TWCL Forum Index TWCL
Forums for The Webcomic List
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Anti-Gay Activist to Write Superman Comic
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 432

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:
mcmasters wrote:
I'm really wondering how you make distinctions between right and wrong, thought-crimes and Not-thought crimes, and fair and unfair.
I'm not concerned with fair or unfair. Neither am I concerned with right or wrong. These are matters of opinion, therefore any law based on them must be a thought crime. Naturally, I have my own opinions, but I am not interested in forcing them on other people.

I am concerned with Rights. You have the right to an opinion of fairness, you have the right to an opinion on right or wrong. You have the right not to be beaten, or kidnapped, or murdered. One might call these things your Moral Property. I should not be allowed to take away your Moral Property without your consent. And so the only things which I feel should be rigorously penalized are infringement of rights. I am in agreement with CasualNotice here, that the government's only purpose is the enforcement of these contracts (and implicitly the protection of Moral Property when it is infringed upon).

So, (if I may take the liberty) I might summarize what it appears that you are saying as "Society should use social force for the Correct Opinion, but not an arbitrary opinion" (by all means, correct me if I am wrong), where my position would be "Society should use social force only for the prevention of force itself."

mcmasters wrote:
I'm having trouble unpacking this one. Forcing me to buy Superman comics...
From a Social Contract perspective, the ideal situation is that Mr. Card's beliefs should make no impact on your decision to buy (or not buy) Superman comics. If his opinion does not affect the final product, then you should buy (or not buy) the same as you do now. However, that is your personal decision, so Social Contract theory cannot make any binding moral judgment if you choose to buy less (or more) because of his opinions. However, the use of force to make you change your behavior would allow Social Contract theory to make a binding judgement.

vulpeslibertas wrote:
would be thought-crimes punishment to the same degree
I am sorry, the use of the words "to the same degree" is not very clear here. Forcing someone to buy Superman comics is wrong to the same degree as forcing someone to not write Superman comics. The wrongness is measured by the coerciveness of the force, not by the merit of the ideas.


I think there comes a point in a debate when one has to admit the other person has given more thought to a topic and is capable of a more nuanced and skillful understanding of the topic. This is that point. I am not a very systematic, organized, or formulaic thinker and frankly have trouble following what you are saying (I freely admit the fault is mine). My brain is good at producing drawings of God doing the YMCA dance (very NSFW) but consistent thinking on the proper role of the individual as relating to government, fellow citizens, moral judgments, boycotts, and social contracts...not so much.

I think it will be simpler to confess that my decision making does leave me open to charges of arbitrary thought and thought-crime tendencies. I guess. But I'm not uncomfortable with that, I'll swallow whatever label anyone wants to give.

Regarding gay marriage, I simply do not think the law is being applied equally to all citizens and that strikes me as a particular of a general rule and a general right I believe people should enjoy- equal treatment. That doesn't seem arbitrary to me, not in the sense of being completely pulled out of my ass, but again I'll take whatever label anyone wants to give.

And regarding boycotts, the principle that one should buy whatever product one desires to buy no matter what the creator's personal opinion of anything (that being his moral property and all)...I can buy that until a threshold is reached where the creator's moral property makes me want to vomit. Especially in the field of discretionary income and entertainment dollars! The writer of Superman has three drunk driving charges, multiple rape allegations against him, and openly advocates that textbooks teach that the Holocaust never happened? No problem, I just want to see how Supes outsmarts that bald guy. No, actually, screw him and he's not getting my money. And again that is probably a complete violation of this theory of proper decision making or that theory of proper decision making.

I may be misunderstanding the boycott thing but I am curious if there is any point after which you (and some other thread contributors) just would not buy a particular product that you desire. Someone mentioned something to the effect of “wait til Card shows if he injects the actual comic with an anti-gay agenda” before considering not buying it. But is there any point of odious reprehensible behavior that would make you say “hell no I'm not buying anything from that d-bag.” Wife beater? Dog-fighter? Any social theory or formula for avoiding the accusation of “correct thinking” that leaves me feeling guilty for boycotting a product from an individual or company that I find to be discriminatory is not a theory I want to follow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mcmasters



Joined: 28 Jun 2012
Posts: 432

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vulpeslibertas wrote:
As a relative bystander, you're coming off to me about on par with Marscaleb's "Allow me to offer you some illumination" comment.


My scoring has it roughly at a tie, but I want to hear somebody called a damn nazi before I make a final decision.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2488
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
My scoring has it roughly at a tie, but I want to hear somebody called a damn nazi before I make a final decision.
Quote:
but again I'll take whatever label anyone wants to give.
Get your hands off me, you damn dirty Nazi Twisted Evil

In seriousness, thank you for your opinion. I am generally on the opposite end of the spectrum and might be accused of being too mechanical. But I refuse to believe that a personality type is a "fault".

Basically, my position is based in political agnosticism. We are all human beings, all subject to mistakes and projecting our opinion onto reality. In my view, public policy should never be based on opinion, because in order to do so you have to assume that someone's opinion is superior, and to do that you have to assume that person is somehow morally superior to another. I believe most human rights violations begin with an assumption of superiority. This is then used to justify the use of physical force to oppress.

So my position is that the law should never be used to initiate force, and never be used to promote an opinion. Its only valid roll is to use force to prevent the use of force (i.e. arresting burglars, shooting murderers, etc).

Boycotts are a special case, because you are not using active force, you are choosing not to act as you have before (you aren't hitting them with a stick, you've just stopped giving them your carrots). It is your moral right to do this. However, as far as it is an attempt to coerce someone into agreeing with you without the use of logical, rational argument, I find it to be unsporting. Not wrong, but not really on the up-and-up either. It's basically the equivalent of "I can't kill you, but I don't have to save your life".

Quote:
But is there any point of odious reprehensible behavior that would make you say “hell no I'm not buying anything from that d-bag.”
In theory, no. The only consideration I would give to it is do I receive a benefit from the purchase, although I have been known to make emotionally motivated decisions from time to time. I would personally support a boycott if it was used to oppose the use of force (i.e. I wouldn't buy something from the Nazis during a period of actual war). I always support the choice to boycott as a Moral Right, although I might personally disagree with the outcome of that choice. I also freely admit that while I have studied Rights and economics rather extensively, boycotts still remain something of a grey issue and I still have questions regarding it. While I strongly lean against it, I wouldn't fully condemn it either.

Quote:
I can buy that until a threshold is reached where the creator's moral property makes me want to vomit.
In its purest form, the concept of Moral Property makes other people's opinions irrelevant. It belongs to you and you alone in the highest and most absolute sense. Freedom to live and freedom to think are two of the highest Moral Rights. These properties are yours alone and no one should interfere with them without your express permission.

For example: Being gay or not is your Moral Property. That decision belongs to you, and only you. That is your opinion. If Orson Scott Card wants to shove you into making a decision, you have the moral authority to shove him back with the same force to the same degree. If that makes him want to vomit, then that's his problem.

But then, being a hateful bastard or not is Card's moral property, so long as he doesn't shove anyone around. That decision belongs to him and only him. If you want to shove him into making a decision, he has the moral authority to shove back with the same force to the same degree. If that makes you want to vomit, then that's your problem.

It is the shoving which merits condemnation, not the opinion. When you begin shoving because of the opinion, then it becomes a thought crime, and I don't believe that any thought crime is valid.

Marriage equality is a difficult issue. I tend to play both sides in the gay marriage debate. It's a good issue for being devil's advocate. Marriage is inherently a cultural concept, and so any attempt at regulating it is an attempt to regulate culture. One could say that limiting marriage to heterosexual unions is an attempt to force morality on someone, but then the whole legal institution of marriage is that from the beginning. On the one hand, you are correct, homosexuals are not granted the equal privilege to marry whom they want. But then, heterosexuals cannot marry whomever they want either. Both homosexuals and heterosexuals are prevented from marrying someone of the same sex.

My favorite question in the marriage debate is why can't someone marry their brother, or their dog, or more than one person? Shouldn't those people also have the equal freedom to marry whom they wish? Aren't we forcing those people not to marry because of our moral scruples, and how is that different from banning homosexual marriage because of moral scruples? This question is a great turing test to separate those who are making their decision based on logic, and those who make it based on opinion. Those who use logic will either have an answer or try to find one, those who do not will challenge the question as absurd.

All in all, I don't believe marriage is a governmental institution. I don't think the government should regulate marriage any more that it should regulate who's soul is going to the afterlife. It simply doesn't have the jurisdiction.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 743

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
My favorite question in the marriage debate is why can't someone marry their brother, or their dog, or more than one person? Shouldn't those people also have the equal freedom to marry whom they wish? Aren't we forcing those people not to marry because of our moral scruples, and how is that different from banning homosexual marriage because of moral scruples? This question is a great turing test to separate those who are making their decision based on logic, and those who make it based on opinion. Those who use logic will either have an answer or try to find one, those who do not will challenge the question as absurd.


Let me address this question, but I will specifically focus on civil marriage:

Why can't I marry my...

...Brother?
Because based upon the general scientific at the time the laws were made, fraternal incest was considered too much of a public health risk for the government and society to reasonably bear. Much like homosexuality was, before the condition was no longer considered to be a mental illness or the only way certain STIs such as HIV/AIDS could be transmitted. Because homosexuality in it of itself is no longer considered to be a threat to the public health, the public sentiment is changing. Although some scientists believe that incest isn't a major health threat, the majority of the scientific community and society as a whole disagrees. Part of the function of civil marriage being regulated is to maintain the public health.

...Dog?
Because as in the case of children below the age of consent and/or majority, a dog cannot legally grant consent or enter into a contract. Unlike children, a dog cannot grow out of its inability to grant consent. No consent = no legal marriage. Also, the risk of inter-species diseases that are sexually transmitted is too much for the public to bear. The last thing we need is another HIV/AIDS.

More than one person?
Considering that many single people engage in sexual relationships with multiple partners that result in out-of-wedlock children who suffer greatly because of it, and many religions consider polygamy acceptable, there is absolutely no logical or compelling social reason to continue outlawing civil marriage involving multiple partners. As a matter of fact, the continued prohibition of this type of marriage puts children from polygamous religions and cultures at risk, since a non-existent marriage cannot be regulated. Legalizing marriage among polygamous groups might also be the only way to deal with the welfare and financial fraud that run rampant among them.

Having said that, civil marriage and religious marriage should be two completely separate entities, for the exact same reason that government should stay out of marriage, period.
_________________


Last edited by vaslittlecrow on Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:48 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
nsanelilmunky



Joined: 12 Nov 2012
Posts: 120

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Again, I didn't mock you, I mocked your action. Not the same thing. And nothing I've said was in the same league as your fifty(ish)-word tirade against the stupidity and misapprehensions of those "without degrees," or your fixation on Marscaleb's errors after he had been corrected and admitted his mistake (that last sentence is a tu quoque argument, if you're still keeping score).


Quote:
Aren't you insulting him by assuming that he doesn't? This would be a pretty embarrassing statement to make if you found out that he's got a degree of his own. Moreso if it's a doctorate. Moreso if he has also spent time in the real world.


To attack a person's actions is to also attack the person themselves. And as I said before, if that wasn't your intention, you should have chosen your words better.

I was not assuming that he didn't have a degree. I was pointing out that knowing nothing about me will bot allow him to assume what I know or do not know. He could be the reincarnation of Einstein and have more degrees than all the people on this board combined for all I care. The fact that he knows nothing about me except a screen name and what information I've posted on this board, but thinks he is able to discern my knowledge on a given subject is ridiculous and insulting.

Quote:
Continue ranting if you wish, but don't expect a reply.


You're running out of excuses so I'm not sure there would be much else you could reply with.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Casual Notice
Spambot Extraordinaire


Joined: 18 Mar 2005
Posts: 2959
Location: Oh my God, It's full of stars!

PostPosted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
To attack a person's actions is to also attack the person themselves

(sigh) No. Your actions ar enot you. Actions, if they form a pattern are a useful tool in determining how a person is likely to act in a similar situation, even, if you enjoy value judgements, whether that person is "good" or "evil", but no person is defined entirely by his actions and certainly not by a single act.

What you do at any given time is driven by a number of factors, some of whih you don't control. If you turn the wrong way onto a one-way street, that doesn't make you a sociopath, or even a rebel, it could be that you were forced there by traffic, or that you made a simple mistake. And no one in their right minds would conclude that who you are is defined by that one simple act.

I came back to address this (in violation of my usual custom of not commenting after I say I'm done) because if you honestly believe what is quoted above, and cannot separate yourself from your past, then you will cause yourself immeasurable problems. Every critique becomes personal, every past mistake, no matter how minor is remembered and defines your self-image. To become your actions is to deny yourself the liberty of choice and of growth.
_________________
Casual Notice--commentary, comics and an appreciation for snappy hats.
S*P*Q*R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2488
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vaslittlecrow wrote:
Let me address this question, but I will specifically focus on civil marriage:
Excellent.

Brother...
You mention the majority of the scientific community, but that there are some dissenting voices. Are rights subject to the whim of the majority? Is it any of those scientist's business? Science does not work by majority. It is a good indicator, but is it good enough to deprive someone of their fundamental human-ness? Science once said that black people were inferior to white people, because they were less evolved. Is a majority of scientists enough to justify oppression?

Dog...
Ok, sure, the dog can't consent. But all of the people in the relationship can. It makes no difference to my dog. And my dog loves me. I have full legal authority to make binding decisions for my dog such as living accommodations, food, medical care, and euthanasia. I can already choose what other dog it can breed with. Why not marriage?

What of inter-species disease? It's not a 100% certainty. Should I be banned from marrying my dog because some other poor sap might be unlucky enough to come down with a disease? Why not ban eating beef because some people get Mad Cow Disease? Why don't I have the right to take my own chances? Besides, if I'm going to have relations with my dog anyway, why can't we marry? You make this very point regarding polygamous relationships. If we can ban an individual's behavior because of a racial or demographic tendency, then what can't we ban? Not to mention that this is all done for the individual's "own good", against their will. Why should you be allowed to choose who you will marry, but I cannot? Is that fair? Man-woman marriages also lead to disease, and also wife-beating, shouldn't we ban that?

Polygamous...
I can't counter your position on polygamous marriages, because you've basically agreed with my statement. I could give the opposite argument, but I think if I started flip-flopping positions in the middle of an argument, that might get confusing.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 743

PostPosted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Brother...
You mention the majority of the scientific community, but that there are some dissenting voices. Are rights subject to the whim of the majority? Is it any of those scientist's business? Science does not work by majority. It is a good indicator, but is it good enough to deprive someone of their fundamental human-ness? Science once said that black people were inferior to white people, because they were less evolved. Is a majority of scientists enough to justify oppression?


With the exception of collective rights, rights are not and should not determined by the majority, as they are inherent. Personal rights are not collective, they are individual; unfortunately rights are often conflated with privilege -- even I make that mistake. Marriage is a social privilege, not a right. The whole point of science is that it is constantly changing and improving itself. Science in spite of its imperfection can often uncover the humanness of marginalized groups who should be participating in society, just as easily as being used to marginalize people. Much like religion in some ways.

If you want to be really legally technical and somewhat creepy, what marriage does is cause two parties to become adopted into two families. So, husband and wife are technically brother and sister in the eyes of the law,(hence the relative in-law titles). Marrying a sibling would be a redundant contract in some ways, and additionally, because of the health risks, there is no compelling reason to entertain this duplicate privilege any further.

Quote:
Ok, sure, the dog can't consent. But all of the people in the relationship can. It makes no difference to my dog. And my dog loves me. I have full legal authority to make binding decisions for my dog such as living accommodations, food, medical care, and euthanasia. I can already choose what other dog it can breed with. Why not marriage?


Because dogs are property and do not have equal status with humans because of our speciesist privilege. If the owner can grant consent for something like marriage without boundaries, then what's stopping the dog owner from marrying his kids, even though it's underage incest, or his sofa since he can grant consent on their behalf at his whim. Also, unless we want to go back to the days where women solely married men so they could be classed as property unable to enjoy rights of any sort, that's not a good legal precedent to follow. I can very easily see property-based civil marriage being turned against the autonomy of women and submissive male partners. That is already happening in many middle Eastern countries like Iraq that used to be secular but were taken over by religious zealotry. Also, if a person wants to have sex with an animal, no one can stop that person in spite of the risk. However, as in the case with marrying a sibling, there is no compelling reason to legitimize granting property the ability to marry.

Quote:
You make this very point regarding polygamous relationships. If we can ban an individual's behavior because of a racial or demographic tendency, then what can't we ban? Not to mention that this is all done for the individual's "own good", against their will. Why should you be allowed to choose who you will marry, but I cannot? Is that fair? Man-woman marriages also lead to disease, and also wife-beating, shouldn't we ban that?


I personally do think civil marriage should be banned since it's a blatant violation of state vs. church separation precedent. But, since we are talking about civil marriage, beyond the rights of property versus the rights of humans, there are some key difference between polygamy, incest and bestiality.

1) There are compelling reasons to grant the privilege of marriage to polygamous groups:

- Regulation of the age of who can join a polygamous arrangement.
- Prevention of welfare fraud and financial fraud that can't be addressed unless there is a marital certificate.
- The ability to uphold freedom of religion.
- Children in homes where there is more than one parent in a household, are more likely to thrive our society, than in a home where the child is in a latchkey situation. Single parents can be great parents, but children will have an easier time thriving in a home with more than one person responsible to their upbringing.


Quote:
Polygamous...
I can't counter your position on polygamous marriages, because you've basically agreed with my statement. I could give the opposite argument, but I think if I started flip-flopping positions in the middle of an argument, that might get confusing.


Understood.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2488
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 1:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

vaslittlecrow wrote:
Marriage is a social privilege, not a right.
Then why should homosexuals expect the same privilege? Using this exact logic, there is no violation of rights in discriminating against homosexual marriage, because it is only a privilege. This would also lead into a question of what makes something a right and what makes it a privilege. Further, this point doesn't justify the reason for the discrimination - so even if it is justified, you have here no reason to discriminate other than your opinion of who is right. Driving on public roads is a privilege, but I can't go around randomly revoking it from people just because.

vaslittlecrow wrote:
So, husband and wife are technically brother and sister in the eyes of the law,(hence the relative in-law titles). Marrying a sibling would be a redundant contract in some ways
So, I can legally have sex with my siblings right now? It is an entirely different contract. I would propose that it is not so much two people sharing a relationship as it is two people becoming one person. This argument is the equivalent to "Domestic Partnerships have the same rights as marriage, so there's no reason to grant a marriage". It is, after all, a redundant contract.

vaslittlecrow wrote:
, and additionally, because of the health risks, there is no compelling reason
Why can't we ban homosexual marriages because they also spread disease? Or sex in general, since you can get sick by having sex? And if I can regulate the health of your body, why can't I also regulate the health of your soul? That throws separation of church and state out the window. Isn't your soul more important than your body? Isn't that the most important thing to protect? I believe that this argument fundamentally boils down to "We are violating your rights for your own protection". Many human rights violations were done for people's "own good", against their will.

vaslittlecrow wrote:
Because dogs are property and do not have equal status with humans because of our speciesist privilege.
Ok, but how does it hurt you? Let's say we don't grant any legal rights to my dog, so it can't get welfare, or tax benefits. What if my religion says that I can, because dogs are people too? Women were once considered property, and in today's enlightened society we recognize that they aren't. Perhaps, one day, society will also recognize that dogs are not property either. Aren't you imposing your unenlightened traditionalist social view on me and my dog? Mixed race marriages were also once condemned because you couldn't have good clean white people marrying sub-humans. Does that justify racism?

vaslittlecrow wrote:
If the owner can grant consent for something like marriage without boundaries, then what's stopping the dog owner from marrying his kids,
some random person somewhere wrote:
And if a person wants to grant marriage to a homosexual without boundaries, then what's stopping someone from marrying their dog?
Which is, of course, the whole point of having a conversation like this: to philosophically measure out where those boundaries should be, and why.

vaslittlecrow wrote:
I can very easily see property-based civil marriage being turned against the autonomy of women and submissive male partners. That is already happening in many middle Eastern countries like Iraq that used to be secular but were taken over by religious zealotry.
I can very easily see free speech being used to support racism, but that doesn't mean we should ban free speech. We should ban criminal acts which actually violate people's rights, not artificially limit people's rights for our comfort zone.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vaslittlecrow



Joined: 01 Aug 2005
Posts: 743

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 6:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Then why should homosexuals expect the same privilege?


Because they already have that privilege. Homosexuals and bisexuals have been getting married to people of the opposite sex for thousands of years. Civil marriage is a public institution, not a religious institution, so separate but equal does not apply.

Quote:
Using this exact logic, there is no violation of rights in discriminating against homosexual marriage, because it is only a privilege.This would also lead into a question of what makes something a right and what makes it a privilege. Further, this point doesn't justify the reason for the discrimination - so even if it is justified, you have here no reason to discriminate other than your opinion of who is right. Driving on public roads is a privilege, but I can't go around randomly revoking it from people just because.


Actually this is not about the difference between rights and privileges, but rather about equal application of the law. For example, going to public school and drinking from a public water fountain, are not constitutionally protected rights. But again if it is public or government-sponsored venture, then separate but equal is neither constitutional nor legally applicable. Plessy versus Ferguson was overturned for this very reason reason. However, you can have a private school for one race only, and if you have a private organization has two separate water fountains, then the government can't do a damn thing about it, unless a specific law is made, since these types of situations are neither government-sponsored nor public. If a church is really concerned that the government is going to dictate what kind of marriages it is allowed to perform, all they need to do is stop taking taxpayer money -- just like the Boy Scouts did when the their tax-exempt status would've forced them to allow gay Scout Masters. If an private organization doesn't take public money, it has more leeway in regards to who can be excluded. Problem solved.

Quote:
So, I can legally have sex with my siblings right now?


Nope, because there is no logical, legally or morally compelling reason for the public to support that arrangement, especially since there is a significant public health risk.

Quote:
It is an entirely different contract.


It is and it isn't. Both parties get adopted, but since they aren't related then it is legal for them to reproduce. Also, because civil marriage is regulated, government can dictate under what conditions the marriage can take place. When you challenge a law in court, you need logical, legally or morally compelling reasons to do so. If you can't meet these conditions, your case will likely be thrown out of court. If someone is able to prove that incest is not a major threat to the public and societal health, and the courts decides that incestuous marriage can be defended logically, legally and morally, then the government will either need to uphold the ruling or either create a new law against it or change the Constitution. To give you an example, because the attorneys for Proposition 8 could not defend their case logically, legally or morally, and gay marriage was not seen as a threat to the public health, then the court had no choice but to overturn it. This is not about my feelings or my opinion, this is about precedent.

Quote:
I would propose that it is not so much two people sharing a relationship as it is two people becoming one person. This argument is the equivalent to "Domestic Partnerships have the same rights as marriage, so there's no reason to grant a marriage". It is, after all, a redundant contract.


I don't disagree with you. There is absolutely no logical reason that civil marriage or domestic partnerships should be sponsored by the government when an S Corporation allows you to do the same thing. Marriage in a church, is not and should not be treated as the same thing as civil marriage, since it is an article of faith. Civil marriage basically started because women used to be considered property, as opposed to religious marriage where people of faith wanting to reproduce were seen as one in the eyes of God. Constitutional interpretation and the recognition of women's rights pretty much forced civil marriage to become more parallel to religious marriage, even though these two contracts are completely different things.

Quote:
Why can't we ban homosexual marriages because they also spread disease? Or sex in general, since you can get sick by having sex? And if I can regulate the health of your body, why can't I also regulate the health of your soul? That throws separation of church and state out the window. Isn't your soul more important than your body? Isn't that the most important thing to protect? I believe that this argument fundamentally boils down to "We are violating your rights for your own protection". Many human rights violations were done for people's "own good", against their will.


I hate to say it, but that's what happens when people ask to regulate things. The more people demand that the government regulate things, the more the oppressive the government becomes. So either people, start telling government to get the hell out of marriage, or they accept the fact that if they demand regulations like 1 man/1 woman, that their spiritual institutions and traditions will be subject to the whims of majority, precedent and government. You can't have it both ways.

Quote:
Ok, but how does it hurt you? Let's say we don't grant any legal rights to my dog, so it can't get welfare, or tax benefits.


Someone else's vibrator can't hurt me either, but there is no compelling reason to extend marriage to it either. The whole point of civil marriage is to get certain government, social and tax benefits that would not be available otherwise. A dog and a vibrator can't demand rights or privileges.

Quote:
What if my religion says that I can, because dogs are people too?


If that's the religion preaches then that's its followers prerogative to do it and it happens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93animal_marriage#Historical_cases

Nevertheless, people expecting civil recognition of that marriage are probably going to be disappointed, when bestiality laws aren't changed and their marriage is not recognized. Again civil and religious marriage are two separate issues.

Quote:
Perhaps, one day, society will also recognize that dogs are not property either. Aren't you imposing your unenlightened traditionalist social view on me and my dog? Mixed race marriages were also once condemned because you couldn't have good clean white people marrying sub-humans. Does that justify racism?


Until a dog can evolve sufficiently to mount a protest for recognition of its own rights as a person, and can prove that it is the same species as us, then it has no human rights. Also, just calling people sub-humans is insufficient to deny them human rights, especially when they can communicate, protest, revolt and prove that such logic is erroneous. If a dog can do that, then that dog deserves to be a person with a reality show and a sponsorship contracts.

Quote:
Which is, of course, the whole point of having a conversation like this: to philosophically measure out where those boundaries should be, and why.


Agreed.

Quote:
I can very easily see free speech being used to support racism, but that doesn't mean we should ban free speech. We should ban criminal acts which actually violate people's rights, not artificially limit people's rights for our comfort zone.


While I agree to some extent to what you are saying, the fact of the matter is that when people ask for regulation, that's exactly what they get: limits.

Ultimately, it all boils down to this: "Your rights end where mine begin." But, it's easier said than done.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
vulpeslibertas
Level 1 threat


Joined: 19 Dec 2005
Posts: 2488
Location: Here and there...mostly there. Sometimes kinda in between.

PostPosted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm packing and moving right now, so I can't respond to this thread anymore. It's been a great conversation, though. Maybe we can get back to it when I'm all set up again.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    TWCL Forum Index -> General Ramblings All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Hosted by Fluent
The Webcomics List is operated and owned by Ash Young. Syndicate the comic updates.