Conquer Club

Homosexuals are amazing.
And they should be allowed to Marry.
Why not?
Does it affect you?

The Bible does tell the truth!

luke54play wrote:The Bible does tell the truth!

the bible tells a large number of things that i would deem to be truths....i just dont happen to think it does in terms of homosexuality.

Fish Breeder Boy wrote:Homosexuals are amazing.
And they should be allowed to Marry.
Why not?
Does it affect you?

It seems to me most people posting in this thread have a genuine confusion or lack of understanding of their own position.

I suppose the two essential questions, as in any debate, but particularily important in this one, are :

1/How do we define the terms involved (in the occurence, gay and marriage).

2/Is your position on the matter falsifiable (the number of times gay activists have said to me "...and nothing you say about anything will change my mind..."...)?

Of course, neither of these two questions are easy to reach a consensus upon, and I'm sure much talking will need to be done about exactly what we mean by "marriage" in a societal context, for example.

I'll offer a response to those arguing from what they may see as a "libertarian" line: Unfortunatley this isn't a question of "let gays do what they want and stop the government interfereing with their lives", since we are talking about the government (and by extension, in some respects our society) actually giving recognition to a homosexual family unit. The State, as says Hegel, is concrete liberty, but equally the reality (however flawed it may be at any point in timespace) of which justice is the ideal. It hence unless you accept the ideal of a homosexual couple functioning as a basic building-bloc of society, a family, is a absolutely flawed notion.

You can contest through your potentially differing answer to 1/ that the state is really giving any form of recognition, but then you're faced with a rather empty meaning being applied to the term "marriage" (even in the Civil context, which I assume we are debating here).

To start with i think we differ on our necessity to define marriage in a particular context. I dont think this comes as any surprise to either one of us given we have different views about the definers of marriage. For the sake of putting things out there....i do not view the definition of marriage as the principally important issue here, as it should not matter to the state who does and does not get married until you start extending the state to the individuals who make it up, which doesnt seem immediately relevant though im sure you could argue it will.

For me the issue is primarily of import to the individuals who seek to get married. They are the one who are entering into the contract, and they are the ones who stand to benefit from it. Should they want to enter into the union they should be given the first position of importance in how it is defined, not the people who once logically extended can make up part of the state.

For your second part. I find it difficult though probably possible that my ultimate position could be change. Given that i view the issue from the stance of people up instead of state down, it becomes difficult to see how the argument you would posit would affect how i would view the individuals right to enter into the contract of marriage. You as well, given some of your more libertarian leanings, should probably be holding this stance, and i should probably be arguing from interventions side but this is a neat anomaly i suppose.

Napoleon Ier wrote:2/Is your position on the matter falsifiable

The more you waffle on about this falsifiable bollocks, Nappy, the more hypocritical you become. Of everyone on this site you are perhaps the one poster I have not seen ever take into account the views of anyone else, never accept a point or an argument, never change your view... Even those we ridicule as conspiracy nuts take on board some points. Da Gip reconsidered his opinions regarding Ron Paul as a result, in part, of the sensible criticisms of people like Luns. Jay may have flip-flopped almightily, but at least he was brave enough to say it. Personally, I know people like Colossus have taught me a hell of a lot, and upset some of my assumptions on many occasions. So please. Give it a rest.

1/

Guiscard wrote:The more you waffle on about this falsifiable bollocks, Nappy, the more hypocritical you become. Of everyone on this site you are perhaps the one poster I have not seen ever take into account the views of anyone else, never accept a point or an argument, never change your view... Even those we ridicule as conspiracy nuts take on board some points. Da Gip reconsidered his opinions regarding Ron Paul as a result, in part, of the sensible criticisms of people like Luns. Jay may have flip-flopped almightily, but at least he was brave enough to say it. Personally, I know people like Colossus have taught me a hell of a lot, and upset some of my assumptions on many occasions. So please. Give it a rest.

2/

got tonkaed wrote:To start with i think we differ on our necessity to define marriage in a particular context. I dont think this comes as any surprise to either one of us given we have different views about the definers of marriage. For the sake of putting things out there....i do not view the definition of marriage as the principally important issue here, as it should not matter to the state who does and does not get married until you start extending the state to the individuals who make it up, which doesnt seem immediately relevant though im sure you could argue it will.
The more you waffle on about this falsifiable bollocks, Nappy, the more hypocritical you become. Of everyone on this site you are perhaps the one poster I have not seen ever take into account the views of anyone else, never accept a point or an argument, never change your view... Even those we ridicule as conspiracy nuts take on board some points. Da Gip reconsidered his opinions regarding Ron Paul as a result, in part, of the sensible criticisms of people like Luns. Jay may have flip-flopped almightily, but at least he was brave enough to say it. Personally, I know people like Colossus have taught me a hell of a lot, and upset some of my assumptions on many occasions. So please. Give it a rest.

For me the issue is primarily of import to the individuals who seek to get married. They are the one who are entering into the contract, and they are the ones who stand to benefit from it. Should they want to enter into the union they should be given the first position of importance in how it is defined, not the people who once logically extended can make up part of the state.

For your second part. I find it difficult though probably possible that my ultimate position could be change. Given that i view the issue from the stance of people up instead of state down, it becomes difficult to see how the argument you would posit would affect how i would view the individuals right to enter into the contract of marriage. You as well, given some of your more libertarian leanings, should probably be holding this stance, and i should probably be arguing from interventions side but this is
a neat anomaly i suppose.

1/Changing your mind is one matter, falsificationism on the other hand is a philosophical standard used to determine legitimacy of ideas and dissprove those which are irrational. You're slightly confused here Gissy...or you just don't want to admit that you're (again) only following the argument of the mainstream out of an innate psychological fear of appearing "bigoted", fear reinforced by consisted classical conditioning from society leading you to associate any argument from outside's its premises with pure evil. No insult intended...though I'm sure I'm still going to be entitled to some bitter remark about how unfair it is that I should dare set myself against Guiscard the Great, historian extraordinaire.

2/As for you, gt, you're now left with what isn't a civil marriage (the State giving offical blessing to a couple) so much as a contract...a civil union contract, of sorts. Free to you, then, to offer me with what alternate definitions or conceptions you may have had in mind, but without more detail that's all I can really say to you.
I'd also stress the need for you to know to what extent and how your views are falsifiable. Mine do rest on the fulcrum that homosexuality violates natural and divine law, and that homosexuality cannot be seen as anything but a disorder (not that I imply by that, necessarily, that any fault or guilt resides with homosexuals). I'd also accept as you do that it is unlikely I will change my opinion on the matter, but who knows....

Well in as far as i think there is a conception of modern day marriage, that would seem to be what it is about as far as fighting discrimination goes....making sure that the benefits are equal to each group. Since seemingly you have a case where you cant argue secularly that same-sex marriages violate natural law (though i recognize you have tried to, i havent found it particularly compelling thus far (though that may be my own perception of the issue clouding the case) given that its difficult to define any human behavior universally and i find it rather difficult to assume we can or should be doing such a thing)

Seemingly there cant be a separate classification so either the state takes away the benefits of marriage to all couples, or it adds them same sex couples. It would seem to be consistent that way and would allow for a solution in either setting. My issue with the way you have to argue your stance is that the conceptions of marriage and reasons for allocating benefits as such are outdated and in large part erroneous, and states should be looking to establish policy, especially in social matters that reflects the social totality. While this will never be a perfect match, you would go far closer to seemingly a correct action by expanding the borders and dealing with the eventually externalities (like a pedophilia or cross-species movement (which is probably such a small number it seems ridiculous that it is brought up)) than continuing to hold a contracted view of the issue which will increasingly be discriminatory to a larger and larger group of people.

Well in as far as i think there is a conception of modern day marriage, that would seem to be what it is about as far as fighting discrimination goes....

What is that conception? How does it, why should it, apply to the application of social justice by the State? Can the State, to which we rightly apply the Hegelian characteristic of being the reality (however imperfect) of an ideal, form institutions based on a vague, ephemeral notion, a mere "modern conception"? The simple answer, to my mind, is no.

making sure that the benefits are equal to each group.

I can but view this as fallacious. Everyone has an equal right, (in the sense that 'gays' are perfectly permitted to marry, just not members of the same sex).

Furthermore, the very notion of "homosexuals" to me is ridiculous, when humans exist on a broad spectrum of sexuality, whatever the factors that affect one's position on it (genetic, psychological...). No, everyone can marry, just not someone of the same sex.

Since seemingly you have a case where you cant argue secularly that same-sex marriages violate natural law (though i recognize you have tried to, i havent found it particularly compelling thus far (though that may be my own perception of the issue clouding the case) given that its difficult to define any human behavior universally and i find it rather difficult to assume we can or should be doing such a thing)

There, as you say, lies the crux of the matter...but I still cannot possibly envisage how the case can be made homosexuals (in the most broad and general terms) can be considered to have the necessary natural predisposition to founding a basic societal unit as a couple.

Seemingly there cant be a separate classification so either the state takes away the benefits of marriage to all couples, or it adds them same sex couples. it would seem to be consistent that way and would allow for a solution in either setting.

But in which case, it must accord that same right to those who wish to marry animals, or their siblings (note how this is only an extension of gt's line of thinking, not a re-hashed slippery-slope argument).

My issue with the way you have to argue your stance is that the conceptions of marriage and reasons for allocating benefits as such are outdated and in large part erroneous, and states should be looking to establish policy, especially in social matters that reflects the social totality.

Why? Is it anything but a knee-jerk reaction to what you view as "traditional", or "old-fashioned", God-forbid, (as the new leftist movement would have us believe any such conceptions must ipso facto be), "anti-progressive".
Especially the latter part of that paragraph alarms me, "reflecting social totality". At the expense of what is just? The enormity of what this implies, an absolute dictatorship of moral relativism, highlights exactly why this gay mariage issue is something I feel so passionately about.

While this will never be a perfect match, you would go far closer to seemingly a correct action by expanding the borders and dealing with the eventually externalities ... [rather than by] continuing to hold a contracted view of the issue which will increasingly be discriminatory to a larger and larger group of people.

I've already explained why not allowing gay marriage isn't discriminatory (though I'm sure you'll contest this), and as such we simply need to accept, in short, that like marriage of siblings, it wouls simply be morally abhorrent to grant gay marriage societal recognition at the national level.

What is that conception? How does it, why should it, apply to the application of social justice by the State? Can the State, to which we rightly apply the Hegelian characteristic of being the reality (however imperfect) of an ideal, form institutions based on a vague, ephemeral notion, a mere "modern conception"? The simple answer, to my mind, is no.

i believe most honest assessments of marriage have to tend to be inclusive rather than exclusive, if at the very least simply for the fact it seems to reflect what is actually going on. A proper conception (in my estimation of course) would be something that reflect the fact that diverse groups of people wish to marry, and as state, the position taken should be something that reflects reality of the issue rather than an outdated ideal. While the notion tends to be vague, it is an issue of attempting to understand and take into account a far wider variation of behavior that people do as a part of a healthy process of living life. This is meant to be understood as something people do which has some fulfilling capacity probably in a greater amount than any disenchanting capacity (should one even exist). People who are in same-sex relationships and want to formalize their commitment do not seem to be feeling effects of stigmatization from the relationship itself, and without such an internalization of that form of stigmatization the act probably shouldnt be labeled as deviant.

I can but view this as fallacious. Everyone has an equal right, (in the sense that 'gays' are perfectly permitted to marry, just not members of the same sex).

Furthermore, the very notion of "homosexuals" to me is ridiculous, when humans exist on a broad spectrum of sexuality, whatever the factors that affect one's position on it (genetic, psychological...). No, everyone can marry, just not someone of the same sex.

your absolutely right until you commit a sin of omission...that people have the right to marry who they choose. Forced marriage, heterosexual or not certainly is not something that would seem to qualify under an equal right as they are being coerced. While youll probably accuse me overextending, if people cannot choose who they want to marry, then they do not have an equal right. It just seems like the statement everyone has an equal right to marry folds way too neatly into itself when looking at numerous instances until you add the who you choose (which is probably part of the argument for no fault divorce as well)

bolded is for a part where i think your being silly. You are going to argue that humans exist in a broad spectrum of sexuality (which i completely agree with) and then argue that people who variate should not be allowed to attempt to marry, when formalized monogamous relationships are apart of sexuality for a considerable segment of the population?

There, as you say, lies the crux of the matter...but I still cannot possibly envisage how the case can be made homosexuals (in the most broad and general terms) can be considered to have the necessary natural predisposition to founding a basic societal unit as a couple.

i dont really get caught up on teh need to found a basic social unit in order to confer the benefits of marriage on a contractual agreement. Seemingly we provide benefits for all kinds of things in society that dont serve an immediate function with respect to the family. The benefit of something like allowing a burial plot for a married couple seems to be a bit after the fact as far as benefits are conferred, and its a bit too sentimental in the sense of the state to be thanking people for procreating by allowing them to have burial plots next to each other. It seems your entire benefit system is too narrowly conceived and makes assumptions that are far too leaping in nature.

But in which case, it must accord that same right to those who wish to marry animals, or their siblings (note how this is only an extension of gt's line of thinking, not a re-hashed slippery-slope argument).

bolded made me laugh. who are you talking to, is there some kind of audience like a lecture hall for this forum thread? Are you trying to score points or something on a scale?

Anyway, this is a bit of a pitfall of granting the right to choice. However i think its also a case of such a small number, given different social pressures already in place (the incest taboo, along with pedophilia for instance) for these things to be that large of an issue if they would arise at all. I find it rather surprising again however though that as someone who stresses the need of individualism to triumph over collectivism for you to want to have your cake an eat it too when it comes to undesirable outcomes of choice.

Why? Is it anything but a knee-jerk reaction to what you view as "traditional", or "old-fashioned", God-forbid, (as the new leftist movement would have us believe any such conceptions must ipso facto be), "anti-progressive".
Especially the latter part of that paragraph alarms me, "reflecting social totality". At the expense of what is just? The enormity of what this implies, an absolute dictatorship of moral relativism, highlights exactly why this gay mariage issue is something I feel so passionately about.

Id disagree for the simple reason that im not out to outlaw heterosexual marriages. Im simply trying to add a type of marriage which is being desired for in an increasing number to a typology of what is marriage, without taking something out. Im trying to invite more to the party so to speak, while your trying to limit it to as few people as possible. The absolute danger of moral relativism while an understandable fear could just as easily be countered by the notion that your version of just might just actually not be just (a shocker i know).

It reminds me of an old tale about the man who suddenly found himself in a colony of the blind. While believing upon arrival that he possessed an advantage over the rest of society and was counting the time until he would be king, he quickly found the entire society was set up in a way that crushed his assumptions. Its not that his assumptions about the world were inherently wrong, they just no longer fit for the situation which he was in. Traditional conceptions of marriage did not become invalid, they just are no longer the only way we should be looking at how marriage is conceived of or appropriated benefits to in our society.

I've already explained why not allowing gay marriage isn't discriminatory (though I'm sure you'll contest this), and as such we simply need to accept, in short, that like marriage of siblings, it wouls simply be morally abhorrent to grant gay marriage societal recognition at the national level.

i dont think i need to rehash this as im pretty sure i make my case in microcosm throughout the post and especially in the last little bit.

Here is the problem though...going forward we can hash this out over a number of pages, but your seeking agreement or one position to win over the other, while im not, as clarification is plenty good enough for me.

got tonkaed wrote:

But in which case, it must accord that same right to those who wish to marry animals, or their siblings (note how this is only an extension of gt's line of thinking, not a re-hashed slippery-slope argument).

bolded made me laugh. who are you talking to, is there some kind of audience like a lecture hall for this forum thread? Are you trying to score points or something on a scale?

I am watching and keeping quiet, if that helps.

Neoteny wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

But in which case, it must accord that same right to those who wish to marry animals, or their siblings (note how this is only an extension of gt's line of thinking, not a re-hashed slippery-slope argument).

bolded made me laugh. who are you talking to, is there some kind of audience like a lecture hall for this forum thread? Are you trying to score points or something on a scale?

I am watching and keeping quiet, if that helps.

lol it may, who knows.

I always think of these things as people standing at podiums talking anyway. And everyone has a little bucket of mud that they can dig into if necessary.

got tonkaed wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

But in which case, it must accord that same right to those who wish to marry animals, or their siblings (note how this is only an extension of gt's line of thinking, not a re-hashed slippery-slope argument).

bolded made me laugh. who are you talking to, is there some kind of audience like a lecture hall for this forum thread? Are you trying to score points or something on a scale?

Well yes... a lot of people read this thread silently and don't post. I'm clarifying my point so as to avoid a snot-nosed rabid gay activist Jizztard or something running in squealing about how I'm being alarmist and thus side-tracking what has been so far an interesting intellectual debate.

Napoleon Ier wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

Neoteny wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

But in which case, it must accord that same right to those who wish to marry animals, or their siblings (note how this is only an extension of gt's line of thinking, not a re-hashed slippery-slope argument).

bolded made me laugh. who are you talking to, is there some kind of audience like a lecture hall for this forum thread? Are you trying to score points or something on a scale?

Well yes... a lot of people read this and don't post. I'm clarifying my point to avoid Jizztard or something running in squealing about how I'm being alarmist and side-tracking the (thus far interesting) debate we're engaging in.

fair enough.

Nappy, how hard is it to grasp the concept of "consent"? Every time you bring up "but what about people who want to marry animals" God kills a kitten.

Is there any argument that doesn't involve the bible or the slippery slope?

got tonkaed wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:

got tonkaed wrote:

But in which case, it must accord that same right to those who wish to marry animals, or their siblings (note how this is only an extension of gt's line of thinking, not a re-hashed slippery-slope argument).

bolded made me laugh. who are you talking to, is there some kind of audience like a lecture hall for this forum thread? Are you trying to score points or something on a scale?

Well yes... a lot of people read this thread silently and don't post. I'm clarifying my point so as to avoid a snot-nosed rabid gay activist Jizztard or something running in squealing about how I'm being alarmist and thus side-tracking what has been so far an interesting intellectual debate.

fair enoguh.

Is there any argument that doesn't involve the bible or the slippery slope?

I mean, you take my point? The shit I have to put up with...no, pre-emptive rebutalls are necessary all too often (and even then don't work).

@snorrarse: a. What if the animal consented? b. What if the sibling consened?

There's no way of knowing if the animal consented, so we'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Besides, we have enough right-wingers to keep any animal marriage from happening. So that is not an argument.

unriggable wrote:There's no way of knowing if the animal consented, so we'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Besides, we have enough right-wingers to keep any animal marriage from happening. So that is not an argument.

I wasn't using it.

Napoleon Ier wrote:@snorrarse: a. What if the animal consented? b. What if the sibling consened?

lol animals cannot give consent. It's a pretty simple concept to grasp.


As for the sibling.....well that's a little harder. But still, it's pretty much a non-issue as siblings don't actually want to marry a lot.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:@snorrarse: a. What if the animal consented? b. What if the sibling consened?

lol animals cannot give consent. It's a pretty simple concept to grasp.

As for the sibling.....well that's a little harder. But still, it's pretty much a non-issue as siblings don't actually want to marry a lot.

Confirmed!

Isn't it ironic how the states that like gay marriage the least allow cousin marriages?

Snorri1234 wrote:

Napoleon Ier wrote:@snorrarse: a. What if the animal consented? b. What if the sibling consened?

lol animals cannot give consent. It's a pretty simple concept to grasp.


As for the sibling.....well that's a little harder. But still, it's pretty much a non-issue as siblings don't actually want to marry a lot.

You're missing the point, we're talking about abstract notions of justice, not the slippery-slope argument, as tonkaed even berated me for pointing out.

unriggable wrote:Isn't it ironic how the states that like gay marriage the least allow cousin marriages?

very interesting point