Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[LordBucket]

If you're talking about marriage and adoption in that last, very obfuscating post there, then yes?

I was referring to tax law in particular. Either way the intent was not to obfuscate, but to point out the motivation for these things in the first place. Somebody decided that married couples were conducive to a stable, well-functioning society. So incentives have been provided to encourage that behavior.

Keep in mind, I don't get those incentives either, but you don't see see me suggesting that we "redefine what marriage is" to include single men so that I can qualify.

If you want to suggest that married couples not be given these privileges, that might be a legitimate proposal. But suggesting that non-married people be given them, or changing what "married" means to arbitrarily allow other people to collect the rewards is completely missing the purpose those rewards were intended to serve.

Kind of sounds like the same rhetoric that says that multiculturalism / anti-racist
laws are racist against white people. Or that feminism is sexist against men.

Just remember what I said about pendulums. We are where we are right now because the pendulum was unbalanced on the opposite side. Where it is now is not at the balance point. If you keep pushing it further away from that balance point, the further it will go when it swings back.

[penguinofhonor]

Just remember what I said about pendulums. We are where we are right now because the pendulum was unbalanced on the opposite side. Where it is now is not at the balance point. If you keep pushing it further away from that balance point, the further it will go when it swings back.

So when the pendulum is too far against gays, it's completely socially unacceptable to be gay and they have no legal protections.

When the pendulum is too far against straights, you can make fun of them.

I'm not really sure if we're as far past balanced as you think.

[Flying Dice]

Ah, narrowing the topic because you can only offer a marginally reasonable response to a single facet of the discussion. Also:

Keep in mind, I don't get those incentives either, but you don't see see me suggesting that we "redefine what marriage is" to include single men so that I can qualify.

You are not two people in a relationship.

[LordBucket]

I'm sorry, but your disapproval of marriage has zero bearing on other's wish to be included in the right to marriage.

I don't disapprove of marriage. I disapprove of the notion that the government has any legitimate say in it.

The majority of U.S. states (41) do not allow same-sex marriage. If you don't think that that is discrimination, you should probably take a long look at your worldview.

This was already addressed. If you disagree with the way it was address, feel free to say so. if you don't understand that it was addressed, then don't waste my time.

narrowing the topic because you can only offer a marginally reasonable response to a single facet of the discussion.

No, simply unwilling to invest much energy in a Descan + Mictlantecuhtli + Flying Dice + Frumple + penguinofhonor (5) vs me (1) fight.

You are not two people in a relationship.

A man and a woman living together, unmarried, also do not qualify for these things.

Trying to interpret the favoritism towards marriage as some sort of stamp of approval of heterosexuality and disapproval of homosexuality is completely missing the point.

[fqllve]

I don't disapprove of marriage. I disapprove of the notion that the government has any legitimate say in it.

This would be fine if it was not, in fact, a legal institution.

[Hiiri]

It's their server. They can do what they want with it, and they can accept or reject members as they please for whatever reason they wish. It's improper for you to expect them to do what you want, and their reasons for disapproving of you are not particularly important.

It's their country. They can do what they want with it, and they can accept or reject members as they please for whatever reason they wish. It's improper for you to expect them to do what you want, and their reasons for disapproving of you are not particularly important.

Gee, see how that worked? You just made the perfect pro-bigotry argument.

I find it a bit appalling that you can say that.

Public and private spheres are separate. Do you think you should be forced to give everyone free access to your home? Do you think you should be able to kick people out of your home?

[LordBucket]

I don't disapprove of marriage. I disapprove of the notion that the government has any legitimate say in it.

This would be fine if it was not, in fact, a legal institution.

...would you clarify what precisely you mean by that? And whether you think it's a "good" thing?

If you're simply acknowledging that marriage is a social custom to which legal consequences have become attached, I agree that this is the case. But I would prefer that it not be the case. What people who engage in the homosexual marriage debate often forget is that that the state "reserves the right" to reject marriage licenses to heterosexual partners too. The problem here, in my mind, has nothing to do with sexuality at all. It's the fact that we as a society seem to accept the notion that the government has any business at all deciding which relationships are "approved." And for some reason that I don't entirely understand a tremendous value is placed by many people on this approval.

Generally speaking, I think it's unhealthy for two people to believe that they need a third party to approve of what they willingly choose to do with each other.

At face value, I would think that even the people who disagree with me in this thread would agree with that statement. That's kind of your whole point, isn't it? That it's not reasonable for somebody not even involved to decide what two people of their own free will choose to do with each other? Then why do you feel the need to seek government approval of your relationships?

If it's really because of the fact that it's become a "legal institution" and you want the carrot-on-a-stick benefits that have become attached to it...then that would make this is a very different argument than I think some of you think we're having.

[Descan]

Note that there are no laws discriminating against short stature or Christianity.

I'm sorry. Which country do you live in? Because you appear to be implying that there are laws discriminating against gays.

Or are you suggesting that financial incentives given to encourage certain, very specific behaviors that have been deemed to be conducive to a healthy society should necessarily be given gays too?

Think very carefully before you answer.

You're being disingenous if you say this, the start of the discussion, and then say:

If it's really because of the fact that it's become a "legal institution" and you want the carrot-on-a-stick benefits that have become attached to it... then that would make this is a very different argument than I think some of you think we're having.

[fqllve]

Why do I have to think it's a good thing or a bad thing? It's a thing, I don't particularly care for marriage in any sense so I have little opinion on whether or not it should be that way. However, if it is going to be a legal institution, and I see little chance of becoming otherwise, then people have a right to request access into it.

[Zrk2]

I still maintain that completely aside from the physical issues banning intolerance is morally wrong because it is also intolerant. All people have the inherent right to hold their own views, and you have the right to call them on their close-minded douchebaggery, and any attempt to squelch those rights is the very definition of irony. It's just new-age feel-good discrimination, because all people need any enemy to define themselves against.

[LordBucket]

You're being disingenous if you say this, the start of the discussion, and then say:

No. Try reading the bolded sections literally rather than making stuff up based on previous conversations you've had with other people and assuming I'm saying what they're saying.

In fact the two go together very nicely. Because the first part you bolded was a question made to bait Skyrunner based on my suspicion that her position, whether she knew it or not, was probably motivated by the sort of thinking implied in the second part you bolded. But she didn't take the bait. So kudos to her.

Hence "Think very carefully before you answer."

[LordBucket]

banning intolerance is morally wrong because it is also intolerant.

All people have the inherent right to hold their own views, and you have the right to call them on
their close-minded douchebaggery, and any attempt to squelch those rights is the very definition of irony.

It's just new-age feel-good discrimination

I might have phrased it differently, but I agree with the spirit of this.

[Zrk2]

banning intolerance is morally wrong because it is also intolerant.

All people have the inherent right to hold their own views, and you have the right to call them on
their close-minded douchebaggery, and any attempt to squelch those rights is the very definition of irony.

It's just new-age feel-good discrimination

I might have phrased it differently, but I agree with the spirit of this.

I tend to do poorly at politeness, so I make up for it with bluntness.

Maybe that's why...

[Glowcat]

I still maintain that completely aside from the physical issues banning intolerance is morally wrong because it is also intolerant. All people have the inherent right to hold their own views, and you have the right to call them on their close-minded douchebaggery, and any attempt to squelch those rights is the very definition of irony. It's just new-age feel-good discrimination, because all people need any enemy to define themselves against.

You're assuming that it's intolerance itself that people object to and not how the intolerance takes form. You're pretty much committing a False Equivocation fallacy by trying to equate bigotry with anti-bigotry, much like you would if you conflated the imprisonment of a kidnapper with the imprisonment of kidnappers.

[Muz]

Serious answer:
Habits.

I could go into detail on this, but the tone of the OP (while it is a good question) will spiral this thread into a flame war, so not really worth spending time on something people won't read.

So, I'll just quote what the book is about..

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

What sparked your interest in habits?
I first became interested in the science of habits eight years ago, as a newspaper reporter in Baghdad, when I heard about an army major conducting an experiment in a small town named Kufa.
The major had analyzed videotapes of riots and had found that violence was often preceded by a crowd of Iraqis gathering in a plaza and, over the course of hours, growing in size. Food vendors would show up, as well as spectators. Then, someone would throw a rock or a bottle.

When the major met with Kufa’s mayor, he made an odd request: Could they keep food vendors out of the plazas? Sure, the mayor said. A few weeks later, a small crowd gathered near the Great Mosque of Kufa. It grew in size. Some people started chanting angry slogans. At dusk, the crowd started getting restless and hungry. People looked for the kebab sellers normally filling the plaza, but there were none to be found. The spectators left. The chanters became dispirited. By 8 p.m., everyone was gone.

I asked the major how he had figured out that removing food vendors would change peoples' behavior.

The U.S. military, he told me, is one of the biggest habit-formation experiments in history. “Understanding habits is the most important thing I’ve learned in the army,” he said. By the time I got back to the U.S., I was hooked on the topic.

i.e. people find it hard to break the habits ingrained in culture, even though they have a good reason to. If you want to spark a revolution and keep people from doing stupid stuff, you need enough second degree contacts to make it work.