Ban on Gay Marriage (1 Viewer)

[neo o]

You have opinions.. the way it seems so far you just borrow others and call them your own without even stopping to really think about the ideas assimilate them and accept what they mean to you.

........................

 

[MoonlightSonata]

I disagree. People are inherantly different at birth (genetic factors etc.). This is irrelevant right now, my point is that you are making a moral argument without specifying what is moral!

I just tried to specify what is moral - I said that treating people equally if there is no reason not to is moral. But perhaps the source of my morality is the problem - you are correct that I don't want to get into this because it would be extremely messy, but not for the sake of any vulnerability on the part of this argument. I think for the purposes of this discussion we can assume that (a) we ought to do the right thing, and that (b) the right thing is to treat people equally so long as there is no reason not to. I think we can let these assumptions pass for our uses here.

Many major moral theories completely ignore the idea of 'treating everyone equally' as being always good e.g. utilitarianism, emotivism, Kantian views, etc. If you're holding neo_o to a logical standard, you should hold yourself to a logical standard as well.

Well actually:
- Utilitarianism specifically demands we treat each other (and ourselves) as equal to everyone else. This is one of the most significant and demanding factors of this theory
- Emotivism would eliminate the arguments against gay marriages as well.
- Kantian deontology is flawed in so many ways, I won't even begin to go there. (Let the heavens fall instead of telling a lie!)

But white people can't marry black people either. White people and black people are being treated in exactly the same way, logically. The only way it would be descriminatory would be if the law said something like "black people can't marry other black people" - but it doesn't. It says "all people can't marry black people".

White people can't marry black people.
Black people can't marry black people.
Where's the descrimination? "Marrying your own kind" is just a fancy way of saying there is no logical descrimination, you're manipulating the statement to make it seem like there is descrimination. The statement is "no person has the right to marry a black person".

I think you are looking at this at face value, trying to say that because they aren't literally targetted, there is an equality. But this is to ignore the fundamental effect of the legislation. Marrying your own kind is exactly the point of the example. White people can marry their own kind, black people can't marry their own kind. There obviously is a deprivation on the part of black people then.

Even if it was, there is no discrimination, as I've said before. Even if a law banned gay marriage, the law is not "gay men can't marry men", it's "all men can't marry men" (or a suitable law for lesbians). I could want to marry a good friend for a tax break, or something like that - and I would be unable to. But this isn't the point - the law doesn't say this.

I understand what you're saying, and on a technical, legal level, I see the merit in your point. I also think that the legislation would probably not be found to be discriminatory per se, because it is worded in such a manner that does not attack a specific target (and also because our Constitution is very stingy with human rights). But as I said, simply because it does not specifically target a group, does not mean it allows equality, because one group is not only left out, but it is in effect prohibited.

What if the legislation said "marriage is the union of man and man, or a woman and a woman, to the exclusion of all others"?

Would you argue that this was discriminatory, or that there was a lack of equality? Because surely one group (heterosexuals) would be prohibited from a right that another group (homosexuals) would have access to. Even if you say there is no discrimination will you not concede there is a lack of equality?

 

[eviltama]

........................

Perhaps it would be better if you elucidated your point.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Wilmo:

This is partly true, yes, but not fully. We know the validity of the bible as a historical document because we have found copies of the texts written close to the time the real ones were. And there were many techniques used by the translators to maintain the integrity of the data. You can translate the original languages into english yourself and find almost the exact same as the english.

[etc...]

Wilmo, this thread is not about the existence of God. I accept that you have your views, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own spirituality. I am agnostic and therefore do not rule out the existence of a supreme being. However, the existence of God cannot contribute to a logical argument about banning gay marriages. It is a fallacy to use a controversial premise in an argument, and the existence of God is probably the most controversial premise in the whole world, so please, do not bring up God in this discussion because it will not add anything constructive to the reasoning that is underway here.

If you want to start a thread discussing the existence of God I'd like to hear your views (although I'm sure there have been a million other threads on that topic).

No offense intended - I say this for the efficacy of the debate. Thanks

 

[eviltama]

Wilmo, this thread is not about the existence of God. I accept that you have your views, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own spirituality. I am agnostic and therefore do not rule out the existence of a supreme being. However, the existence of God cannot contribute to a logical argument about banning gay marriages. It is a fallacy to use a controversial premise in an argument, and the existence of God is probably the most controversial premise in the whole world, so please, do not bring up God in this discussion because it will not add anything constructive to the reasoning that is underway here.

If you want to start a thread discussion the existence of God I'd like to hear your views (although I'm sure there have been a million other threads on that topic).

No offense intended - I say this for the efficacy of the debate. Thanks

Agreed....
(i couldn't say it as nicely as he did, so Thanks for that!)

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The law never prevented two people of the same sex from loving each other, but commiting homosexual acts. Just like my understanding of the Bible, it does not condemn gay people, but their acts of love (ie sex).

How many times do I have to use this quote:

[It is an] absurd proposition that would insist upon acceptance of sexual orientation but prohibit all of its physical and emotional manifestations.

- Justice Kirby

Anyway, with respect to religion, please refer to my previous post to Wilmo.

On calling someone a "fucktard" you not only lose the respect of everyone here, but you don't add anything constructive at all. You want to express your frustration, fine. Go do something else. Like Rorix, I get very annoyed by those kind of responses and I'm going to just ignore stuff like that from now on. We are not trying to put you down, we're trying to use reason. I understand not everyone has studied logic, thats fine. I can point out where I see the errors and explain them. But "arguing ad hominem" is just not going to get you anywhere.

 

[Rorix]

I just tried to specify what is moral - I said that treating people equally if there is no reason not to is moral. But perhaps the source of my morality is the problem - you are correct that I don't want to get into this because it would be extremely messy, but not for the sake of any vulnerability on the part of this argument. I think for the purposes of this discussion we can assume that (a) we ought to do the right thing, and that (b) the right thing is to treat people equally so long as there is no reason not to. I think we can let these assumptions pass for our uses here.

Your argument, in brief:
1. Assume gay marriage is right
2. Ergo, gay marriage is right.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you assume away an argument.

Well actually:
- Utilitarianism specifically demands we treat each other (and ourselves) as equal to everyone else. This is one of the most significant and demanding factors of this theory

iff everybody has an equal capacity to experience happiness. Anyway, even if we allow this, it doesn't follow that gay marriage will lead to the greatest happiness i.e. is morally right.

- Emotivism would eliminate the arguments against gay marriages as well.

Every moral argument, yes.

- Kantian deontology is flawed in so many ways, I won't even begin to go there. (Let the heavens fall instead of telling a lie!)

True, I was just giving examples of philosophical concepts of morality which wouldn't always hold gay marriage to be right. I actually can't think of a single philosophical moral theory which would hold gay marriage as morally right in all cases, but I'm probably forgetting some. Anyway, the point is, we can't argue morality if we don't know what is moral.

I think you are looking at this at face value, trying to say that because they aren't literally targetted, there is an equality. But this is to ignore the fundamental effect of the legislation. Marrying your own kind is exactly the point of the example. White people can marry their own kind, black people can't marry their own kind. There obviously is a deprivation on the part of black people then.

So, to be logically consistant, as I understand your position:

Suppose I wished to buy the Playboy mansion. Now, I haven't checked the real estate prices recently, but I'm confident in saying the Playboy mansion would cost quite a pretty penny, far beyond my capacity to pay. However, Mr. Bill Gates could easily afford the mansion, should he choose to purchase it. Does this mean that Hugh is desciminating against me, by pricing the house outside of my price range?

Bill Gates can buy the house if he chooses to spend, say, 50 million. I can buy the house if I choose to spend 50 million. However, I don't have 50 million dollars, so I can't buy the house. There's no targeting of me, but is this still descrimination?

What if the legislation said "marriage is the union of man and man, or a woman and a woman, to the exclusion of all others"? Would you argue that this was discriminatory, or that there was a lack of equality?

Well, that would be a rather revolutionary way of looking at marriage, but I digress. Heterosexuals would not be prohibted to marry here, because marriage is the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, something which a heterosexual can do. There's no inequality, everybody's rights are constricted equally.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Your argument, in brief:
1. Assume gay marriage is right
2. Ergo, gay marriage is right.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to let you assume away an argument.

This is a huge straw person fallacy - I never said that. All I said was that we should assume:
1. We ought to do the right thing
2. Treating people equally unless there is a reason not to is the right thing

The first premise I'm not going debate in this thread. If you don't agree with the second I'd be a bit worried. But the point is from those 2 premises the jump to accepting gay marriage is indeed a jump.

iff everybody has an equal capacity to experience happiness. Anyway, even if we allow this, it doesn't follow that gay marriage will lead to the greatest happiness i.e. is morally right.

I was simply correcting you when you said that Utilitarianism does not promote treating people as equally - it does. You are certainly correct however that it doesn't necessarily follow that accepting gay marriage will lead to the greatest happiness.

True, I was just giving examples of philosophical concepts of morality which wouldn't always hold gay marriage to be right. I actually can't think of a single philosophical moral theory which would hold gay marriage as morally right in all cases, but I'm probably forgetting some. Anyway, the point is, we can't argue morality if we don't know what is moral.

Mmm - in general I think the moral theories aren't leaning particularly one way or another.

So, to be logically consistant, as I understand your position:

Suppose I wished to buy the Playboy mansion. Now, I haven't checked the real estate prices recently, but I'm confident in saying the Playboy mansion would cost quite a pretty penny, far beyond my capacity to pay. However, Mr. Bill Gates could easily afford the mansion, should he choose to purchase it. Does this mean that Hugh is desciminating against me, by pricing the house outside of my price range?

Bill Gates can buy the house if he chooses to spend, say, 50 million. I can buy the house if I choose to spend 50 million. However, I don't have 50 million dollars, so I can't buy the house. There's no targeting of me, but is this still descrimination?

Now we're getting somewhere - a counter-example! If only everyone else would do this. Anyway, as imaginative as it is, it doesn't seem to work. I agree that there is no discrimination. There is a lack of equality, but this lack of equality cannot be fixed by a simple decision from the government that would not harm anyone. If you're a utilitarian you'd say that Gates ought to share his money equally entire world, or some such act.

The point is, the government is deliberately depriving the rights of certain individuals when there is no moral or rational reason to.

Well, that would be a rather revolutionary way of looking at marriage, but I digress. Heterosexuals would not be prohibted to marry here, because marriage is the union of a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, something which a heterosexual can do. There's no inequality, everybody's rights are constricted equally.

There may be no discrimination but there is inequality because heterosexuals cannot marry their own kind, when homosexuals can. Everybody's rights are, on face value, written equally. But how about this:

I am the leader of an angry conservative government of brown eyed people. I pass a law which says that everyone has a right to kill a blue-eyed person. Sure blue-eyed persons would have the same right, but can you really say that there is equality? Blue-eyed people wouldn't have the right to kill brown-eyed people, green-eyed people, etc.

 

[Rorix]

This is a huge straw person fallacy - I never said that. All I said was that we should assume:
1. We ought to do the right thing
2. Treating people equally unless there is a reason not to is the right thing

Sorry, the path I saw you going down was one where you'd assume controversial premises such that the only logical conclusion would be that gay marriages were right. Apologies.

The first premise I'm not going debate in this thread. If you don't agree with the second I'd be a bit worried. But the point is from those 2 premises the jump to accepting gay marriage is indeed a jump.

Well, since one can always come up with a reason not to treat people equally, no matter how weak, I'll agree with both 1 and 2.

Now we're getting somewhere - a counter-example! If only everyone else would do this. Anyway, as imaginative as it is, it doesn't seem to work. I agree that there is no discrimination. There is a lack of equality, but this lack of equality cannot be fixed by a simple decision from the government that would not harm anyone.

Well, the government could order that each person pay a percentage of their income, or give the house away free, or something, but I agree these aren't really satisfactory solutions. I'll try to think up something else (although I really should be doing something about my trials).

If there is no discrimination here, then wouldn't you agree that the gay marriage issue is not discrimination? (if you've already done this, i apologise) Surely if something is discriminatory, it is discriminatory independantly of whether or not the government can do anything about it?

The point is, the government is deliberately depriving the rights of certain individuals when there is no moral or rational reason to.

Well, there are several weak rational (and perhaps moral depending on what moral concept) such as religion, devaluing marriage, tradition, general arguements against homosexuality (and thus the embrace of it) (such as these here: http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/homosexuality/), as well as government policies reflecting the views of the citizens in a democracy (of course, might doesn't make right) and so on, mostly listed in the thread so far. (By weak I mean not logically conclusive)

However, I contend that the reasons for granting the right to 'gay marriages' are just as logically inconclusive. The major argument, as I understand it, is the belief that gays are being deprived of their right to marriage, something which I am disagreeing with (on a somewhat technical level, I must admit - if a civil union between gays was permitted, I do not think I would object). However, even if they are deprived of their right to marriage, it doesn't follow that they should be granted this right, provided there is a reason not to do it, as you note.

There may be no discrimination but there is inequality because heterosexuals cannot marry their own kind, when homosexuals can. Everybody's rights are, on face value, written equally.

I disagree. It's perfectly consistant for me to say, marry a good friend of mine for economic reasons, even if we both were heterosexual. Heterosexuality and homosexuality relate to sexual preference, and while people who are married generally have sex (some men would dispute this), it doesn't mean that you can't have a marriage without sex.

I am the leader of an angry conservative government of brown eyed people.

Oh come on now, there's no need to portray conservative governments as angry and brown eyed, interested in the irradication of our blue eyed brothers. Besides, this would be going against the fundamental basis of liberalism (personal liberty and tolerance), which in theory conservatives tend to support (personal liberty especially) - although conservative parties have drifted away from these roots, certainly.

I pass a law which says that everyone has a right to kill a blue-eyed person. Sure blue-eyed persons would have the same right, but can you really say that there is equality? Blue-eyed people wouldn't have the right to kill brown-eyed people, green-eyed people, etc.

Well, for the murderer, every Australian would be allowed to kill ol' Bluey - no exceptions, thus I contest there is no inequality. For the murdered, there would be an inequality, as brown-eyes, green-eyes etc. would never be able to have the displeasure (or perhaps pleasure) of being a legal murder victim.

Basically, I feel that any policy which specifies a race, colour, ethnicity (anything which one cannot reasonably choose to change) etc. for 'special treatment' (be it good or bad) is discriminatory. For example, passing a law to search all Arabs boarding a plane would be discriminatory. Passing a law to search all persons with a terrorist record when boarding planes would also be discriminatory. Providing incentives for employers to hire Aboriginals would also be discriminatory.

Any policy which only affects certain people say, gays, but which would affect everyone should they choose to, say, want a male-male marriage, cannot be labelled discriminatory.

For example, the government cuts tax on all profits made on the share market by 50%. This tax cut will only affect people who invest in the share market (ignore run on effects for now). However, should a citizen choose to invest in the share market, then they would benefit from the tax cut - so I contest that such a tax cut would not be discriminatory.

 

[Tommy_Lamp]

Gay people can do what ever they want, it doesnt affect me if gay people get married.

 

[400miles]

Pot, kettle, black, etc.

EDIT: the reason I put that there is that otherwise I'd get responses along the lines of "I don't believe in extra rights, therefore you are wrong. qed" (which obviously isn't a logical response). Then, when I ignore the post, I'd be asked why I'm not responding to a valid argument. MS has shown he/she wants to argue logically, which I have appreciated.

You said nothing about extra rights so I'm not going to bring it up. You know your arguments against me are lame so give it up. Why join in on an argument when you're going to select who you answer to? If you present a viewpoint be prepared to back it up when challenged. It's pretty weak to present an argument then say 'Now I will only talk to MS when He/She challenges me.'

As for your example of what I might say (which I wasn't going to say, so stop assuming as I've said once before) it's a pretty pathetic example and definately not somethign you'd hear from me without backing it up with logical arguments.
But don't worry, you dont' have to respond to my posts, I'm not interested in reading yours.

As for you neo... you gave that really long post which ended in how homsexuality 'disgusted' you, and when I challenged you and asked you honest, sincere questions you ignored it... I'm still waiting? Or is it time to admit you're wrong?

 

[Rorix]

Your argument is "I don't believe in extra rights". While you can hold whatever beliefs you like, your belief isn't an argument. I've responded incessently to your arguments in both this thread and the other thread. If I remember, your other response is "gays are being discriminated against and this should be rectified". When I asked why this sound be rectified, you said because discrimination against women was rectified, discrimination against Aboriginals was rectified. When I pointed out that you're deprivation arguement was an emotional argument, you insisted it was logical, yet weren't able to provide logical grounds for it.

But, by all means, as I said if you are willing to structure your argument in a logical way (with premises and conclusions) such as:
1. Premise
(explanation if you wish)
2. Premise
(explanation etc.)
3/4/5/6 etc. etc
with finally a conclusion, so that I can be sure we are having a logical argument, then by all means I'll debate it with you. Sure, you can give a logical argument not in that structure, but it's much easier to identify your argument as logical if you do.

BTW: I seem to remember neo_o saying he wouldn't respond to the criticism of that post. Also, 'disgusted' is his opinion, so I can't see how you can tell whether or not he is disgusted by homosexuals or not.

 

[400miles]

Rorix, you're arguing an argument that's been argued before... AGAIN... My point was simply if you're going to present an argument be prepared to back it up whenever challenged instead of putting some of us off with 'I will only respond to one person'.

I'm NOT going to RE-ARGUE that extra rights thing and for the reasons just go over to that other thread we're talking about this in.

As for your explanation of a logical argument, thankyou very much... In my opinion a logical argument is somethign that makes sense. I'm not going to type out an essay whenever I talk to you and if you can't handle that then that's up to you.

I'm glad you remember Neo saying that, but I also remember just saying that there were questions I posed... and these questions I'm talking about are hardly critical... they're questions challenging his opinion yes, but they're not critical.

As for the 'disgusted' part you wrote... I'm not trying to tell whether or not he's disgusted... See, you're assuming again you poor child... and again..you're wrong. I was simply stating the 'disgusted' part in order for neo to remember the post I was talking about.

And I thought you weren't going to reply to me? After all, I'm clearly being illogical.

 

[Rorix]

I'm prepared to back it up, if you're arguing in a logical manner. I guess the saying "things come in threes" is true, because that's the third time I've said that. If you don't want to reargue, then you have no grounds on which to base your criticism of my case. If it has so many flaws, surely it would be quite easy to point them out.

Like I said, a logical argument doesn't have to be structured like that. However, that structure makes it very easy to understand how to arrived at your point, something I'm requesting as previous arguments have taken great leaps of faith which I couldn't see the basis for. I never asked you to type an essay - in fact, I asked quite the opposite. The logical argument structure is about as minimal as possible.

As for the 'disgusted' part you wrote... I'm not trying to tell whether or not he's disgusted... See, you're assuming again you poor child... and again..you're wrong.

you gave that really long post which ended in how homsexuality 'disgusted' you, and when I challenged you and asked you honest, sincere questions you ignored it... I'm still waiting? Or is it time to admit you're wrong?

See, you haven't mentioned any of the points he made in the post here. All you've mentioned is his judgement of homosexuality where he found it disgusting. If you only talk about one thing, and then ask for neo_o to admit he is wrong, clearly the implication is that that one thing is wrong. If you disagree with that, hopefully you can see why I don't consider your arguments very logical.

 

[400miles]

I'm prepared to back it up, if you're arguing in a logical manner. I guess the saying "things come in threes" is true, because that's the third time I've said that. If you don't want to reargue, then you have no grounds on which to base your criticism of my case. If it has so many flaws, surely it would be quite easy to point them out.

I wasn't criticising your case...yet... I was simply saying that you can't put out an argument and not back it up when challenged. And I said that because you refused to answer anyone except MS.
I'm not saying it has so many flaws I'm saying you've got to be prepared to back it up, which you weren't when you cut off the possibility of replying to anyone other than MS... I do NOT want to re-argue the previous arguments which I would argue in exactly the same way, so please get off that idea.

See, you haven't mentioned any of the points he made in the post here. All you've mentioned is his judgement of homosexuality where he found it disgusting. If you only talk about one thing, and then ask for neo_o to admit he is wrong, clearly the implication is that that one thing is wrong. If you disagree with that, hopefully you can see why I don't consider your arguments very logical.

No I didn't mention the points he made in the post because I've ALREADY MADE THEM... That is the post that Neo ignored which I'm talking about, so please get your facts right before telling me what I'm saying...AGAIN!!!

I mentioned the 'disgusting' part to make sure he was well aware which post I was talking about and I said 'Maybe it's time to admit you're wrong' in regards to the questions I asked in my previous post in which Neo hasn't answered.

I do hope that's logical enough for you.

If you disagree with that, hopefully you can see why I don't consider your arguments very logical.

You're cutting me off before I've even said anything. No wonder you don't find my arguments logical if you're not even able to listen to them. You're always trying to tell me what I'm saying and what I would say, how about actually listening for once.. or reading, rather... then you might finally get the pont/s.

 

[Rorix]

And I said that because you refused to answer anyone except MS.

false

which you weren't when you cut off the possibility of replying to anyone other than MS

false

No I didn't mention the points he made in the post because I've ALREADY MADE THEM... That is the post that Neo ignored which I'm talking about, so please get your facts right before telling me what I'm saying...AGAIN!!!

I mentioned the 'disgusting' part to make sure he was well aware which post I was talking about and I said 'Maybe it's time to admit you're wrong' in regards to the questions I asked in my previous post in which Neo hasn't answered.

So, in order to remind neo_o to respond to the questions you had raised about his points in a certain post, you referenced something completely unrelated to the questions you had about his post. OK, gotcha.

You're cutting me off before I've even said anything.

false

No wonder you don't find my arguments logical if you're not even able to listen to them.

false

You're always trying to tell me what I'm saying and what I would say

false

 

[Wilmo]

Wilmo:


Wilmo, this thread is not about the existence of God. I accept that you have your views, and I believe everyone is entitled to their own spirituality. I am agnostic and therefore do not rule out the existence of a supreme being. However, the existence of God cannot contribute to a logical argument about banning gay marriages. It is a fallacy to use a controversial premise in an argument, and the existence of God is probably the most controversial premise in the whole world, so please, do not bring up God in this discussion because it will not add anything constructive to the reasoning that is underway here.

If you want to start a thread discussing the existence of God I'd like to hear your views (although I'm sure there have been a million other threads on that topic).

No offense intended - I say this for the efficacy of the debate. Thanks

I was quite aware of how my post was ending out in a more God centered debate than a topic centered debate as i was posting. Originally, the part you quoted was going to be the only part i wrote, but then I realised it had nothing to do with the topic.

So now I offer my concluding statement as I finish my part in this debate:

My belief of marriage is that it is for one man and one woman to be joined together under God. If the early church had not pushed a religious ceremony on a pagan society, we may not be having this debate right now because we would not be confused about the meaning behind marriage. But that is not the case.

Now there is such thing as marriage by the law, I dont see why gay people shouldnt have the right to get married, even though they dont need to. Those who live according to their sinful nature are not bound by the laws of God, and therefore there should be no reason to stop a law marriage. But gay people should not be allowed marriage in a christian church, not because its discriminatory, but because they do not know God.

There are always ways around laws, and it is my opinion that laws are usless to anyone who doesnt want to keep them. As long as there is a law prohibiting gay marriages, gay people will want the right to marry, whether because of love or because of financial reasons. I say that the should get the right, as long as they understand what they are getting themself into...

 

[poloktim]

~ = Negation
^ = Conjunction
V = Disjunction
==> = Conditional
<==> = Biconditional

P). The law states a man can only be married to a woman.
Q). Two law abiding, consenting people who are of the same sex cannot get married to each other only because they are the same gender.
R). The law has a bias towards people who are of the opposite sex being married rather than being impartial.

((P==>Q) ^ (Q==>R)) ==> (P==>R) - The Law of Syllogism.
If the law states a man can only be married to a woman then two law abiding consenting people who are of the same gender cannot get married to each other only because they are of the same gender, and if two law abiding consenting people who are of the same gender cannot get married to each other only because they are of the same gender then the law has a bias towards people who are of the opposite sex being married rather than being impartial, which implies that if the law states a man can only be married to a woman then the law has a bias towards people who are of the opposite sex being married rather than being impartial.

There we go. A logical conclusion. I stated that it was the Law of Syllogism, I wrote it in shorthand, and then I wrote it out in its long form with all logical constructs bolded (of course adapted to make more sense in English).

Also, Rorix, I apologise for calling you a fucktard. However, you did come off as holier than thou, and it is offensive. As for you Moonlight Sonata, you also gave me (and eviltama) that impression when you decided to (or it looked like you decided to) have pity on those whom couldn't understand logic.

We are not trying to put you down, we're trying to use reason.

It certainly seems like you are trying to put people down, but justifying it by attempting to use reason, or logic.

Anyway, any further discussion on that matter should be taken up by sending me a private message.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

This may take a while, but hey I'm on guilt-free uni holidays, I've got time
I'll respond in one huge post to those previous posts:

Rorix

If there is no discrimination here, then wouldn't you agree that the gay marriage issue is not discrimination? (if you've already done this, i apologise) Surely if something is discriminatory, it is discriminatory independantly of whether or not the government can do anything about it?

Yes, thats sort of what I'm getting at - there is a lack of equality, rather than a lack of discrimination. But as to the last part - the government can surely choose whether or not to be discriminatory!

Well, there are several weak rational (and perhaps moral depending on what moral concept) such as religion, devaluing marriage, tradition, general arguements against homosexuality (and thus the embrace of it) (such as these here: http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/homosexuality/), as well as government policies reflecting the views of the citizens in a democracy (of course, might doesn't make right) and so on, mostly listed in the thread so far. (By weak I mean not logically conclusive)

I'm glad you recongise that

However, I contend that the reasons for granting the right to 'gay marriages' are just as logically inconclusive. The major argument, as I understand it, is the belief that gays are being deprived of their right to marriage, something which I am disagreeing with (on a somewhat technical level, I must admit - if a civil union between gays was permitted, I do not think I would object).

I'm glad you recognise that also I think we're getting somewhere; I understand more of what you're saying as well. I would also like to concede that on the technical level that there is no discrimination.

However, even if they are deprived of their right to marriage, it doesn't follow that they should be granted this right, provided there is a reason not to do it, as you note.

What you're saying is, even if gays are deprived of a right to marriage, it doesn't follow that that's not moral. Accordingly then, if a man and woman were prohibited from marrying, then that would be a perfectly moral restriction also?

If you agree that such a restriction is moral, then we are getting into a question of what moral theory you believe in. But remember we are letting pass the assumptions that (a) we ought to do the right thing, and that (b) the right thing is to treat everyone equally unless there is a reason not to. So:

1. (If) gays are deprived of such a right
2. Being treated as equal means having equal rights
C: Gays are not being treated equally

I disagree. It's perfectly consistant for me to say, marry a good friend of mine for economic reasons, even if we both were heterosexual. Heterosexuality and homosexuality relate to sexual preference, and while people who are married generally have sex (some men would dispute this), it doesn't mean that you can't have a marriage without sex.

I thought you might say that. I agree of course that people might marry for economic reasons, and that there can be marriage without sex, etc. But in general could we assume people want to marry for love? If so I think this point holds up.

Oh come on now, there's no need to portray conservative governments as angry and brown eyed, interested in the irradication of our blue eyed brothers. Besides, this would be going against the fundamental basis of liberalism (personal liberty and tolerance), which in theory conservatives tend to support (personal liberty especially) - although conservative parties have drifted away from these roots, certainly.

LOL! It was just an example!

Well, for the murderer, every Australian would be allowed to kill ol' Bluey - no exceptions, thus I contest there is no inequality. For the murdered, there would be an inequality, as brown-eyes, green-eyes etc. would never be able to have the displeasure (or perhaps pleasure) of being a legal murder victim.

There is no discrimination, but there is inequality - one group can do something, another cannot - surely there is therefore an imbalance in the rights of those groups?

Basically, I feel that any policy which specifies a race, colour, ethnicity (anything which one cannot reasonably choose to change) etc. for 'special treatment' (be it good or bad) is discriminatory. For example, passing a law to search all Arabs boarding a plane would be discriminatory. Passing a law to search all persons with a terrorist record when boarding planes would also be discriminatory. Providing incentives for employers to hire Aboriginals would also be discriminatory.

Any policy which only affects certain people say, gays, but which would affect everyone should they choose to, say, want a male-male marriage, cannot be labelled discriminatory.

For example, the government cuts tax on all profits made on the share market by 50%. This tax cut will only affect people who invest in the share market (ignore run on effects for now). However, should a citizen choose to invest in the share market, then they would benefit from the tax cut - so I contest that such a tax cut would not be discriminatory.

I agree with you on that it cannot be labelled discriminatory per se, but it is creating an inequality. Heterosexuals obviously aren't going to want a same-sex marriage, and having the right to a heterosexual marriage is obviously useless to a gay person.


Poloktim

I am sorry if you were offended Poloktim. I just assumed you didn't. But I'm glad you do. Thankyou for replying in a logical manner.


Wilmo

I was quite aware of how my post was ending out in a more God centered debate than a topic centered debate as i was posting. Originally, the part you quoted was going to be the only part i wrote, but then I realised it had nothing to do with the topic.

Thanks for recognising that

 

[400miles]

And I said that because you refused to answer anyone except MS.

I'm not going to respond to anyone but MoonlightSonata unless you're offering a logical argument, something which evil_tama, 400miles and crew do not do

You said you refused to to respond to 'anyone but MoonlightSonata' unless they offered a logical argument. But then you already cut us all off by saying 'evil_tama, 400miles AND CREW do not do'. You've already made up your mind that we don't post logical arguments and therefore you cut us off, you refused to answer us... you refused to answer everyone excepting MS.

which you weren't when you cut off the possibility of replying to anyone other than MS

false

See above for where you cut off the possibility.

So, in order to remind neo_o to respond to the questions you had raised about his points in a certain post, you referenced something completely unrelated to the questions you had about his post. OK, gotcha.

I was simply trying to remind him of the post. I didn't realise there were any rules about how to do this. I didn't realise I had to remind him of the specific parts of the post I was questioning. (Especially as many of my questions covered a significant portion of the post). You really have to get over this, it's such a small detail. You're constantly trying to tell me I'm saying something I'm not.

You're cutting me off before I've even said anything.

false

You said if I disagreed with you I'd realise my argument was illogical. You were counting my comeback, whatever it was, as illogical before I even gave it.

No wonder you don't find my arguments logical if you're not even able to listen to them.

false

True.

You're always trying to tell me what I'm saying and what I would say

This is the most true part of all and I can't believe you called it false. You always say things along the lines of 'if I didn't say this he'd say "BUT I DONT BELIEVE IN EXTRA RIGHTS' or 'if I didn't say this, he'd come back with "THE INTERNET TURNS ME ON"' or 'this is what an argument with you would be like. me: hi. you: shutup.'
I can point out plenty of examples if you like me too but you should already be VERY aware of where this happens seeing as I've written this SO MANY TIMES!

As for your INCESSANT badgering about logical arguments, look what you've provided me with? Every argument I gave you returned with 'false'. No logic there Rorix. Where's the essay-style structure you gave us before?