do in the bedroom. I'm a Right-Wing Libertarian Buddhist.

This is the single most wrong thing I have read today. The foundation of buddhism is anatman, or "destruction of the self". It has more in line with totalitarianism than libertarianism, in that the individual gets his worth from the community.

"Anatta, anatta I hear said, Venerable. What, pray tell, does Anatta mean?" "Just this, Radha, form is not the self (anatta), sensations are not the self (anatta), perceptions are not the self (anatta), assemblages are not the self (anatta), consciousness is not the self (anatta). Seeing thusly, this is the end of birth, the Brahman life has been fulfilled, what must be done has been done"

Already I doubt you even understand what these words mean. Three points.

Simply, the gay rights movement has mass numbers, vehement fervor and yet their premise is wrong and they misdiagnosed the issue.

1. They have diluted the meaning of Liberty

Meaningless drivel. Four points.

Lied about rights,

Meaningless drivel. Five points.

falsely cry out discrimination,

Meaningless drivel. Six points.

proudly hails the ideal of equality over Liberty,

Times three combo! 18 points!

promote collectivism

Times four combo! 72 points!

and ignore the concept of individual rights.

Times five combo! 360 points!

While I'm tempted to call into question any claim that individual rights are breached by legalising a voluntary act and claim that even anti-gay activists like 16kadams (not using that in a derogatory sense, in case I am not clear, but I mean people who are on the opposite side of the debate who use a modicum of intelligence or more) would say something this wrong, we'll let it slide. I'm happy in 360 points.

Rothbard explained that egalitarianism is a revolt against nature.

Whoo! We can quote essay titles!

Egalitarianism is intellectually bankrupt.

Tempted to call strawman, but it's not the purpose of this analysis.

The only valid sliver of equality

Oh, there we go! Equating "egalitarianism" to "equality" is like equating "anarchism" to "constitutionalism".

is equal protection under the law,

So just formal equality? What about foundational equality? What about equality of opportunity? etc. Opinion, while yours is ultimately idiotic and not thought through, may in fact be a representation of the belief of a "libertarian buddhist", so we'll let it slide.

but that's not the same as the principle and ideal of equality that is rooted in Progressivism.

Flat out false, 363 points.

There's a reason we have a Statue of Liberty, not a Statue of Equality.

364.

2. Couples don't have rights. Groups don't have rights. Individuals have rights.

365. Assuming this is a value statement, otherwise I'd go "365+3 for corporate rights = 368."

3. The 14th Amendment

I'm British, so 366.

4. Gay marriage activists aren't complaining about government coercion against them,

U.S vs Windsor: "I do think the case bears some similarities to Kentucky against Indiana, which was discussed by the parties, where Kentucky sued Indiana in this Court's original jurisdiction on a contract. ...And I think that is analogous to what is happening here." Ms Jackson. In other words, the friend of the court who is not supposed to be bias, agrees that the case is one of government acting ultra vires. 369 points.

If there was no straight marriage they wouldn't compassion.

I don't even know what word that is supposed to be.

So it's not a government infraction against them, it's a lack of government goodies for them.

You've claimed the case is both about being wholly equal, and now you're claiming it's about government not giving them "goodies"? Very tempted to call contradiction.

5. If they really wanted hospital visitation abilities, rally for that. It's less divisive and more likely to pass and quicker. Plus, that issue exists not because gay marriage isn't legal, that problem exists because government got involved in the first place. As it stands, single men can't visit their girlfriend in the hospital either.

I cannot find any legislation that says this is false, and it certainly isn't false in the UK, so I'm going Karl Pilkington. 372.

The great irony in all that is from what I've researched, 90% of the time, if not unanimously, upon special request, gays can have hospital visits.

This combined with above makes so little sense that I'm claiming explicit contradiction, 377. Plus 5 for doing it so close to each other. 382.

6. If gay marriage activists said ban straight marriage

383.

then I'd be with them.

F*cking stupid.

And if they admitted its not a civil rights issue.

I also have call this F*cking stupid. Civil, meaning "relating to citizens", and "rights", meaning "the entitlement to obtain something", means you're saying "the entitlement for homosexual citizens to receive marital union is not an issue regarding the entitlements of citizens." Which is f*cking stupid, and an explicit contradiction. 388.

That is why progressives are wrong. The ruling is wrong

All Hail Emporer Geo! Hail!

In fact, it's a contract that is barred, not people.

Karl Pilkington.

And couples aren't a unit, there are only individuals.

Margaret Thatcher told me "389".

And the 5th Amendment doesn't have an equal protection clause, that's the 14th Amendment.

390! 391!

All of you who said to me, times are changing

Bob Dylan said "392".

this is progress,

393.

I'm dumb, etc. You're wrong.

Combo! 786!

Round Two!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:42:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Let me note that overall I'm not mad at the results of this ruling. As I told Danielle this morning, I'm fine with the decision. I merely opposed the activists and the judges reason for decision. In fact, Justice Scalia (Reagan appointee) also opposed the ruling on the grounds that the ruling didn't have proper basis or procedures to reach the conclusion even if the conclusion is correct.

In other words, the conclusion is right, but the premises and logic are wrong.

This is politically a victory for both sides because finally the Progressives will no longer be able to use it as a political tool and bash the Right over the head with it.

Also, the Right can be content that states still don't have to grant gay marriage benefits. The Left is pleased that gays at the Federal level do get recognition and benefits.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:44:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 4:42:59 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Let me note that overall I'm not mad at the results of this ruling. As I told Danielle this morning, I'm fine with the decision. I merely opposed the activists and the judges reason for decision. In fact, Justice Scalia (Reagan appointee) also opposed the ruling on the grounds that the ruling didn't have proper basis or procedures to reach the conclusion even if the conclusion is correct.

In other words, the conclusion is right, but the premises and logic are wrong.

This is politically a victory for both sides because finally the Progressives will no longer be able to use it as a political tool and bash the Right over the head with it.

Also, the Right can be content that states still don't have to grant gay marriage benefits. The Left is pleased that gays at the Federal level do get recognition and benefits.

Then I'd like to hear how you justify it.
YYW
Posts: 36,289
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 4:44:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 4:40:47 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:37:45 PM, YYW wrote:
At 6/26/2013 4:30:48 PM, Noumena wrote:

Inductive Reasoning? How was that?

About the same level of difficulty as a stat class. Mostly decision/potability theory, Bayes' theorem, and stuff like that. Not too bad. We hit game theory about two weeks before the class ended, but it wasn't on the final.

I'd love to know that there was some die-hard Hume fan just yelling about cue balls and the sun rising.

Not really, lol. It was a freshman class that was a prereq for some math class (I think?) I had to take that I don't remember.

That doesn't sound fun. I was thinking it would cover things like epistemology, logical positivism, and the philosophical foundations of (or drawbacks to) induction. I don't like da math.

Did you enjoy it?

I did... sort of. It was a lot like some of the stuff I did in high school mathematics classes, which was nice because it meant I had to work less hard to get an A.
Tsar of DDO
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 5:10:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Btw, I agree with you that marriage contracts should be privatized, but unlike you, I don't support gays being ineligible for the same 'privileges' that straight people receive so long as they are equally responsible for funding the incentives thereof.
Izayah003
Posts: 369
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 5:21:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/26/2013 3:48:04 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 6/26/2013 3:38:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
They have diluted the meaning of Liberty, lied about rights, falsely cry out discrimination, proudly hails the ideal of equality over Liberty, promote collectivism and ignore the concept of individual rights.

Jesus Christ! I can't think of any more buzzwords to add in to make this sound more convincing. Errmmm... "Gays are fighting against democracy, and want to burn the constitution and the flag to the ground"? "God bless America"? Errmm...

I am sorry, I have failed you, community of DDO, to make this argument more full of bullsh!t. It's a difficult task to achieve, but when one listens to Alex Jones so much, people adopt his native tongue of rhetoric, and I simply cannot compete whilst maintaining a second secret life as a rational person. I apologise, and bow out gracefully.

(If I am not being clear, I am calling this turgid pile of arse entirely rhetorical and ultimately meaningless).

well it's like I said before, people like Geo are what I call constipators, their only mission here on DDO is to disturb people's sh*t, and "WE THE PEOPLE" don't like that....
"When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest." - Abraham Lincoln
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2013 5:23:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Round Two! This ought to be fun. But before then, we're having the half-time innings, where we get commentary from our viewers in the stand!

From 000ike: "I'm not sure where the platitudes end and the argument begins. You seem to think that if you embellish your thesis, if this rubbish can be dignified as such, with words like "wrong" and "liberty" every other sentence, it will seem more convincing". Some words that most of us can agree with!

And from our sole defender of Geo, "1percenter", we hear in address to me: "I'm not sure where the platitudes end and the argument begins. You seem to think that if you embellish your thesis, if this rubbish can be dignified as such, with words like "wrong" and "liberty" every other sentence, it will seem more convincing". The answer is yes, yes I do.

From Dylan, we hear: "Gay marriage isn't predicated on the bond between two individuals, it's predicated on the right of individuals to establish that bond."

And we now have breaking news! Geo has actually taken a critical thinking course! It is astounding to think how high the standards of education are. However, to quote my old Critical Thinking teacher: "The early courses are a game of 'guess what the examiner is thinking', with no thinking involved."

YYW: "Is Critical Thinking 101 a prereq for "How to Make Bold and Baseless Claims while pretending they are arguments" 102?".

Now, back to the game.

At 6/26/2013 3:43:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Let also cite the great economist, Thomas Sowell,

We're continuing from the previous scoreboard of "786" and we hit the ball rolling at 787.

a black

788. Says the white person.

intellectual

789.

who lived through the civil rights era.

Combo! 1578!


"The 'equal protection of the laws' provided by the Constitution of the United States applies to people, not actions.

http://memecrunch.com...

1579.

Laws exist precisely in order to discriminate between different kinds of actions.

So the "equal protection of laws" clause, which is an individual rule in the constitution (therefore a law) does not apply to actions, but laws exist to apply to actions? 1784.

When the law permits automobiles to drive on highways but forbids bicycles from doing the same, that is not discrimination against people. A cyclist who gets off his bicycle and gets into a car can drive on the highway just like anyone else.

Scene does not contain a lap dance.

In a free society, vast numbers of things are neither forbidden nor facilitated.

Like a lap dance! Whoo!

They are considered to be none of the law's business.

Homosexuals

And gay rights activists, civil rights activists, and the majority of the population in most Western countries.

were on their strongest ground when they said that the law had no business interfering with relations between consenting adults. Now they want the law to put a seal of approval on their behavior.

Why is marriage considered to be any of the law's business in the first place?

Because of the word "is", I'll assume this is a descriptive sentence, and it's because of the laws saying it is. If it is an "ought" sentence, however, we'll just continue.

Because the state asserts an interest in the outcomes of certain unions, separate from and independent of the interests of the parties themselves.

Or, you know, any of the other reasons ever proposed from a call back to age of Christian dominance of legislation, to the culture demonising minorities to enforce ideological orthodoxies, to simple traditional conservatism in practice.

Marriage means that the government steps in,

So astonishingly false, bearing in mind how states did not get involved outside of the Roman tradition of marriage (Early Greece, Mesopotamia, Native Americans, etc.), and therefore just factually incorrect. 1787.

and still more their relationship with whatever children may result from their union.

Above. 1790.

In other words, marriage imposes legal restrictions, taking away rights that individuals might otherwise have.

Combo! 3580!

Yet 'gay marriage' advocates depict marriage as an expansion of rights to which they are entitled.

Combo! Ignoring Dr Evil's objection, this objection implies that marriage is anti-liberty, or that joining a community of two is "taking away rights". 10740!

Analogies with bans against interracial marriage are bogus.

10741. Why is it race has been brought up? I never understand why this is brought up. It's essentially strawmanning, as it's bringing up an argument that has not been used to attack that argument.

Race is not part of the definition of marriage. A ban on interracial marriage is a ban on the same actions otherwise permitted because of the race of the particular people involved. It is a discrimination against people, not actions."

So two black people can get married because it's not discrimination against action, but two men cannot do the same and that's an action? 10744.

Sin Count: 10744. Verdict: DOMA repealed.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...