tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2229165246684154276..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: How many sexual orientations are there? Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-251282222330727242014-05-23T10:21:58.636-07:002014-05-23T10:21:58.636-07:00Crude said...
"Bob,
Ok. You gave one reason....Crude said...<br /><br />"<i>Bob,<br />Ok. You gave one reason. <br />And down goes another of Hugo's claims, irrelevant as this one was. Thank you.</i>"<br /><br />...and that "reason" was:<br /><br />"<i>If you want one of my many secular and non-religious reasons for not being on board with the gay "marriage" push, here's one: when I ask their supporters for their reasoning or to explain themselves, such as how they define 'harm' when they say gay marriage 'does no harm', they seem unwilling or unable to explain themselves.</i>"<br /><br />This is not even a reason to support 'your' position; this is a response to someone else's position. You could agree with them and still claim that they are unwilling or unable to explain themselves. This is bad reasoning and not in any way a support of 'your' position, whatever it is.<br /><br />Let me make a parallel with Atheism, and I raise that example here on this blog a few weeks back. I have a friend who claims that she's an Atheist because of the Big Bang. This is not, imo, a good reason to be an Atheist, at least not as a lone argument. Therefore, since she stops at that, I consider that she is unwilling or unable to explain herself. Should that convince me that her position is wrong? Of course not, I agree with her!<br /><br />Next, I said:<br />"Sure, continue lying by writing things that have nothing to do with my position and in no way support yours."<br />Which is exactly what you keep doing, even when you 'pretend' to have support your point. You keep lying, probably not on purpose, by misrepresenting my position.<br /><br />"<i> A clear case of projection, Hugo. I haven't written such things </i>"<br /><br />Projection? Please, you can keep the psychoanalysis to yourself. It's fun to think about things like that, I do it too, but it just makes you look foolish when you express them out loud. When I am telling you: 'my' position is 'not' what you make it look to be. You cannot be right on this; even if you had good reasons to claim that my position is faulty. The point is that if I say 'no, I don't think like that' then I don't! You can claim all day long that I am wrong to think in a certain way, to believe certain things, but you cannot tell me 'you believe X' and then claim that you are not lying if I repeatedly tell you that 'no, I don't believe X'. Note also that I express several points, so you're interpretation is right on some, but just dead wrong on others, and you refused to fix your errors.<br /><br />"<i> if you can relax a bit, maybe we can continue this conversation. There's no sense losing your cool just because I've pointed out some weaknesses in your position. It's a favor, right? How we learn and so on.</i>"<br /><br />That is the funniest part of your comment; the evidence I did not need but confirms that you are horrible at 'mind reading' or 'psychoanalyzing' or whatever we may call this botched interpretation. I am not losing my cool in any way, and I am actually super relax when writing all of this. Commenting online is something fun and entertaining, a distraction from the non-calm crazy days I have had recently. If you were in front of me, I would have a large smile on my face, I would be laughing at a lot of the non-sense you say. Was it the tone of the language, or the EMPHASIS USING CAPS, or the fact that you don't like being called out on your lies? I don't know but that is all wrong. I am telling you, this is just fun stuff, cool stuff, and yes, interesting discussions do lead to learning sometimes and that's why I love it. However, this certainly did not happen here with you. Looks, I will even end with a smiley face just to make sure you get this right: thank you for your time Crude, see you on a future thread! :-)<br /><br />p.s. I am going on vacation and will impose a few blog-free days on myself ;-)<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62742035975545704652014-05-22T15:04:18.476-07:002014-05-22T15:04:18.476-07:00Bob,
Ok. You gave one reason.
And down goes ano...Bob,<br /><br /><i>Ok. You gave one reason. </i><br /><br />And down goes another of Hugo's claims, irrelevant as this one was. Thank you.<br /><br /><i>One way that gay marriage could be shown harmful is if it caused the divorce rate among straight people to increase at a statistically significant rate in every state where it is legal.</i><br /><br />Wonderful. But you didn't answer my question: What is 'harm'? You cite divorce as an instance of harm. Okay - why is it harmful?<br /><br />Do you believe divorce should, in general, be discouraged?<br /><br />Hugo,<br /><br /><i>Sure, continue lying by writing things that have nothing to do with my position and in no way support yours.</i><br /><br />A clear case of projection, Hugo. I haven't written such things - I have, however, shown why we have a disagreement. Your version of 'equality' doesn't pass muster in my eyes, and I think in the eyes of most rational people.<br /><br />You believe in a form of 'equality' that supports people being treated differently in the eyes of the law so long as there's what you believe to be a good reason for doing exactly that. So much for said equality.<br /><br />And hey, I'm entirely onboard with you saying that you believe you nevertheless in large part support equality, with those exceptions in mind. But that's an important qualification, and it underlines an equally important point: it's not as simple as saying 'this is the principle I operate with, and from this principle, this result automatically follows'. It turns out we have to do a bit more work, intellectually, as these principles class, as we deal with particular cases.<br /><br />No lies here, Hugo. Just clear, simple, concise commentary on pretty obvious problems with your positions. They are available for the world to see, whether or not you like them. And I'm not even demanding intellectual purity from you; merely recognition of the exceptions and problems with your position. Simple honesty, and little else.<br /><br />By the way - 'picking your life partner' was never outlawed. That's like saying 'it shouldn't be against the law to love someone'. Love who you like, but love is a distinct question from the cultural and legality of marriage. However, if marriage is merely some contract between consenting adults, then it makes little sense to restrict said contract to '2'. The numerical limitation, it turns out, is just as irrelevant as the gender limitation.<br /><br />Anyway, if you can relax a bit, maybe we can continue this conversation. There's no sense losing your cool just because I've pointed out some weaknesses in your position. It's a favor, right? How we learn and so on.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-4969260621409709502014-05-22T13:44:46.843-07:002014-05-22T13:44:46.843-07:00Crude said...
"Nothing you've said lays ...Crude said...<br /><br />"<i>Nothing you've said lays a glove on any of the points I've made, so I won't bother with the line-by-line response - not necessary.</i>"<br /><br />Sure, continue lying by writing things that have nothing to do with my position and in no way support yours. It's much easier to do so when you don't quote since your words are not next to those you pretend to address!<br /><br />"<i>maybe you'll argue that, even though lingering in a women's locker room at a state university will damn well land you in jail many times, that's not REALLY a violation of equality</i>"<br /><br />It's NOT a violation of equality. It's a violation of PRIVACY and individual liberties. I repeat for at least the 3rd time: every person, regardless of gender, has a right to privacy. Individual volunteer to sacrifice that right when they decide to use public restrooms and locker room, with the caveat that they are 'ok' to do so only with members of their gender.<br /><br />"<i>gender specifications in marriage are 'arbitrary'. But '2' is arbitrary as well </i>"<br /><br />The EXISTING laws are about TWO people. What part of that don't you get? I am only arguing about for EXISTNG laws, regarding 2 people, to be changed. If there is/were a law for 3 people, we can discuss it separately.<br /><br />"<i> Are we sacrificing some 'equality before the law' in the name of a given "good"</i>"<br /><br />First, there could be cases where we should sacrifice that value yes, just like any other value. Life is preferable to death in my opinion, hopefully you agree, yet there are cases where we would also agree that death is a better option, be it in the execution of a mass murdered or unfortunate war casualties.<br />Second, I am not even talking about any case of such sacrifice here, regarding weddings, you Crude, is the one making these claims about such exceptions. <br /><br />I don't understand why you do that and I especially don't get how you are missing the irony here: you are the one against gay marriage which is an obvious case of non-equality between individuals, some people being denied the right to choose the person of their choice in a 2-people union because other people think that their preference of picking based on gender should prevail.<br /><br />"<i> We need more. We need, at least in principle, to discuss "greater goods" and what they are.</i>"<br /><br />As I told Bob, I agree that there is more to gay marriage than just equality, as this is a long-lasting complex issue that has polarized a lot of individuals and groups of people. I could discuss a bunch of other reasons about why I support gay marriage without ever referring to the gender issue I am pressing here. However, this is the most direct and clear way to express why, based on gender equality, I conclude that picking your life partner should not be constrained by gender.<br /><br />"<i> I mean intellectually. We can just go "I LIKE GAY MARRIAGE, NOTHING WILL CHANGE MY MIND, LA LA LA" if so desired. But at that point we also have to acknowledge we're not thinking with our heads. Or, at all. It's all emotion.</i>"<br /><br />That is all I have been seeing from you so far, yes. No intellectual point made whatsoever. It's all 'LALALALA I don't care what you write I am just going to repeat the same lies'. No support of your position; I am not even sure what it is exactly. No discussion on these mysterious laws that supposedly specify gender, and have to specify gender to be valid and useful. Nothing but lies Crude, mostly regarding my position when you address me directly; that's all I see here.<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41322085101482587392014-05-22T13:28:23.004-07:002014-05-22T13:28:23.004-07:00@ Bob
I agree with you Bob...
Crude claims he ha...@ Bob<br /><br />I agree with you Bob...<br /><br />Crude claims he has secular and practical reasons for opposing it, yet refuses to give them.<br /><br />Correct, I am not Christian like you, but I take it that we do agree it is not immoral to engage in homosexual acts.<br /><br />I also agree with your previous comment on how it's not 'just' about equality as gay marriage can become a very broad complex issue. I am trying to focus on equality of gender as a base core value to show a rational path from that value to acceptance of homosexual behaviors.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88838799351413048292014-05-22T13:25:07.764-07:002014-05-22T13:25:07.764-07:00"grodrigues has left a new comment on the pos..."<i>grodrigues has left a new comment on the post "How many sexual orientations are there?": <br /><br />@Bob:<br /><br />"Discrimination is a legal question. Courts are where such issues are decided when there is a dispute over it."<br /><br />More question-begging. And in fact, it is very easy to see that no discrimination is involved.<br /><br />A sophist joker indeed.</i>"<br /><br />Why do you keep using this 'sophist joker' comment?World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42010537943706294062014-05-22T11:43:07.061-07:002014-05-22T11:43:07.061-07:00@Bob:
"Discrimination is a legal question. C...@Bob:<br /><br />"Discrimination is a legal question. Courts are where such issues are decided when there is a dispute over it."<br /><br />More question-begging. And in fact, it is very easy to see that no discrimination is involved.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-78322064973931103252014-05-22T11:35:07.579-07:002014-05-22T11:35:07.579-07:00Crude,
"If you want one of my many secular an...Crude,<br />"If you want one of my many secular and non-religious reasons for not being on board with the gay "marriage" push, here's one: when I ask their supporters for their reasoning or to explain themselves, such as how they define 'harm' when they say gay marriage 'does no harm', they seem unwilling or unable to explain themselves."<br /><br />Ok. You gave one reason. <br />One way that gay marriage could be shown harmful is if it caused the divorce rate among straight people to increase at a statistically significant rate in every state where it is legal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3220292734859859352014-05-22T11:31:34.147-07:002014-05-22T11:31:34.147-07:00Bob,
The proponents haven't been winning all ...Bob,<br /><br /><i>The proponents haven't been winning all these recent court decisions because they are</i><br /><br />Actually, yes, that is a large part of it. Are you really going to tell me 'Oh, no, courts only make the decisions they do because of sincere and honest reflection on the merits of the case before them'? They at times go with the culture and the mood of the moment as much as any other political figure.<br /><br />But please, feel free to say that court decisions are based entirely on merits, justice, and each decision is right if it's authoritative and binding. I'll start bringing up some cases with Scalia (EEK!) writing the majority opinion, and we'll see how quickly you bow your head and say, "The court hath spoken, and I am wrong."Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85816168336147100812014-05-22T11:26:15.620-07:002014-05-22T11:26:15.620-07:00Hugo,
Nothing you've said lays a glove on any...Hugo,<br /><br />Nothing you've said lays a glove on any of the points I've made, so I won't bother with the line-by-line response - not necessary. Your definition of 'equality' fails the smell test on multiple fronts. You're not really in favor of equality - or at least, if you are, it's equality that you're entirely willing to sacrifice "in the eyes of the law" in the pursuit of a social good you desire. Which... isn't equality.<br /><br />Now maybe you'll argue that, even though lingering in a women's locker room at a state university will damn well land you in jail many times, that's not REALLY a violation of equality. Sure, there are gender-restricted areas, but this is a sacrifice we make for, etc, etc. Great. But that just means that you don't, in fact, agree in total 'equality before the law'.<br /><br />Likewise, you say that the gender specifications in marriage are 'arbitrary'. But '2' is arbitrary as well - in fact, historically, it's far more arbitrary than a male-female specified pairing, in just about any historical region you care to look at. So, out that goes too - or out it should go, if the goal is fairness.<br /><br />Also, I suppose, in the name of equality we should allow men to spend as much time as they like in women's restrooms and locker rooms. Female prisoners should be mixed in with male prisoners in the general prison population. Etc, etc.<br /><br />Or wait. Are we sacrificing some 'equality before the law' in the name of a given "good", just as you decided to sacrifice it in terms of affirmative action and so on?<br /><br />Okay. But that just means that "equality" won't even work as an axiom here to justify a given view on gay marriage, in and of itself. We need more. We need, at least in principle, to discuss "greater goods" and what they are.<br /><br />I mean intellectually. We can just go "I LIKE GAY MARRIAGE, NOTHING WILL CHANGE MY MIND, LA LA LA" if so desired. But at that point we also have to acknowledge we're not thinking with our heads. Or, at all. It's all emotion.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88354283590714511012014-05-22T11:21:52.989-07:002014-05-22T11:21:52.989-07:00grodrigues,
"It is always very instructive to...grodrigues,<br />"It is always very instructive to see how quickly SSM proponents flee from arguing their case and reduce the truth to court effectiveness, or more bluntly, whoever screams the loudest gets the sympathies of the powers that be."<br /><br />Discrimination is a legal question. Courts are where such issues are decided when there is a dispute over it. <br /> <br />The proponents haven't been winning all these recent court decisions because they are "screaming the loudest." :-)<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61078037039130300292014-05-22T11:14:31.636-07:002014-05-22T11:14:31.636-07:00Bob,
Because at this point it appears you don'...Bob,<br /><br /><i>Because at this point it appears you don't wish to contribute anything positive to this discussion.</i><br /><br />Asking you to explain your reasoning, to justify your claims, is not 'positive'?<br /><br />If you want one of my many secular and non-religious reasons for not being on board with the gay "marriage" push, here's one: when I ask their supporters for their reasoning or to explain themselves, such as how they define 'harm' when they say gay marriage 'does no harm', they seem unwilling or unable to explain themselves.<br /><br />grod,<br /><br /><i>It is always very instructive to see how quickly SSM proponents flee from arguing their case and reduce the truth to court effectiveness, or more bluntly, whoever screams the loudest gets the sympathies of the powers that be.</i><br /><br />Pretty much that. I suppose we could say, for those decades - even centuries - where gay marriage was illegal (indeed, where sodomy was flat out punishable by the state), that at that point the argument was settled, and those were all good things.<br /><br />Really, I'm not asking for much out of Bob: "What is harm? How are you defining it when you say gay marriage causes no harm?" is a pretty benign claim.<br /><br />But he's completely uncomfortable justifying his claims, offering arguments. And that's not encouraging.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84329926290169293962014-05-22T11:14:24.256-07:002014-05-22T11:14:24.256-07:00Hugo,
"It's a giant red herring that Crud...Hugo,<br />"It's a giant red herring that Crude keeps showing off in order to avoid supporting his views, whatever it is..."<br /><br />To be honest I'm rather befuddled by his refusal to provide a case against gay marriage since it is quite clear that he finds it immoral. Acts of homosexuality, or 'sodomy' as he puts it, are intrinsically immoral in his view. And to support the morality of gay marriage is to at least implicitly support the morality of gay sex. So it would seem reasonable for him to oppose it based on his moral views.<br /><br />But he also claims he has secular and practical reasons for opposing it, yet refuses to give them.<br /><br />I take it you are not Christian like myself, but I take it that we do agree it is not immoral to engage in homosexual acts.<br /><br /> <br /> Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82280285640841077382014-05-22T11:05:48.860-07:002014-05-22T11:05:48.860-07:00@Bob:
"Apparently the proponents have been q...@Bob:<br /><br />"Apparently the proponents have been quite effective at doing that in court."<br /><br />It is always very instructive to see how quickly SSM proponents flee from arguing their case and reduce the truth to court effectiveness, or more bluntly, whoever screams the loudest gets the sympathies of the powers that be.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74335415168712485002014-05-22T10:53:57.635-07:002014-05-22T10:53:57.635-07:00grodriques,
"In order to classify ruling out ...grodriques,<br />"In order to classify ruling out gay "marriage" as a discriminatory practice, you have to first demonstrate that gay unions are the same, in the relevant sense, to heterossexual ones, which is precisely what the opponents deny."<br /><br />Apparently the proponents have been quite effective at doing that in court. Looks like all the anti-gay marriage are going to bite the dust because they violate the Constitution.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-34182808695706737332014-05-22T10:48:28.502-07:002014-05-22T10:48:28.502-07:00Crude,
"You've been saying that there'...Crude,<br />"You've been saying that there's been no harm caused by gay marriage. I ask you for what your definition of harm is, and your reply is to demand I define harm first? What?<br /><br />You made the claim. I made a reasonable request in turn. Why is it that you present yourself as a defender of gay "marriage", but over and over when I ask you to give your reasoning about this or that, you show that you don't want to do that and prefer me to go on the attack, or give information myself?"<br /><br />Because at this point it appears you don't wish to contribute anything positive to this discussion. You claimed to have numerous reasons for opposing gay marriage. Yet you've never provided those reasons.<br /><br />I gave my reasons for supporting gay marriage above and then I asked you to provide your reasons for opposing it. You know, the numerous reasons you have claimed to have.<br /><br />I can't link to that exhchange, so am pasting a copy of it:<br /><br />You asked:<br /><b>Let me ask you something serious, Bob. You're clearly very, very big on gay marriage. But do you even have arguments for it? Or is this down to 'it feels right', and you just kind of hope someone else out there has made the arguments?</b><br /><br />I replied:<br /><br /><b>It is pretty simple:<br /><br />I see no good reason for prohibiting a loving gay couple from enjoying the same benefits from marriage that a loving straight couple receives.<br />Helping to support those gay relationships is good for our society and for the children gay couples are raising.<br /><br />If you are really getting serious here why don't you produce those numerous reasons you claim to have for opposing gay marriage?</b><br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64867596965235158602014-05-22T10:31:50.902-07:002014-05-22T10:31:50.902-07:00B. Prokop said...
"As a 62 year old left-hand... B. Prokop said...<br />"<i>As a 62 year old left-handed person, I can assure you that I have endured a lifetime of discrimination. </i>"<br />On the one hand, I am sorry you feel hurt and had a rough time, and I do understand there is some "inconvenience" of being left-handed. My sister always struggle with her pencils in elementary school and I recall my aunt, whose about your age, telling me about how the nuns forced her to write with her right hand.<br /><br />However...<br /><br />"<i>Discrimination against lefties is far more widespread that discrimination against homosexuals</i>"<br /><br />That is just dead wrong. Bob mentioned one example already: "how you would feel if they made a law prohibiting left-handed people from marrying?" Or what about being forced to use different buses, not get access to the same jobs, be ridiculed, mocked, harassed, driven to depression and suicide, etc...<br /><br />In any case, all of that is irrelevant to the point I was discussing here. It's a giant red herring that Crude keeps showing off in order to avoid supporting his views, whatever it is...<br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1376126799107005572014-05-22T10:23:56.285-07:002014-05-22T10:23:56.285-07:00Crude said...
"Pardon me if I skip out on the...Crude said...<br />"<i>Pardon me if I skip out on the typical boring 'quote and reply to every line</i>"<br />Sure, but I will continue doing so because you lie... hopefully not on purpose.<br /><br />"<i> Only one of us believes some people should be legally able to be given preferential treatment in hiring, etc, based on their race or gender. That's not myself.</i>"<br /><br />That's not what I said. I actually wrote "No. Not at all." after you wrote something similar. I am not convinced that preferential treatment is the best way to help resolve racism/sexism related issues. It happened because of the existence of sexism and racism so the people who decided to put these measures in place started from that reality. If individuals always had equal rights and privileges regardless of race and gender, like I believe it should be, there would be no need to even consider affirmative action initiatives. Therefore:<br /><br />"<i>Saying 'but I have a good reason for it' doesn't matter - what that means is you think you have good reasons not to true people equally before the law. </i>"<br /><br />....this is not relevant. I am open to be convinced that we should make exceptions to the equality principles, but I am not the one putting forward these ideas nor standing up for them. They happened for good reasons and with good intentions, regardless of whether we approve the chosen method or not.<br /><br />"<i>You say 'show me the law', but I say 'go in the women's restroom'</i>"<br /><br />You completely ignored my point, and refuse to support yours. Not sure how to repeat it again besides copy/pasting:<br /><br />Sure, there would be consequences of spending time in the wrong bathroom. First, if it's simply by mistake, embarrassment would follow. Next, if the bathroom is empty, a janitor could simply be there to clean. Some time back, I spent several minutes helping my wife who was sick. However, if some perverted person purposely disturbs the right of privacy of someone else, that's a different story, a story of harassment. <br /><br />Gender is the issue only because the individual whose privacy has been violated does not feel comfortable with the action of the perpetrator.<br /><br />"<i>you have zero problem discriminating against men and women who want multiple partners in a marriage</i>"<br /><br />Another misunderstanding on your part. I am not in favor of that kind of discrimination. Again, I have to copy/paste: the question is not about number, you have no reason to make it about numbers. There are laws that exist, right now, that give advantages and rights to unions of 2 people: a marriage! The problem is that it specifies the gender, for no reason, thus violating equality for all individuals, regardless of gender.<br /><br />Again, if you want to discuss the creation of rules allowing 3-people unions, fine, but I don't have much to say about it besides the fact that I would not specify the gender of the 3 people. Why would you be for/against such arrangement? What kind of rights would 3-people union get? Would divorce allow 2 of the 3 to become married? Would they be allowed to adopt and all be legal guardians? <br /><br />"<i>So, you're boned on multiple fronts here.<br />[...]So, there we are.</i>"<br /><br />There we are; you are confused on 3 different fronts:<br />1) I am not arguing 'for' affirmative action initiatives. They are a reality that happened and exemplifying the racism/sexism that happened severely in the past, and still happen today.<br />2) You don't understand the bathroom issue and refuse to provide laws we could discuss; and you don't grasp how the law does not need to specify gender to be efficient in these cases.<br />3) You don't understand that I am not arguing 'against' 3-people union. I am only arguing 'for' adapting existing legal marriage laws which discriminate against homosexual couples by arbitrarily specifying gender in their definition.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-23254790567463598652014-05-22T09:12:44.549-07:002014-05-22T09:12:44.549-07:00Bob,
I'd be happy to after you share what qua...Bob,<br /><br /><i>I'd be happy to after you share what qualifies as 'harm'.</i><br /><br />You've been saying that there's been no harm caused by gay marriage. I ask you for what your definition of harm is, and your reply is to demand I define harm first? What?<br /><br />You made the claim. I made a reasonable request in turn. Why is it that you present yourself as a defender of gay "marriage", but over and over when I ask you to give your reasoning about this or that, you show that you don't want to do that and prefer me to go on the attack, or give information myself?<br /><br />See Bob, you do that, and I start thinking that you don't even have much in the way of reasons. You have feelings. I do not want to believe that, so please - prove me wrong.<br /><br />Or don't, I guess. But you can't say I'm not giving you the opportunity.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8145761680724723232014-05-22T09:08:40.270-07:002014-05-22T09:08:40.270-07:00Hugo,
Pardon me if I skip out on the typical bori...Hugo,<br /><br />Pardon me if I skip out on the typical boring 'quote and reply to every line ad nauseum' tit for tat. Either way, we've resolved a few things.<br /><br />I say I'm for equality for all before the law. You say likewise. I said your 'equality' is no equality I recognize. Only one of us believes some people should be legally able to be given preferential treatment in hiring, etc, based on their race or gender. That's not myself. Saying 'but I have a good reason for it' doesn't matter - what that means is you think you have good reasons not to true people equally before the law. Good for you.<br /><br />I've pointed out that if you, as a man, linger in a woman's bathroom (save for if you're dressed as a woman and say you're a woman, in some areas), even on state property, you can count on being evicted by police. You say 'show me the law', but I say 'go in the women's restroom' - keep doing it, see if the cops show up when you refuse when you're inevitably told it's for women only. Restrictions of facilities on a sex basis are de facto enforced by law. I'm not interested in whether you could imagine a world where this isn't the case.<br /><br />Finally, you have zero problem discriminating against men and women who want multiple partners in a marriage. Now, I can far more easily find historical arrangements of multiple partners in a marriage than same-sex partners. You keep saying it doesn't matter and it has nothing to do with marriage, but everyone from muslims to mormons to others would disagree.<br /><br />So, you're boned on multiple fronts here. On the one hand, you don't believe in equal protection before the law. You can stipulate, 'I'm for putting that aside, so long as it's for a good cause'. Well, great.<br /><br />You can't so much as give a principled argument about why you deny marriage rights to people who want to marry more than one partner. Saying 'But it has nothing to do with marriage' when it demonstrably historically does for many isn't much of a reply. Saying 'conservatives say this!' doesn't exactly shoot it down either.<br /><br />So, there we are.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28774179303127961672014-05-22T07:43:21.756-07:002014-05-22T07:43:21.756-07:00@Bob:
"The proponents of gay marriage have h...@Bob:<br /><br />"The proponents of gay marriage have had to put up their claims against the cultural norms and argue against the discriminatory practices in place."<br /><br />In order to classify ruling out gay "marriage" as a discriminatory practice, you have to first demonstrate that gay unions are the same, in the relevant sense, to heterossexual ones, which is precisely what the opponents deny.<br /><br />Oh wait, I am just repeating myself.<br /><br />"The anti gay marriage folks don't get a free pass on this. They too are obliged to put forth their views in the public arena if they wished their moral and ethical views to be followed."<br /><br />They are doing just that, so I fail to see what exactly is your point.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91320225707155863602014-05-22T07:33:13.869-07:002014-05-22T07:33:13.869-07:00grodrigues,
"And for the "equal" to...grodrigues,<br />"And for the "equal" to apply, *you* must prove that gay unions are equal to heterossexual unions in the relevant sense, which of course, is what opponents deny."<br /><br />What do you mean by "equal" here? Are all heterosexual unions equal in your view? In what way are they all equal?<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14007159886062190842014-05-22T07:28:51.062-07:002014-05-22T07:28:51.062-07:00grodriques,
"Another sophist joker."
Hu...grodriques,<br />"Another sophist joker."<br /><br />Huh? <br /><br />Like everyone else, the opponents of gay marriage have to put their claims up against the morals and ethics embraced by the culture we live in. <br /><br />I'm not claiming that our culture is perfectly moral or ethical. Obviously it is not when one considers how accepted it once was to discriminate against blacks and homosexuals. <br /><br />The proponents of gay marriage have had to put up their claims against the cultural norms and argue against the discriminatory practices in place. <br />The anti gay marriage folks don't get a free pass on this. They too are obliged to put forth their views in the public arena if they wished their moral and ethical views to be followed.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-84455487591834923422014-05-22T07:18:59.241-07:002014-05-22T07:18:59.241-07:00@Bob:
And for the heck of it:
(3) And for the &q...@Bob:<br /><br />And for the heck of it:<br /><br />(3) And for the "equal" to apply, *you* must prove that gay unions are equal to heterossexual unions in the relevant sense, which of course, is what opponents deny.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79984697309859941882014-05-22T07:05:01.790-07:002014-05-22T07:05:01.790-07:00@Bob:
"Those opposing it have to show that t...@Bob:<br /><br />"Those opposing it have to show that there is something bad or evil in gay unions. Since they have failed to do so, then it becomes clear that gays should enjoy equal protection under the law."<br /><br />Another sophist joker.<br /><br />(1) Without a robust conception of what "bad" or "evil" is, it is meaningless to say that the opposing party has to demonstrate this or that. And what is "bad" or "evil" is what is in dispute you are just begging the question.<br /><br />(2) And even if it were so, it does not follow that something (e.g. a state of affairs), is not per se bad or evil, by whatever measure you care to invent, that thereby it must have "equal protection under the law".grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18344154595892919702014-05-22T06:37:17.575-07:002014-05-22T06:37:17.575-07:00Hugo,
The question of gay marriage is not simply a...Hugo,<br />The question of gay marriage is not simply a question of equality. Those opposing it have to show that there is something bad or evil in gay unions. Since they have failed to do so, then it becomes clear that gays should enjoy equal protection under the law.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com