Gay Marriage views at Apolyton

[Ming]

Back to your old games again I see Thorn.... see ya.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Kontiki
Ahh, but here's where your arguement starts to fall apart:

You and your church and not the representative voice for all Christians.

There are right now, in the US and Canada (maybe Europe too, I don't know), Christian churches that are perfectly willing to perform gay marriages. If you pass a law banning "marriages" for homosexuals, then aren't you still impinging on religious freedom?

So where is the problem? Any religion should be able to practice whatever it wants (as long as it doesn't impinge on the rights of others). These churches are not my church and I am in no way connected to them.

Gay people can declare themselves to form an exclusively gay church if they like, and conduct 'marriage' ceremonies dressed in black leather and tutus. I don't care. The point is that I don't have to recognise it as a 'marriage'.

[Whaleboy]

My god the quality of this debate is appalling!!!!

Both in general and on this, and other debates on this subject, I have to say that by far the strongest case is being made by the pro-gay marriage side. The anti side relies on either religion or a subjective definition of marriage, by enlarge, or some flawwed anecdotal evidence against homosexuality in general. Needless to say, it holds about as much water as a sieve.

[Ben Kenobi]

There needs to be official sanctioning of Christianity from the government.

Eh?

Religious freedoms are protected under the American constitution. I don't see any of my argument applying specifically to Christian clergy. They should also protect the Muslims, Sikhs; anyone who does not want to recognise these relationships ought to be protected.

Right now, I anticipate a challenge between the Section 3 and Section 15 parts of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, while not underway, will soon be.

[MrFun]

I was just fooling around, since I can't take you seriously in these threads, Bennie.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Ming
Back to your old games again I see Thorn.... see ya.

It wasnt that bad.

[Whaleboy]

I gotta side with MrFun on that one. Ben, may I suggest reading up on the difference between formal and informal fallacies, and the problems of throwing an inducted argument against a deducted argument?

[Ben Kenobi]

Whaleboy:

Really. I suppose you saying so, makes it true, eh?

[Whaleboy]

Nope, it makes it true according to my opinion which is the best we can offer. Unlike some, I don't pretend that my opinions have necessary sway over the objective!

Nonetheless, if you like being taken seriously by others, I suggest you revise your tactics here. I'm more than willing to help via PM if needed.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ben, may I suggest reading up on the difference between formal and informal fallacies, and the problems of throwing an inducted argument against a deducted argument?

Brave words for one without an argument.

Go ahead. Show me why my claims are false, that marriage between one man and one woman provides substantial benefits to society.

[Ben Kenobi]

Unlike some, I don't pretend that my opinions have necessary sway over the objective!

If this is your sort of 'advice' I can frankly do without.

What point is there arguing, unless one makes some kind of case for objective morality? The soup of subjectivism cannot harness anything concrete.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Whaleboy:

Really. I suppose you saying so, makes it true, eh?

As opposed, to say, Fred Phelps saying something makes that 'true'.

[SpencerH]

Sorry to jump in but I've gotta go pump some iron.

We dont need to disprove prove that "marriage between one man and one woman provides substantial benefits to society". I accept that to be true. You need to prove that a man and women are required for a marriage.

Rogans point is separate from that and to some degree I agree with him.

[Whaleboy]

that marriage between one man and one woman provides substantial benefits to society.

Benefits: Children brought up in stable household which we can all agree are beneficial.

Married and non-married relationships are capable of bringing up children to an equal degree, the only variable is stability (and consequentially the effects of that on upbringing).

Non-marrieds aren't discernably less stable than marrieds now, what with the divorce rate and women feeling that they no longer have to be trapped in marriage (which was after all, a form of slavery).

There is no evidence that isn't easily refuted (and I haven't yet seen statistics so perhaps you can provide?) that shows categorically that gay people bring up disadvantaged children. We have speculative, anecdotal evidence, particularly from homophobics, but that doesn't seem to be a problem. One concern of course to the welfare of the child is the reaction of homophobic elements in society to them but that is no reason to ban gay marriage, just as the prospect of racism is no reason to ban immigration. In term of benefits to society however, one could argue it is creating a benefit by making a lot of people very happy, and finally showing that love is something that transcends, rather than sticks between definition. We won't get over homophobia and a very old stigma attached to gay people when heterosexuals are given more basic rights (the right to marry) than gay people.

Therefore, marriage holds little or no advantage in bringing up children in society. Any other benefits that require refutation.

My argument is simple. I am pro gay marriage because there is no logical barrier to it (and indeed none in my mind but since it would benefit me, one can expect that ). Attempts to define marriage as man and woman generally fall foul of the problem of subjectivity because there are competiting definitions. Attempts to counter that by referencing the "institution of marriage" back in history produces a conclusion that since marriage was initially a form of slavery, changes to that initial "sacred codex" are thus not marriage (according to that), we so are reduced to saying that marriage itself is merely a contract between individuals, its meaning is entirely relative to the beholder. This is of course providing that the contract does not breach the law, which, since homosexuality is a legal pursuit, is not the case. Let us also consider that this is something of a wholesale argument. As far as the state is concerned, marriage is merely a contract anyway, so the same argument applies. It was always a fallacy of statue to enshrine a particular manner of contract in the law, undoubtably stemming from the link between Church and state, now generally considered a bad idea to a great degree.

What however, is a necessary conclusion of my argument, is that while gay marriage (and also my argument applies well both consequentially and intentionally to polygamy too) should be legalised by the state, any representatives of an individual doctrine (e.g. Christianity) have the right to refuse to wed certain couples. That is fine, as long as where they are legally required to recognise marrieds as such, they do so.

A more condensed libertarian argument is this: People want gay marriage and it is not impeding anyone else. In an open society, it is a fallacy to impose ones subjective moral views upon another, through either individual action or the state. Gay marriage therefore, which is not impeding others (unless you can show me how of course ), is a subjective moral view that they are entitled to (they are not imposing it on others unless they are forcing straight men to marry each other), just as traditional marriage, should be legal.

Quad Erat Demonstrandum?

EDIT: My advice would be the conduct of a debate, rather than merely basic subjectivism.

[Whaleboy]

If this is your sort of 'advice' I can frankly do without.

What point is there arguing, unless one makes some kind of case for objective morality? The soup of subjectivism cannot harness anything concrete.

Read Hume. .

It most certainly can harness something concrete: Liberalism and libertarianism. My own subjective points of view differs from yours, but I do not attempt to force that into the objective! Are you suggesting that in order to debate, we have to make fallacies of our points? If so I do not concur.

If you are going into a debate with a mind to establish a logical, qualitative truth, or show your view to be necessarily "correct" over others, then you are barking up the wrong tree. 3000 years of philosophy have failed to do that, and I don't think you are going to achieve tonight what millenia of cogitations has failed to do. Debates show by practical logical strength what is best in a particular situation, where the pro-gay marriage side very much has the upper hand (and arm), as a competition to see who can wield the stronger logic (and again) or a simple artistic comparison between views.

This of course entails respect for your opponents points of view, which is of course no preclusion to picking holes in them .

Originally posted by SpencerH
Sorry to jump in but I've gotta go pump some iron.

We dont need to disprove prove that "marriage between one man and one woman provides substantial benefits to society". I accept that to be true. You need to prove that a man and women are required for a marriage.

Rogans point is separate from that and to some degree I agree with him.

A good point, I merely refuted his point directly, you have wholly undermined it .

His is a consequential argument, which has problems of its own and generally weaker against a direct intentional argument (one on one) but I'm not about to get into a debate on the merits and demerits of consequentialism and utilitarianism here. According to the main forms of utilitarianism, including act utilitarianism, gay marriage is a good idea anyway! This of course varies per society, I am dealing with this from a British POV, BK is American I assume where while that argument still holds true, it does so with less chutzpah. No matter, plenty more arrows in this quiver...

...that's not a come-on

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


Married and non-married relationships are capable of bringing up children to an equal degree, the only variable is stability (and consequentially the effects of that on upbringing).

Your entire argument depends upon this statement. The problem with your statement is that it flies in the face of millenia of experience.

[chequita guevara]

Not really.

[Whaleboy]

Your entire argument depends upon this statement. The problem with your statement is that it flies in the face of millenia of experience.

No, my argument depends on several on the consequential side, and many more on the intentional side. Furthermore, it allows for the fact that marriage and non-marriage in terms of benefit to society is an increasingly academic distinction, as marriage itself becomes largely irrelevant to social stability, unless people complain (and rightly so) because their basic rights are denied to them.

[Ned]

I have posted the following thought in another thread, but I will repeat it here.

Relationships are entirely a private matter. The US Supreme Court has by decision given private relationships constitutional protection. People can live together in any manner they choose and the state cannot interfere.

California law already recognizes rights of people who simply live together for a substantial time. These are equivalent to marriages under that law and accord similar rights on "divorce" or death. In other words, California law already recognizes full "marital" rights for people just living together without marriage.

The question then becomes, why do we have marriage licenses and civil marriages at all? They make no sense since people can simply live together and gain full rights and obligations.

Since the state cannot interfer in private relationships and sex, there should be no rules against gay relationships, incest or polygamy. These are private matters that beyond the reach of the state.

On the issue of children, though, I think we could and should legislate in favor of traditional single-man, single-woman relationships as the preferred household model for raising them.

[Whaleboy]

Since the state cannot interfer in private relationships and sex, there should be no rules against gay relationships, incest or polygamy. These are private matters that beyond the reach of the state.

Looking good so far

On the issue of children, though, I think we could and should legislate in favor of traditional single-man, single-woman relationships as the preferred household model for raising them.

I think each situation should be judged on a case-by-case basis, rather than having some inflexible principled systems whereby perfectly good and capable households are discriminated against because of some statistical proposition (for which I need more evidence anyway to even begin to use as part of an intentionally potent argument).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ned
Your entire argument depends upon this statement. The problem with your statement is that it flies in the face of millenia of experience.

Care to back this assertion?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Spiffor



Care to back this assertion?

Proposition:

Married couples stay together longer than unmarried couples.

Refute this by evidence if you can. The statement is true.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Spiffor



Care to back this assertion?

I think he's referring to Ug and Gragla, the well known Stone Age couple who started monogamy, somewhere in the Neolithic Rift Valley.

I think Richard Leakey may have found their wedding invitations inscribed on a baboon shoulder.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Whaleboy


No, my argument depends on several on the consequential side, and many more on the intentional side. Furthermore, it allows for the fact that marriage and non-marriage in terms of benefit to society is an increasingly academic distinction, as marriage itself becomes largely irrelevant to social stability, unless people complain (and rightly so) because their basic rights are denied to them.

Your point was that stability of a couple was critical to childern. I agree.

However, my point is that married couple have historically been more stable.

[Whaleboy]

Proposition:

Married couples stay together longer than unmarried couples.

Refute this by evidence if you can. The statement is true.

The problem there is that unmarrieds includes non serious relationships, or relationships between one or more people under that age of ~25 which tend imo to be more unstable and have less longevity than other relationships. Consider a hypothetical scenario of two identical couples, one married one not, the marriage would be irrelevant to them lasting, and rightly so because the reasons why in times past they would have lasted was the womans subservitude.

Two childbearing couples that have "settled down", one married, one not, it is reasonable to say that each has an equal chance of outlasting the other.

Your point was that stability of a couple was critical to childern. I agree.

However, my point is that married couple have historically been more stable.

See above.

As added weight to my argument, gay people the coolest people on Earth

[Ned]

Originally posted by molly bloom


I think he's referring to Ug and Gragla, the well known Stone Age couple who started monogamy, somewhere in the Neolithic Rift Valley.

I think Richard Leakey may have found their wedding invitations inscribed on a baboon shoulder.

No Molly, the formalities of marriage, support from the families and society, etc., have given marriages a lot more stability than just living together.

BTW, all us righties cannot think. We simply drag our knuckles and grunt like the troglydite we are.

[Whaleboy]

No Molly, the formalities of marriage, support from the families and society, etc., have given marriages a lot more stability than just living together.

No offence intended, but I have to laugh

BTW, all us righties cannot think. We simply drag our knuckles and grunt like the troglydite we are.

You got that off my Flame Warriors thread didn't you?

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ned


Proposition:

Married couples stay together longer than unmarried couples.

Refute this by evidence if you can. The statement is true.

My partner and I have been together for twenty years come November.

That's longer than the first marriages of his sister and his cousin put together.

We aren't married, we don't have children (adopted or otherwise) and we're both gay men.

Do I win?

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Ned

Your point was that stability of a couple was critical to childern. I agree.

However, my point is that married couple have historically been more stable.

Hm,
the Problem is of course,
that you always have to compare that within the Society where they lived.

For example you couldn´t compare Data gathered from the second half of the 20th century with Data from the 19th century, as with the Change in Society also the rate of Divorces and breakups has climbed.
Do you have any Statistics comparing the Stability of Relationships with or without marriage in several time periods?

[Whaleboy]

MB: You win

An early congratulations for November!!! :dance

You've been together longer than I've been alive!!

Anyways, I've made my point, I'm off to bed!