Gay Marriage

All things being equal, I think this is mostly true. Unfortunately, things are far from equal. I discussed this in more detail in a previous post...

 

You are very right. The idea is flawed, but I fear you have made it so by confusing the idea. My argument has a ‘rational argument’ against gay marriage adopted by a gay person as the sufficient condition to the idea that agency can not be had by the gay community.

In the cases I mentioned earlier, one could not adopt a rational argument against the emancipation of slaves, or ensuring equal rights for all people (women’s lib). Certainly there were people who didn’t care either way. Certainly there were people with arguments against liberty (of women and blacks), but I have never heard a reasonable and rational argument for those particular positions. Thus those positions do not meet the condition necessary for agency in their social groups.

Your objection seems to ignore that condition. Your objection seems to base itself on the idea that some people don’t care. Simply put ... that doesn’t matter, as it only confuses the issue. My argument has nothing to say about people who don’t care either way.

What say you?

 

Sure you could. Rational arguments were made for a long, long time, at least to those who believed them to be so. Now that we've corrected those mistake, we look back in hindsight and know how ignorant it was of society to ever think that way (most of us, at least). Somewhere down the road, society at large will probably look back, and think about how stupid and ignorant we are to discriminate an entire group of people.

 

Has anyone ever told you that you would make a good journalist?

By virtue of saying this “Rational arguments wee made for a long, long time, at least to those who believed them to be so.” you have taken credibility from “sure you could.”

What that implies is a sort of relativism. This is the sort of position where the truth or rationale of an argument is based solely on the opinion of the opinion giver. In adopting such a position you can not argue for or against gay marriage, as each side is just as valid as the other.

Luckily you pull yourself out of that hole by insisting that ‘rational arguments’ against freedom by a slave or woman have been identified as irrational.

You are right in that it is ignorance to assume that such denials of freedom, such harm, can be argued for rationally. We can say that now ... hindsight is twenty-twenty.

But it is nothing more than hearsay to assume we are making the same mistakes twice. It simply may not be the case that future generations will look back with disgust at how we treat that particular social group. Such an opinion must be taken with as much credence as this: “future generations will look back with disgust at how our ignorance to what is implied in allotting rights without agency and the long term effects of such action!!”

We understand what is at stake, (or what is pretending to be at stake) based on the mistakes of the past. The evidence for both sides of the coin can be drawn from such. You look at emancipation as a good thing. Fine. But you must understand the harms that abstract groups seeking abstract justice through abstract means can cause.

A good example ... http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22525 read through that thread, it is long but necessary to understand my point.

And, of course, this is an abstract group seeking abstract ‘justice’ through abstract means. I call it abstract because I have spoken with a gay man who thinks gay marriages should not be allowed because: of the implications; the lack of agency; and promotion of the issue as an equality issue not a rights issue.

Simply put ... it isn’t enough to say that we have made mistakes before and therefore this is a mistake.

 

I get called a mediator more often than not... but I was a pretty good journalist, once upon a time...

Fair enough. But do you think it's alright to oppress one section of society just because relaxing their oppression will force the majority to adjust, even have long term consequences? And exactly how serious of an adjustment do you think this will create? From my point of view, granting homosexual couples (that wish to become married) the same legal benefits that traditional married couples receive is trivial.

 

You have put me on quite the slippery slope.

I think being ‘awarded’ rights in the first place oppresses us all. The oppression comes because we should not be awarded them, they should be ours to begin with. ALL OF THEM.

But they are not. Our children are still awarded rights by our elected officials.

If I am to find meaningful and engaging dialogue I must leave my ‘official position’.

No, it is not all right to oppress one section of society. But you are going to have a heck of a time convincing me that the gay community is being oppressed by not being allowed to marry in the traditional sense.

It is not equivalent to the situation of blacks and women before they were granted their rights.

It is equivalent to saying that anyone under 16 is being oppressed because they have no right to apply to drive.

You would also have to convince me that this is an equality issue at heart and not a rights issue.

How serious of an adjustment would we be forced to make? Very little. My life would require no adjustment if gays were allowed to marry.

However, if past cases are of any value, we can rest assured that even the slightest redefinition can have effects that span civil society as a whole.

Just look what a mess we have made of love.

 

Actually in many states people under 16 can apply to drive. A friend of mine in Michigan had a license at 15 because of working parents, and I have known children on farms that are under 16 with licenses as well.

But that is beside the point.

Now, I don't really care if it is called "marriage" or not, but give them the same rights heterosexual couples have with long-term partnership. I think that is what most want.

 

that simple statement leads to a wonderfully deep philosophy, beautiful really... but I digress....

Perhaps "oppress" is too strong a word, but heterosexual couples get rights that homosexual couples don't. That, imo, is what this entire issue about, far as I can tell. For example, let them be able to have joint insurance policies; let their significant other be allowed to visit them in the hospital, and call those rights "civil union" or "Sanctified Gay Lovebird" papers-- whatever. Just let them have those rights.

 

your from raleigh too? cool. i live near hillsborough street

 

If that is what the issue is about than they are barking up the wrong tree in seeking a redefinition of marriage, in my humble opinion.

 

Some people compare pedophiles and murderers to gay people who want to get married. I'm not sure if you've seen some of their arguments, but it's disgusting...

 

Yes, I have seen their arguments.

Yes, they are disgusting.

But I was asking about mine.

 

Please stop quoing Brocktoon. I put him on ignore for a reason.

 

Stilanis.. Please give me a 'reason' why you are self-censoring yourself?

 

hahaha

 

thats cute.. an auto-responder that insinuates homosexuality is embarrassing.

 

hahahahahahaha

 

Amazingly - Stilanis is actually delighted to see 'Wacky Censorship' than actually have to read a few sentences with 'scary' ideas and thoughts.

Stilanis believes if he 'reads some ideas' he might be 'turned into' some new type of thinking against his will?

Bizarre!

 

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

 

Can someone please remind Stilanis that spamming the boards is a) Anti-Free Speech and b) a bannable offense.
Thanks