Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

[Lootifer]

Also a point to note that even for the most liberal stright guy, 2 men together is a hard thing to accept when faced with it. It does go against some fairly ingrained social/genetic (not sure which) coding.

So as TGD says, like empowering woman and eliminating slavery, its not about what we think right now, but what things like freedom/equality mean at a fundamental and objective level.

[Woodruff]

Just in case you overlooked it...

Here, maybe this will help you, Phatscotty:

for your third question, lets take murder for example. The bible clearly says Thou shall not murder. Does that mean being against murder is a Christian belief?

I have two questions, which will make the point I have:

1. Is "murder is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?
2. Is "homosexuality is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?

I have another question (for Woodruff) - does the belief of the vast majority of humans determine whether something is good or bad?

Definitely not. I am simply countering Phatscotty's point, while trying to get him to acknowledge it and, perhaps, even to respond to it.

[Woodruff]

Also a point to note that even for the most liberal stright guy, 2 men together is a hard thing to accept when faced with it. It does go against some fairly ingrained social/genetic (not sure which) coding.

No question. I feel irrationally (though only mildly) uncomfortable seeing two men or two women walking down the street holding hands and minding their own business, and that's obviously a pretty "light" public display of affection.

[kentington]

Also a point to note that even for the most liberal stright guy, 2 men together is a hard thing to accept when faced with it. It does go against some fairly ingrained social/genetic (not sure which) coding.

No question. I feel irrationally (though only mildly) uncomfortable seeing two men or two women walking down the street holding hands and minding their own business, and that's obviously a pretty "light" public display of affection.

Same here. But let me also state that I find it highly uncomfortable seeing an combination of people making out or groping in public. I cannot stand it.

[Woodruff]

Also a point to note that even for the most liberal stright guy, 2 men together is a hard thing to accept when faced with it. It does go against some fairly ingrained social/genetic (not sure which) coding.

No question. I feel irrationally (though only mildly) uncomfortable seeing two men or two women walking down the street holding hands and minding their own business, and that's obviously a pretty "light" public display of affection.

Same here. But let me also state that I find it highly uncomfortable seeing an combination of people making out or groping in public. I cannot stand it.

It doesn't bother me at all to see a heterosexual couple walking down the street holding hands and minding their own business. In fact, I actually enjoy seeing it. And yes, I do realize that's hypocritical, but it's at a level that I haven't yet been able to overcome (for the homosexual side of that situation.)

But I DEFINITELY agree with you regarding "making out" in public...heterosexual or homosexual, I don't want to see it.

[Phatscotty]

Just in case you overlooked it...

Here, maybe this will help you, Phatscotty:

for your third question, lets take murder for example. The bible clearly says Thou shall not murder. Does that mean being against murder is a Christian belief?

I have two questions, which will make the point I have:

1. Is "murder is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?
2. Is "homosexuality is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?

I have another question (for Woodruff) - does the belief of the vast majority of humans determine whether something is good or bad? Five hundred years ago, the vast majority of humns thought slavery was good and women voting was bad.

Caveat - Yes, Phatscotty has stepped away from his supposedly libertarian beliefs, so I'm not siding with him. Rather, I'm questioning whether what the majority thinks is always what is good.

Just to weigh on in that (wb btw) I don't think that just because a majority decides on something makes it good. I just recognize it will take a majority of people to overturn the natural order of marriage as it has existed since forever. Btw, even when a majority does vote to change the definition of marriage, that does not mean it's a good thing either.

Bottom line, I just hold this position from recognizing that when a majority of a populace wants something, it will get it one way or another, and there isn't really that much that can be done about that...realistically speaking

traditional marriage people are not the one's who want to change things, and it's not like gays used to be able to get married and that privilege has been taken away....gay marriage was just recently created for the first time in the first place about a decade ago. But that does not mean it's a good or bad thing either. It does mean it's a new thing though, and I don't see how this new thing can be a right and how anyone who is against it is a bigot. It doesn't add up

[AAFitz]

Just in case you overlooked it...

Here, maybe this will help you, Phatscotty:

for your third question, lets take murder for example. The bible clearly says Thou shall not murder. Does that mean being against murder is a Christian belief?

I have two questions, which will make the point I have:

1. Is "murder is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?
2. Is "homosexuality is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?

I have another question (for Woodruff) - does the belief of the vast majority of humans determine whether something is good or bad? Five hundred years ago, the vast majority of humns thought slavery was good and women voting was bad.

Caveat - Yes, Phatscotty has stepped away from his supposedly libertarian beliefs, so I'm not siding with him. Rather, I'm questioning whether what the majority thinks is always what is good.

Just to weigh on in that (wb btw) I don't think that just because a majority decides on something makes it good. I just recognize it will take a majority of people to overturn the natural order of marriage as it has existed since forever. Btw, even when a majority does vote to change the definition of marriage, that does not mean it's a good thing either.

Bottom line, I just hold this position from recognizing that when a majority of a populace wants something, it will get it one way or another, and there isn't really that much that can be done about that...realistically speaking

traditional marriage people are not the one's who want to change things, and it's not like gays used to be able to get married and that privilege has been taken away....gay marriage was just recently created for the first time in the first place about a decade ago. But that does not mean it's a good or bad thing either. It does mean it's a new thing though, and I don't see how this new thing can be a right and how anyone who is against it is a bigot. It doesn't add up

That's because you're using a 1960's Calculator.

[Phatscotty]

Civil unions are the compromise

[thegreekdog]

Civil unions are the compromise

Getting the government out of marriage is the compromise. Civil unions are not the compromise.

In any great compromise, either both sides are happy or both sides are pissed off. If we went civil unions, Christian coaltion types would be happy, gays would be pissed off. So, not a good compromise.

[Phatscotty]

Civil unions are the compromise

Getting the government out of marriage is the compromise. Civil unions are not the compromise.

In any great compromise, either both sides are happy or both sides are pissed off. If we went civil unions, Christian coaltion types would be happy, gays would be pissed off. So, not a good compromise.

oh, of course! I wish 100% we could get the government out! That is my overall position, stated long ago. Everything after that though is just the realization the government is in marriage, and we have to deal with it as it is. it was not so long ago that a civil union is what the gay agenda was fighting for. Why should they be mad with that? It's not just Christians that would be happy, it would be every major religion in the world. They should both be happy with civil unions.

I thought gays were happy with a civil union. I probably won't be able to find the video again, but I looked at the debate in 2005-2009, and many gay advocates were just pressing for civil unions, and gay marriage was not even a mention. In fact, many of them denied that their agenda would evolve into a push for gay marriage. I also have video evidence (somewhere in this thread or another GM thread) of a major gay spokesperson basically repeating what I have been saying, in so much as the states should be able to decide, not to mention Ron Paul and his consistent stance on states right and people to make and live under their own laws, within the confines of the Constitution... libertarian at the core, but maybe I'm wrong....

As far as I am concerned, taking the states rights route is one that accepts DOMA, respects democracy and liberty, gives the gay marriage movement an honest chance to have it's voice and it's day and have it's case taken to the people, and the gay agenda up until just recently used to support this. Until they did not win any elections.....

[thegreekdog]

Civil unions are the compromise

Getting the government out of marriage is the compromise. Civil unions are not the compromise.

In any great compromise, either both sides are happy or both sides are pissed off. If we went civil unions, Christian coaltion types would be happy, gays would be pissed off. So, not a good compromise.

oh, of course! I wish 100% we could get the government out! That is my overall position, stated long ago. Everything after that though is just the realization the government is in marriage, and we have to deal with it as it is. it was not so long ago that a civil union is what the gay agenda was fighting for. Why should they be mad with that? It's not just Christians that would be happy, it would be every major religion in the world. They should both be happy with civil unions.

I thought gays were happy with a civil union. I probably won't be able to find the video again, but I looked at the debate in 2005-2009, and many gay advocates were just pressing for civil unions, and gay marriage was not even a mention. In fact, many of them denied that their agenda would evolve into a push for gay marriage. I also have video evidence (somewhere in this thread or another GM thread) of a major gay spokesperson basically repeating what I have been saying, in so much as the states should be able to decide, not to mention Ron Paul and his consistent stance on states right and people to make and live under their own laws, within the confines of the Constitution... libertarian at the core, but maybe I'm wrong....

As far as I am concerned, taking the states rights route is one that accepts DOMA, respects democracy and liberty, gives the gay marriage movement an honest chance to have it's voice and it's day and have it's case taken to the people, and the gay agenda up until just recently used to support this. Until they did not win any elections.....

I'm not familiar with the "gay agenda" of the aughts, but I'm pretty sure agendas can evolve over time. The only time I ever get my panties in a bunch is when a certain group or segment of people want more "rights" than the rest of us. If gays suddenly want to have free cars because they are gay, I would probably draw the line. But I still don't see the problem with gays getting married, when the only indicia of marriage that will be provided is that the marriage will be recognized by the states and federal government. Seriously, what's the problem with it? I skimmed BBS's thread on the subject and I still don't get it. I'm a practicing Catholic, and I can understand that gays being married does not affect my own marriage, my religion, or my life in general.

[Phatscotty]

will gay marriage have an impact on the national debt? will # of beneficiaries rise? Will your children be asked when they are 6 years old by their schools if they think they like boys or girls? Will 7 year old be encouraged to experiment with their feelings, especially if they have feelings for someone of the same sex? Will these young children need to be separated from the mainstream? Will that lead to the abolition of any religious orphanage (majority of orphanages) that does not go against the words of their holy books? The moment that marriage is redefined, will the issue "evolve" to gay adoption? Will people in the future get married just for benefits, more than they already do? Is that a healthy trend? Do you believe that redistributing the wealth is a good thing? If marriage is redefined, will that move us more down the path of wealth redistribution, or less? Should political law override natural law? Is marriage a special institution? and if so, will redefining marriage make it more special, or less special?

Again, it's worth restating that all these problems are a great reason why we should not let government decide what marriage is. We should just leave it alone

[AndyDufresne]

will gay marriage have an impact on the national debt? will # of beneficiaries rise? Will your children be asked when they are 6 years old by their schools if they think they like boys or girls? Will 7 year old be encouraged to experiment with their feelings, especially if they have feelings for someone of the same sex? Will these young children need to be separated from the mainstream? Will that lead to the abolition of any religious orphanage (majority of orphanages) that does not go against the words of their holy books? The moment that marriage is redefined, will the issue "evolve" to gay adoption? Will people in the future get married just for benefits, more than they already do? Is that a healthy trend? Do you believe that redistributing the wealth is a good thing? If marriage is redefined, will that move us more down the path of wealth redistribution, or less? Should political law override natural law? Is marriage a special institution? and if so, will redefining marriage make it more special, or less special?

I don't have a list of questions, just one I think: Are any of these questions connected or relevant?


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

See that's why I was confused - I'm one of them "limey brits" so here something is either illegal or its not, it doesnt matter where in the country you happen to be.

Do you think the anti crowd have a strong position if the pro side go all the way up to the supreme court (or whatever the highest possible legal appeal court is over there) or the UN court of human rights or something?

IDK. I don't think it will go that far though, but it might. We are a sovereign nation, so the UN cannot tell us how to live our lives...for now anyways

[Phatscotty]

will gay marriage have an impact on the national debt? will # of beneficiaries rise? Will your children be asked when they are 6 years old by their schools if they think they like boys or girls? Will 7 year old be encouraged to experiment with their feelings, especially if they have feelings for someone of the same sex? Will these young children need to be separated from the mainstream? Will that lead to the abolition of any religious orphanage (majority of orphanages) that does not go against the words of their holy books? The moment that marriage is redefined, will the issue "evolve" to gay adoption? Will people in the future get married just for benefits, more than they already do? Is that a healthy trend? Do you believe that redistributing the wealth is a good thing? If marriage is redefined, will that move us more down the path of wealth redistribution, or less? Should political law override natural law? Is marriage a special institution? and if so, will redefining marriage make it more special, or less special?

I don't have a list of questions, just one I think: Are any of these questions connected or relevant?


--Andy

all of them are! (a response to TGD)

[Phatscotty]

So, if your issue is one of semantics, then you have no position on allowing gays to "marry," so that they receive the state-granted goodies and other subjectively perceived goodies?

It's not really the issue though. It's hard to pin down, but there are implications that must be accepted when that question is phrased the way whoever phrased it, and I don't accept that. I just reject that to say marriage is a union between a man and a woman is to say one is "against" homosexual marriage. I just don't accept the definition they are trying to impose. It doesn't register that way.

Dictionary - Marriage

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

[I'll address your video later.]

1. If you're saying "I just don't accept the definition they are trying to impose," then that means the source of your contention is the meaning of the word "marriage."
2. And (linguistic) semantics is "is the study of meaning... that is used to understand human expression through language" (wiki)
3. Therefore, based on this information, it is an issue of semantics for you.

So, let's make this more understandable for both of us:


Suppose in the society of Yaoi, "gay marriage" is called "garnelliage," which is "a state of being united to a person of the same sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

Currently, in Yaoi, the status of garnelliage comes with benefits granted by the state, but garnelliage also comes with social/interpersonal benefits. These benefits are both of a monetary and psychological nature. Within Yaoi is a group of minorities who wish to enjoy the status of garnelliage, but this group of people are heterosexuals; therefore, the state denies them the benefits of garnelliage, thus denying them the social/interpersonal benefits.

Question:

(A) In the society of Yaoi, is it right for the state to deny that minority all the benefits of garnelliage?

(B) If a majority vote was held on the issue, and garnelliage was denied to the heterosexuals across the society of Yaoi, is this just?

(BB) If a majority vote was held across each province of Yaoi, and garnelliage was denied to heterosexuals in some provinces, then is this just?

(BBS)

You are partially right, but that is not the only reason. Words have definitions, and that is a good thing. I don't think its simply semantics, but that isn't really in the same realm as highjacking words, or changing definitions, is it?

the answer to your question about the mythical yaoi people is yes. If garnelage is what it is called when gay people get married, that means that gay marriage has it's own special word, a term to describe that the marriage is gay. If a non gay wants to participate in garnelage, then they are going to have to garnel someone of the same sex. Basically, if garnelage is gay marriage, but non gays can also be garneled, then there is no reason to have the word "garnelage" because it doesn't mean anything....

If a majority votes, the whether it is just or not is subjective. All it means, to me, if a majority votes a certain way, I simply recognize they are most likely going to have it, whether it is just or not. The time to figure out what is most just is before the vote, in discussion.

Having a talk about something is always just

[Phatscotty]

Just in case you overlooked it...

Here, maybe this will help you, Phatscotty:

for your third question, lets take murder for example. The bible clearly says Thou shall not murder. Does that mean being against murder is a Christian belief?

I have two questions, which will make the point I have:

1. Is "murder is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?
2. Is "homosexuality is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?

I have another question (for Woodruff) - does the belief of the vast majority of humans determine whether something is good or bad? Five hundred years ago, the vast majority of humns thought slavery was good and women voting was bad.

Caveat - Yes, Phatscotty has stepped away from his supposedly libertarian beliefs, so I'm not siding with him. Rather, I'm questioning whether what the majority thinks is always what is good.

That's a good point. I answered it already, but wanted to add that the video I posted addresses your question in the first minute..

[Woodruff]

Civil unions are the compromise

"Separate but equal" has been proven untenable.

Civil unions are the compromise

Getting the government out of marriage is the compromise. Civil unions are not the compromise.

Correct.

[Woodruff]

will gay marriage have an impact on the national debt? will # of beneficiaries rise? Will your children be asked when they are 6 years old by their schools if they think they like boys or girls? Will 7 year old be encouraged to experiment with their feelings, especially if they have feelings for someone of the same sex? Will these young children need to be separated from the mainstream? Will that lead to the abolition of any religious orphanage (majority of orphanages) that does not go against the words of their holy books? The moment that marriage is redefined, will the issue "evolve" to gay adoption? Will people in the future get married just for benefits, more than they already do? Is that a healthy trend? Do you believe that redistributing the wealth is a good thing? If marriage is redefined, will that move us more down the path of wealth redistribution, or less? Should political law override natural law? Is marriage a special institution? and if so, will redefining marriage make it more special, or less special?

Again, it's worth restating that all these problems are a great reason why we should not let government decide what marriage is. We should just leave it alone

That absolutely is NOT a reson to "just leave it alone". Not even remotely.

[Symmetry]

TGD's argument is against same sex marriage is the only one I've seen that doesn't smack of homophobia. Unfortunately, it really doesn't seem sound.

I've thought about it a fair bit, but I can't see how it would work. It seems like a libertarian argument (get the government out of "x") applied carelessly to marriage.

It's a fun point, and of course it's one of those nice libertarian points where you can argue it righteously, safe in the knowledge that it will never actually reach a point where people will argue over how it could be implemented.

It's safe rhetoric, and a bit of an easy way to say that you oppose gay marriage, while suggesting that you equally oppose straight marriage.

I guess, TGD, the question is can you expand on your point? What would society look like if all straight marriages were legally annulled?

[Woodruff]

TGD's argument is against same sex marriage is the only one I've seen that doesn't smack of homophobia. Unfortunately, it really doesn't seem sound.

I've thought about it a fair bit, but I can't see how it would work. It seems like a libertarian argument (get the government out of "x") applied carelessly to marriage.

It's a fun point, and of course it's one of those nice libertarian points where you can argue it righteously, safe in the knowledge that it will never actually reach a point where people will argue over how it could be implemented.

It's safe rhetoric, and a bit of an easy way to say that you oppose gay marriage, while suggesting that you equally oppose straight marriage.

I guess, TGD, the question is can you expand on your point? What would society look like if all straight marriages were legally annulled?

They wouldn't need to be annulled. Quite simply, the "benefits package" that goes with being married would be annulled.

[crispybits]

And the same people up in arms about gay marriage would be some of the first in line to protest about that form of attack on "traditional values"

[Woodruff]

And the same people up in arms about gay marriage would be some of the first in line to protest about that form of attack on "traditional values"

Probably.

[BigBallinStalin]

Are the following different issues, that aren't quite related?

(1) State-granted benefits of marriage
(2) State-recognized marital status for gays

These two are different issues. I understand that (1) can be used for/against (2); however, regardless of the arguments for/against (1), a libertarian approach makes (2) impervious to the arguments for (1).


From a libertarian perspective, you can engage in any voluntary exchange with a consenting adult as long as you aren't initiating violence against someone or violating someone else's property rights. For example,

1. A marital contract can be made voluntarily between consenting adults--regardless of their sexual orientation
2. Since a human being owns himself, he/she holds the requisite property rights for making this contract legitimate.
3. A marital contract covers obligations from both parties and their property (namely, each other).
4. If no violence is initiated against anyone and
5. If no property rights are violated,
6. Then, marital status for gays (i.e. "gay marriage") is acceptable, thus should be implemented and legally recognized.


Conclusion, any arguments for/against (1) have no bearing on (2) from a libertarian perspective.

[Symmetry]

TGD's argument is against same sex marriage is the only one I've seen that doesn't smack of homophobia. Unfortunately, it really doesn't seem sound.

I've thought about it a fair bit, but I can't see how it would work. It seems like a libertarian argument (get the government out of "x") applied carelessly to marriage.

It's a fun point, and of course it's one of those nice libertarian points where you can argue it righteously, safe in the knowledge that it will never actually reach a point where people will argue over how it could be implemented.

It's safe rhetoric, and a bit of an easy way to say that you oppose gay marriage, while suggesting that you equally oppose straight marriage.

I guess, TGD, the question is can you expand on your point? What would society look like if all straight marriages were legally annulled?

They wouldn't need to be annulled. Quite simply, the "benefits package" that goes with being married would be annulled.

I guess I don't see this as a particularly strong argument against gay marriage, more a safe way of opposing it based on the sheer impossibility of the heterosexual side of it ever happening. Hence my skepticism.