I was not trying to argue that the government is not, first and foremost, constrained by the constitution; just that within that constraint the intent of a democracy is to follow the wishes of the people, not use the position as a license to further one's own agendas.
You let us know when it works that way.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Originally Posted by muppetry
I think you will find that your definition of secular is incorrect, at least as applied to government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
And in no way is it claimed that religion may not inform views - the point is that religious beliefs have no more legitimacy in terms of defining policy than any other personal opinion, and should not be appealed to as an authority.
I took my answer from the Lemon Test which is what the Supreme Court uses to determine rulings related to both secular and religious matters. Declaring our government is secular and then linking to the definition for secular doesn't prove our government is secular. It is circular reasoning. I maintained our government is not exclusively secular. It merely demands no religious preference.
Also while you have not argued that religion grants no authority, others in this thread namely BR, have argued that it should not be accorded even that status.
Here is an example from this thread:
Any belief system that would deny the latter is morally bankrupt and has no place in civilized society.
That view is irrational and reflects hatred and bias. You've declared that you wouldn't say his view goes as far as that. I think you should revise that statement. You have your personal opinion informed by your inputs. I have my personal opinion informed by my inputs which may include religion. Per BR, I should not be allowed to participate in civic discourse and in fact I have no place in civilized society. That is hatred.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
No, I'm just trying to make sure same-sex couples have the same rights as any other loving heterosexual couple. Your right not to be offended or not to feel icky does not trump the rights of those same-sex couples. Your right to judge people unworthy does not trump a gay woman's right to visit her wife on her wife's deathbed--something that has been denied to many.
Your right to be a fucking bigot does not trump a same-sex couple's right to say one final goodbye to each other. Any belief system that would deny the latter is morally bankrupt and has no place in civilized society.
I would assume that you then also support polygamy? I don't see any reason that if we are going to as a society change the definition of marriage to extend to same-sex couples we can continue to maintain the legal ban on polygamy. Please don't give me that "slippery slope" crap because you know that if same-sex marriage were to be made legal in the US that there would be numerous suits brought about pertaining to polygamy. So, I say again that I assume you are in favor of polygamy?
I don't have a problem with it as long as everyone is a consenting adult. I don't know that there will be rallying cries for legalized polygamy, but I would not oppose them as long as the legal framework for marriage between more than two individuals is sufficiently robust.
Same-sex marriage is easy--no changes to the legal framework need to be made aside from dropping the bigoted opposite gender requirement. Polygamy is harder to implement, but I am not opposed in the least.
Not much of a gotcha question there, though you tried to frame it that way.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Originally Posted by muppetry
I think you will find that your definition of secular is incorrect, at least as applied to government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state
And in no way is it claimed that religion may not inform views - the point is that religious beliefs have no more legitimacy in terms of defining policy than any other personal opinion, and should not be appealed to as an authority.
I took my answer from the Lemon Test which is what the Supreme Court uses to determine rulings related to both secular and religious matters. Declaring our government is secular and then linking to the definition for secular doesn't prove our government is secular. It is circular reasoning. I maintained our government is not exclusively secular. It merely demands no religious preference.
Also while you have not argued that religion grants no authority, others in this thread namely BR, have argued that it should not be accorded even that status.
Here is an example from this thread:
Any belief system that would deny the latter is morally bankrupt and has no place in civilized society.
That view is irrational and reflects hatred and bias. You've declared that you wouldn't say his view goes as far as that. I think you should revise that statement. You have your personal opinion informed by your inputs. I have my personal opinion informed by my inputs which may include religion. Per BR, I should not be allowed to participate in civic discourse and in fact I have no place in civilized society. That is hatred.
You may disagree with the source that I cited, but I did not use circular reasoning. Perhaps you didn't actually follow the link. You argued that secular means an absence of religion rather than religion neutral. I pointed out that a secular state is indeed defined as religion neutral, and that the US therefore meets that definition, and indeed is given as an example of a secular state. I'm not declaring the US to be secular - merely noting that it meets the criteria.
I'm not trying to defend all BR's positions - that must be clear to you. I will, however, point out when I think that you or others mistakenly dismiss all his arguments because some of them may be wrong. Perhaps he does have a serious problem with religion. Perhaps he would care to confirm or deny that. But while I agree that he does, on occasion, ridicule religion, that does not, per se, equate to or imply hatred. Nor does claiming that a belief system is morally bankrupt imply hatred. Nor does claiming that a belief system is morally bankrupt equate to saying that a believer has no place in civilized society. I think you are reaching too far to obtain the conclusion of hatred. You could be right though.
I don't have a problem with it as long as everyone is a consenting adult. I don't know that there will be rallying cries for legalized polygamy, but I would not oppose them as long as the legal framework for marriage between more than two individuals is sufficiently robust.
Same-sex marriage is easy--no changes to the legal framework need to be made aside from dropping the bigoted opposite gender requirement. Polygamy is harder to implement, but I am not opposed in the least.
Not much of a gotcha question there, though you tried to frame it that way.
You mentioned exactly the problem. The legal framework for polygamy would be a nightmare to workout. How would assets be divided in the instance of the death of a spouse? Does this differ if it's the death of the single male with multiple wives where he is the primary financial support as opposed to one of the wives (or vice versa in the event of a female with multiple husbands)? If a man has more than one wife, how does tax filing work? Is she simply a dependent? What is she has more than one husband? What happens to the assets in a divorce? Who gets custody of the children in the event of a female with multiple husbands where the biological husband is also deceased? This is just a few things off the top of my head. The legal issues pertaining to polygamy seems absolutely insane.
Same-sex marriage may very well be "easy" by comparison, but the left if all about fairness. It seems to me that the responsible path forward for you would be to ensure that those wanting legalized polygamy shouldn't be left out in the cold to fend for themselves. If you are going to be fair about this you should be advocating for polygamy also.
Just a few more legal framework issues in the polygamy case... How does beneficiary benefits work? How does your example of deathside visitation work? What about all the various hotels and resorts that have "Honeymoon suites"? Should the government mandate these suites have to accommodate up to X number of individuals so as not to be discriminatory towards polygamists? This is kind of fun, but I think this makes my point.
If you're going to redefine marriage, I think we should only go through this nightmare once. I don't think we should go through this for same-sex marriage and discriminate against polygamy if as a society we are going to do it.
I don't have a problem with it as long as everyone is a consenting adult. I don't know that there will be rallying cries for legalized polygamy, but I would not oppose them as long as the legal framework for marriage between more than two individuals is sufficiently robust.
Same-sex marriage is easy--no changes to the legal framework need to be made aside from dropping the bigoted opposite gender requirement. Polygamy is harder to implement, but I am not opposed in the least.
Not much of a gotcha question there, though you tried to frame it that way.
You mentioned exactly the problem. The legal framework for polygamy would be a nightmare to workout. How would assets be divided in the instance of the death of a spouse? Does this differ if it's the death of the single male with multiple wives where he is the primary financial support as opposed to one of the wives (or vice versa in the event of a female with multiple husbands)? If a man has more than one wife, how does tax filing work? Is she simply a dependent? What is she has more than one husband? What happens to the assets in a divorce? Who gets custody of the children in the event of a female with multiple husbands where the biological husband is also deceased? This is just a few things off the top of my head. The legal issues pertaining to polygamy seems absolutely insane.
Same-sex marriage may very well be "easy" by comparison, but the left if all about fairness. It seems to me that the responsible path forward for you would be to ensure that those wanting legalized polygamy shouldn't be left out in the cold to fend for themselves. If you are going to be fair about this you should be advocating for polygamy also.
Just a few more legal framework issues in the polygamy case... How does beneficiary benefits work? How does your example of deathside visitation work? What about all the various hotels and resorts that have "Honeymoon suites"? Should the government mandate these suites have to accommodate up to X number of individuals so as not to be discriminatory towards polygamists? This is kind of fun, but I think this makes my point.
If you're going to redefine marriage, I think we should only go through this nightmare once. I don't think we should go through this for same-sex marriage and discriminate against polygamy if as a society we are going to do it.
Oh dear - I'm going to go after your reasoning twice in succession - sorry about that. Same-sex marriage and polygamy are not equivalent as rights unless you regard homosexuality as a preference of free will; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have.
I took my answer from the Lemon Test which is what the Supreme Court uses to determine rulings related to both secular and religious matters. Declaring our government is secular and then linking to the definition for secular doesn't prove our government is secular. It is circular reasoning. I maintained our government is not exclusively secular. It merely demands no religious preference.
Also while you have not argued that religion grants no authority, others in this thread namely BR, have argued that it should not be accorded even that status.
Here is an example from this thread:
Any belief system that would deny the latter is morally bankrupt and has no place in civilized society.
That view is irrational and reflects hatred and bias. You've declared that you wouldn't say his view goes as far as that. I think you should revise that statement. You have your personal opinion informed by your inputs. I have my personal opinion informed by my inputs which may include religion. Per BR, I should not be allowed to participate in civic discourse and in fact I have no place in civilized society. That is hatred.
Actually, the USSC goes far beyond Lemon today, particularly when deciding 1st Amendment issues in the schools. But very good points as always, trump.
Oh dear - I'm going to go after your reasoning twice in succession - sorry about that. Same-sex marriage and polygamy are not equivalent as rights unless you regard homosexuality as a preference of free will; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have.
I'm sure that many polygamists would argue that point. They are still being denied the "right" to marry who they choose.
Your argument is based upon the idea that there is no difference between men and women. Right now, on the federal level, same-sex couples do not have the "right" to marry. This is only an equivalent "right" when you also accept the idea that there is no difference between men and women. Additionally, you seem to ascribe to the idea that you are in control of who you fall in love with. You are arguing that someone cannot fall in love with two individuals and have equally strong feeling about both. How is that attraction any different than the sexual attraction that you are defending?
I honestly don't see how that is substantively different from polygamy. I can't think of, off the top of my head, any other instance where a singular of something is legal whereas a plurality of that same thing is illegal. My point is that if you are going to argue from the idea of "fairness" that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, I don't see how you can not argue affirmatively for polygamy. The point is that those arguing FOR same-sex marriage are seeking to change the current laws, and therefore they must bear the burden of proof so to speak. If it's "fair" to not deny a same-sex couple the right to marry, how is it "fair" to deny a polygamist the right to marry.
I'm almost scared to ask the question, but let's put it this way... Mike and Rachel fall in love and get married. Mike realizes that he is bisexual and has fallen in love with Tom. Rachel is similarly attracted to Tom and wants to have a three way marriage. Assuming that same-sex marriage were to become legal, would that then make this potential marriage legal? If not how is it "fair" to deny it? I don't think that this scenario is very far-fetched. Bear in mind they enormous legal issues that this would suddenly create in the event of a divorce, especially if Rachel had a child with either man.
Svnipp is clearly attempting to link polygamy to same-sex marriage in order to provide an obstacle to legalizing same-sex marriage. It's disingenuous at best, evil at worst.
Same-sex marriage does not require any changes to the legal framework that exists now. A few forms may have to be changed to be more gender neutral, but that's it. There is no reason to hold up same-sex marriage until the framework for polygamy is worked out--unless you are opposed to same-sex marriage and want another artificial roadblock.
Svnipp is committing a perfect solution fallacy--he doesn't want to address same-sex marriage because it doesn't fix the entire problem.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
I'm curious about this statement. It seems to betray an underlying presupposition of yours.
Do you believe people have rights regardless of what any given state says or do you believe states grant rights to people?
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
I'm curious about this statement. It seems to betray an underlying presupposition of yours.
Do you believe people have rights regardless of what any given state says or do you believe states grant rights to people?
Not this again. Save it for another thread regarding the role of government.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
You may disagree with the source that I cited, but I did not use circular reasoning. Perhaps you didn't actually follow the link. You argued that secular means an absence of religion rather than religion neutral. I pointed out that a secular state is indeed defined as religion neutral, and that the US therefore meets that definition, and indeed is given as an example of a secular state. I'm not declaring the US to be secular - merely noting that it meets the criteria.
I'm not trying to defend all BR's positions - that must be clear to you. I will, however, point out when I think that you or others mistakenly dismiss all his arguments because some of them may be wrong. Perhaps he does have a serious problem with religion. Perhaps he would care to confirm or deny that. But while I agree that he does, on occasion, ridicule religion, that does not, per se, equate to or imply hatred. Nor does claiming that a belief system is morally bankrupt imply hatred. Nor does claiming that a belief system is morally bankrupt equate to saying that a believer has no place in civilized society. I think you are reaching too far to obtain the conclusion of hatred. You could be right though.
Your are very polite muppetry and I'll admit I was probably being a bit of a crank there. The definition of secular excludes religion. The Wikipedia entry, in my opinion, walks both sides of the issue. It states no religious preference, defines secular as not having a state religion, but then allows that many of these "secular" societies have sort of religious vestigial organs whereby customs, holidays and other events are state endorsed.
As for BR and dismissing him. We've had a lot of discussion on this point in this thread. I've made my points pretty well. I've got my opinion on him and so do others. You don't dismiss him but you haven't dealt with him for an extended period. We will see if he deserves your patience and good will several months from now. Heck we will see if I still earn it as well. ;-)
Originally Posted by svnipp
You mentioned exactly the problem. The legal framework for polygamy would be a nightmare to workout. How would assets be divided in the instance of the death of a spouse? Does this differ if it's the death of the single male with multiple wives where he is the primary financial support as opposed to one of the wives (or vice versa in the event of a female with multiple husbands)? If a man has more than one wife, how does tax filing work? Is she simply a dependent? What is she has more than one husband? What happens to the assets in a divorce? Who gets custody of the children in the event of a female with multiple husbands where the biological husband is also deceased? This is just a few things off the top of my head. The legal issues pertaining to polygamy seems absolutely insane.
Same-sex marriage may very well be "easy" by comparison, but the left if all about fairness. It seems to me that the responsible path forward for you would be to ensure that those wanting legalized polygamy shouldn't be left out in the cold to fend for themselves. If you are going to be fair about this you should be advocating for polygamy also.
Just a few more legal framework issues in the polygamy case... How does beneficiary benefits work? How does your example of deathside visitation work? What about all the various hotels and resorts that have "Honeymoon suites"? Should the government mandate these suites have to accommodate up to X number of individuals so as not to be discriminatory towards polygamists? This is kind of fun, but I think this makes my point.
If you're going to redefine marriage, I think we should only go through this nightmare once. I don't think we should go through this for same-sex marriage and discriminate against polygamy if as a society we are going to do it.
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.
Originally Posted by muppetry
Oh dear - I'm going to go after your reasoning twice in succession - sorry about that. Same-sex marriage and polygamy are not equivalent as rights unless you regard homosexuality as a preference of free will; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have.
I'd argue that is pure nonsense. Certainly the number of affairs and divorces show that polyamory is far from a choice nor is it an aberration. The criteria of number has the same basis as gender, it is historically related to child-rearing. If that isn't a sound basis for determining marriage for homosexuality, then it isn't for polyamory or polygamy as well.
I'm sure that many polygamists would argue that point. They are still being denied the "right" to marry who they choose.
Your argument is based upon the idea that there is no difference between men and women. Right now, on the federal level, same-sex couples do not have the "right" to marry. This is only an equivalent "right" when you also accept the idea that there is no difference between men and women. Additionally, you seem to ascribe to the idea that you are in control of who you fall in love with. You are arguing that someone cannot fall in love with two individuals and have equally strong feeling about both. How is that attraction any different than the sexual attraction that you are defending?
You make many good points. I'd only add that homoesxuals are allowed to marry. They just do not like the marriage criteria. There are plenty of homosexuals I know who started adult life in heterosexual relationships, often even relationships that gave children, and later decided to be true to themselves, come out, etc. with regard to moving to a same-sex partnership.
Nonsense, rights are expanded all the time. It is only considered new in the concept of number. The reasoning that others don't have it doesn't mean it ought not be had or that all groups don't desire it. No one used to be allowed to vote for senators. All women were kept from voting as were all slaves due to their sub-human status as written in the Constitution. There are millions who have been forced into divorces, been caused untold shame and harm due to the declaration of two as being the ideal relationship and life being the ideal timeframe. Divorce used to be for cause, not it isn't. Things change because they are right, not stay the same because it is difficult.
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell
Not this again. Save it for another thread regarding the role of government.
His question is absolutely relevant to the conversation. Do rights exist independent of governments, or are rights "granted" to us by governments?
Does the right to enter into voluntary contracts with consenting adults exist independent of government, or must we seek the government's approval?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
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.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
His question is absolutely relevant to the conversation.
Of course it is.
What's interesting is that I've already stated that the right to "marry" is something everyone HAS. It is government's involvement in personal relationships that is the problem.
I suspect BR doesn't really want to admit this because it would take the wind out of his big government, make other people do what he wants sails.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
Pragmatically, you aren't about to get the government to stop recognizing heterosexual marriages. So, living in the real world, if you TRULY BELIEVE everyone has the right to marry, you would correct the injustice of same-sex couples not being recognized by the government first. That's the bandaid that helps a lot of people immediately. You just won't acknowledge that.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
I honestly don't see how that is substantively different from polygamy. I can't think of, off the top of my head, any other instance where a singular of something is legal whereas a plurality of that same thing is illegal. My point is that if you are going to argue from the idea of "fairness" that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, I don't see how you can not argue affirmatively for polygamy. The point is that those arguing FOR same-sex marriage are seeking to change the current laws, and therefore they must bear the burden of proof so to speak. If it's "fair" to not deny a same-sex couple the right to marry, how is it "fair" to deny a polygamist the right to marry.
I'm almost scared to ask the question, but let's put it this way... Mike and Rachel fall in love and get married. Mike realizes that he is bisexual and has fallen in love with Tom. Rachel is similarly attracted to Tom and wants to have a three way marriage. Assuming that same-sex marriage were to become legal, would that then make this potential marriage legal? If not how is it "fair" to deny it? I don't think that this scenario is very far-fetched. Bear in mind they enormous legal issues that this would suddenly create in the event of a divorce, especially if Rachel had a child with either man.
SS numbers, passports, Appleinsider accounts. You can certainly argue for polygamy as a personal freedom, but not by arguing that restricting it is discriminatory, except perhaps under a freedom of religion position. Polygamists are allowed to marry just like everyone else. Just not more than once concurrently, just like everyone else. No discrimination there. I don't know how to state that distinction any more simply and obviously.
Polyamorists should have equal protection under the law, too. The same hospital visits denied to gay couples would be denied to the unofficially married member of a triad. Regardless, you are falling into Svnipp's perfect solution fallacy trap.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
SS numbers, passports, Appleinsider accounts. You can certainly argue for polygamy as a personal freedom, but not by arguing that restricting it is discriminatory, except perhaps under a freedom of religion position. Polygamists are allowed to marry just like everyone else. Just not more than once concurrently, just like everyone else. No discrimination there. I don't know how to state that distinction any more simply and obviously.
This is exactly the same argument against same-gender marriage.
Let's try this:
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.
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.
"Pragmatism" is not doing the opposite of what needs to be done to fix the problem. Using government to force everyone to recognize same-sex "marriage" is at best a band-aid, at worst, it will further entrench government meddling in areas it shouldn't be.
Government shouldn't be involved in marriage, so let's vote to perpetuate government involvement in marriage and just change the definition of marriage? It makes no sense.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
No chance in hell of getting government out of marriage.
Option 1: Fight for years and years while a segment of the population is treated like second-class citizens.
Option 2: Immediately stop discriminating, then fight the good fight for years and years (and maybe a little longer than otherwise, but those folks aren't treated like second-class citizens the whole time).
Option 2 may set your long-term goals back, but it fixes a much greater injustice in the short-term. You put extreme anti-government principles above the plight of real people, though. That's terrible in my book. It's just really disgusting the consequences you are willing to accept.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
No chance in hell of getting government out of marriage.
If you believe this, then we really have nothing further to discuss on the matter.
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
BR, while you try to portray me as an inhuman monster for disagreeing with you on how to get the government out of marriage, I'd like to point out that I am voting for Libertarian Party Candidate Gary Johnson, who recently issued the following statement in support of defeating the gay marriage ban in Minnesota:
You're voting for Obama. Where is his statement on an issue that is so important to you?
Ironic, isn't it?
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.
(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)
You may disagree with the source that I cited, but I did not use circular reasoning. Perhaps you didn't actually follow the link. You argued that secular means an absence of religion rather than religion neutral. I pointed out that a secular state is indeed defined as religion neutral, and that the US therefore meets that definition, and indeed is given as an example of a secular state. I'm not declaring the US to be secular - merely noting that it meets the criteria.
I'm not trying to defend all BR's positions - that must be clear to you. I will, however, point out when I think that you or others mistakenly dismiss all his arguments because some of them may be wrong. Perhaps he does have a serious problem with religion. Perhaps he would care to confirm or deny that. But while I agree that he does, on occasion, ridicule religion, that does not, per se, equate to or imply hatred. Nor does claiming that a belief system is morally bankrupt imply hatred. Nor does claiming that a belief system is morally bankrupt equate to saying that a believer has no place in civilized society. I think you are reaching too far to obtain the conclusion of hatred. You could be right though.
Your are very polite muppetry and I'll admit I was probably being a bit of a crank there. The definition of secular excludes religion. The Wikipedia entry, in my opinion, walks both sides of the issue. It states no religious preference, defines secular as not having a state religion, but then allows that many of these "secular" societies have sort of religious vestigial organs whereby customs, holidays and other events are state endorsed.
As for BR and dismissing him. We've had a lot of discussion on this point in this thread. I've made my points pretty well. I've got my opinion on him and so do others. You don't dismiss him but you haven't dealt with him for an extended period. We will see if he deserves your patience and good will several months from now. Heck we will see if I still earn it as well. ;-)
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.
Originally Posted by muppetry
Oh dear - I'm going to go after your reasoning twice in succession - sorry about that. Same-sex marriage and polygamy are not equivalent as rights unless you regard homosexuality as a preference of free will; denying polygamy does not deny anyone a right that others have.
I'd argue that is pure nonsense. Certainly the number of affairs and divorces show that polyamory is far from a choice nor is it an aberration. The criteria of number has the same basis as gender, it is historically related to child-rearing. If that isn't a sound basis for determining marriage for homosexuality, then it isn't for polyamory or polygamy as well.
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.
I'm sure that many polygamists would argue that point. They are still being denied the "right" to marry who they choose.
Your argument is based upon the idea that there is no difference between men and women. Right now, on the federal level, same-sex couples do not have the "right" to marry. This is only an equivalent "right" when you also accept the idea that there is no difference between men and women. Additionally, you seem to ascribe to the idea that you are in control of who you fall in love with. You are arguing that someone cannot fall in love with two individuals and have equally strong feeling about both. How is that attraction any different than the sexual attraction that you are defending?
You make many good points. I'd only add that homoesxuals are allowed to marry. They just do not like the marriage criteria. There are plenty of homosexuals I know who started adult life in heterosexual relationships, often even relationships that gave children, and later decided to be true to themselves, come out, etc. with regard to moving to a same-sex partnership.
Nonsense, rights are expanded all the time. It is only considered new in the concept of number. The reasoning that others don't have it doesn't mean it ought not be had or that all groups don't desire it. No one used to be allowed to vote for senators. All women were kept from voting as were all slaves due to their sub-human status as written in the Constitution. There are millions who have been forced into divorces, been caused untold shame and harm due to the declaration of two as being the ideal relationship and life being the ideal timeframe. Divorce used to be for cause, not it isn't. Things change because they are right, not stay the same because it is difficult.
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.
SS numbers, passports, Appleinsider accounts. You can certainly argue for polygamy as a personal freedom, but not by arguing that restricting it is discriminatory, except perhaps under a freedom of religion position. Polygamists are allowed to marry just like everyone else. Just not more than once concurrently, just like everyone else. No discrimination there. I don't know how to state that distinction any more simply and obviously.
This is exactly the same argument against same-gender marriage.
Let's try this:
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.
Svnipp is clearly attempting to link polygamy to same-sex marriage in order to provide an obstacle to legalizing same-sex marriage. It's disingenuous at best, evil at worst.
It's not disingenuous, and certainly not evil. The two are linked, because both are non-traditional marriage. If we allow one, there exists no grounds to prevent the other, or variants of the other. It's a slippery slope, but it's not a slippery slope fallacy. It's a real concern.
That's probably true.
There is no reason to hold up same-sex marriage until the framework for polygamy is worked out--unless you are opposed to same-sex marriage and want another artificial roadblock.
Svnipp is committing a perfect solution fallacy--he doesn't want to address same-sex marriage because it doesn't fix the entire problem.
And you're stating that you value homoesexual marriage more than polygamist marriage. You're throwing the polygamous community under the bus! :)
Polyamorists should have equal protection under the law, too. The same hospital visits denied to gay couples would be denied to the unofficially married member of a triad. Regardless, you are falling into Svnipp's perfect solution fallacy trap.
Wait...so marriage should not be limited to two people? How many should it be limited to? 10? 20? 1,000?
No chance in hell of getting government out of marriage.
Probably true.
Option 1: Fight for years and years while a segment of the population is treated like second-class citizens.
Option 2: Immediately stop discriminating, then fight the good fight for years and years (and maybe a little longer than otherwise, but those folks aren't treated like second-class citizens the whole time).
Option 2 may set your long-term goals back, but it fixes a much greater injustice in the short-term. You put extreme anti-government principles above the plight of real people, though. That's terrible in my book. It's just really disgusting the consequences you are willing to accept.
As long as we can keep discriminating against bigamists and polygamists, right? They don't matter as much.
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.
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.
Let me ask you then: Is there any element of personal choice in sexual orientation?
No. I'm saying that one stroke of the pen fixes one large injustice. Another injustice will require more fighting for because the legal framework doesn't exist yet for it. Because I say take care of the easy one immediately because no framework changes are necessary does not mean in the least that I am OK with discriminating against polygamists.
Again, my objection to the linkage isn't complaining about slippery slope fallacies--it's about the perfect solution fallacy. You are making a strawman fallacy by arguing against a point that I did not make. The linkage is obstructionism and distraction from a very easy way to eliminate a very large injustice.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
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.
Let me ask you then: Is there any element of personal choice in sexual orientation?
Ah - different question. In my limited personal experience (one data point), no. Consensus on the opinion appears to be no. Would you disagree?
Ah - different question. In my limited personal experience (one data point), no. Consensus on the opinion appears to be no. Would you disagree?
I don't think that the question of personal choice matters in the least. Consenting adults and whatnot.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Ah - different question. In my limited personal experience (one data point), no. Consensus on the opinion appears to be no. Would you disagree?
I don't think that the question of personal choice matters in the least. Consenting adults and whatnot.
On the contrary, I think it is central to the issue. Restricting personal choice is commonplace. It may be unduly restrictive, depending on your viewpoint, but it is not discriminatory if it restricts everyone equally. It is only discriminatory if it restricts a demographic group due to something that they have no control over, such as race, gender or, in this case, orientation - with the caveat that we assume they have no choice on that matter.
Religion is a choice.
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.”
Christians can be extremely prophetic. When abortion was being debated, that generation's Christians said that killing off the unborn would inevitably lead to discussions about euthanasia in society. Those warnings were shrugged off, and then, it happened.
When we opposed 'same-sex marriage' we warned that it would quickly lead to the acceptance of polygamy in society, and again those warnings were dismissed as fear mongering. And right on cue, the biggest proponents of ssm are now coming around to the idea that's it's okay 'between consenting adults', wilfully discarding the legion of historical evidence of how polygamy damages the lives of women and children.
And after breaking through moral barriers Christianity erected in our society against cohabitation, then homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia and now polygamy, only one real challenge will occupy the darkened minds of our generation.
Incest.
Christians can be extremely prophetic. When abortion was being debated, that generation's Christians said that killing off the unborn would inevitably lead to discussions about euthanasia in society. Those warnings were shrugged off, and then, it happened.
When we opposed 'same-sex marriage' we warned that it would quickly lead to the acceptance of polygamy in society, and again those warnings were dismissed as fear mongering. And right on cue, the biggest proponents of ssm are now coming around to the idea that's it's okay 'between consenting adults', wilfully discarding the legion of historical evidence of how polygamy damages the lives of women and children.
And after breaking through moral barriers Christianity erected in our society against cohabitation, then homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia and now polygamy, only one real challenge will occupy the darkened minds of our generation.
Incest.
I think you need a nice, stiff drink. That is some serious pessimism. It's also a huge straw man. There have always been discussions about euthanasia, they didn't start with abortion, won't end with it, it still hasn't happened, and if it did it would, as a self-requested process, be quite different to abortion. On the marriage issue, are you actually blaming the gay community's quest for equal rights for some kind of push for the legalization of polygamy? And who, exactly, are these "biggest proponents" of same-sex marriage who are supporting polygamy? And your latest dire warning is that this will all end in tears with the legalization of incest?
You are right. This is not fear-mongering. This makes fear-mongering look like tomorrow's weather forecast.
