The Mormon Religion--not necessarily the members--but the religion itself is 100% Racist - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Ah - different question. In my limited personal experience (one data point), no. Consensus on the opinion appears to be no. Would you disagree?

A related question.  There is no choice whatsoever in terms of race, for example.  On this, I do, in fact, disagree. There is an element of choice for at least some gays.  Perhaps it's not the majority, but some do make a conscious choice in terms of their orientation.  Personal choice matters when it comes to potential discrimination.  You said so yourself.    

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR 

You aren't dealing with reality.  As it stands, heterosexual couples have rights that homosexual ones don't have.  You are muddying the issue with your own perfect solution fallacy (shocker).  If you think the government shouldn't be deciding who can enter into such contracts, take the pragmatic approach and allow same-sex marriage to correct an immediate injustice while lobbying for the removal of government sanctioned marriages for everyone down the road.

How exactly does this work?  Marriage is an institution in this country upon which many things already discussed are based such as survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights, parental rights, etc.  I don't disagree that in some of these it's not a huge hurdle to remove governmental involvement, however the government does base a number of things on marital status.  For instance, how is it determined who to pay survivor benefits to?  I assume that you would indicate some kind of document to be filed with the federal government, but isn't this essentially the same thing in different terminology?  As far as the government is concerned a certificate of marriage is a document like any other that defines a legal relationship.  The biggest benefit to marriage is that it satisfies numerous requirements similar to a civil union in many states.

Or do you propose that the government doesn't need any defining documentation?  In this case, somebody's roommate is now their Social Security beneficiary because they live in the same house.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

The legal framework wouldn't be a nightmare to workout. We basically allow serialized polygamy now with divorce and remarriage. All the same sort of matters are dealt with there.

 

I completely disagree.  The concurrency presents a HUGE problem.  When someone is divorced, that is a severing of that relationship and all of the rights and privileges associated with that relationship are terminated.  For instance a spouse from a first marriage has NO rights to a child from a second marriage.  A divorce divides the assests from a marriage and a former spouse has no rights to the assets acquired thereafter.  Who gets paid survivor benefits in the event of a death?  Are parental rights restricted to only the biological parents or all of the "parents" in the family?  There are lots of issues that concurrency present that are non-issues in a serial marriage situation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I don't think you have anything to worry about there - I just took a little while to get used to your style of discussion.

 

 

I'm not arguing against polyanything, but I disagree that number and gender are equivalent criteria. Your point below notwithstanding, for those for whom it is not a viable option to engage in heterosexual marriage then prohibiting same-sex marriage does discriminate against them - they have no other option. Choosing to marry multiple partners is not an aberration, but it is a personal choice and denying it is not discriminatory. Discrimination attacks what you are, not what you choose. Except for religion, if you regard that as a choice.

 

No - you misunderstand my point. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have it, I'm arguing that preventing them from having it, while it may be a totally unreasonable restriction of their personal freedom, does not constitute discrimination. 

I think it is you who misunderstand my point because I assure you, I understand yours perfectly. You believe that our biological make up is of a nature that would allow us to ONLY fall in love with or be intimate with one person at a time. I'm say human behavior shows quite the opposite. One of the biggest arguments put forward about homosexuality being biological vs a choice is that no one would CHOOSE it because of the many hardships it brings them. I for one have actually read several genetic studies on homosexuality and they aren't very definitive at all. I also believe using biology as a rationale for granting a behavior is terrible reasoning because there are clearly genetic factors that contribute to intelligence, addictiveness of certain substances, propensity to easily anger, etc. They are very small factors, but none the less, we would never every declare people correct to drive drunk for example saying they just can't prevent it. Additionally if sexuality is genetic and thus behavior instead of a choice, how can we punish ANY of the remaining deviant sexual behaviors since they must also be programmed versus a choice?

I am attracted to women. No choice in that matter. What if one declares themselves attracted to children, animals, non-consenting strangers, etc. How can we prove choice in that and if we cannot prove choice then how can we legislate against it?

Clearly polygamy or polyamory brings many hardships with it within our society. We've seen many a crying spouse related to the fact that they loved or at minimum were intimate with more than one person at a time. Additionally it is one of the root causes for divorce so denying that nature or believing it to be a choice clearly causes massive harm to many people.

Why would someone make that choice if they could avoid it? We even have idioms, seven year itch as an example because this understanding of wanting something beyond or outside of one person for life, is so common. How can it only be a choice?

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

As long as we can keep discriminating against bigamists and polygamists, right?  They don't matter as much.   

 

I really don't see a single valid argument for why that is discrimination, but it keeps coming up. It's not discrimination if it just restricts personal choice. It's discrimination if it denies you equal rights - such as making your entire potential marriage pool unavailable to you.

Again, I'm going to say, you see it as a choice but so do many people with regard to homosexual marriage. If we talk about nature and biology there is plenty of proof that we are programmed to "cheat" or at least seek additional offspring opportunities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Only if you assume that it is a viable option for them. I'm assuming that it is accepted not to be - therefore they are discriminated against by not being able to marry.

How is serial polygamy via marriage and divorce really a viable option? It causes massive harm and increasingly people avoid the whole institution of marriage all together since it is not flexible enough to deal with the reality of day to day living. Marriage is the only contract I know of that with no breach, one party can file to end at anytime without cause. People abandon institutions because the institution does not serve them and people are abandoning marriage because it does not meet their needs with its antiquated and artificial limitations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

I completely disagree.  The concurrency presents a HUGE problem.  When someone is divorced, that is a severing of that relationship and all of the rights and privileges associated with that relationship are terminated.  For instance a spouse from a first marriage has NO rights to a child from a second marriage.  A divorce divides the assests from a marriage and a former spouse has no rights to the assets acquired thereafter.  Who gets paid survivor benefits in the event of a death?  Are parental rights restricted to only the biological parents or all of the "parents" in the family?  There are lots of issues that concurrency present that are non-issues in a serial marriage situation.

I'm being polite in suggesting you don't know many divorced people because while some aspects of the relationship are terminated, just as many are left in place. Go do some reading about "second wives" and their issues. My friend's father is back in court for claimed lack of back child support and spousal support and the mother divorced him in 1992 and the youngest child they shared is now 34 years old. Divorce terms are often revisited whenever one party declares they should be for no other reason than they want them to be. You declare the former spouse has no rights to assets acquired after, but they can declare assets divided were wrongly valued. They can just declare they need more help or want it revisited. I've read cases where the income of the new spouse is factored into the household income and used to pay the former spouse additional support.

It is FAR from as clean cut as you make it out to be.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

How exactly does this work?  Marriage is an institution in this country upon which many things already discussed are based such as survivor benefits, hospital visitation rights, parental rights, etc.  I don't disagree that in some of these it's not a huge hurdle to remove governmental involvement, however the government does base a number of things on marital status.  For instance, how is it determined who to pay survivor benefits to?  I assume that you would indicate some kind of document to be filed with the federal government, but isn't this essentially the same thing in different terminology?  As far as the government is concerned a certificate of marriage is a document like any other that defines a legal relationship.  The biggest benefit to marriage is that it satisfies numerous requirements similar to a civil union in many states.

 

Or do you propose that the government doesn't need any defining documentation?  In this case, somebody's roommate is now their Social Security beneficiary because they live in the same house.

It seems to me that - based on your questions - you consider the government to have the singular role of arbiter and executor of marriage contracts and all they entail (survivor benefits, visitation rights, et al.).

In lieu of government involvement in marriage, private "contract firms" could help write up all the terms of marriage contracts - with accompanying documentation - which the consenting adults would agree to. This would include all information regarding survivor benefits, visitation rights, etc. Each party to the contract would retain their own copies of the documents as well as the contract firm. In the event of a dispute, the services of a private "dispute resolution firm" (not a government court), could be retained.

These ideas require most people to unlearn what they have learned about the proper role of government. I think the free market could really offer up some creative solutions that would be much more efficient and cost-effective than the government in many instances besides just this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jazzguru 

It seems to me that - based on your questions - you consider the government to have the singular role of arbiter and executor of marriage contracts and all they entail (survivor benefits, visitation rights, et al.).

 

In lieu of government involvement in marriage, private "contract firms" could help write up all the terms of marriage contracts - with accompanying documentation - which the consenting adults would agree to. This would include all information regarding survivor benefits, visitation rights, etc. Each party to the contract would retain their own copies of the documents as well as the contract firm. In the event of a dispute, the services of a private "dispute resolution firm" (not a government court), could be retained.

 

These ideas require most people to unlearn what they have learned about the proper role of government. I think the free market could really offer up some creative solutions that would be much more efficient and cost-effective than the government in many instances besides just this one.

Jazz, in your unrealistic, ideological adherence to the pursuit of liberty (and the requisite elimination of the State) you fail to understand one critically important point about the State's involvement in personal relationships like this: Without the State, there's no one and no way to force private parties to honor whatever private relationship arrangements you may come up with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 


That may well be true, but the restriction still then constitutes discrimination against that group of them who have no choice, so the observation does not change the conclusion.

Fair enough.  However, you're assuming we have the "right" to marry whomever we choose.  That has never been the case.  We can't marry our first cousins or immediate family members.  We can't marry more than one person.  One could easily argue that he was born with the predisposition to love his sister.  Is it illegal discrimination to tell him he can't marry his sister?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

I don't think you have anything to worry about there - I just took a little while to get used to your style of discussion.

 

 

I'm not arguing against polyanything, but I disagree that number and gender are equivalent criteria. Your point below notwithstanding, for those for whom it is not a viable option to engage in heterosexual marriage then prohibiting same-sex marriage does discriminate against them - they have no other option. Choosing to marry multiple partners is not an aberration, but it is a personal choice and denying it is not discriminatory. Discrimination attacks what you are, not what you choose. Except for religion, if you regard that as a choice.

 

No - you misunderstand my point. I'm not arguing that they shouldn't have it, I'm arguing that preventing them from having it, while it may be a totally unreasonable restriction of their personal freedom, does not constitute discrimination. 

 

I think it is you who misunderstand my point because I assure you, I understand yours perfectly. You believe that our biological make up is of a nature that would allow us to ONLY fall in love with or be intimate with one person at a time. I'm say human behavior shows quite the opposite. One of the biggest arguments put forward about homosexuality being biological vs a choice is that no one would CHOOSE it because of the many hardships it brings them. I for one have actually read several genetic studies on homosexuality and they aren't very definitive at all. I also believe using biology as a rationale for granting a behavior is terrible reasoning because there are clearly genetic factors that contribute to intelligence, addictiveness of certain substances, propensity to easily anger, etc. They are very small factors, but none the less, we would never every declare people correct to drive drunk for example saying they just can't prevent it. Additionally if sexuality is genetic and thus behavior instead of a choice, how can we punish ANY of the remaining deviant sexual behaviors since they must also be programmed versus a choice?

 

I am attracted to women. No choice in that matter. What if one declares themselves attracted to children, animals, non-consenting strangers, etc. How can we prove choice in that and if we cannot prove choice then how can we legislate against it?

 

Clearly polygamy or polyamory brings many hardships with it within our society. We've seen many a crying spouse related to the fact that they loved or at minimum were intimate with more than one person at a time. Additionally it is one of the root causes for divorce so denying that nature or believing it to be a choice clearly causes massive harm to many people.

 

Why would someone make that choice if they could avoid it? We even have idioms, seven year itch as an example because this understanding of wanting something beyond or outside of one person for life, is so common. How can it only be a choice?

 

Actually no, and you cleared up the confusion very effectively by paraphrasing what you understand my point to be. Which it isn't. But you also bring up some very important issues, so let me try again:

Firstly, I am arguing neither for or against legalizing same-sex marriage, nor for or against legalizing polygamy. All I am doing is noting that:

(1)  If one accepts that discrimination comprises denying one segment of society a privilege or right that other segments of society have, and, if one accepts (a) that sexual orientation is a condition rather than a personal choice (although you seem to be arguing that it is for you but not for homosexuals), and (b) that both orientations are legal, then not allowing same-sex marriage is, by those definitions, discriminatory;

(2)  By the same definition of discrimination, since marrying multiple partners is not equivalent to marrying one partner (it is an additional freedom), and because disallowing polygamy disallows it for all people equally, it is a restriction of personal freedom but it is not discriminatory.

Whether I support either of those freedoms is immaterial.

Now, if you hold the view that homosexuality is a choice, then you can certainly make the argument that disallowing same-sex marriage is not discriminatory, but I did not realize that was where you were going. And, as I said, it seems a little arbitrary to assert that heterosexuality is not a choice but that homosexuality is. Why do you think that homosexuals might feel that they have any more choice than you do?

As to the question of what happens when we extend this argument to other behaviors, such as drunk driving - those are false equivalents. The equivalent of drunk driving, that would permit the argument that disallowing drunk driving is discriminatory, would not be driving sober but instead legally driving impaired under the influence of some other addictive substance (and note that both are illegal behaviors), and would still require meeting the conditions that (1) there is no choice involved in getting impaired and (b) there is a fundamental right to drive a vehicle in any condition. The equivalence fails both those conditions also.

Similarly, illegal deviant behaviors are obviously illegal, so clearly we cannot argue to legalize a framework for them. I'm not aware of much support at this time to legalize sex with farm animals and then allow mixed-species marriages. Same-sex relationships, on the other hand, are perfectly legal, and since the right to marry a partner is one enjoyed by heterosexuals, proposing it as a right for homosexuals is not equivalent to legalizing deviant behavior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

As long as we can keep discriminating against bigamists and polygamists, right?  They don't matter as much.   

 

I really don't see a single valid argument for why that is discrimination, but it keeps coming up. It's not discrimination if it just restricts personal choice. It's discrimination if it denies you equal rights - such as making your entire potential marriage pool unavailable to you.

 

Again, I'm going to say, you see it as a choice but so do many people with regard to homosexual marriage. If we talk about nature and biology there is plenty of proof that we are programmed to "cheat" or at least seek additional offspring opportunities.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Only if you assume that it is a viable option for them. I'm assuming that it is accepted not to be - therefore they are discriminated against by not being able to marry.

 

How is serial polygamy via marriage and divorce really a viable option? It causes massive harm and increasingly people avoid the whole institution of marriage all together since it is not flexible enough to deal with the reality of day to day living. Marriage is the only contract I know of that with no breach, one party can file to end at anytime without cause. People abandon institutions because the institution does not serve them and people are abandoning marriage because it does not meet their needs with its antiquated and artificial limitations.

 

I'm not sure why that is relevant. I was not addressing serial polygamy (I assume that you mean serial monogamy) in any sense, since it is perfectly legal and I was not aware that we were discussing it. Furthermore, I was not commenting on whether it is good or bad. I'm not making any moral or sociological judgements at all.

I'm seeing a lot of dust being tossed up here and some sub-par reasoning from you. I find that tends to happen when people like where the legal line in the sand happens to be for now, but much like those who didn't like the change in the first place, the reasoning has to be sound to keep it there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Actually no, and you cleared up the confusion very effectively by paraphrasing what you understand my point to be. Which it isn't. But you also bring up some very important issues, so let me try again:

 

Firstly, I am arguing neither for or against legalizing same-sex marriage, nor for or against legalizing polygamy. All I am doing is noting that:

 

(1)  If one accepts that discrimination comprises denying one segment of society a privilege or right that other segments of society have, and, if one accepts (a) that sexual orientation is a condition rather than a personal choice (although you seem to be arguing that it is for you but not for homosexuals), and (b) that both orientations are legal, then not allowing same-sex marriage is, by those definitions, discriminatory;

A couple points, any definition of marriage upheld by the state is BY DEFINITION, discriminatory. The courts have ruled that all definitions are discriminatory but the state must have a compelling rationale for their laws.

Now the rationale for same-sex marriage sex/gender and society does indeed use it for as a rationale basis for discrimination. Women are excluded from combat. They are not required to register for the draft, etc.

Is sex/gender a compeling reason to deny same-sex relationships? The courts have ruled both ways on it.

So now let's move on to condition versus choice. Homosexuality can be a condition or a choice and I would still support homosexual marriage. I know we haven't gotten much into our own views, and you appear to not want to take a side on this but I'm simply sharing I support homosexual marriage. I also support civil unions for heterosexuals and would prefer society explore and allow other relationship forms beyond just marriage and with different terms than just "for life."

So now, with regard to using condition to determine law. We can do that but we cannot limit conditions to those that have a good political lobby or who are the cause du jour. The criteria for condition cannot be selectively applied. If loving a particular sex is a condition and condition is not a compelling state interest, then all other conditions should be treated the same way. The state must be able to prove scientifically that other sex drives are choices rather than conditions or else they have no compelling interest in litigating against them.

Is loving or having a relationship with more than one person a condition or a choice? I have argued that it meets the exact same criteria and conditions as homosexuality. If homosexuality is a condition, then so is polyamory. The societal consequences for choosing polyamory, is profoundly negative so much like homosexuality, people would not undertake it as a conscious choice. I'm a stating that polyamory is a condition and is as biologically driven as homosexuality.

Now as to part b, the condition of polyamory is absolutely legal. There are no state laws that limit your number of sexual partners, that declare you must only go home to one boy or girlfriend or that you must be exclusive in your relations when unmarried. It is only when asking society do endorse the relationship via marriage that it becomes illegal aka polygamy. This is the same issue as with homosexuality as well.

Sorry but marrying one partner of a different gender is an additional criteria because homosexuals are free to marry using the same criteria that applies to heterosexuals. They are seeking to alter the marriage criteria. Altering it by sex/gender is no different than by number of partners. I do believe whether you support these freedoms is material because you seem unwilling to recognize that polyamory is legal but polygamy is not. Likewise polygamists are allowed to marry, they just do not believe the criteria are broad enough to fully encompass and recognize who they love versus who society endorses. It isn't an additional freedom but expansion of an existing freedom.

We make it choice because we believe in free will and also because we believe it proper to judge using that free will to pick the norm versus the abnormal. We consider abnormal to be deviant behavior, thus we punish murder, theft and even drug use and prostitution. Now regardless of whether I believe it a choice or not, I certainly don't care to punish it and have no problem endorsing it including endorsing homosexual marriage. However I also have no problem endorsing prostitution or certain types of drug use as long as we as a society allow people to assume their personal responsibility associated with the rights.

They are not false equivalents because as I noted above, law discriminates and society must show a compelling reason to do so. Allowing use of alcohol but not marijuana as an example is a discrimination. We do not allow drunk driving (but didn't mind it as much in the past) because when awareness was raised, society decided the cost of tolerating the drunk driving was higher than the cost of discriminating against drunk driving. If or when the laws were tested in courts, the deaths and accidents that occurred from drunk driving were declared a compelling rationale for the state to discriminate regarding that behavior.

So far the ruling on homosexual marriage with regard to courts and prop 8 have been rather nebulus. It has been ruled against once because the state refused to defend it while also proclaiming the backers were not party to defending it. Then the ruling by the 9th circuit was narrowly crafted to have it apply to ONLY California, not any other states with regard to the jurisdiction of the 9th, which is quite large.

Good discussion.

Similarly, illegal deviant behaviors are obviously illegal, so clearly we cannot argue to legalize a framework for them. I'm not aware of much support at this time to legalize sex with farm animals and then allow mixed-species marriages. Same-sex relationships, on the other hand, are perfectly legal, and since the right to marry a partner is one enjoyed by heterosexuals, proposing it as a right for homosexuals is not equivalent to legalizing deviant behavior.

Trump, that is an excellent post, specifically with regard to the ability to define marriage at all being discriminatory.  Discrimination is not the question.  The question is whether or not such discrimination is illegal.  What muppetry and others are arguing for is changing the line in the sand, as you put it.  They want to change the line's location for a certain rationale, but then reject that rationale if it comes time to argue for changing the line again.  This is really my entire problem with gay marriage, as such an approach will inevitably lead to the institution of "marriage" becoming meaningless.  Given that it's a tenant of Western Civilization and tends to be a stabilizing factor in societies, I think that's a serious problem.  

Of course, I also think there is a good chance that gay marriage becomes legal under the 14th Amendment (equal protection).   The states would, as you say, have to show a compelling reason to stop the practice.  I'm not sure that they will be able to do it, or if they will wish to do it, my argument on the slippery slope/shifting definition problem notwithstanding.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Trump, that is an excellent post, specifically with regard to the ability to define marriage at all being discriminatory.  Discrimination is not the question.  The question is whether or not such discrimination is illegal.  What muppetry and others are arguing for is changing the line in the sand, as you put it.  They want to change the line's location for a certain rationale, but then reject that rationale if it comes time to argue for changing the line again.  This is really my entire problem with gay marriage, as such an approach will inevitably lead to the institution of "marriage" becoming meaningless.

I disagree.

First, the concept of a relational, romantic, love-based relation between consenting adults (whatever term you want to use to describe it*) is a right that everyone has and is born with.

Second, because of this first presupposition, I view the State's involvement in any way at all with marriage becomes an unnecessary and liberty-reducing infringement and should come to an end.

Third, this doesn't necessarily mean that either the concept of marriage would mean nothing, since marriage is a personal relationship between two (usually) individuals. It's meaning has weight insofar as those individuals give it meaning and value. Marriage loses its meaning when people enter into it lightly and exit it from it capriciously. That's how the basic family unit become watered down and meaningless. It has nothing to do with the State's involvement (except where the State's action encourage this in some manner.) This also means that it would not bring about the end of civilization if the State were to extract itself and abstain from involvement in this personal, noble and valuable union.

*I personally believe that the only true marriages are what God has defined and that is one between a single man and a single woman. But I don't believe I have any right to impose that restriction on anyone else. Adults should be free to enter into whatever relationships they desire to. If these violate God's commands, that's between them and God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

I disagree.

 

First, the concept of a relational, romantic, love-based relation between consenting adults (whatever term you want to use to describe it*) is a right that everyone has and is born with.

 

Second, because of this first presupposition, I view the State's involvement in any way at all with marriage becomes an unnecessary and liberty-reducing infringement and should come to an end.

 

Third, this doesn't necessarily mean that either the concept of marriage would mean nothing, since marriage is a personal relationship between two (usually) individuals. It's meaning has weight insofar as those individuals give it meaning and value. Marriage loses its meaning when people enter into it lightly and exit it from it capriciously. That's how the basic family unit become watered down and meaningless. It has nothing to do with the State's involvement (except where the State's action encourage this in some manner.) This also means that it would not bring about the end of civilization if the State were to extract itself and abstain from involvement in this personal, noble and valuable union.

 

*I personally believe that the only true marriages are what God has defined and that is one between a single man and a single woman. But I don't believe I have any right to impose that restriction on anyone else. Adults should be free to enter into whatever relationships they desire to. If these violate God's commands, that's between them and God.

I don't entirely disagree with your statements, though I don't agree with them either.

The problem is that marriage is a integral part of our society today.  Government (local, state or federal) bases numerous things up the legal relationship established via marriage.  I'm not sure how to effectively extricate the government from marriage at this point in the game.  It would be kind of like taking yardage markers out of football.  Good luck with that one.

I do however totally agree with all parts of your final statement.  I just don't see a practical way of removing government entirely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

The problem is that marriage is a integral part of our society today.

I agree that marriage and the family unit are a critical part of society and culture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Government (local, state or federal) bases numerous things up the legal relationship established via marriage.

That may be true. But probably irrelevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

I'm not sure how to effectively extricate the government from marriage at this point in the game.

Well issues of how are secondary at the moment. First is getting a wider understanding and agreement that the State's involvement in this part of society is intrusive, freedom-limiting and unnecessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

It would be kind of like taking yardage markers out of football.

I disagree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

I just don't see a practical way of removing government entirely.

Again, the first order of business is a wider intellectual understanding and agreement that it's involvement is intrusive, freedom-limiting and unnecessary. Once that has been establish I'm certain we'll see the ways to extricate it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

I'm seeing a lot of dust being tossed up here and some sub-par reasoning from you. I find that tends to happen when people like where the legal line in the sand happens to be for now, but much like those who didn't like the change in the first place, the reasoning has to be sound to keep it there.

 

If my reasoning is poor then it certainly isn't due to an affinity for the status quo, but actually I don't see where you have confounded any of my conclusions; most, though not all, of your points seem tangential. Some I agree with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

 

Actually no, and you cleared up the confusion very effectively by paraphrasing what you understand my point to be. Which it isn't. But you also bring up some very important issues, so let me try again:

 

Firstly, I am arguing neither for or against legalizing same-sex marriage, nor for or against legalizing polygamy. All I am doing is noting that:

 

(1)  If one accepts that discrimination comprises denying one segment of society a privilege or right that other segments of society have, and, if one accepts (a) that sexual orientation is a condition rather than a personal choice (although you seem to be arguing that it is for you but not for homosexuals), and (b) that both orientations are legal, then not allowing same-sex marriage is, by those definitions, discriminatory;

 

A couple points, any definition of marriage upheld by the state is BY DEFINITION, discriminatory. The courts have ruled that all definitions are discriminatory but the state must have a compelling rationale for their laws.

 

I do not see how that follows. Why is any definition discriminatory? A definition is almost always restrictive, but need not be discriminatory. For example, if marriage were defined such that one could marry anyone of one's choosing, of any race, sex etc., then that is restrictive but not discriminatory since it gives everyone an equal opportunity to marry a viable partner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Now the rationale for same-sex marriage sex/gender and society does indeed use it for as a rationale basis for discrimination. Women are excluded from combat. They are not required to register for the draft, etc.

 

Is sex/gender a compeling reason to deny same-sex relationships? The courts have ruled both ways on it.

 

I'm not seeing what you are getting at here. What does discrimination against women have to do with this issue?

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

So now let's move on to condition versus choice. Homosexuality can be a condition or a choice and I would still support homosexual marriage. I know we haven't gotten much into our own views, and you appear to not want to take a side on this but I'm simply sharing I support homosexual marriage. I also support civil unions for heterosexuals and would prefer society explore and allow other relationship forms beyond just marriage and with different terms than just "for life."

 

I don't think my view on this adds anything to the argument, but, as it happens, it is similar to yours.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

So now, with regard to using condition to determine law. We can do that but we cannot limit conditions to those that have a good political lobby or who are the cause du jour. The criteria for condition cannot be selectively applied. If loving a particular sex is a condition and condition is not a compelling state interest, then all other conditions should be treated the same way. The state must be able to prove scientifically that other sex drives are choices rather than conditions or else they have no compelling interest in litigating against them.

 

I'd argue that the question is more appropriately whether or not the condition is promoting illegal or undesirable behavior. If it isn't then by default it should be permitted and there exists no reason to deny it as a right. So, if homosexuality were illegal for whatever reason, then it would make no sense to grant same-sex marriage the same status as regular marriage. Since it isn't illegal there is no compelling reason to deny that right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Is loving or having a relationship with more than one person a condition or a choice? I have argued that it meets the exact same criteria and conditions as homosexuality. If homosexuality is a condition, then so is polyamory. The societal consequences for choosing polyamory, is profoundly negative so much like homosexuality, people would not undertake it as a conscious choice. I'm a stating that polyamory is a condition and is as biologically driven as homosexuality.

 

Now as to part b, the condition of polyamory is absolutely legal. There are no state laws that limit your number of sexual partners, that declare you must only go home to one boy or girlfriend or that you must be exclusive in your relations when unmarried. It is only when asking society do endorse the relationship via marriage that it becomes illegal aka polygamy. This is the same issue as with homosexuality as well.

 

I'm not arguing that polyamory is or is not a condition, nor disputing its legality. I'm arguing that denying the right to marry multiple partners intrudes equally on everyone's freedom, so it is restrictive but not discriminatory. It is analogous to denying the right to own fully automatic weapons - restrictive but not discriminatory. That is in contrast to denying same-sex marriage, which leads to the situation where heterosexuals can marry anyone from their viable pool of candidates, while homosexuals can marry no one from their viable pool. It is restrictive to a specific segment of society; that makes it discriminatory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

(2) By the same definition of discrimination, since marrying multiple partners is not equivalent to marrying one partner (it is an additional freedom), and because disallowing polygamy disallows it for all people equally, it is a restriction of personal freedom but it is not discriminatory.

 

Whether I support either of those freedoms is immaterial.

 

Sorry but marrying one partner of a different gender is an additional criteria because homosexuals are free to marry using the same criteria that applies to heterosexuals. They are seeking to alter the marriage criteria. Altering it by sex/gender is no different than by number of partners. I do believe whether you support these freedoms is material because you seem unwilling to recognize that polyamory is legal but polygamy is not. Likewise polygamists are allowed to marry, they just do not believe the criteria are broad enough to fully encompass and recognize who they love versus who society endorses. It isn't an additional freedom but expansion of an existing freedom.

 

I disagree, because marrying someone of the opposite sex is not an option for homosexuals, so heterosexuals have freedom of marriage but homosexuals de facto do not. Harking back to the bad old days - that's like arguing that blacks were free to enter white-only establishments provided that they were willing to become white. And again I argue that you are conflating restriction with discrimination; denying polygamy is restrictive and may be regarded as very unreasonable, but it is not discriminatory. Being allowed to marry any one person of your choosing is the freedom that is in question here. Being allowed to marry more than one person is a different and additional freedom.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

Quote:

Now, if you hold the view that homosexuality is a choice, then you can certainly make the argument that disallowing same-sex marriage is not discriminatory, but I did not realize that was where you were going. And, as I said, it seems a little arbitrary to assert that heterosexuality is not a choice but that homosexuality is. Why do you think that homosexuals might feel that they have any more choice than you do?

 

We make it choice because we believe in free will and also because we believe it proper to judge using that free will to pick the norm versus the abnormal. We consider abnormal to be deviant behavior, thus we punish murder, theft and even drug use and prostitution. Now regardless of whether I believe it a choice or not, I certainly don't care to punish it and have no problem endorsing it including endorsing homosexual marriage. However I also have no problem endorsing prostitution or certain types of drug use as long as we as a society allow people to assume their personal responsibility associated with the rights.

 

We outlaw murder and theft because they infringe on other more important rights - the rights of all individuals to exist peacefully with their possessions. We outlaw drug use and prostitution because of a perceived detrimental effect of that behavior on society. These are, in any case, not relevant for the very reason that they are illegal. We are discussing legalizing a framework to avoid discriminatory treatment of an existing legal behavior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trumptman 

 

Quote:

As to the question of what happens when we extend this argument to other behaviors, such as drunk driving - those are false equivalents. The equivalent of drunk driving, that would permit the argument that disallowing drunk driving is discriminatory, would not be driving sober but instead legally driving impaired under the influence of some other addictive substance (and note that both are illegal behaviors), and would still require meeting the conditions that (1) there is no choice involved in getting impaired and (b) there is a fundamental right to drive a vehicle in any condition. The equivalence fails both those conditions also.

 

They are not false equivalents because as I noted above, law discriminates and society must show a compelling reason to do so. Allowing use of alcohol but not marijuana as an example is a discrimination. We do not allow drunk driving (but didn't mind it as much in the past) because when awareness was raised, society decided the cost of tolerating the drunk driving was higher than the cost of discriminating against drunk driving. If or when the laws were tested in courts, the deaths and accidents that occurred from drunk driving were declared a compelling rationale for the state to discriminate regarding that behavior.

 

So far the ruling on homosexual marriage with regard to courts and prop 8 have been rather nebulus. It has been ruled against once because the state refused to defend it while also proclaiming the backers were not party to defending it. Then the ruling by the 9th circuit was narrowly crafted to have it apply to ONLY California, not any other states with regard to the jurisdiction of the 9th, which is quite large.

 

Good discussion.

No, they are false equivalents because while the law restricts undesirable behavior, it should not restrict in a discriminatory manner. Allowing the use of alcohol but not marijuana is not discriminatory, because those are entirely personal preferences. If that distinction is not fundamentally obvious then I'm stumped as to how to make it any clearer than I already have; discrimination restricts a person's freedom based on an unalterable aspect of their existence - race, gender, disability, sexual orientation etc., not based on a personal choice that they may make, such as a choice to smoke or to take several wives.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

discrimination restricts a person's freedom based on an unalterable aspect of their existence - race, gender, disability, sexual orientation etc., not based on a personal choice that they may make

I see the underlying (and unproven) presupposition you have now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

discrimination restricts a person's freedom based on an unalterable aspect of their existence - race, gender, disability, sexual orientation etc., not based on a personal choice that they may make

 

I see the underlying (and unproven) presupposition you have now.

No - what you see is the general definition of prejudicial discrimination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

No - what you see is the general definition of prejudicial discrimination.

A definition in which you have included an unproven presupposition about one of those characteristics you've listed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

I disagree.

 

First, the concept of a relational, romantic, love-based relation between consenting adults (whatever term you want to use to describe it*) is a right that everyone has and is born with.

Agreed.  

I know.  

I don't mean it would mean nothing to individuals.  I mean it would become meaningless in our society, because we'd essentially have no definition of what it is.  

Adults are free to enter into any relationship they choose.  They are not free to marry whomever they choose.  By your logic, we should be able to marry immediate family members.  

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

No - what you see is the general definition of prejudicial discrimination.

 

A definition in which you have included an unproven presupposition about one of those characteristics you've listed.

Ah - I see what you are getting at. But I already noted several times, including in that post, that if you regard homosexuality as a choice then denying same-sex marriage is not discriminatory. You didn't read the entire post - I wondered how you had replied so fast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I mean it would become meaningless in our society, because we'd essentially have no definition of what it is.

Why does that matter?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Adults are free to enter into any relationship they choose.  They are not free to marry whomever they choose.

Now your playing a semantical game.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

By your logic, we should be able to marry immediate family members.

As consenting adults, yes. That's correct. That would be an individual's right from a human, political, societal perspective. Whether it was a good idea or morally right according to a higher being (like God) is a completely different matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Ah - I see what you are getting at. But I already noted several times, including in that post, that if you regard homosexuality as a choice then denying same-sex marriage is not discriminatory. You didn't read the entire post - I wondered how you had replied so fast.

Fair point that you have noted this (I did read that).

Part of the issue here might the definition of discriminatory. You seem to be saying the it is only discrimination if it applies in cases where someone has no choice of the circumstances (gender, race are two concrete examples). But is that too narrow a definition of "discriminatory?" Discrimination, in general, is simply about using some criteria to distinguish one thing from another. Perhaps you are saying that it is unfair to discriminate based on factors un-choosable by a particular party (e.g., gender, race, eye color, etc.) but it seems to me that it is still discriminatory if the rules are based upon certain self-chosen behaviors, etc. If dye my hair orange and an employer will not employ me because of it, is it discriminatory? Sure. Is it fair or unfair? I don't know. I don't care. As far as I'm concerned it the employers right to make this discrimination just as it is his right to make it based on my skin color, eye color, gender, etc.

Furthermore you seem to be asserting that the definition you offered with the presupposition it contains (that homosexuality is not a choice) is the correct or undisputed definition. Perhaps that's just my inference though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

Quote:

Originally Posted by muppetry 

Ah - I see what you are getting at. But I already noted several times, including in that post, that if you regard homosexuality as a choice then denying same-sex marriage is not discriminatory. You didn't read the entire post - I wondered how you had replied so fast.

 

Fair point that you have noted this (I did read that).

 

Part of the issue here might the definition of discriminatory. You seem to be saying the it is only discrimination if it applies in cases where someone has no choice of the circumstances (gender, race are two concrete examples). But is that too narrow a definition of "discriminatory?" Discrimination, in general, is simply about using some criteria to distinguish one thing from another. Perhaps you are saying that it is unfair to discriminate based on factors un-choosable by a particular party (e.g., gender, race, eye color, etc.) but it seems to me that it is still discriminatory if the rules are based upon certain self-chosen behaviors, etc. If dye my hair orange and an employer will not employ me because of it, is it discriminatory? Sure. Is it fair or unfair? I don't know. I don't care. As far as I'm concerned it the employers right to make this discrimination just as it is his right to make it based on my skin color, eye color, gender, etc.

 

Furthermore you seem to be asserting that the definition you offered with the presupposition it contains (that homosexuality is not a choice) is the correct or undisputed definition. Perhaps that's just my inference though.

The word discrimination has a depth of meaning beyond the legal meaning of prejudicial discrimination. I cannot think of any examples of anti-discrimination legislation that include categories implied by choice, but I cannot rule out that such examples may exist. By the generally accepted definition, such categories do not qualify, and, as you noted, the well-known examples bear that out. It is not discriminatory to deny employment due to appearance (although in the general sense of the word one is clearly discriminating), and appearance may be a condition of employment. It may constitute unfair dismissal though.

For the purposes of the discussion I was assuming that homosexuality is not a choice, at least in most cases, but I did note that caveat and the implications of that not being the case. If it is not the general consensus on that question, then there is a surprising reticence on the part of those who don't believe it to publicize their position, and I don't see it being raised much as an objection to same-sex marriage. On the other hand, declaring that position would be controversial and probably counterproductive.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Why does that matter?

You don't think it matters that the institution of marriage essentially doesn't mean anything?  You don't think that would have a negative impact on our society?  

That was not my intention at all.  We are talking about legal marriage, and you mentioned "relationship."  People are free to enter into "relationships" now, just not any marriage they choose.  

This is where I get off the bus.  In a democratic republic, citizens--acting through their government---should be able to set certain frameworks for the society.  This includes preventing practices that the vast, vast majority of the nation find morally reprehensible.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

You don't think it matters that the institution of marriage essentially doesn't mean anything?

I don't think it matters enough to justify compelling other to conform to my set of moral values in this issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

You don't think that would have a negative impact on our society?

It might, yes.

Frankly I think you assume a very high degree of probability to this possibility without any supporting evidence. You seem to think that if the State doesn't define and enforce what marriage is, it would simply disappear and society would fall apart without the State to hold it together (at least in this way.) I find that rather pessimistic and highly unlikely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

That was not my intention at all.  We are talking about legal marriage, and you mentioned "relationship."  People are free to enter into "relationships" now, just not any marriage they choose.

*sigh*

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

This is where I get off the bus.  In a democratic republic, citizens--acting through their government---should be able to set certain frameworks for the society.  This includes preventing practices that the vast, vast majority of the nation find morally reprehensible.  

So we disagree. That's fine. Except that your position has you forcing your views onto others, but mine doesn't have me forcing mine onto others. I'm going to claim the high ground here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

I don't think it matters enough to justify compelling other to conform to my set of moral values in this issue.

 

 

It's not just your moral values.  It's the moral values of the citizenry as expressed through their elected representatives.  

I'm not sure how I could provide "evidence."  But I think most would agree that legal marriages between brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, grandparents and whatever other egregious example you'd like to throw out there would have consequences ranging from birth defects to grotesque perversion of our societal structure.  If you mean the number of people that would engage in the behavior, that's a fair point.  But a limited number of people engaging in a behavior does not justify having it be legally recognized.   

If you meant marriage, that's fine.  I'm not trying to wordsmith you here.  I simply got the impression that you mean "relationship," not legal marriage.  

Get off the high horse.  We're not talking about "my" views. We're talking about the views of a vast majority of a society.  We're talking about whether or not citizens can shape their society through government in even basic ways.  One place we appear to disagree on the role of government relates to the preamble of the Constitution:

Imagine if we allowed, say, people to marry as many people as they want?  It would be pandemonium, and would unquestionably disrupt domestic tranquility.  We do, as a nation, have the right to pass laws that protect freedom and liberty consistent with law and order.   This contrasts with your view, where "the State" simply does whatever it wants, and is a giant all-powerful behemoth, as if we live in Soviet Russia.  Granted, the size and scope of out government has moved us closer to that standard, which is why I favor cutting back and limiting government,  I'm aware that you want to go much further, and in the past have argued for essentially for a sort of defacto anarchy.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

It's not just your moral values.  It's the moral values of the citizenry as expressed through their elected representatives.

That makes no difference, and now you're begging the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I'm not sure how I could provide "evidence."  But I think most would agree that legal marriages between brothers and sisters, mothers and sons, grandparents and whatever other egregious example you'd like to throw out there would have consequences ranging from birth defects to grotesque perversion of our societal structure.  If you mean the number of people that would engage in the behavior, that's a fair point.  But a limited number of people engaging in a behavior does not justify having it be legally recognized.

Again, you seem to be assuming there's a high or even substantial level of probability of these things happening. I don't agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

If you meant marriage, that's fine.  I'm not trying to wordsmith you here.  I simply got the impression that you mean "relationship," not legal marriage.

I was trying to be generic in my description. But my point still stands: Everyone has the right. It's just the the State has chose to interfere with that right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Get off the high horse.

No, it's the high ground that I have. Try to keep up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

We're not talking about "my" views. We're talking about the views of a vast majority of a society.

And that doesn't change the basic principle. The vast majority of society could feel that red heads are evil and should be killed at birth. That the "vast majority" agrees about this wouldn't ever make it right. You're starting to sound like and use jimmac's arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

We're talking about whether or not citizens can shape their society through government in even basic ways.

More clearly and succinctly: We're talking about whether or not a group of people collectively can use force to impose their values on all people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

One place we appear to disagree on the role of government relates to the preamble of the Constitution:

I suppose we might. Or we might have different interpretations of a) what those things mean, and b) to what degree the things we're discussing intersect with or affect those things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Imagine if we allowed, say, people to marry as many people as they want?  It would be pandemonium, and would unquestionably disrupt domestic tranquility.

Possibly but not probably. Again you appear to attribute a high degree of a) probability to the most negative possible outcomes, and b) a high degree of certainty that the only thing holding society together is the State. I disagree on both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

We do, as a nation, have the right to pass laws that protect freedom and liberty consistent with law and order.

I don't even know what the **** that means...and neither do you. You just said it because it sounds neat. Who is "we"? You're just saying shit that is meaningless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

This contrasts with your view, where "the State" simply does whatever it wants, and is a giant all-powerful behemoth, as if we live in Soviet Russia.

Well, as more than one person has written, the State is nothing but a criminal gang writ large. Granted some are more criminal than others or execute their criminality more obviously than others.

P.S. The differences between the US and Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy or Soviet Russia are becoming startling small.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I'm aware that you want to go much further, and in the past have argued for essentially for a sort of defacto anarchy.  

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

That makes no difference, and now you're begging the question.

It absolutely makes a difference.  One person versus society at large?  

Not at all.  In fact you ignored the point that probability of the behavior doesn't really matter.  

We're not talking generically. We're talking what a legal marriage is.  

I agree, and that's we are a nation of laws, not of men.  The majority cannot do whatever it pleases.  

That's called government, which you appear to oppose in all forms.  

Possibly.  

The probability doesn't matter, as I already explained.  

You don't think we need law and order?  

We disagree.  Government does not have to be that way.  

Overstated, to say the least.  

Yes, the utopian dream world where everyone gets along with everyone else, we need no laws, no governmental structure, etc.  Got it.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

It absolutely makes a difference.

I don't see how, but I'm willing to listen to your argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

One person versus society at large?

But using argumentum de incredulity isn't going to convince me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Not at all.

Then I apologize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

In fact you ignored the point that probability of the behavior doesn't really matter.

No. I just don't agree, but I'm willing to list to your argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

We're not talking generically. We're talking what a legal marriage is.

That doesn't change my point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I agree, and that's we are a nation of laws, not of men.  The majority cannot do whatever it pleases.

OK. Good. What limits it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

That's called government, which you appear to oppose in all forms.

Yes, I know that's what government is: Force. Yes, I do oppose it. Sad that you don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

The probability doesn't matter, as I already explained.

I disagree. No you didn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

You don't think we need law and order?

I never said any such thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

We disagree.  Government does not have to be that way.

Yes we do. Government is that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Overstated, to say the least.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Yes, the utopian dream world where everyone gets along with everyone else, we need no laws, no governmental structure, etc.  Got it.  

Your lame attempt to dismiss my beliefs as "Utopian" notwithstanding, it is not predicated on the assumption that "everyone gets along with everyone else" or that "we need no laws." These are straw men.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

I don't see how, but I'm willing to listen to your argument.

 

 

 

But using argumentum de incredulity isn't going to convince me.

 

 

 

Then I apologize.

 

 

 

No. I just don't agree, but I'm willing to list to your argument.

 

 

 

That doesn't change my point.

 

 

 

OK. Good. What limits it?

 

 

 

Yes, I know that's what government is: Force. Yes, I do oppose it. Sad that you don't.

 

 

 

I disagree. No you didn't.

 

 

 

I never said any such thing.

 

 

 

Yes we do. Government is that way.

 

 

 

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

 

 

 

Your lame attempt to dismiss my beliefs as "Utopian" notwithstanding, it is not predicated on the assumption that "everyone gets along with everyone else" or that "we need no laws." These are straw men.

We're back to your total opposition to government, so we should probably just agree to disagree.  On the topic of individual vs. societal values, I understand you think that no one should be subject to the will of another.  But if you take that reasoning all the way, what you're really arguing (if I'm not mistaken) is that we should really not have laws at all, with the exception prohibiting violent crime and the like (direct harm to others).   Correct?  

Regarding a nation of laws, (a John Adams quote, as you might know), the majority is limited by the ultimate law of the land (in our case the federal Constitution).  

And regarding the likelihood of a behavior:   I just want to ask you to clarify here...are you making the argument that we should not outlaw things which occur infrequently?  Or are you arguing that we currently don't outlaw things which occur infrequently?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

We're back to your total opposition to government, so we should probably just agree to disagree.

Certainly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

On the topic of individual vs. societal values, I understand you think that no one should be subject to the will of another.  But if you take that reasoning all the way, what you're really arguing (if I'm not mistaken) is that we should really not have laws at all, with the exception prohibiting violent crime and the like (direct harm to others).   Correct?

To be as precise as I can: It is about the use of initiative force by any individual or group against another individual or group. This I consider immoral. Defensive force is justifiably moral however. Secondly, each person is born with certain God-given rights including the right to life, liberty and (properly obtained) property (including self-ownership.) The violation of these right I also consider immoral. Ultimately the state exists because it can and so it can violate these rights in some degree or another. To the extent that a state can exist that does not do this and, in fact, protects these rights, then I would consider it moral and legitimate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Regarding a nation of laws, (a John Adams quote, as you might know), the majority is limited by the ultimate law of the land (in our case the federal Constitution).

If only that were true in practice.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

And regarding the likelihood of a behavior:   I just want to ask you to clarify here...are you making the argument that we should not outlaw things which occur infrequently?  Or are you arguing that we currently don't outlaw things which occur infrequently?  

I'm saying the likelihood or probability doesn't affect the morality or justification of the State's intervention.

In others words:

1. Every person is born with the rights of life, liberty and property (including self-ownership.)
2. These base rights imply the right to associate (or not) with and enter into relationships (or not) with any other consenting adult* in whatever manner they wish.
3. The State's interference in any way with this is unwarranted even if the probability that some consenting adults may join together in relationships that many would consider immoral (e.g., two people of the same gender "marrying" or even two close adult relatives "marrying" each other) is high.

More directly answering your questions:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

are you making the argument that we should not outlaw things which occur infrequently?

No.

I'm saying that the scope of what the State should be limited to outlawing are things that violate the basic rights life, liberty and property as well as any derivative rights (e.g., the right of defense of life, liberty and property; the right to trade with whomever one wishes regardless of geography; the right to engage in any profession one desires; etc.) or violates everyone's right of self-ownership.

This standard would eliminate a ton of federal, state and local laws including a lot of things that are not immediately obvious as violations of these basic rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Or are you arguing that we currently don't outlaw things which occur infrequently?  

The State currently outlaws all manner of shit both frequently and infrequently occurring.

*Adult might be vaguely defined or defined to include different ages or characteristics depending on the circumstances and children are excluded from this because we are excluding people too immature or ignorant to reasonably make such consenting decisions themselves. This might be an appropriate place for the State to play some role: To protect the rights of those who are unable to protect themselves (e.g., children, etc.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

 

Certainly.

 

 

 

To be as precise as I can: It is about the use of initiative force by any individual or group against another individual or group. This I consider immoral. Defensive force is justifiably moral however. Secondly, each person is born with certain God-given rights including the right to life, liberty and (properly obtained) property (including self-ownership.) The violation of these right I also consider immoral. Ultimately the state exists because it can and so it can violate these rights in some degree or another. To the extent that a state can exist that does not do this and, in fact, protects these rights, then I would consider it moral and legitimate.

I appreciate the explanation, but it didn't really answer the question.  I'm asking if there are any laws you would support beyond outlawing harm done to others.  It doesn't seem like you would support, say, the building of roads, speed limits, laws on any manner of regulation (environmental, financial or otherwise).  

Haven't you made it quite clear that you realize your vision of government (or lack thereof) will never happen in practice?

I understand your position, but you directly argued against outlawing incest, polygamy (etc) because they were unlikely to occur.  I'm the one that said frequency didn't matter.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I appreciate the explanation, but it didn't really answer the question.  I'm asking if there are any laws you would support beyond outlawing harm done to others.

Perhaps not in that paragraph, but I thought I did in these:

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

It doesn't seem like you would support, say, the building of roads, speed limits, laws on any manner of regulation (environmental, financial or otherwise). 

Roads: Can (and should) be private. No need for the State there. Road operators would deal with the appropriate rules (e.g., speed limits) within that context.

Environmental: Ultimately a private property regime here would be best, however, absent this some environmental regulations may be necessary because private property boundaries are difficult to police.

Financial: No. The market can handle this. But first the Fed needs to end and we need to have a private market in money and the banking cartel needs to end...no more State-protected banks.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

Haven't you made it quite clear that you realize your vision of government (or lack thereof) will never happen in practice?

I believe I've said that it probably won't happen given the current ideological, intellectual and educational (not to mention emotional and rational) state of a large part of the population. Meaning that I don't see us getting there any time soon. The first order of business is to educate, inform and enlighten people. The first step is an intellectual revolution. Freedom can't be forced on people, they have to want it, they have to understand it and when it is being abridged. A more clear understanding of the State and what it really is and does is part of this. Perhaps then socially, politically, culturally, etc. we can evolve to a new manner of social organization that does not include the State and its requisite use of force.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

I understand your position, but you directly argued against outlawing incest, polygamy (etc) because they were unlikely to occur.  I'm the one that said frequency didn't matter.  

I wasn't arguing against outlawing them because they were unlikely to occur. I was arguing against them because it would be an infringement upon the rights of consenting adults by the State. What I'm also saying is that: a) the probability of these things happening doesn't matter in that argument, and b) the probability of these things happening is low even without laws prohibiting them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

Don't you think this is an inherently bad idea?

No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

For example, how does this support your freedom to engage in trade regardless of geography?  If you have to move a product say 100 miles you could end up having to travel on several private roads.  Each of these roads are going to require you to pay usage fees to the individual owners.

So? You sure you can't see other examples like that that presently work? What if you have to buy or rent land or buildings? What if you have to buy equipment from others? What if you have to employ the services of other persons? These are all fundamentally the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

Or how about a scenario like this hurricane Sandy right now in the Northeast?  You are now dealing with a potentially massive public safety issue where evacuation routes could be across private roads and the operators would be free to jack up the fees on those simply trying to flee.

I suppose that's possible. I suspect the market would have sorted this out. For example most people would likely have pre-existing and fixed-price contracts with transportation companies. I suspect this situation wouldn't be as dire as you imagine. We might also ask how many people would be living in these areas if the State wasn't subsidizing their insurance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

Personally, I think that current environmental regulations are grossly excessive, but you have at least acknowledged the issue here pertaining to the permeability of property boundaries.  Some regulations are definitely going to be required.

Agreed...at least until we have discovered a way to make this a more clear property boundary issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

I actually agree the most with this one, but I think that there is still going to be the need for some oversight here to protect both the market itself and the investors.  This protection is going to be especially critical for instance for the elderly who are depending on their retirement investments.

Why? Why do you assume this oversight must be done by the State? Now I've already said that the State might have a legitimate role to play in protecting people's property. This would include protection from fraud (a form of theft.) Beyond that though, the market can provide the oversight investors need and desire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

 

I think this idea could be achieved among relatively small groups of people, but I just don't see how this could ever happen in a large diverse population such as here in the US.  In fact, your very "first step" pretty much ensures that this would never happen.  Too many people in this country are complacent, or honestly just content with their current life to be interested in such dramatic change regardless of the reason behind it.  Additionally, you seem to be implying this on a global scale and I argue that it would be hard if not virtually impossible to achieve on a scale of thousands of individuals much less billions.

You may be right. But it need not be so. It need not be global to work. It can and would work within the boundaries where it is implemented. Those who chose not to would suffer the consequences of their own choices.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 

So? You sure you can't see other examples like that that presently work? What if you have to buy or rent land or buildings? What if you have to buy equipment from others? What if you have to employ the services of other persons? These are all fundamentally the same thing.

No, it's fundamentally different.  Movement from point A to point B has generally been perceived as a right of all free people.  Sure, today we have some toll roads but there are, with few exceptions, alternative options to paying the tolls.  Your proposal would be that any time I decide to go anywhere whatsoever I must pay someone simply for the right to travel from point A to point B, whether I'm going on vacation across country, out to a movie, or to the grociery store for food.  Paying someone for the right to freely move about is simply wrong.  I suppose that you could argue that we do so already via taxes to state and local government, but the intrusiveness of a completely privatized road system sounds like a nightmare to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

No, it's fundamentally different.

No, it's not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Movement from point A to point B has generally been perceived as a right of all free people.

Yes. In the sense that it is not to be prevented, not that it must be provided. There's a difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Sure, today we have some toll roads but there are, with few exceptions, alternative options to paying the tolls.

Wake up: Every road is a toll road.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Your proposal would be that any time I decide to go anywhere whatsoever I must pay someone simply for the right to travel from point A to point B, whether I'm going on vacation across country, out to a movie, or to the grociery store for food.

No. You would pay to use someone's transportation service and property. Granted some roads (perhaps local roads) might default to being community property, but things like the long-haul highway system could easily be privatized.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

Paying someone for the right to freely move about is simply wrong.

Being required to pay to use someone else's property is not however and that's what you'd be paying for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

I suppose that you could argue that we do so already via taxes to state and local government...

I can argue that because that is the case. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by svnipp 

...but the intrusiveness of a completely privatized road system sounds like a nightmare to me.

I'm sorry that it sounds that way to you. That doesn't mean it would be of course.

What I find interesting is the immediate, knee-jerk dystopian imagination that so many people so quickly jump to in situations like this. It's as if many people lack any ability to imagine how the situation could be as good or even better. It's as if they cannot possibly imagine new, innovative and creative ways the problems they imagine might be solves with State involvement. It's as if they cannot see the plethora of current real-world examples of order, coordination and peaceful collaboration that exist in the private market without (or even in spite of) State control and intervention. That's quite fascinating to me.