Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. #41
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No, I would say "outcomes" not "opportunities" as in overall, the institutions would result in children receiving better parenting than if they weren't in those institutions (so the outcomes are generally positive).
    But then you’ve changed your definition. Remember, above you were referring to something more like the statistical term population. IE I can increase the number of good parental outcomes by increasing the number of times we raise children. I was referring to ensuring the distribution was skewed towards successful.

    Think of it this way. Imagine a bag full of change. We get to put our hand in the bag and pick out coins. Our goal is to get the highest value. Your premise was equivalent to picking out 7 coins instead of five. Mine was about maximizing the ratio of quarters to other coins.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Just because the government has an interest in supporting the best institution for raising children does not logically lead to the conclusion that it should not support other institutions that do a good job of raising children just because they don't do as good a job as the best one.
    It does if we are talking distribution rather than volume (a la above).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Clearly denying gay unions that benefits/recognition that straight unions receive materially discriminates against them.
    In what sense? I’m asking for the legal concept of harm here. What specifically did they lose in that scenario?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But I never agreed that the two relationships are sufficiently different to enjoy different privileges under the law.
    I think we did though. We discussed relative adoption preferences. That, by its very nature, requires recognizing that the two concepts are different sufficiently that we can form a preference of one category over the other.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    As far as I can tell, this argument is completely unsupported and you are just telling me what you think.
    Not at all. I’m appealing to a standard ontology of categories (that they can have hierarchies) and the origin of the words within those categories. You’ll note I’ve discussed the etymology of the words in play here several times. Thus we can’t conclude this is unsupported, I’ve supported it with a logical argument concerning the necessity of a concept to meet all the definitional requirements of a word in order to be considered that word. I can’t consider a vehicle a Yukon if it fails to meet a definitional requirement of being a Yukon (having a Yukon medallion on it).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So there is absolutely nothing stopping a gay couple from having a religious ceremony in front of family and friends and calling themselves "married" and considering themselves married. I assume you will agree that they have every right to do that.
    As with all things it would depend on the context. I can have a religious ceremony with my sister and three other people and call us married as well, but I can’t say I’m married in a legal or political venue. Likewise, they can call themselves married if they want, the argument I forwarded as coherent above doesn’t make any kind of claim on what people do in their private lives. You can call yourself black if you wish, it only becomes an issue if you do it on an application or in business.

    The argument used to contend that one could, at the very least, form a coherent argument based on the OP was based solely on the legal definition of a term. So the question was, in what sense would it be legal discrimination (not the technical sense of the word, the legal sense) to have two separate categories of relationships?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Yes, the definition of the word is changing and will completely change in the future. But that's it.
    Well that is an unsupported concept. If you wish to maintain that changes in terminology or definitions have no practical consequences that would need to be supported. After all, I’ve offered several examples of how that concept has changed human thought and political decisions along with a host of intendant consequences.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But then I have not demanded that anyone use the term "marriage" for SSCs. If you don't want to use the term, then don't use it.
    This statement would seem to be incoherent with the rest of your argument. If we are legally mandating the definitional change, how are we “free” to not use that term in reference to SSCs? Do you mean in the shallow, what I say behind closed doors, kind of sense? Or the actual sense of in the public square?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    You will need to explain this because people are not currently forced to participate in gay weddings nor do I find it reasonable to think that this is in the future.
    I’m a bit surprised you are unaware of the numerous examples where this has occurred.

    In one of the earliest and well publicized case a couple who declined to participate in taking wedding photos of a gay wedding were fined and were “compelled” by the New Mexico State Supreme Court in future events: http://www.adflegal.org/detailspages...phy-v.-willock

    In Washington, a florist was told by the courts that she cannot decline to participate in a gay wedding and must organize the floral arrangements. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...t-files-notic/

    The well-publicized case in Oregon of Sweet Cakes found that a baker could not decline to provide cakes to a wedding ceremony. http://www.crisismagazine.com/2013/g...atest-evidence

    And a farm in New York was required by law to provide hosting services for gay weddings or shut down. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014...t-gay-wedding/

    In Vermont, where an inn was fined and legally mandated to host future gay wedding ceremonies: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1826218.html

    A venue in New Jersey was banned from choosing whether or not to host future gay marriages: https://www.aclu-nj.org/news/2012/01...mination-case/


    • Just Cookies (Indiana): In 2012, owners of this cookie stand in the Indianapolis City Market refused to fill a special order by phone for “rainbow cookies” for a Purdue University-Indianapolis “gay” student group. Liberal activists charged “discrimination” under the city’s “sexual orientation” law and sought to pressure the market to drop its lease for Just Cookies. They failed, and the owners ultimately settled with the city (without paying damages) over violating the “gay”-affirming nondiscrimination code.
    • Masterpiece Cakes (Colorado): The Colorado attorney general has filed a formal complaint against this bakery for refusing – on religious grounds – to make a “gay” wedding cake.
    • Victoria’s Cake Cottage (Iowa): Owner Victoria Childress refuses to provide a wedding cake for a homosexual couple out of “convictions for their lifestyle.”
    • Fleur Cakes (Oregon): Another Oregon bakery joins Sweet Cakes in refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
    • Arlene’s Flowers (Washington): As the liberal Think Progress reports: “Washington florist Barronelle Stutzman refused to provide the flowers for the wedding of a same-sex couple who had long frequented her shop because of her ‘relationship with Jesus Christ.’ She now faces two lawsuits:one from the couple, and one from the state attorney generalfor violating state law.”
    • Liberty Ridge Farm (New York): The business refuses to allow its property to be rented out for a lesbian “wedding.”
    • All Occasion Party Place (Texas): A Fort Worth venue refuses, out of the owners’ loyalty to their religious beliefs, to rent out a banquet hall for a homosexual “wedding” reception.
    • Catholic Church shuts down adoption agencies in Massachusetts and Illinois due to pro-homosexual laws: In Illinois, a tragic casualty of state’s “civil union” law was the closure of the Catholic Church’s adoption program in Chicago. Catholics oppose adoption by homosexuals. This followed a similar story in Massachusetts, in which the Catholic Church shut down a successful adoption agency following the state supreme court’s imposition of “gay marriage” – rather than being forced to place children in homosexual-led households.

    http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/gay-power...gious-liberty/

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I hold that people's increasing acceptance of gays is causing the language shift we are discussing, not vice versa.
    And that would be incorrect. The term marriage (as opposed to union or partnership) began in the early 1990s. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...e-sex_marriage) But it wasn’t until 2004 that approval of gay marriage cracked 25% http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

    So given that the push for the term came before approval of the idea, it would seem that any causal relationship would run that way rather than the reverse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But regardless, Orwellian does entail a conspiracy. Someone or some group is INTENTIONALLY altering language with the hope of changing people's thoughts on a matter.
    It wouldn’t require a conspiracy at all, groups acting independently isn’t a conspiracy. What’s more that isn’t even how it happens in 1984. Winston isn’t specifically trying to limit peoples’ ability to think, he is acting on what he thinks is a noble goal, unity. In fact, the irony of 1984 is that there is no controlling group. That is the tragicness of the novel, we do it to ourselves, there is no real Big Brother, it is independent groups working in what they think is the best interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    My primary reasoning for accepting the word "marriage" is because it's the best word available as far as effectively communicating the concept of a gay couple who are "married".
    But this strikes to exactly what I said in my last post. They aren’t “married” because that isn’t what the word has meant. You mentally substituted out the term coupled with married and as such it seems like the appropriate term to you. It wasn’t that you saw the word, recognized the definitional change and formed a reason why that change was necessary. You felt that the two concepts were the same and so you ignored the underlying definition to use the word to imply that they were the same. Of course you aren’t actively thinking, “if I use this term I’ll trick people into thinking they are the same” you are doing it because you want to convey the message that they are the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Orwellian COMPLETELY removes concepts from our language - it doesn't create a shift that allows us to say the same thing we could say before but with different words.
    No it doesn’t. In 1984 we could still express relative measures of goodness. You had good, double good, double plus good. You no longer had words like fantastic, super, amazing, stupendous. You could say candy x was good and candy y was double plus good, but you lost the ability to differentiate more subtle differences. It is that over simplification to blur the inherent differences that is intended by the use of the term, whether it is meant intentionally or not is irrelevant. Whether I could, through some additional stumbling express they are different is irrelevant. The fundamental meaning is changed. You might be happy with it, sure, but you can’t argue that it hasn’t changed, and it is hard to argue that changes to emergent systems don’t have unexpected (and more often than not negative) consequences. And we get all of that for what? I still haven’t seen a single coherent reason that we need to cram this concept into the term. Why must it only be that it is forced into this institution? What is the material harm suffered via using another institution? So far, only silence or emotional appeals to “fairness.”
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  2. #42
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But then you’ve changed your definition. Remember, above you were referring to something more like the statistical term population. IE I can increase the number of good parental outcomes by increasing the number of times we raise children. I was referring to ensuring the distribution was skewed towards successful.
    So am I. A children is going to be raised by someone (A couple, single parents, an institution, or the streets) and what I'm advocating increases the overall quality of the parenting that the children receive. In other words, all else being equal, it's better that a child be raised by a couple than a single parent (or and institution or the streets) and therefore skewing the distribution towards success would be making it more likely that a child has two parents raising him/her.

    Therefore I favor that a policy giving a couple who is raising a child the means/incentive to stay together in order to raise the child is a positive policy. So we should encourage both heterosexual and homosexual couples to maintain a stable relationship so their children are more likely to be raised by two parents instead of one parent (or end up in an institution or on the streets). Given that goal, it does not make much sense to only encourage only some parents to stay together in order to raise their children.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Think of it this way. Imagine a bag full of change. We get to put our hand in the bag and pick out coins. Our goal is to get the highest value. Your premise was equivalent to picking out 7 coins instead of five. Mine was about maximizing the ratio of quarters to other coins.
    I don't think this analogy works very well for parenting. If the parenting that a child receives is "the coin" then we are going to draw as many coins as there are children so the number of coins drawn is the same for both you and I.

    And there is no reasonable controlling whether a child lives with straight parents or gay parents through marriage laws. If a child is being raised by a gay person then that's who the child is being raised by and short of having a law banning the gay parent raising that child, there is no policy remedy for that situation. What marriage laws do influence is whether that parent will have a partner to help raise the child (if he/she can marry the partner, the chances of having a long-term partner increase).

    So going back to the analogy, we are BOTH advocating that we draw the same number of coins that represent heterosexual marriages (as we both agree that they should be recognized) and are debating whether the coins we draw for same-sex couples should be the coins that represent a more stable relationship (legal marriage) or coins that represent a less stable relationship (no marriage). Given that stable relationships increase the overall quality of parenting, the "gay marriage" coins will be worth more than the "no gay marriage" coins and therefore when we've drawn a coin for each child in the US, my total will be higher than yours.
    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In what sense? I’m asking for the legal concept of harm here. What specifically did they lose in that scenario?
    Denial of hospital visitation rights, denial of next-of-kin status, etc.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think we did though. We discussed relative adoption preferences. That, by its very nature, requires recognizing that the two concepts are different sufficiently that we can form a preference of one category over the other.
    In the realm of adoption laws, you are correct.

    But that does not automatically carry over to marriage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not at all. I’m appealing to a standard ontology of categories (that they can have hierarchies) and the origin of the words within those categories. You’ll note I’ve discussed the etymology of the words in play here several times. Thus we can’t conclude this is unsupported, I’ve supported it with a logical argument concerning the necessity of a concept to meet all the definitional requirements of a word in order to be considered that word. I can’t consider a vehicle a Yukon if it fails to meet a definitional requirement of being a Yukon (having a Yukon medallion on it).
    But you have not shown that opposite-sex unions fails to meet all of the definitional requirements of "marriage" in any objective manner. As far as i can tell, your assertion is purely subjective. And as I subjectively disagree we either have to agree to disagree or you have to show me that you are objectively correct on some level.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As with all things it would depend on the context. I can have a religious ceremony with my sister and three other people and call us married as well, but I can’t say I’m married in a legal or political venue.
    Because your union is illegal according to US law (maybe not punishable but definitely something that has no legal recognition within the US). And if the SCOTUS were to rule that polygamous marriages must be recognized then it would likewise be discrimination to refuse to recognize them as "marriages".


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Likewise, they can call themselves married if they want, the argument I forwarded as coherent above doesn’t make any kind of claim on what people do in their private lives. You can call yourself black if you wish, it only becomes an issue if you do it on an application or in business.

    The argument used to contend that one could, at the very least, form a coherent argument based on the OP was based solely on the legal definition of a term. So the question was, in what sense would it be legal discrimination (not the technical sense of the word, the legal sense) to have two separate categories of relationships?
    There is a recognized legal principle that separate is not equal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well that is an unsupported concept. If you wish to maintain that changes in terminology or definitions have no practical consequences that would need to be supported. After all, I’ve offered several examples of how that concept has changed human thought and political decisions along with a host of intendant consequences.
    Things change all of the time. It's only bad changes that we should concern ourselves with. You have yet to show a reason to be concerned that a negative change will result in a clear manner. Your concerns, as far as I can tell, are very vague.

    So can you show me a specific and likely harm that will occur in the future due to this? Something that I either in the present or those in the future will say "that's bad". As I argued earlier, my best prediction is that the future of the word "marriage" will be similar to the present status word "voter" and maintain that position until I hear an argument that specifies a different future.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This statement would seem to be incoherent with the rest of your argument. If we are legally mandating the definitional change, how are we “free” to not use that term in reference to SSCs? Do you mean in the shallow, what I say behind closed doors, kind of sense? Or the actual sense of in the public square?
    I mean that there is absolutely no legal mandate for PEOPLE to use the word "marriage" for gay couples.

    The mandated legal change is for the government only. And there is no nothing inherently wrong with mandating that the government use, or not use, the word "marriage" for gay couples because either way, the government will be forced to do something. Either way, the government is inevitably forced to use certain language.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I’m a bit surprised you are unaware of the numerous examples where this has occurred.
    Those are not examples of people being forced to participate in gay weddings due to the legalization of gay marriage.

    Rather they are businesses being forced to cater gay weddings due to anti-discrimination laws regardless of the legal status of gay marriage.

    And to take issue with these laws is to take issue with businesses not having the option to refuse to cater black weddings or Jewish weddings, etc. Debating anti-discrimination laws in general is well beyond the scope of this particular debate and should have a different thread dedicated to it. And that thread would likely be off-topic to the issue of gay marriage since it will be about a different legal principle entirely.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And that would be incorrect. The term marriage (as opposed to union or partnership) began in the early 1990s. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeli...e-sex_marriage) But it wasn’t until 2004 that approval of gay marriage cracked 25% http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

    So given that the push for the term came before approval of the idea, it would seem that any causal relationship would run that way rather than the reverse.
    B following A does not automatically show a causal relationship. And the notion of incestuous marriages have been around for a long time and yet it has not gained acceptance so the introduction of a concept does not reliably lead to wide-range acceptance of such a concept.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It wouldn’t require a conspiracy at all, groups acting independently isn’t a conspiracy. What’s more that isn’t even how it happens in 1984. Winston isn’t specifically trying to limit peoples’ ability to think, he is acting on what he thinks is a noble goal, unity. In fact, the irony of 1984 is that there is no controlling group. That is the tragicness of the novel, we do it to ourselves, there is no real Big Brother, it is independent groups working in what they think is the best interest.
    IMO that is a very inaccurate interpretation of the novel. The government was not misguidedly working for the best interest of everyone - O'Brien admits that the sole purpose of the government is to wield power over everyone else - "a boot on a man's face for eternity" is approximately the term he used. There is definitely, absolutely a controlling group. That's even the whole point of the novel - the masses have completely given up all freedom to that controlling group to the point where they are not allowed to disagree with the government and are increasingly becoming incapable of disagreeing.

    And I should say that this debate is not about the novel itself. The novel is a tool used to highlight relevant concepts in the debate. But if we have such a drastic disagreement on the concepts of the novel, then the novel is not an effective tool for communicating relevant concepts to this debate and therefore should not be used for that purpose here. So I guess I'm saying if you aren't going to come around to my interpretation of the novel (and I'm not saying you must) then it should not be used in this debate. It apparently leads off-topic debates about the novel itself instead of clarifying concepts useful to the debate.

    Nor do I want to get bogged down on the definition of "conspiracy".

    As I read it, your position is that certain people, in groups, are intentionally trying to change the language (even if it's small separate groups, they are still engaging in a secret plan to effect change and I consider those secret plans to be "conspiracies").

    While maybe such a group or groups exist (within a large enough population you can find examples of almost anything) I reject the notion that this is the primary, or even a significant, drive to the current language change.

    I think the change is occurring through the rather organic process of people becoming more aware of gay people and thinking that there's nothing particularly wrong with them and therefore are fine with the idea of them marrying the same as straight people do and therefore using the word "marriage" because it is the best word to use for a variety of reasons and don't see any strong reason to not use it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But this strikes to exactly what I said in my last post. They aren’t “married” because that isn’t what the word has meant.
    That sounds like nothing more than an appeal to tradition fallacy to me. I hold that they are married and any disagreement from you or others will require valid support. Otherwise we must agree to disagree on whether they are married or not.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You mentally substituted out the term coupled with married and as such it seems like the appropriate term to you. It wasn’t that you saw the word, recognized the definitional change and formed a reason why that change was necessary. You felt that the two concepts were the same and so you ignored the underlying definition to use the word to imply that they were the same. Of course you aren’t actively thinking, “if I use this term I’ll trick people into thinking they are the same” you are doing it because you want to convey the message that they are the same.
    I'll speak for myself.

    My primary reason for using a word is to effectively communicate a concept to another and there is no better word to describe the unions under discussion than "marriage". My gay step-brother is getting married within a month now that it's legal in our state. Once that happens, there is no better word to accurately describe his relationship and legal status than "married". Off the top of my head, if I had to use a different word, I'd probably say "union" and if I did, the listener is less likely to know what I mean ("So he joined the UAW?") than if I say "married". So you will have to take my word for it that the primary reason for calling him "married" is because it's the most effective word for communication which also objectively makes it the best word (if we accept the criteria that the most effective communication is "best"). This does not happen after contemplation on the matter - I just instinctively use the best words that I can all of the time.

    All other concerns are secondary to me. So while I don't mind that my using the word "marriage" for gay unions communicates similarity and equality to straight unions, it is not the primary reason that I'm using the word. I'd use the same word even if I had no interest in communicating similarity.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The fundamental meaning is changed.
    I consider calling the change "fundamental" to be subjective. I, also subjectively, think the change is practically irrelevant.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You might be happy with it, sure, but you can’t argue that it hasn’t changed, and it is hard to argue that changes to emergent systems don’t have unexpected (and more often than not negative) consequences.
    If you want to argue that unexpected negative changes are likely to occur, then the burden is yours to argue it.

    Per my "voter" argument, I think the change will likely be innocuous. And I think I've offered better support that the future change will be innocuous (the "voter" argument) than you have offered support that the change will be negative (because I don't think you've offered any support at all).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I still haven’t seen a single coherent reason that we need to cram this concept into the term.
    That's because it's never been my position that we need to. Saying "we are changing and I'm alright with it" is not the same as "we need to change".

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Why must it only be that it is forced into this institution? What is the material harm suffered via using another institution? So far, only silence or emotional appeals to “fairness.”
    We are talking about a human shift in language. It's happening because people are choosing to use the word that way. And since it's generally good if people use the language as they choose to (on the principle that it's generally good if people get to do what they choose to do), it's good that the change is happening unless one can show a stronger reason to hold that it's bad that it's happening.

    What's missing is a coherent argument about why people shouldn't do that even though they choose to.
    Last edited by mican333; July 26th, 2015 at 12:41 PM.

  3. #43
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So am I. A children is going to be raised by someone and what I'm advocating increases the overall quality of the parenting that the children receive.
    This doesn’t really seem to directly address my point. You argued that there would be no reason to prohibit gay marriages because some portion of them would have positive child rearing outcomes. Therefore, by allowing them we are increasing the absolute number of positive child rearing outcomes. My point was, rather, that when the premise says maximizing it is talking about shifting the distribution so that proportionally more positive child rearing outcomes occur.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So in the analogy, OSM are quarters and SSM are dimes. Now we BOTH agree that OSM should receive benefits (my argument does not hold that we should not benefit OSM) so in BOTH of our drawings the first five coins will be quarters for $1.25. And the difference is I'm also for drawing a couple of dimes as well so we get a higher total overall.
    Not exactly, no. In the analogy good parenting outcomes are quarters, less good outcomes are dimes. In my scenario the bag has a higher proportion of quarters than yours does.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Denial of hospital visitation rights, denial of next-of-kin status, etc.
    None of that is denied to domestic partnerships.

    Remember the premises I offered were not the same conclusions as the OP. I’m only attempting to show that a coherent argument formed around the OP’s data is possible, not that the OP’s conclusions are correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    In adoption rules, yes. But it does not justify unequal treatment in marriage recognition.
    In adoption rules related to marriage recognition. Your point would be like saying that we recognize different gender bathrooms, but can’t recognize difference in genders.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But you have not shown that opposite-sex unions fails to meet all of the definitional requirements of "marriage" in any objective manner. As far as i can tell, your assertion is purely subjective.
    I assume you mean “same sex unions” since of course opposite sex unions wouldn’t fail to meet the criteria.

    As for that, I’m not sure how you can assert that, I literally showed (three times now) where of the two limiting criteria that define the term Marriage, half of them are about the two people being of an opposite sex. See post 37 and post 39 for more details.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Brown vs. Board of education for one - separate is not equal.
    Setting aside all the legal issues with Brown, that isn’t even what that case means. The court found in Brown v Board of Education not that separation is inherently unequal (which would be an idiotic finding), but that when separation is present, tests for equal treatment under the law must be enacted.

    In that specific case the argument was that the segregation, by definition, made the two institutions unequal because it denied the poorer black students the opportunity to associate with and learn from the more affluent white students. It was the separation itself that caused the inequality because the court agreed with the plaintiffs that the black students would have found value having access to other white students.

    In Sweatt v. Painter, supra, in finding that a segregated law school for Negroes could not provide them equal educational opportunities, this Court relied in large part on "those qualities which are incapable of objective measurement but which make for greatness in a law school." In McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, supra, the Court, in requiring that a Negro admitted to a white graduate school be treated like all other students, again resorted to intangible considerations: ". . . his ability to study, to engage in discussions and exchange views with other students, and, in general, to learn his profession." Such considerations apply with added force to children in grade and high schools.
    http://www.nationalcenter.org/brown.html

    No such argument would hold here since calling an institution marriage doesn’t provide any additional access or association rights.

    What’s more, this seems like somewhat of a dodge of the relevant issue. What specific material harm is suffered by the loss of calling an association a “marriage” in a legal sense?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I mean that there is absolutely no legal mandate for PEOPLE to use the word "marriage" for gay couples. The legal change is for the government only.
    And in your mind legal definition changes have no alterations or effects on people? Really? So if the government changes the meaning of a green light on a stop light, it has no effect on me?

    Let alone the changes people would have to accept as part of their ownership of their own property, as demonstrated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Those are not examples of people being forced to participate in gay weddings due to the legalization of gay marriage.
    This is simply a bare assertion. One that runs in the face of the definition of the word participate (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/participate). If a person is forced to act as part of a wedding, whether it be to host it, to cook for it, whatever, they are being forced to participate.

    Again, you, Mican, can be fine with that, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t happening, or that forced participation is not a consequence of this legal semantic change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    B following A does not automatically show a causal relationship. And the notion of incestuous marriages have been around for a long time and yet it has not gained acceptance so the introduction of a concept does not reliably lead to wide-range acceptance of such a concept.
    Because incest does not violate the definition of the term marriage. It violates social taboos, but if you refer to a brother and sister marrying each other, that act still fits within the definition of marriage. Hence your analogy is a bit off.

    What it fails to grab, even more importantly, is that marriage wasn’t the term gay advocates were using for a long time. As I showed in my last post, acceptance levels remain the same pre use of the word marriage, and only change once the term marriage begins to be featured prominently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Winston is a cog in the machine. Big Brother, the controlling government, very intentionally sought to control people's thoughts by a variety of means, including Newspeak.
    I would encourage you to re-read 1984, especially Winston’s interrogation by O’Brien. That entire discussion shares quite a few analogies to this argument. O’Brien reveals to Winston that there isn’t some monstrous body of people called “the government” or “Big Brother” they are all useful inventions revolving around the emergent properties of a philosophy. That was Orwell’s point in the book. It doesn’t take evil men to make an evil state. It only requires a form of utilitarian philosophy and the willingness to subject truth and factual states to that goal. I find that very familiar, even if the exact consequences are different.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    That sounds like nothing more than an appeal to tradition fallacy to me.
    Only in the sense that all language is an appeal to tradition fallacy. 1+1=4, why because I’m redefining 1 as 2. That isn’t what 1 means? Well that is just an appeal to tradition fallacy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Once that happens, there is no better word to accurately describe his relationship and legal status than "married.
    And that statement is only true because you assume them (conceptually) to be the same thing. The reason you think it is the best word is because you’ve made the mental replacement. There is no question, at all, that 50 years ago (or hell 10 years ago) if you used the term married and pointed to two gentlemen, a listener would have been confused. Why? Because that isn’t what the word has meant.

    Those two gentlemen’s relationship could well be exactly the same today as 50 years ago, so it isn’t the nature of their relationship that mandates the word usage, it is the mental equivocation of the speaker.

    Let me put it another way. What about their relationship fits with the criteria for marriage? What about it makes it best described as “married?” Please be specific.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Actually, the burden is on you to argue that the change is likely to be more negative than positive if that is your position.
    And I already put forward that argument. External changes to the rules of emergent systems are, on balance, more likely to be disruptive than productive. That is a fundamental trait of those kinds of systems. The emergent property requires (by definition) a complex set of interactions between the sub elements of the system in order to arise (it is, after all, the product of the system, not of the parts).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    That's because it's never been my position that we need to. I just observe that we are and see no reason to be concerned that we are.
    I don’t believe this is an accurate portrayal of your position here. You have expressed support and preference for the legal change of the definition (which previously was more limiting), thus should, at least, offer some kind of support for that change.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    We are talking about a human shift in language.
    A court mandating a shift in legal definition and associated coercive laws is not a “human shift” in language.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  4. #44
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This doesn’t really seem to directly address my point. You argued that there would be no reason to prohibit gay marriages because some portion of them would have positive child rearing outcomes. Therefore, by allowing them we are increasing the absolute number of positive child rearing outcomes. My point was, rather, that when the premise says maximizing it is talking about shifting the distribution so that proportionally more positive child rearing outcomes occur.
    By "shifting the distribution" are you referring to shifting children from same-sex households to opposite-sex households?

    If so, that's not going to happen by not recognizing gay marriage. Gay parents are not going to give up their children to opposite-sex parents in any significant number because they are not allowed to marry (and even when that does happen, the marginal improvement is almost certainly negated by the trauma of the child having to leave his/her original parents).

    The typical "distribution shift" will be gay parents not staying together due to not having the stabilizing influence of marriage and kids will go from having a pair of gay parents to one gay parent or maybe no parents at all (like a foster home).



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not exactly, no. In the analogy good parenting outcomes are quarters, less good outcomes are dimes. In my scenario the bag has a higher proportion of quarters than yours does.
    Wrong. As gay marriage does not effect straight marriage, the number of kids who are raised by opposite-sex parents will be exactly the same in both of our scenarios so we are both drawing the same number of quarters.

    Now, if we consider a child with same-sex parents to be "dimes" and a child with just one parent to be "nickels" and no parents to be "pennies", I will draw dimes where you will draw nickels and pennies so my total will be higher.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    None of that is denied to domestic partnerships.

    Remember the premises I offered were not the same conclusions as the OP. I’m only attempting to show that a coherent argument formed around the OP’s data is possible, not that the OP’s conclusions are correct.
    As far as I can tell, we are having two debates and getting confused on when we are addressing one or the other. The debates are:

    1. The relative quality of parenting justifies unequal treatment of SSM and OSM
    2. There's nothing wrong with giving SSM and OSM different names

    Or do you think 1 and 2 are the same and we get "The relative quality of parenting justifies giving SSM and OSM different names"? If so, that's not really a coherent argument. The "better parenting" argument argues that we should give straight parents advantages over gay parents and so it's not at all an argument about "same thing - different names" and therefore arguing for a mere name difference does not conceivably forward the "distribution shift".

    So assuming we aren't combining 1 and 2, I believe I was referring to argument 1, which does forward different legal treatment of the unions in order to benefit the "better" one and therefore does effectively discriminate against opposite-sex couples (and the argument, if accepted, justifies such discrimination).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In adoption rules related to marriage recognition. Your point would be like saying that we recognize different gender bathrooms, but can’t recognize difference in genders.
    No, it's not. My point is like saying we can recognize that two guys with different names have differences (their names for one) but that doesn't justify unequal access to the boys room for either of them.

    There are differences and there are relevant differences. If one wants to argue that a difference between two people justifies unequal treatment, they have the burden of explaining why those differences justify the unequal treatment. Just recognizing a difference clearly does not justify unequal treatment.

    So the relevant differences for adoption does not automatically equal to a relevant difference in some other realm.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I assume you mean “same sex unions” since of course opposite sex unions wouldn’t fail to meet the criteria.

    As for that, I’m not sure how you can assert that, I literally showed (three times now) where of the two limiting criteria that define the term Marriage, half of them are about the two people being of an opposite sex. See post 37 and post 39 for more details.
    As far as I know, my consistent rebuttal to your "limiting criteria" arguments in prior posts was that your argument is entirely subjective (you are just offering your opinion) and you have offered no objective reasoning for recognizing that criteria.

    So that remains my rebuttal to your points in posts 37 and 39.

    If I have misunderstood what specific argument you are referring to, you should paste that argument into your next post or make a fresh argument about criteria that uses objective support because as far as I know, your reasoning is subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What specific material harm is suffered by the loss of calling an association a “marriage” in a legal sense?
    As quoted in the current ruling, there is the issue of "dignity" - how one is treated by the state.

    As I argued earlier, "marriage" is more than a governmental definition. It has a strong societal and religious component so when the government recognized marriages it is, in effect, concurring that the couples have met the societal component and have had the religious ceremony (when they do). So it's rather degrading for the government to refuse to recognize that for certain couples, to say "No, as far as we are concerned, you didn't achieve the societal and perhaps religious achievement that straight couples have".

    Maybe an analogy would be if the gay marriage licenses had "You suck" written on them. That doesn't alter their actual legal rights anymore than calling their unions something other than marriage but it is insulting. It sends them a message from the government that they aren't as good as straight couples (who apparently have better earned the title "marriage" as if they are actually better than gays).




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And in your mind legal definition changes have no alterations or effects on people? Really? So if the government changes the meaning of a green light on a stop light, it has no effect on me?

    Let alone the changes people would have to accept as part of their ownership of their own property, as demonstrated.
    You've moved the goal post. We were discussing whether people are free to use the word "marriage" or not, not whether the government's usage will have an effect on people. I will consider this issue settled since you did not rebut my assertion that people are not mandated to use the term.

    As far as government effect goes, of course the government's decision will have an effect on people and I never argued that it would not (so you were challenging a straw-man, not the argument I made). And likewise if the government does not make that change, it will effect people as well. EVERYTHING the government does and doesn't do has an effect on people. And there is nothing inherently wrong with a decision having an effect on people. If the effect is positive, it's a good thing the government did it and it's bad thing if the government doesn't do it (and vice versa).

    So yes, this will have an effect. So what?



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is simply a bare assertion. One that runs in the face of the definition of the word participate (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/participate). If a person is forced to act as part of a wedding, whether it be to host it, to cook for it, whatever, they are being forced to participate.
    You failed to quote the part of my argument that backs up my assertion and therefore I do not consider this a valid rebuttal. So I will repeat my argument and ask that you quote the entire argument in your reply if you offer a rebuttal to it.

    "Those are not examples of people being forced to participate in gay weddings due to the legalization of gay marriage.

    Rather they are businesses being forced to cater gay weddings due to anti-discrimination laws regardless of the legal status of gay marriage.

    And to take issue with these laws is to likewise take issue with businesses not having the option to refuse to cater black weddings or Jewish weddings, etc. Debating anti-discrimination laws in general is well beyond the scope of this particular debate and should have a different thread dedicated to it. And that thread would likely be off-topic to the issue of gay marriage since it will be about a different legal principle entirely."



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Because incest does not violate the definition of the term marriage. It violates social taboos, but if you refer to a brother and sister marrying each other, that act still fits within the definition of marriage. Hence your analogy is a bit off.
    No, because we are talking about social acceptance. The recognition of the concept of brother-sister marriage did not override the taboo of it so the recognition of a concept does not inevitably lead to acceptance of the taboo.

    But do you know what would increase the acceptance of brother-sister marriage? A decrease in the taboo of incest. If everyone became more accepting of incest, they would likewise become more accepting of the concept of brother-sister marriage.

    And likewise homosexuality used to be very taboo and now it's much less so. And THAT'S what's causing the increased acceptance of gay marriage - the acceptance of gays. Acceptance of gays themselves will logically lead to increase acceptance of gay everything - gay parades, gay bars, gay celebrities, gay politicians, and of course gay marriage.

    IMO, that is obvious.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What it fails to grab, even more importantly, is that marriage wasn’t the term gay advocates were using for a long time. As I showed in my last post, acceptance levels remain the same pre use of the word marriage, and only change once the term marriage begins to be featured prominently.
    But you have completely failed to show any causal relationship. You are simply asserting that if B follows A, then A caused B.

    And really, isn't it obvious that it's the acceptance of gays that lead to the acceptance of gay marriage?



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Only in the sense that all language is an appeal to tradition fallacy. 1+1=4, why because I’m redefining 1 as 2. That isn’t what 1 means? Well that is just an appeal to tradition fallacy.
    If you are saying that would should continue to define "one" as "one" for no other reason than that's how we defined "one" in the past, then you are indeed engaging in an appeal to tradition fallacy.

    Once you provide a good reason to keep calling it "one" (such as trying to change the word would cause a lot of confusion for a long time with no apparent benefit), then you are forwarding an argument that is not the appeal to tradition fallacy.

    So language itself is not an appeal to tradition. But resisting a definition change just because it's different than the traditional definition is an appeal to tradition fallacy.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And that statement is only true because you assume them (conceptually) to be the same thing.
    I would switch out "assume" with "consider" and then agree with you.

    As in I consider them to be similar enough for the word "marriage" to apply to both of them.

    While I say my use of the word "marriage" is instinctual, it is borne of my belief that the two institutions have no relevant differences that qualify them for the use different terms.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The reason you think it is the best word is because you’ve made the mental replacement. There is no question, at all, that 50 years ago (or hell 10 years ago) if you used the term married and pointed to two gentlemen, a listener would have been confused. Why? Because that isn’t what the word has meant.
    EXACTLY. Fifty years ago I would have had a very good reason to not refer to my gay step-brother's union as "marriage" even if I personally chose to recognize it as such. And by the same logic, in 2015 I have a very good reason to refer to his union as "marriage". So I do.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Let me put it another way. What about their relationship fits with the criteria for marriage? What about it makes it best described as “married?” Please be specific.
    I think I can communicate my reasoning better if I generalize. The reason I feel their union fits the criteria of marriage is because in every way, except one, it completely corresponds to the traditional definition of marriage. So unless one considers that one difference to be a very good reason to not call their union "marriage" (and I don't), "marriage" is clearly the appropriate word. There isn't even a close second.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And I already put forward that argument. External changes to the rules of emergent systems are, on balance, more likely to be disruptive than productive. That is a fundamental trait of those kinds of systems. The emergent property requires (by definition) a complex set of interactions between the sub elements of the system in order to arise (it is, after all, the product of the system, not of the parts).
    First off, you have not supported that changes are more likely to be disruptive - I see links but I'm not going to click them (linkwarz).

    And secondly, "more likely to be" is not the same as "is". Even if one accepts that most changes are negative, if one can make a solid argument that a particular change is positive then it clearly one of the exceptions to the "most changes are bad" rule (as the rule allows for a good changes, even if they are in the minority).

    And if we are talking about the change in the laws that we are experiencing, I think it's accepted that it's good that gays are receiving legal equality (leaving the name debate aside for a second) so the change in general is a good one so your argument does not apply to the general change in gay rights (and if you are arguing that marriage equality in law is a bad thing then we should start a new thread focused solely on the legal issue).

    So getting back to the name, either way a change is happening. Either we are going to legally add SSM to the legal definition of "marriage" or we are going to grant those couples the legal recognition but create a new term (civil union) to apply to it. So either way, a change is happening and therefore you can't say that either is preferable to the other due to the concept of "most changes are bad" as they are both changes and we can't avoid having a change happen either way.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I don’t believe this is an accurate portrayal of your position here. You have expressed support and preference for the legal change of the definition (which previously was more limiting), thus should, at least, offer some kind of support for that change.
    We WERE debating whether PEOPLE redefining the word "marriage" (which is different than the government adopting the term).

    So I was supporting that there's nothing particularly wrong with the people choosing to alter the definition of marriage to include gay couples.

    If you don't want to take the opposing side, I will consider my position unchallenged.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    A court mandating a shift in legal definition and associated coercive laws is not a “human shift” in language.
    And in my argument, I was not referring to a court mandating a shift in a legal definition.

    Again, I'm saying that I observe that PEOPLE are increasingly accepting of the definition of "marriage" including gays and I don't see anything wrong with that. And of course, people increasingly accepting that definition of marriage is a very good reason for the government to do likewise. As much as we can, the government and people should use the same terms.
    Last edited by mican333; August 2nd, 2015 at 10:47 AM.

  5. #45
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    By "shifting the distribution" are you referring to shifting children from same-sex households to opposite-sex households?
    No, as the argument stated this is more about supporting the institution that has the higher distribution of successful child rearing outcomes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Wrong. As gay marriage does not effect straight marriage, the number of kids who are raised by opposite-sex parents will be exactly the same in both of our scenarios so we are both drawing the same number of quarters.
    Again, this misunderstands the analogy. Given the OP’s argument that married parents have better parental outcomes than same sex parents the two scenarios would be something like:

    Traditional marriage only: 5 quarters, 2 dimes.

    Redefined marriage: 7 quarters, 4 dimes.

    The percentage of quarts possible in the latter bag is lower, meaning the chance of getting a “lesser” optimal parental outcome is higher.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    1. The relative quality of parenting justifies unequal treatment of SSM and OSM
    2. There's nothing wrong with giving SSM and OSM different names
    Well, I don’t think that is really the case. What happened was that we were discussing the premise below and a branch off occurred that was more about the negative impacts of external linguistic changes to a society.

    1) A sound argument based upon the OP’s data of different parenting outcomes against redefining marriage is possible.

    The thread of this specific section centered more around the idea that if you recognize that Married Couples and Same Sex Couples are sufficiently different that they do, in fact, fall into two distinct legal categories (which was, as I saw it, a conceded point based on adoption preference), then you cede the justification to argue they are “the same” as married couples and thus their relationship should be defined by that term.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    My point is like saying we can recognize that two guys with different names have differences (their names for one) but that doesn't justify unequal access to the boys room for either of them.
    Not exactly, the difference you are recognizing is fundamentally tied to the institution you are insisting they are a part of. You are conceding that relationship type 1 is sufficiently different from relationship type 2 such that preferences could be established for the distribution of children up for adoption.

    The civil institution of marriage relates (partly) to the institution of raising children. You are saying those two are different vis a vis the reason the institution exists civilly, to establish legal parental relationships. Hence, they are two different things.

    It is the same rationale for why we don’t call a legal partnership a marriage even though they have similar property rights relationships as married couples.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    As far as I know, my consistent rebuttal to your "limiting criteria" arguments in prior posts was that your argument is entirely subjective (you are just offering your opinion) and you have offered no objective reasoning for recognizing that criteria.
    Well, not exactly. You stated that you subjectively rejected it (ie you personally didn’t think it mattered), but that doesn’t mean the criteria are subjective. If you were going to offer that as a rebuttal you would need to support how the definition of a word is subject, because if that’s the case, you would make a great lawyer.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    As quoted in the current ruling, there is the issue of "dignity"
    Emotional harm is, by legal definition, not material harm. That is why separately sue for emotional or material damages.

    If our standard is simply emotional in nature we are also on a relatively slippery slope. I could well say that allowing gay marriage results in a loss of dignity for straight couples, after all if we are invoking subjective responses, it is just as valid as that defense.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So it's rather degrading for the government to refuse to recognize that for certain couples, to say "No, as far as we are concerned, you didn't achieve the societal and perhaps religious achievement that straight couples have".
    No it isn’t, it is just the government recognizing that the relationship does not meet the definition of the term. Just as it would recognize that it doesn’t meet the term if a minor wanted to marry an adult.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Maybe an analogy would be if the gay marriage licenses had "You suck" written on them. That doesn't alter their actual legal rights anymore than calling their unions something other than marriage but it is insulting.
    That is a great example, though for a different reason imo. I think it shows just how much of an ego issue this is. It isn’t about rights, it isn’t about justice, its about feelings of inadequacy wholly separate from the nature of the issue. After all, you could make the same argument for gender on a license. Men and women are equal, but having female on your license is like having a big “you suck” written on it. Imparting a personal emotional response to an objective distinction is not only an unsound idea, it isn’t a good personal idea either.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    You've moved the goal post. We were discussing whether people are free to use the word "marriage" or not, not whether the government's usage will have an effect on people.
    That isn’t moving the goal post at all unless you are making the claim that the government’s usage won’t affect or mandate people change their usage which is absolutely ridiculous. You can claim it hasn’t been rebutted, but I offered something like 30 or 40 examples of this being the case a few posts ago. The government’s change of the legal definition has impacts on how I can choose to use my speech. I am not legally allowed to make the distinction between a married couple and a gay couple in how I live in the public sphere.

    What you are confusing this claim with, is the idea that you aren’t allowed to say there is a difference, which is a ridiculous interpretation of my argument. Clearly I’m not making anything like that kind of claim, but making the more cogent point that in many of my public facing roles I cannot use the term “marriage” to only mean a man and a woman. For examples see my earlier post.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    You failed to quote the part of my argument that backs up my assertion and therefore I do not consider this a valid rebuttal. So I will repeat my argument and ask that you quote the entire argument in your reply if you offer a rebuttal to it.
    Mican, rejecting an argument because I quote or don’t quote a section of your response isn’t a valid rebuttal or rejection. If I only quote the word “failed” it has absolutely no impact on whether or not my reply dealt with the points you offered. You can say “you didn’t rebut point X” or something of that nature, but this is simply poor form.

    One of your complaints was that they weren’t “participating” that was rebutted.

    The other complaint was that it is a business, not people. This is, likewise, unsupportable given that many of the businesses quoted were sole proprietorships, so the business and the people have no legal distinction. From a practical sense, your argument is even weaker because who is going to the ceremony? It isn’t a business, it is a human being, an individual. If that individual chooses not to go, that isn’t a legal defense right?

    Your final comment was about other non-discrimination laws. I’ve already objected to those in other threads and so see no need to add to that here. What’s more, it doesn’t support your argument unless we presume that the government can simply add any group of people, for any reason, to a protected class and thereby mitigate peoples’ rights. It was a simple appeal to law and can be rejected as such. What’s more it serves my point as well. Are those same people legally mandated to participate in mixed race weddings? Yes! Of course they are. The argument isn’t that they aren’t forced to participate, it is that the government has “good reason” to force the participation.




    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No, because we are talking about social acceptance. The recognition of the concept of brother-sister marriage did not override the taboo of it so the recognition of a concept does not inevitably lead to acceptance of the taboo.
    I think that conflates the taboo of the act, with the redefinition of the term. Accepted or not, an incestuous marriage is still a marriage according to that definition.

    Homosexuality could well have 100% lost its taboo and no such marriage redefinition occur. The two are not linked in the way you imply. I think you are assuming that objection to the redefinition stems from that feeling of taboo, and hence, remove the taboo and you remove the objection. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case as the redefinition argument follows many years after homosexuals started to become more mainstream. We even have situations today where some Christians will argue that it is both a sin, but support homosexual marriage, and people who have no objection to homosexuality, but disagree with the concept of calling it a marriage.

    I’ll give a good example, though admittedly anecdotal. Much of my family lives in Seattle and Portland. They are virtually all extremely Progressive. We’ve also had family friends who are gay and have been together since I was a child (say late 80s). I remember growing up with that couple attending my brother’s wedding, I worked closely with one of them during my internship at a law firm. Etc, etc. Never once, in that nearly two decades did they refer to themselves as married or implied that the relationship was essentially a marriage. They were certainly a committed couple, there certainly was no taboo in my family about it. But no one referred to them, even off hand in that terminology. It wasn’t until about 4 years ago that they brought up the issue (on the cusp of a vote in Oregon btw).

    Here we have a good example of attitudes and concepts of a relationship changing that are driven not by changing acceptance, not by growing views, but by outside political events. It was the conscious social movement that changed the name, not some underlying feeling about its taboo.




    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But you have completely failed to show any causal relationship. You are simply asserting that if B follows A, then A caused B.
    I’m saying that the two are directly correlated. You can reject that correlation, just as you can reject the correlation between sex and babies, but you haven’t offered a defense of why that would be. You’re just arguing that it isn’t personally compelling to you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If you are saying that would should continue to define "one" as "one" for no other reason than that's how we defined "one" in the past, then you are indeed engaging in an appeal to tradition fallacy.
    I would encourage you to reacquaint yourself with that particular fallacy. Simply referencing something as existing is not automatically an appeal to tradition: http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...tradition.html

    Rather, when used in a relevant context, it isn’t a fallacy at all. The age of wine is the example the link uses. Tradition is fundamental to language because a necessary requirement is shared understanding and conceptual frameworks, which is essentially a synonym for tradition.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I would switch out "assume" with "consider" and then agree with you.

    As in I consider them to be similar enough for the word "marriage" to apply to both of them.

    While I say my use of the word "marriage" is instinctual, it is borne of my belief that the two institutions have no relevant differences that qualify them for the use different terms.
    And if we follow this thread well back to its beginning we see that your reasoning has run full circle.

    Why are the two concepts the same? Because I feel they are the same

    What about the limiting criteria of male and female? I don’t feel that is relevant part of the definition.

    Why isn’t it relevant to the definition? Because the two concepts are the same.


    Essentially this argument structure strips any meaning of any word we choose.

    Judge: Why did you sleep with a minor?

    Defendant: I didn’t feel she was a minor.

    Judge: But she was under 18, which is how we define a minor.

    Defendant: I don’t think age is a relevant part of a definition.

    Judge: Why?

    Defendant: Because I didn’t feel she was a minor.

    Words can either have meaning, or they can be dictated by our whims and tastes. It can’t be both.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    The reason I feel their union fits the criteria of marriage is because in every way, except one, it completely corresponds to the traditional definition of marriage.
    In what way? Again, please be specific. Given that there is only one real criteria in the definition (the one they don’t match) this is a pretty important point.




    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    First off, you have not supported that changes are more likely to be disruptive - I see links but I'm not going to click them (linkwarz).
    Not at all, the argument itself is pretty clear in the text provided, the links are offered as support of that argument. That emergent systems, which rely on complex interactions arising from basic rules of individual agents are more prone to failure when those basic rules are changed is an inherent property of complex order. Fundamental changes to the rules governing interaction (rather than to the agents themselves) are more likely to produce negative effects than positive because the positive outcomes relies on a complex set of interactions.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And if we are talking about the change in the laws that we are experiencing, I think it's accepted that it's good that gays are receiving legal equality (leaving the name debate aside for a second) so the change in general is a good one so your argument does not apply to the general change in gay rights (and if you are arguing that marriage equality in law is a bad thing then we should start a new thread focused solely on the legal issue).
    You are confusing “people prefer it” with “positive system impact.” A classroom full of children would prefer that I leave a bag of candy there, the system would not experience a positive impact however.

    You are correct that one could make a specific argument that the external change here is beneficial to the overall system. My position was to show that, absent said argument, the default position is one of skepticism given the trend. No one has yet offered such an argument beyond appeals to individual conditions. An argument based on an emergent system would need to, at a minimum, discuss the nature of the interaction change, and have a limiting principle to the impact those interactions would have since third and fourth order effects are more powerful than first order effects in emergent systems by definition.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    We WERE debating whether PEOPLE redefining the word "marriage" (which is different than the government adopting the term).
    Who are you talking about here? This statement bears no resemblance to our discussion here. Do you mean earlier in the thread?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And in my argument, I was not referring to a court mandating a shift in a legal definition.

    Again, I'm saying that I observe that PEOPLE are increasingly accepting of the definition of "marriage" including gays and I don't see anything wrong with that.
    To the extent that you are talking about the discussion with me you don’t have an argument, you’ve stated your personal taste on the issue. That you don’t see anything wrong with that is an opinion statement, not an argument.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  6. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, as the argument stated this is more about supporting the institution that has the higher distribution of successful child rearing outcomes.
    So "shifting the distribution" is taking something from the less successful institutions and shifting it to the more successful one thereby increasing overall success, similar to a business reducing the budget of a moderately profitable project in order to increase the budget of a very profitable project and thereby increasing the company's overall profits?

    If so, that doesn't really apply to marriage laws. Refusing to give gay marriage legal recognition or the name "marriage" does not shift anything to heterosexual marriage. Heterosexual marriage is supported at the same level regardless of how we treat gay marriage. So there is no distribution shift for the benefit of traditional marriage.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, this misunderstands the analogy. Given the OP’s argument that married parents have better parental outcomes than same sex parents the two scenarios would be something like:

    Traditional marriage only: 5 quarters, 2 dimes.

    Redefined marriage: 7 quarters, 4 dimes.

    The percentage of quarts possible in the latter bag is lower, meaning the chance of getting a “lesser” optimal parental outcome is higher.
    But the percentage of quarters in the second bad would not be lower.

    As neither position alters the benefits for those in traditional marriage, the percentage of children who are raised by traditional parents will be exactly the same and therefore the percentage of quarters is exactly the same in both bags. So this does not effect the shift to or from two-parent heterosexual parents.

    But it does effect the shift from two-parent same-sex households to single-parent or no-parent households as the lack of benefits will have an adverse effect on stable same-sex households thereby increasing the number of children in those unions who end up in broken homes (nickels).

    So we have -

    Traditional marriage only: 5 quarters, 3 dimes, 3 nickels

    Redefine marriage: 5 quarters, 4 dimes, 2 nickels.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, I don’t think that is really the case. What happened was that we were discussing the premise below and a branch off occurred that was more about the negative impacts of external linguistic changes to a society.
    No, I think we were discussing providing material benefits to SSMs over OSMs and we branched off into the name-change-only debate.

    I considered those two different debates.

    In fact, I'm pretty sure the "maximize parental outcome" argument and the "It's not discrimination against gay couples" are inherently incompatible. The "maximize" outcome argument, as I understand it, is saying that we SHOULD give OSMs advantages that we don't give SSMs in order to "maximize outcomes" which inherently discriminates against SSMs but justifies such discrimination. So it's not about "no discrimination" but "justified discrimination" and of course justified discrimination is, well, justified, and if I were to accept the hypothetical premise that heterosexual couples are marginally better parents and likewise accept the argument that flows from it, then I would concede that we have a good reason to discriminate against gay marriage (which isn't to say that I don't think there are even better reasons to not discriminate but regardless I would concede the point that a rational argument against gay marriage had resulted from the hypothetical premise). Again, I considered this a hypothetical debate so it's really not a problem for the "Maximize" argument to advocate discrimination. If the argument provides a rational reason to legally discriminate, then that argument wins.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The thread of this specific section centered more around the idea that if you recognize that Married Couples and Same Sex Couples are sufficiently different that they do, in fact, fall into two distinct legal categories (which was, as I saw it, a conceded point based on adoption preference), then you cede the justification to argue they are “the same” as married couples and thus their relationship should be defined by that term.
    That argument is based on a premise that I never ceded, which is that Married couples and Same Sex couples are sufficiently different in terms of adoption. The hypothetical premise that I ceded what that opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are sufficiently different to warrant different treatment in adoption law.

    And you have not shown a logical leap from ceding the issue regarding adoption law to justifying different treatment in marriage laws.

    And I'm sure you don't challenge the notion that not all opposite-sex couples are equally suitable for adoption and there is criteria that makes some OSCs more suitable adoptive parents than other OSCs. And yet this has absolutely no bearing on which OSCs can marry so likewise I don't see why it should have any bearing on anyone else' right to marry.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No it isn’t, it is just the government recognizing that the relationship does not meet the definition of the term. Just as it would recognize that it doesn’t meet the term if a minor wanted to marry an adult.
    But why is child-adult marriage illegal? It's primarily because sexual relations between the two parties is seen as very immoral and is justifiably illegal as well. The same, more or less, for incestuous relationships. In fact, pretty much any sexual relationship between people that is illegal does not qualify for marriage and likewise homosexual relationships used to be illegal as well and the current resistance is primarily based on the belief that their relationships are immoral.

    So in short, denying them marriage does send a message that their relationships are still immoral.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That is a great example, though for a different reason imo. I think it shows just how much of an ego issue this is. It isn’t about rights, it isn’t about justice, its about feelings of inadequacy wholly separate from the nature of the issue. After all, you could make the same argument for gender on a license. Men and women are equal, but having female on your license is like having a big “you suck” written on it.
    No, it's not. What's insulting about being categorized as female?

    And you can forward that we should all be bigger people and not mind being insulted and I suppose less ego is always a good thing. But that dodges the primary point. It WOULD be illegal to write "you suck" on licenses for gay couples. The principle that people deserve to be treated with respect from the government is a valid legal principle that is currently enforced.

    So I should ask, if a county decided to write "you suck" and various gay slurs on all gay marriage licenses and a lawsuit demanding that they cease doing that arose, would you actually support the county's right to continue to write insults on gay marriage licenses? Why or why not?


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That isn’t moving the goal post at all unless you are making the claim that the government’s usage won’t affect or mandate people change their usage which is absolutely ridiculous.
    Let's be clear, I said that the government does not or will not mandate that PEOPLE refer to gay unions as marriage. Talking about other effects from the government deciding to use the term is a different issue (and I already conceded that such a change will have an effect and likewise argued that that is not a valid reason to oppose such a change) . And I stand by the statement I actually made.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You can claim it hasn’t been rebutted, but I offered something like 30 or 40 examples of this being the case a few posts ago. The government’s change of the legal definition has impacts on how I can choose to use my speech. I am not legally allowed to make the distinction between a married couple and a gay couple in how I live in the public sphere.
    Give me one example on how the change in gay marriage laws (which are not the same as anti-discrimination laws) have denied you the right to do such.

    And likewise I assume you are referring exclusively to yourself as a business entity and not as an individual. You may argue that there is, or should be, no legal difference but regardless there is a clear identifiable difference when you show up somewhere on business or not on business. I've been to weddings as a hired videographer and I've been to weddings as a guest and the two situations are clearly different.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Mican, rejecting an argument because I quote or don’t quote a section of your response isn’t a valid rebuttal or rejection. If I only quote the word “failed” it has absolutely no impact on whether or not my reply dealt with the points you offered. You can say “you didn’t rebut point X” or something of that nature, but this is simply poor form.

    One of your complaints was that they weren’t “participating” that was rebutted.
    I did not argue that they did not participate.'

    I argued that they were not forced to participate due to gay marriage laws.

    So making it a semantic argument over the word "participate" does not address my argument.

    And the parts of my argument that you did not quote and likewise did not respond to were my support.

    But I've repeated my general rebuttal in the next point below.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The other complaint was that it is a business, not people. This is, likewise, unsupportable given that many of the businesses quoted were sole proprietorships, so the business and the people have no legal distinction. From a practical sense, your argument is even weaker because who is going to the ceremony? It isn’t a business, it is a human being, an individual. If that individual chooses not to go, that isn’t a legal defense right?

    Your final comment was about other non-discrimination laws. I’ve already objected to those in other threads and so see no need to add to that here. What’s more, it doesn’t support your argument unless we presume that the government can simply add any group of people, for any reason, to a protected class and thereby mitigate peoples’ rights. It was a simple appeal to law and can be rejected as such. What’s more it serves my point as well. Are those same people legally mandated to participate in mixed race weddings? Yes! Of course they are. The argument isn’t that they aren’t forced to participate, it is that the government has “good reason” to force the participation.
    And as I said:

    They were not forced to participate due to gay marriage laws.

    What you are objecting to in this argument are not:

    1. The law recognizing gay marriage
    2. The government applying the term "marriage" to gay unions.

    As you said, it's the exact same thing if a racist has to "participate" in a mixed race wedding so the laws you are referring to clearly pre-date the new laws regarding gay marriage and therefore your objection is not relevant to the new laws.

    While the whole anti-discrimination argument is a worthy one, it's off-topic to a debate over gay marriage laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think that conflates the taboo of the act, with the redefinition of the term. Accepted or not, an incestuous marriage is still a marriage according to that definition.
    If the definition of marriage excludes a brother and sister from being married, then by definition they cannot be married.

    And if the taboo against incest leads to the definition of marriage excluding brother and sisters from marrying, then the taboo denies brothers and sisters from being technically married.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Homosexuality could well have 100% lost its taboo and no such marriage redefinition occur. The two are not linked in the way you imply. I think you are assuming that objection to the redefinition stems from that feeling of taboo, and hence, remove the taboo and you remove the objection. However, that doesn’t seem to be the case as the redefinition argument follows many years after homosexuals started to become more mainstream.
    I don't know what you mean by "the redefinition follows". Given the context, it suggest that there was period of time between a level of increased popular acceptance of gays and the "start" of the redefinition argument. How are you determining when the argument "started"?

    Until that is explained, your argument is too incoherent to be accepted.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    We even have situations today where some Christians will argue that it is both a sin, but support homosexual marriage, and people who have no objection to homosexuality, but disagree with the concept of calling it a marriage.
    I don't see how this rebuts that notion.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I’ll give a good example, though admittedly anecdotal. Much of my family lives in Seattle and Portland. They are virtually all extremely Progressive. We’ve also had family friends who are gay and have been together since I was a child (say late 80s). I remember growing up with that couple attending my brother’s wedding, I worked closely with one of them during my internship at a law firm. Etc, etc. Never once, in that nearly two decades did they refer to themselves as married or implied that the relationship was essentially a marriage. They were certainly a committed couple, there certainly was no taboo in my family about it. But no one referred to them, even off hand in that terminology. It wasn’t until about 4 years ago that they brought up the issue (on the cusp of a vote in Oregon btw).

    Here we have a good example of attitudes and concepts of a relationship changing that are driven not by changing acceptance, not by growing views, but by outside political events. It was the conscious social movement that changed the name, not some underlying feeling about its taboo.
    I don't see how you can reasonably separate the two. There would be no social movement or change in the law if there was no increased acceptance in the general population of homosexuality (which goes hand-in-hand with decrease taboo) beforehand.

    And while you can say that these people's immediate circle was at the same level of acceptance at all times, it is clear that the over time the general population became more accepting of gays so they were almost certainly influenced by a general increase in acceptability.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I’m saying that the two are directly correlated. You can reject that correlation, just as you can reject the correlation between sex and babies, but you haven’t offered a defense of why that would be. You’re just arguing that it isn’t personally compelling to you.
    I'm arguing that you've not supported your argument for causation.

    Attacking a straw-man (I never argued that there's no correlation) doesn't provide support.

    And pointing out a correlation doesn't provide support either as correlation is not the same as causation.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I would encourage you to reacquaint yourself with that particular fallacy. Simply referencing something as existing is not automatically an appeal to tradition: http://www.nizkor.org/features/falla...tradition.html
    And my argument does not say that referencing something is an appeal to tradition fallacy. Here is my argument:

    "If you are saying that would should continue to define "one" as "one" for no other reason than that's how we defined "one" in the past, then you are indeed engaging in an appeal to tradition fallacy."

    So it says that something is should not be considered valid just because it was considered valid in the past.

    And according to your link an appeal to tradition fallacy is:

    "Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done.""

    If you compare the underlined sections it is clear that my argument was using the fallacy correctly.

    So I would encourage you have a better understanding of my argument before condescendingly telling me that I should have a better grasp on a certain logial fallacy.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Rather, when used in a relevant context, it isn’t a fallacy at all. The age of wine is the example the link uses. Tradition is fundamental to language because a necessary requirement is shared understanding and conceptual frameworks, which is essentially a synonym for tradition.
    Once you use more reasoning than mere tradition, then you are no longer engaging in the fallacy (and until now you hadn't done so ). But your reasoning is faulty. "shared understanding and conceptual frameworks" is not synonymous with "tradition" (I'm sure the dictionary will show this). In fact, after a certain point the older the definition is, the less commonly understood the definition becomes. The definitions of a 2015 dictionary are more commonly understood than the definitions of the 1920s dictionary and the definitions of the 1920s dictionary are better understood than the definitions of the 1820s dictionary.

    So at a certain point, the older the definition is, the less effective it is.





    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And if we follow this thread well back to its beginning we see that your reasoning has run full circle.

    Why are the two concepts the same? Because I feel they are the same

    What about the limiting criteria of male and female? I don’t feel that is relevant part of the definition.

    Why isn’t it relevant to the definition? Because the two concepts are the same.

    Essentially this argument structure strips any meaning of any word we choose.
    It strips any OBJECTIVE meaning from the word. But then words never had objective meaning in the first place.

    Words mean what people think they mean.

    And the closest I think we can come to determining whether a word is "objectively" correct is its value in communication (as the purpose of language is to communicate). As I've said before, if I want to communicate what my gay step-brother and his boyfriend are going to do in about a week from now, the word that will best communicate the concept to any listener is "they are getting married". Even those who don't agree with gay marriage will know what I meant when I say that word and any other alternative word will be more likely to cause confusion ("Union? Which union did he join? The UAW?) and therefore is inferior to "marriage".



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Judge: Why did you sleep with a minor?

    Defendant: I didn’t feel she was a minor.

    Judge: But she was under 18, which is how we define a minor.

    Defendant: I don’t think age is a relevant part of a definition.

    Judge: Why?

    Defendant: Because I didn’t feel she was a minor.

    Words can either have meaning, or they can be dictated by our whims and tastes. It can’t be both.
    Words can't have objective meanings and also be dictated by our whims. But then words don't have objective meanings and their definitions can be dictated by whims (but usually aren't).

    If everyone, on a whim, decided to call cats "dogs" and dogs "cats", then the words would have the new definitions just as much the current definitions are what they are.

    I'm just stating fact here. So I don't really know of a valid basis of objection to this. If you are arguing ISN'T, you are incorrect. If you are arguing SHOULDN'T, you are arguing that that reality should be something other than what it is and always will be, which is a rather futile position.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    In what way? Again, please be specific. Given that there is only one real criteria in the definition (the one they don’t match) this is a pretty important point.
    I'll use a dictionary definition.

    "the legally or formally recognized union of a man and a woman (or two people of the same sex) as partners in a relationship."


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not at all, the argument itself is pretty clear in the text provided, the links are offered as support of that argument. That emergent systems, which rely on complex interactions arising from basic rules of individual agents are more prone to failure when those basic rules are changed is an inherent property of complex order. Fundamental changes to the rules governing interaction (rather than to the agents themselves) are more likely to produce negative effects than positive because the positive outcomes relies on a complex set of interactions.
    Even so, it doesn't raise your argument above mine.

    I'm arguing that the government define "marriage" to include same-sex couples and you, I believe, are arguing for the government recognizing those couples but using a different term for their unions (I'm guessing "civil unions").

    Since we are both advocating change, the issue of change being potentially bad applies to both of our arguments equally.

    And I think your change would have more working parts (creating a new term, printing separate license forms, etc) so the potential for problems would be greater. But regardless, I'll call it a wash.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You are confusing “people prefer it” with “positive system impact.” A classroom full of children would prefer that I leave a bag of candy there, the system would not experience a positive impact however.

    You are correct that one could make a specific argument that the external change here is beneficial to the overall system. My position was to show that, absent said argument, the default position is one of skepticism given the trend. No one has yet offered such an argument beyond appeals to individual conditions. An argument based on an emergent system would need to, at a minimum, discuss the nature of the interaction change, and have a limiting principle to the impact those interactions would have since third and fourth order effects are more powerful than first order effects in emergent systems by definition.
    Well, the primary change that is occurring is that gays are being granted legal equality in marriage laws. They are receiving all of the benefits that married heterosexual couples receive. I assume that you agree with this on the principle that we should grant gays equal protection of the law (and therefore the benefits of these changes override the potential for negative outcomes) and are just focusing on the issue of whether the government should call it "marriage" or "civil union".

    And again, either way it's a change so that issue doesn't promote your argument over my argument.






    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    To the extent that you are talking about the discussion with me you don’t have an argument, you’ve stated your personal taste on the issue. That you don’t see anything wrong with that is an opinion statement, not an argument.
    No, it's a fact. For a fact, I am unaware of any supported argument on this thread that reasonably leads one to be concerned with the language shift.

    And I interpreted some of your earlier arguments to be saying that we should be concerned. So if you are not currently forwarding that we should be concerned, it means that either you've retracted that argument (not repeating is retracting) or you were never making such arguments in the first place and I misinterpreted certain arguments of yours. I'm not interested in hashing out which it is because debating the debate does not move the debate forward and debate-wise, the results are the same.

    Currently, on this thread, there are no supported arguments that says that we should be concerned about the language shift amongst the people.

    If you want to say that's because you never attempted such an argument in the first place, I won't challenge that (I'll keep whatever doubts I may have about that to myself). Either way, it is not supported on this thread that we should be concerned with the language shift amongst the people.
    Last edited by mican333; August 12th, 2015 at 12:13 PM.

  7. #47
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    So "shifting the distribution" is taking something from the less successful institutions and shifting it to the more successful one thereby increasing overall success, similar to a business reducing the budget of a moderately profitable project in order to increase the budget of a very profitable project and thereby increasing the company's overall profits?
    Again, no. That is what no meant the last time I said it when you asked exactly the same question.

    No, as the argument stated this is more about supporting the institution that has the higher distribution of successful child rearing outcomes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Why would the percentage in the latter bag be lower? Let's say we are referring to 100 marriages (just to keep the number simple) and 90% of them are OSMs
    There are 100 marriages, as you offer above. (I would say it would likely be higher than 90% given that gays make up 2-3% of the population)

    Situation A: Marriage only.

    90 Marriages
    64 (5/7) of them are quarters and 26 (2/7) are dimes.

    Meaning that quarters make up 71% of the population.


    Situation B: Redefined marriage

    100 Marriages

    There are 64 Quarters are drawn and 26 Dimes as above.

    Additionally, there are 5 more Quarters and 5 more Dimes.

    So we have a total of 69 quarters and 31 Dimes

    Meaning that quarters make up 69% of the population.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    That argument is based on a premise that I never ceded, which is that Married couples and Same Sex couples are sufficiently different in terms of adoption. The hypothetical premise that I ceded what that opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples are sufficiently different to warrant different treatment in adoption law.
    These are, in terms of this argument, quite literally the same thing. Remember, all that was forwarded in defense of the possible objection I noted was that they were treated differently with respect to the law. Once you grant different treatment in adoption law, you grant two distinct legal categories, which was the nature of the objection to your position.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But why is child-adult marriage illegal? It's primarily because sexual relations between the two parties is seen as very immoral and is justifiably illegal as well.
    No, you are confusing the marriage being illegal with the act being illegal. Polygamous marriages are illegal because they don’t fit the definition of the term marriage. The act isn’t illegal.

    Marriage does not derive its status just because the underlying acts or relationships are legal. It derives its status from the definition of the term.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No, it's not. What's insulting about being categorized as female?
    What is insulting about being categorized as gay? Women are a different gender than men, based on physical reality and the definition of gender. Same sex couplings are different than marriages, based on physical reality and the definition of marriage.

    That you would infer insult from that fact is identical to the hypothetical I offered. There is nothing objectively insulting by the situation proffered, it was an inference, just as female on a license could well be an inference.

    If you want to make the argument that recognizing physical reality is inherently “insulting” feel free to make said argument, but until you do, your objection to it being demeaning is moot.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Let's be clear, I said that the government does not or will not mandate that PEOPLE refer to gay unions as marriage
    And to be equally clear, I’ve already shown that you are wrong. The government is, and will continue to mandate that people refer to gay unions as marriage in their public capacity.

    What you are saying is that they will not prosecute people for the use of the phrase in their private lives, which is true. But that doesn’t mean the government isn’t mandating the use of the term.

    Nor do we define what constitutes a government mandate to be defined as what happens in our private lives. If the government mandated workplace prayers I think we might see a different argument.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch
    Give me one example on how the change in gay marriage laws (which are not the same as anti-discrimination laws) have denied you the right to do such.
    Sure, if I own a sole proprietorship that offers medical insurance coverage for employees and their spouse, can I now say that a gay couple does not qualify? Can I define that benefit to only mean marriage?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If the definition of marriage excludes a brother and sister from being married, then by definition they cannot be married.
    Which would seem to be the argument leveled against you above. The definition of marriage excludes two people of the same sex from being married, thus they cannot be married.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Support or retract that there was a noticeable lag between the increasing acceptance of gays and the increasing acceptance of gay marriage.
    As I pointed out earlier in thread, acceptance of gay marriage doesn’t get above the 30% mark until well after 2010. But acceptance of gay lifestyle was well above 50% nearly a decade earlier. http://www.gallup.com/poll/5341/Acce...-Movement.aspx

    Side note, notice that the article (from 2002) is still discussing this as a civil union issue, not a marriage issue.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I don't see how this rebuts that notion.
    Well if support for calling it marriage derived from acceptance of the relationship, then we wouldn’t see this kind of disconnect. This disconnect serves to show that there is another factor at play.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I don't see how you can reasonably separate the two. There would be no social movement or change in the law if there was no increased acceptance in the general population of homosexuality (which goes hand-in-hand with decrease taboo) beforehand.
    It would seem you are linking social movements and legal changes to general acceptance rates, but I’m not sure why such a linkage would be necessary. Government and small interest groups can affect massive legal changes against the prevailing views of society quite easily.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And while you can say that these people's immediate circle was at the same level of acceptance at all times, it is clear that the over time the general population became more accepting of gays so they were almost certainly influenced by a general increase in acceptability.
    Except we are talking about Portland here, even more so, a relatively liberal element within Portland. Acceptance of alternative lifestyles, especially gays in cities like Portland has been more than mainstream for a very long time.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And my argument does not say that referencing something is an appeal to tradition fallacy. Here is my argument:

    "If you are saying that would should continue to define "one" as "one" for no other reason than that's how we defined "one" in the past, then you are indeed engaging in an appeal to tradition fallacy."

    So it says that something is should not be considered valid just because it was considered valid in the past.

    And according to your link an appeal to tradition fallacy is:

    "Appeal to Tradition is a fallacy that occurs when it is assumed that something is better or correct simply because it is older, traditional, or "always has been done.""

    If you compare the underlined sections it is clear that my argument was using the fallacy correctly.
    Not exactly, because you missed the critical point in Nizkor’s definition and in my argument. It is a fallacy only if the fact that it is older is irrelevant to the truth value of the claim.

    Given that language is only language if it has shared understanding, the fact that the definition is older isn’t an appeal to tradition, it’s an appeal to its nature as a shared understanding of a concept.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But your reasoning is faulty. "shared understanding and conceptual frameworks" is not synonymous with "tradition" (I'm sure the dictionary will show this).
    Traditions are a set of shared beliefs, understandings, or rituals amongst a group. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition What is language, but a shared set of beliefs about the meaning of a set of sounds or symbols?

    Reviewing the synonyms would likewise seem to disagree with your point here. Convention (shared acceptance of a principle or position) for example.

    The two are far more intimately tied than you would seem to think. Language is nothing more than a shared tradition amongst a group of speakers. That is why UNESCO classifies language into the category “Oral Traditions” http://www.unesco.org/culture/ich/?pg=00053.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    It strips any OBJECTIVE meaning from the word. But then words never had objective meaning in the first place.

    Words mean what people think they mean.
    But you took it to the next step and equated the concepts as well, which is why the argument becomes circular. The two concepts are the same because you feel the definition of the words should be the same. And the words should be the same because you feel the concepts are the same.

    Hence:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Words can't have objective meanings and also be dictated by our whims. But then words don't have objective meanings and their definitions can be dictated by whims (but usually aren't).

    If everyone, on a whim, decided to call cats "dogs" and dogs "cats", then the words would have the new definitions just as much the current definitions are what they are.
    The first sentence is semantically true. It cannot be both a and not a. The second sentence is just a bare assertion.

    The third sentence is essentially agreeing to my point above. “I’m not guilty of statutory rape because I decided that she didn’t fit the definition of minor (alternatively, I decided she fit the definition of consenting adult).”


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I'll use a dictionary definition.
    Begging the question fallacy. You’re using the updated definition which removes to clause to argue that there isn’t a clause. You are citing your conclusion, in essence, to prove a premise.

    I’m more than willing to agree that if we are willing to alter a definition of a term our concept of what that term means, changes. Heck, that was my point about ten posts ago.

    The point I asked you to support was the claim that the two sets of relationships were identical, or at least identical in all material aspects. Your response is to say “if I change the definition, they become identical.” Congrats that was O’brien’s point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Even so, it doesn't raise your argument above mine.

    I'm arguing that the government define "marriage" to include same-sex couples and you, I believe, are arguing for the government recognizing those couples but using a different term for their unions (I'm guessing "civil unions").

    Since we are both advocating change, the issue of change being potentially bad applies to both of our arguments equally.
    This misunderstands the argument from emergence I’m offering.

    You’re arguing that adding an additional agent (type of license) to an emergent system is equivalent to changing an existing agent within a system. That isn’t however, the case. Rather, emergent systems, given their high positive feedback cycles, are remarkably resilient to additions of agents to the system.

    Let’s use a related example. Bee colonies fall into this emergent system category. Colonies are capable of producing new kinds of workers whose only job is to circulate air and they stand at the entrance essentially as fans. They are new agents within the system and respond to/produce different types of stimuli. They have little direct effect on the existing interactions within the system. This is akin to my addition of a different type of relationship.

    Now, if you take a queen and artificially restrict her ability to mate with multiple partners (IE you change the nature of an existing agent within the system), the colony itself, which depends on that subtle genetic variation for survival, will break down, reject the queen and collapse. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1008183309.htm


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Well, the primary change that is occurring is that gays are being granted legal equality in marriage laws.
    Well, that is a change. Certainly it is not the only consequence of such an action right? My point above was that if you want to make an argument that such a change is not harmful to a system, you need to discuss more than just an appeal to “equality.” Given the structure and functions of emergent systems like societies, you need to show that second and third order effects don’t overwhelm desired results.

    There are multiple ways to do that including showing positive feedback loops or existing mechanisms that prevent negative feedback loops. You could show that the relationship, by definition, will have no branching effects (though I think this would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible).


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    No, it's a fact. For a fact, I am unaware of any supported argument on this thread that reasonably leads one to be concerned with the language shift.
    It is a fact that you don’t see anything wrong with it sure. But it is also, equally, just an expression of personal taste and preference. As I said in my last post. It isn’t an argument supporting your position, just an appeal to your personal belief about said position.

    Returning to how I entered the thread, there are currently no objections to the original argument I made (that a sound argument is possible deriving from the OP). We are currently debating other issues, and you have one objection still going against the truth value of a premise of the argument, but none against its soundness.

    You have yet (at least to me) offer a positive defense of the position.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  8. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, no. That is what no meant the last time I said it when you asked exactly the same question.

    No, as the argument stated this is more about supporting the institution that has the higher distribution of successful child rearing outcomes.
    .
    But I was referring to the phrase "shifting the distribution". I made two good-faith efforts to interpret what is meant by that and you said both are incorrect. Therefore until you do explain what is meant by "shifting the distribution", the phrase is meaningless in terms of communicating a concept in this debate (since I do not know what it means, it communicates nothing to me) and will be ignored as such.

    As far as the phrase "supporting the institution that has the higher distribution of successful child rearing outcomes", I interpret THAT phrase as advocating giving the kind of support that traditional marriages typically receive (recognition and legal benefits). Assuming my interpretation is correct (and if not, you likewise have to explain what that phrase means as well), my argument regarding gay marriage does not counter that position. I AM for continuing to give traditional marriage the kinds of support that it has traditionally received. I'm also for giving the support to other "less-effective" institutions that likewise promote good parenting as well. If there is a conflict in doing both of these things, it has not been shown to exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    There are 100 marriages, as you offer above. (I would say it would likely be higher than 90% given that gays make up 2-3% of the population)

    Situation A: Marriage only.

    90 Marriages
    64 (5/7) of them are quarters and 26 (2/7) are dimes.

    Meaning that quarters make up 71% of the population.


    Situation B: Redefined marriage

    100 Marriages

    There are 64 Quarters are drawn and 26 Dimes as above.

    Additionally, there are 5 more Quarters and 5 more Dimes.

    So we have a total of 69 quarters and 31 Dimes

    Meaning that quarters make up 69% of the population.
    If there are 5 more quarters and five more dimes, then there are 110 coins and you've broken with the analogy regarding 100 coins.

    In the analogy, the 100 coins represents all of the children in the US. Unless your are forwarding that gay marriage will somehow increase the number of children in the US by 10%, you have broken with the analogy and therefore your response is invalid to it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    These are, in terms of this argument, quite literally the same thing. Remember, all that was forwarded in defense of the possible objection I noted was that they were treated differently with respect to the law. Once you grant different treatment in adoption law, you grant two distinct legal categories, which was the nature of the objection to your position.
    Wrong. I never argued that there can never be any legal distinction regarding gays and straights. Nor have I argued that we can never legally discriminate based on those legal distinctions.

    But I do argue that any proposed legal distinction/discrimination must be justified.

    Given the hypothetical scenario regarding parenting outcomes, we have a hypothetical justification for discrimination in regards to adoption.

    But you have not provided any justification for discrimination in regards to marriage. Providing a justification in one instance does not create justification in a different instance.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No, you are confusing the marriage being illegal with the act being illegal. Polygamous marriages are illegal because they don’t fit the definition of the term marriage. The act isn’t illegal.

    Marriage does not derive its status just because the underlying acts or relationships are legal. It derives its status from the definition of the term.
    And the definition of the term is derived from what people hold as the definition of the term. Given that marriage is seen as a good thing, people are not inclined to expand the definition to include the kinds of relationships that are typically illegal.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    What is insulting about being categorized as gay? Women are a different gender than men, based on physical reality and the definition of gender. Same sex couplings are different than marriages, based on physical reality and the definition of marriage.
    In that last sentence, you twice snuck in premises that are under challenge (SSCs are different than "marriages" and the definition of marriage does not include SSCs). But anyway...

    Regarding physical reality, I do recognize that two men are physically different than a man and a woman. But I also recognize that a black couple is physically different than a white couple.

    So let's say someone proposed that due to the physical differences of whites and blacks, we should call black marriages something other than "marriage". I'm pretty sure that there would be a huge uproar and blacks would generally take offense at that and most white people would find the proposal offensive as well (I would).

    It's not offensive to tell a black person he's black. It is offensive to suggest that he's not suitable for the legal definition of marriage because he's black. And it's the same with a gay man.






    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And to be equally clear, I’ve already shown that you are wrong. The government is, and will continue to mandate that people refer to gay unions as marriage in their public capacity.

    What you are saying is that they will not prosecute people for the use of the phrase in their private lives, which is true. But that doesn’t mean the government isn’t mandating the use of the term.

    Nor do we define what constitutes a government mandate to be defined as what happens in our private lives. If the government mandated workplace prayers I think we might see a different argument.
    But the government does not mandate that people recognize gay marriage while at work (short of jobs where one’s duty is to recognize/enforce the government’s definition of marriage like at the Country Clerk's office and then we are definitely outside the realm of a sole proprietor situation).

    A wedding photographer may not have the option of refusing gay clients but he is under no obligation to say the words “You two are now married”. He just has to take some pictures of the event.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Sure, if I own a sole proprietorship that offers medical insurance coverage for employees and their spouse, can I now say that a gay couple does not qualify? Can I define that benefit to only mean marriage?
    You can't say that they legally do not qualify for insurance benefits but that is just you having to concede a certain legal reality. You likewise have to recognize that they are married under the law so again, you must recognize a legal reality.

    But I don't see where you have say "I personally agree that you two are married".


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Which would seem to be the argument leveled against you above. The definition of marriage excludes two people of the same sex from being married, thus they cannot be married.
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the definition of marriage excludes two people of the same sex from being married.

    Until this is supported, I uniformly reject all statements that the definition of marriage excludes same-sex couples.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    As I pointed out earlier in thread, acceptance of gay marriage doesn’t get above the 30% mark until well after 2010. But acceptance of gay lifestyle was well above 50% nearly a decade earlier. http://www.gallup.com/poll/5341/Acce...-Movement.aspx
    All that shows is that in the past acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle has been greater than the acceptance of the notion that gay marriage should be legalized.

    I would fully expect people to first think that maybe there’s nothing particularly wrong with gays before they reach the conclusion that the laws regarding marriage should be changed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well if support for calling it marriage derived from acceptance of the relationship, then we wouldn’t see this kind of disconnect. This disconnect serves to show that there is another factor at play.
    The “disconnect” is that there are varying levels of acceptance and person can be accepting enough of gays to give a generally accepting answer in a poll and yet not support gay marriage, especially if legalizing gay marriage is not a particularly popular notion (which was the case until recent history).

    So in the early 2000s, it would not be unusual for a person to say that they accept the gay lifestyle but still not be supportive of legalizing gay marriage.

    If support was an all-or-nothing thing, THEN it would be strange to see only partial support for gays amongst individuals. But then that's not how it is.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It would seem you are linking social movements and legal changes to general acceptance rates, but I’m not sure why such a linkage would be necessary. Government and small interest groups can affect massive legal changes against the prevailing views of society quite easily.
    I don’t think that’s true but even if it is true that they can do that, that’s clearly not what has happened here. There was a noticeable increase in public acceptance of gays and gay marriage before the politicians and courts began to “evolve” on gay marriage. I believe the poll numbers had to reach around 50% before Obama publicly supported gay marriage.

    When you see a large-scale social movement and the government falls in line only after there's a near majority, it's pretty easy to tell which one influenced the other.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Except we are talking about Portland here, even more so, a relatively liberal element within Portland. Acceptance of alternative lifestyles, especially gays in cities like Portland has been more than mainstream for a very long time.
    But the liberal element of Portland is not the whole world that these guys lived in. The rest of the world almost certainly had an influence on their decision to publicly call themselves "married".

    And even if the social acceptance of gay marriage was exactly the same as straight marriage all along, that couple may have delayed marrying for about as long as they did anyway. For many straight couples, there is a long delay between cohabitating and marrying (I know a lady who lives with her boyfriend and they have two kids and they haven't married yet) and maybe that gay couple didn't want to marry for other reason.

    And likewise gay marriage not being legal gives gay couples a disincentive to marry compared to straight couples.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Not exactly, because you missed the critical point in Nizkor’s definition and in my argument. It is a fallacy only if the fact that it is older is irrelevant to the truth value of the claim.

    Given that language is only language if it has shared understanding, the fact that the definition is older isn’t an appeal to tradition, it’s an appeal to its nature as a shared understanding of a concept.
    If that was at all valid, the older the definition is, the greater the shared understanding would be. And of course that's not the case at all. After a while, certain definitions fall out of use and to use these traditional definitions would be met with confusion, not shared understanding.

    In language, older is not inherently superior and certainly does not guarantee shared understanding.

    I consider "shared understanding" to be a different concept and the term refers to more people understanding what you are attempting to communicate - you "share" your "understanding" when you use the right word.

    And as I've said at least twice (and I noticed you did not respond to this from my last post), my gay step-brother will marry soon (probably between the time I write this and the time you respond to it). So he's going to have a marriage ceremony and his union is going to be legally recognized by the state. And if I'm going to attempt to create a shared understanding with someone about this specific change in my step-brother's life, clearly the best word to use is "marriage". Even if the listener opposes gay marriage, if I say my step-brother married his boyfriend, the listener will envision what I just described better than if I were to use any alternative word.

    So for the best "shared understanding" of what my step-brother did, "marriage" is the best word.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Traditions are a set of shared beliefs, understandings, or rituals amongst a group. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tradition What is language, but a shared set of beliefs about the meaning of a set of sounds or symbols?
    Sure, but that does not make older definitions better than current ones. Definitions can be too old (no one uses them anymore) or too new (not enough people use the definition yet for it to effectively communicate).

    So the litmus test for "shared understanding" is not the term's age but how well it communicates what one intends to communicate. So I completely reject the notion that "older is better" and therefore reject any claim that older definitions are better than recent ones.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But you took it to the next step and equated the concepts as well, which is why the argument becomes circular. The two concepts are the same because you feel the definition of the words should be the same. And the words should be the same because you feel the concepts are the same.
    It's not circular. I accept the second statement (I do think the two concepts are similar enough, although not exactly the same, to justify using the same word for them both) but I reject the first statement.

    I do not think they are similar because one is applying the same word for both of them. If we called one "marriage" and the other "civil union", the similarities would be no less identifiable to me than they are if we called them both "marriage".

    And btw, even if I were to concede your statement, I would point out that it's the same for you with the only relevant difference being where I use "same", you would use "different" so if my reasoning is circular then so is yours.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The first sentence is semantically true. It cannot be both a and not a. The second sentence is just a bare assertion.

    The third sentence is essentially agreeing to my point above. “I’m not guilty of statutory rape because I decided that she didn’t fit the definition of minor (alternatively, I decided she fit the definition of consenting adult).”
    My third sentence is:

    "If everyone, on a whim, decided to call cats "dogs" and dogs "cats", then the words would have the new definitions just as much the current definitions are what they are."

    So applying that to your scenario, everyone decided to call minors "adults" and adults "minors" (which like becomes the legal definition as well). And so we get:

    Defendant: "I’m not guilty of statutory rape because I decided that she didn’t fit the definition of minor"

    Judge: You aren't accused of having sex with a minor. You are accused of having sex with an adult which fits the definition of statutory rape.


    And if it's just the defendant who redefines the word "minor", we get:

    Defendant: Im not guilty of statutory rape because I decided that she didn’t fit the definition of minor.

    Judge: Your personal definition of minor is irrelevant to the law's current definition of what is and is not a minor. So your defense is rejected.

    Either way, the redefinition of the word does not hamper the defendant's prosecution so this does not cause any problem in that particular scenario. So I don't see a problem with my argument. And again, my argument regarding how words are defined is an IS argument, not an OUGHT argument so even if there is a problem, it's a problem with what is, not a problem with my position on what ought to be.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Begging the question fallacy. You’re using the updated definition which removes to clause to argue that there isn’t a clause. You are citing your conclusion, in essence, to prove a premise.
    You seem to have forgotten what’s going on with this exchange. You asked me to give you some specific aspects of marriage. I did so because you requested it. I was not attempting to make an argument or a conclusion.

    Therefore you are, probably unintentionally, attacking a straw-man.

    But I was curious to see where you were going with your request so I'd like you to go back a thread or two and pick up your reasoning for the request.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    The point I asked you to support was the claim that the two sets of relationships were identical, or at least identical in all material aspects. Your response is to say “if I change the definition, they become identical.”
    I don't hold that they are identical in all material aspects. But I do hold that they are identical is all relevant aspects to definition of marriage.

    And of course that is based on my admittedly subjective definition of marriage so I decline your request for support as subjective beliefs cannot be supported.

    I likewise hold that you cannot support your definition of marriage as it likewise is based on subjective criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This misunderstands the argument from emergence I’m offering.

    You’re arguing that adding an additional agent (type of license) to an emergent system is equivalent to changing an existing agent within a system. That isn’t however, the case. Rather, emergent systems, given their high positive feedback cycles, are remarkably resilient to additions of agents to the system.

    Let’s use a related example. Bee colonies fall into this emergent system category. Colonies are capable of producing new kinds of workers whose only job is to circulate air and they stand at the entrance essentially as fans. They are new agents within the system and respond to/produce different types of stimuli. They have little direct effect on the existing interactions within the system. This is akin to my addition of a different type of relationship.

    Now, if you take a queen and artificially restrict her ability to mate with multiple partners (IE you change the nature of an existing agent within the system), the colony itself, which depends on that subtle genetic variation for survival, will break down, reject the queen and collapse. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1008183309.htm
    But I don’t see the relevant difference between your proposal and my proposal.

    Assuming we are discussing the name-only issue, we are BOTH introducing gay couples to the system and the only difference is that you are for using a new term for them and I’m for using an existing term for them.

    And if your theory is valid and applicable to this debate, you should be able to come up with a realistic negative scenario for our society that applies to my proposal and not to yours.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, that is a change. Certainly it is not the only consequence of such an action right? My point above was that if you want to make an argument that such a change is not harmful to a system, you need to discuss more than just an appeal to “equality.” Given the structure and functions of emergent systems like societies, you need to show that second and third order effects don’t overwhelm desired results.

    There are multiple ways to do that including showing positive feedback loops or existing mechanisms that prevent negative feedback loops. You could show that the relationship, by definition, will have no branching effects (though I think this would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible).
    But again, you are not advocating NO change, but a different change than the one that I am proposing.

    Why is my change worse than your change?









    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It is a fact that you don’t see anything wrong with it sure But it is also, equally, just an expression of personal taste and preference. As I said in my last post. It isn’t an argument supporting your position, just an appeal to your personal belief about said position.
    Wrong. I'm appealing to the complete lack of support for that argument for it's lack of validity.

    Obviously a denial of the argument even being forwarded indicates that it is not supported here.

    Again, I believe that argument was made here. But a retraction by any means will be acceptable and therefore will accept the notion that the argument was retracted due to never being made in the first place.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Returning to how I entered the thread, there are currently no objections to the original argument I made (that a sound argument is possible deriving from the OP).
    I'd say this portion of the debate starts in earnest here:

    http://www.onlinedebate.net/forums/s...l=1#post547769

    And the challenge at the time was not for you to show that such an argument is possible but to provide an example of such an argument (or at least you took it upon yourself to do so in the following post).

    So I think at that point the challenge was for you to provide an example of such an argument and my challenge is to shoot down any such argument when it is presented.

    And that is exactly what is happening right now. The first few points in this post are what has derived from our original posts and I certainly have raised objections to your arguments regarding this.
    Last edited by mican333; August 16th, 2015 at 11:11 AM.

  9. #49
    Administrator

    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Fairfax, VA
    Posts
    10,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But I was referring to the phrase "shifting the distribution". I made two good-faith efforts to interpret what is meant by that and you said both are incorrect.
    And after both I offered an explanation of what the phrase meant. Shifting the distribution is comparing to populations probability curves. As I’ve explained in the quarter example below (and what was the basis for the OP) one of those two populations has a distribution that is shifted towards less successful parenting outcomes than the other.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If there are 5 more quarters and five more dimes, then there are 110 coins and you've broken with the analogy regarding 100 coins.
    I think you misread the analogy. 69+31 does not add up to 110.

    Situation A: Marriage only.

    90 Marriages
    64 (5/7) of them are quarters and 26 (2/7) are dimes.

    Meaning that quarters make up 71% of the population.


    Situation B: Redefined marriage

    100 Marriages

    There are 64 Quarters are drawn and 26 Dimes as above.

    Additionally, there are 5 more Quarters and 5 more Dimes.

    So we have a total of 69 quarters and 31 Dimes

    Meaning that quarters make up 69% of the population.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    Wrong. I never argued that there can never be any legal distinction regarding gays and straights. Nor have I argued that we can never legally discriminate based on those legal distinctions.
    No one claims that you have made the argument Mican. I am simply pointing out the necessary consequence of the concession you made earlier. If you are willing to offer them different privileges based on a distinction between the two groups, you can’t (either in a legal sense or a coherent logical sense) define them as all identical within the same group.

    Thus, you’ve in essence conceded two different groups in a legal sense, which undermines the argument to identify them as all one, single, group which is the position that stands in opposition to the OP.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And the definition of the term is derived from what people hold as the definition of the term.
    This is quite literally, sophistry. You are simply redefining a term so that two groups are identical, then claiming they are identical. The defense for the redefinition is simply nothing more than an appeal to popularity (and an unsupported one at that).

    I could well point out that there are sections of Eugene, OR where a majority of the population think that chimpanzees have the same rights as human beings and want to change the definition of human to include them. Thus, in Oregon, chimpanzees and humans are the same thing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    In that last sentence, you twice snuck in premises that are under challenge (SSCs are different than "marriages" and the definition of marriage does not include SSCs). But anyway...

    Regarding physical reality, I do recognize that two men are physically different than a man and a woman. But I also recognize that a black couple is physically different than a white couple.
    Well, I didn’t sneak it in so much as support it earlier in thread, so that implication is without merit.

    I would agree that an interracial couple is different than a non-interracial couple. But the key is, the difference has literally nothing to do with the criteria that exist within the definition of marriage. Just as a couple who are 33-35 are different than a couple who are 23-25, but not in a material sense. Likewise a red ball and a blue ball are different physically, but that difference is not related to the definition of “ball.”

    You also seem to have not answered the question asked. What is insulting about being noted as “gay?”


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But the government does not mandate that people recognize gay marriage while at work (short of jobs where one’s duty is to recognize/enforce the government’s definition of marriage like at the Country Clerk's office and then we are definitely outside the realm of a sole proprietor situation).

    A wedding photographer may not have the option of refusing gay clients but he is under no obligation to say the words “You two are now married”. He just has to take some pictures of the event.
    It absolutely does. The example you are referencing is exactly such a case. The photographer (and in the case of two of the example I offered, they were wedding photographers) cannot say, “I only photograph weddings, and a same sex union isn’t a wedding.” He is legally prevented from making that kind of statement without coercive consequences.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    You can't say that they legally do not qualify for insurance benefits but that is just you having to concede a certain legal reality. You likewise have to recognize that they are married under the law so again, you must recognize a legal reality.

    But I don't see where you have say "I personally agree that you two are married".
    Again, you are offering a distinction there that doesn’t exist. As a sole proprietorship there is no distinction between what I say as a company and what I say as an individual (hence why people can come after your personal assets). By conceding that I cannot make that distinction in the above case, you’ve conceded this portion of the argument.

    A sole proprietor is forced, under penalty of law to ignore the distinction he believes to be there.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the definition of marriage excludes two people of the same sex from being married.
    I already offered this support in post 37 and post 39. Likewise, we can follow said definition up through 1828 to 1913 (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resourc...=on&use1828=on), and through all the way up until 2009 (http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91995/) when definition 2 was tacked on.

    And if we look closely, we still see that Websters notes the difference by noting that this is not the traditional term (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage) but rather a newer addition.

    In fact, it is so new that it hasn’t had time to spread out to the synonyms, like matrimony (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matrimony) which contains no such addition for same sex couples.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    All that shows is that in the past acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle has been greater than the acceptance of the notion that gay marriage should be legalized.
    IE that your point that acceptance of gay marriage derives from acceptance of gays is incorrect.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    There was a noticeable increase in public acceptance of gays and gay marriage before the politicians and courts began to “evolve” on gay marriage.
    Is that why courts were routinely overturning public referenda on gay marriage including in states like California and Massachusetts?


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But the liberal element of Portland is not the whole world that these guys lived in. The rest of the world almost certainly had an influence on their decision to publicly call themselves "married".
    But we aren’t talking about them setting up a billboard, we are talking about them using the term in that part of their lives. It is exactly that change in relation to their friends in the liberal element of Portland that I’m discussing.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    If that was at all valid, the older the definition is, the greater the shared understanding would be…
    This doesn’t follow and it certainly wasn’t what I was implying. Rather, I was pointing out that using an existing and established definition for a term isn’t an appeal to tradition fallacy, because its status as existing and established is what gives it, by definition, shared meaning, which is what makes language, well, language.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So he's going to have a marriage ceremony and his union is going to be legally recognized by the state. And if I'm going to attempt to create a shared understanding with someone about this specific change in my step-brother's life, clearly the best word to use is "marriage".
    And we come full circle back to the point I made earlier. Clearly it is the best term to use because you, and presumably the people you are talking to, have either made the mental substitution to equate the two concepts (my Orwell argument) or are being required to by the change in the law (a la the hypothetical licenser or photographer).

    But those aren’t good arguments for the two concepts actually being the same, they are simply pointing to the brute consequences as if they were justifications.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And btw, even if I were to concede your statement, I would point out that it's the same for you with the only relevant difference being where I use "same", you would use "different" so if my reasoning is circular then so is yours.
    Except I am pointing to material differences in the concept, not to the idea that I feel they are the same as you did. Remember, this section of my reply arose around your discussion of your brother’s planned union and your feeling that it was the same as any other marriage and hence the term should be used.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    So applying that to your scenario, everyone decided to call minors "adults" and adults "minors" (which like becomes the legal definition as well). And so we get:

    Defendant: "I’m not guilty of statutory rape because I decided that she didn’t fit the definition of minor"

    Judge: You aren't accused of having sex with a minor. You are accused of having sex with an adult which fits the definition of statutory rape.
    That isn’t quite right because your analogy is about reversing terms, when your argument is about mixing them.

    You are saying that a concept should be included into a pre-existing concept thereby removing the distinction. In the analogy it would be including the concept of minor into the concept of adult, making the idea of statutory rape nonsensical. IE the defendant would be paralleling your argument by saying:

    “I think the most appropriate term for the girl was “adult,” I don’t see any material difference between what you would consider an adult and what I consider an adult. If you want to add “young” on there that’s fine, but when I’m communicating with people about her, the most appropriate term to use is “adult.””



    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    I don't hold that they are identical in all material aspects. But I do hold that they are identical is all relevant aspects to definition of marriage.
    These two statements are internally incoherent. You cannot hold both that they are identical in all relevant aspects (ie material aspects) and not hold that they are identical in all relevant aspects (ie material aspects)


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    And of course that is based on my admittedly subjective definition of marriage so I decline your request for support as subjective beliefs cannot be supported.

    I likewise hold that you cannot support your definition of marriage as it likewise is based on subjective criteria.
    Well you would need to show that definitions are subjective, which is a hard task I think. Otherwise, I would ask you to retract that my definition of marriage is based on subjective criteria.

    And if you are simply saying that your argument is based upon your subjective taste on the issue, that’s fine, I’ll take that as a clarification. But it is a clarification that makes the response irrelevant in this thread, which is a debate thread.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But I don’t see the relevant difference between your proposal and my proposal.

    Assuming we are discussing the name-only issue, we are BOTH introducing gay couples to the system and the only difference is that you are for using a new term for them and I’m for using an existing term for them.
    Well no. Again, in an emergent system there is quite a bit of difference between introducing a new agent whose interactions will be determined by the system’s various internal interactions and fundamentally altering an existing agent with existing internal interactions.

    Here we can return to a beehive for a perfect example. If I introduce a foreign bee into a bee hive the brood will expel, ignore, or kill the bee and the hive will go on. If however, I replace the queen with a foreign bee (like a cuckoo bee) the hive will die as the cuckoo interacts with the hive very differently than the original queen. It isn’t that the cuckoo is trying to kill the hive, it actually wants it to live longer, but replacing an agent within an emergent bee hive is very difficult to maintain.

    Likewise, there are very different results from saying, “we are going to include a new type of relationship and society can decide how to incorporate it” and “we are going to replace an existing relationship that society has already incorporated and which society has pre-existing relationships based upon.”


    Quote Originally Posted by Mican
    But again, you are not advocating NO change, but a different change than the one that I am proposing.

    Why is my change worse than your change?
    Well that isn’t the case that I’m advocating a different change. I’m simply pointing out that a different alternative has a lower propensity to cause structural damage, not that the alternative is beneficial.

    As to you question, I already answered that above and earlier. Because changing existing agents within an emergent system has a higher propensity to cause systematic harm than adding new agents.

    Nor did you really answer the question asked, which was, if you are going to insist that it would cause no harm (as you have) some kind of defense around that claim beyond an appeal to “equality” would be necessary. An analysis of the existing relationships, or feedback loops. A third or fourth order effect analysis, something of that nature.
    "Suffering lies not with inequality, but with dependence." -Voltaire
    "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions. -G.K. Chesterton
    Also, if you think I've overlooked your post please shoot me a PM, I'm not intentionally ignoring you.


  10. #50
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    9,406
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: A gay man who opposes same sex marriage

    I moved this to the top as it will effect much else. I asked you to support or retract that the definition of marriage is reserved for Opposite-sex couples.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I already offered this support in post 37 and post 39. Likewise, we can follow said definition up through 1828 to 1913 (http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resourc...=on&use1828=on), and through all the way up until 2009 (http://www.wnd.com/2009/03/91995/) when definition 2 was tacked on.

    And if we look closely, we still see that Websters notes the difference by noting that this is not the traditional term (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage) but rather a newer addition.

    In fact, it is so new that it hasn’t had time to spread out to the synonyms, like matrimony (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matrimony) which contains no such addition for same sex couples.
    I asked that you SUPPORT OR RETRACT that the definition of marriage precludes people of the same-sex.

    I do not see how this provides any such support. All you've shown is that the same-sex definition is newer than the traditional definition.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And after both I offered an explanation of what the phrase meant. Shifting the distribution is comparing to populations probability curves. As I’ve explained in the quarter example below (and what was the basis for the OP) one of those two populations has a distribution that is shifted towards less successful parenting outcomes than the other.
    I consider a distribution shift to indicate that something has moved from one place to another, like a shift in the distribution of recourses or money or people.

    As I don't know what specifically has shifted this point is currently incoherent to me. So I have no response until it is adequately explained. Again, tell me what is are the things that have been shifted and/or redistributed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I think you misread the analogy. 69+31 does not add up to 110.

    Situation A: Marriage only.

    90 Marriages
    64 (5/7) of them are quarters and 26 (2/7) are dimes.

    Meaning that quarters make up 71% of the population.


    Situation B: Redefined marriage

    100 Marriages

    There are 64 Quarters are drawn and 26 Dimes as above.

    Additionally, there are 5 more Quarters and 5 more Dimes.

    So we have a total of 69 quarters and 31 Dimes

    Meaning that quarters make up 69% of the population.
    I see the disconnect. You are talking about number of marriages (and gay marriages will increase the number of marriages so we can go from 90 to 100) and I'm talking about parenting situations (and as every child will have some kind of parenting situation so the number will always be 100).

    So yes, quarters may be higher per capital amongst parents who are married and caring for children if we don't accept gay marriage but that doesn't really mean anything regarding the goal of ensuring maximum parenting outcomes for all children, which would include children raised by married parents as well as children who are not raised by married parents..

    The measure of parenting outcomes is that EVERY child, on average, has the best parenting possible. So we want to give the best coin available to every child in the US and that means that we analyze the parenting of EVERY child, not just those who have married parents. We factor in the children who have two hetero parents, two gay parents, a single parent, and no parents (foster home, orphanages, living on the streets) and of course we want each child to have the best "coin" they can have.

    So we'll assign the coins:

    Two OS parents - quarter
    Two SS parents - dime
    Single parent - nickel
    No parent - penny.

    Since we do not disagree on supporting Traditional marriage, we would yield the same number of quarters.

    But I am for supporting SSM and you are not. So that means that under my scenario, same-sex relationships are more likely to stay together than in your scenario where such relationships are more likely to fail due to lack of support and recognition. And of course when a same-sex couple with a child breaks up, the child is almost certainly going to end up with either just one of the two parents. So at times I will yield dimes where you will yield nickels. And therefore my 100 coins (representing children's parenting situation) will have a higher total.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    No one claims that you have made the argument Mican. I am simply pointing out the necessary consequence of the concession you made earlier. If you are willing to offer them different privileges based on a distinction between the two groups, you can’t (either in a legal sense or a coherent logical sense) define them as all identical within the same group.

    Thus, you’ve in essence conceded two different groups in a legal sense, which undermines the argument to identify them as all one, single, group which is the position that stands in opposition to the OP.
    But it does not undermine any of MY arguments as my argument is not based on the premise that gays and straights should always be treated as legal equals no matter what.

    I hold, instead, that all groups should be treated as legal equals unless one can provide valid justification for treating them unequally in a specific circumstance.

    By hypothetically accepting that straights are marginally better parents, I can concede justification in unequal treatment in the specific circumstance of adoption.

    But this does not equate unequal treatment in the specific circumstance of marriage laws and likewise I see no other justification for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This is quite literally, sophistry.
    No, it's is quite literally fact. I am factually pointing out that words are defined by what people consider the definition of words.

    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I could well point out that there are sections of Eugene, OR where a majority of the population think that chimpanzees have the same rights as human beings and want to change the definition of human to include them. Thus, in Oregon, chimpanzees and humans are the same thing.
    Right. And if the whole of humanity followed along, then the word "human" would apply to chimpanzees as much as any commonly-accepted definition applies to a certain word.

    As it is, it appears that there is some disagreement on the term in certain areas.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well, I didn’t sneak it in so much as support it earlier in thread, so that implication is without merit.
    It's not a premise until it is agreed to be true by both parties. As long as it's still under contention it is not a premise. So basing an argument on a position that is not conceded or agreed to is sneaking a premise.

    BTW, I sincerely believe that you weren't doing it intentionally. I was just explaining why I was rejecting that particular argument - I did not accept the premises it was based on.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    I would agree that an interracial couple is different than a non-interracial couple. But the key is, the difference has literally nothing to do with the criteria that exist within the definition of marriage. Just as a couple who are 33-35 are different than a couple who are 23-25, but not in a material sense. Likewise a red ball and a blue ball are different physically, but that difference is not related to the definition of “ball.”
    And likewise the notion that gays and straights have any differences that have to with the criteria of marriage is not supported.

    Again, the notion that the traditional definition is the correct definition is not supported. All you supported at the tope of this post was that the traditional definition is traditional.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    You also seem to have not answered the question asked. What is insulting about being noted as “gay?”
    Did I say it was insulting to be noted as "gay"? If so, please show me where I said that.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    It absolutely does. The example you are referencing is exactly such a case. The photographer (and in the case of two of the example I offered, they were wedding photographers) cannot say, “I only photograph weddings, and a same sex union isn’t a wedding.” He is legally prevented from making that kind of statement without coercive consequences.
    He CAN say that (as in he can verbally utter those words). But of course he will have to contradict that statement if he has to photograph a gay wedding.

    But as I said before, this is off-topic. This situation is caused by anti-discrimination laws, not legalizing gay marriage.

    If gay marriage was not recognized by the state, gay couples could still have a wedding and hire a photographer for it and this guy would be in the same situation.

    And the situation would be the same if he were racist and was asked to photograph an interracial wedding.

    So again, this really is a different debate that covers much more than gay marriage.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Again, you are offering a distinction there that doesn’t exist. As a sole proprietorship there is no distinction between what I say as a company and what I say as an individual (hence why people can come after your personal assets). By conceding that I cannot make that distinction in the above case, you’ve conceded this portion of the argument.
    I don't concede that you cannot personally make that distinction.

    I won't challenge the distinction between the business and the person but I forward that there is a definite distinction between what one must believe/say and what one must do.

    And therefore there is a distinction between giving a gay couple insurance benefits and saying that they are indeed married.

    And even if I were to concede this argument entirely and admit that the government recognizing gay marriage forces certain people to recognize gay marriage, your position forwards a similar infringement by forcing people to recognize civil unions (or whatever term you want to use instead of "marriage").


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    IE that your point that acceptance of gay marriage derives from acceptance of gays is incorrect.
    Differing poll numbers do not show that one is not derived from the other. Differing poll numbers show that they are not exact same thing (and I never said they were).

    If they were the exact same thing, THEN we would expect to see them poll at the exact same number at all times.

    But if one is derived from the other, we would expect to see different polling numbers at any particular time (which we do) and a simultaneous increase in support - as one number goes up, so does the other (which we do as well).


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Is that why courts were routinely overturning public referenda on gay marriage including in states like California and Massachusetts?
    Actually, yes.

    While in those situations there was likely still a public majority against gay marriage, it was no longer near-unanimous. Let's hypothetically say at that point a third of the population was for gay marriage at the time. Because there was some public support for gay marriage, the courts were free to consider the actual legal merits of the case for gay marriage which they were effectively unable to do when there was pretty much unanimous public condemnation of gay marriage.

    So it was the increasing acceptance of gays that directly effected pro-gay rulings in the recent past.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    But we aren’t talking about them setting up a billboard, we are talking about them using the term in that part of their lives. It is exactly that change in relation to their friends in the liberal element of Portland that I’m discussing.
    And you are ignoring the influence of the rest of the world. While they may live in a liberal section of Portland, they also live in the state of Oregon as well as the USA. I doubt that that did not have an effect.

    And again, there are likewise all kinds of other elements that could cause them to delay that had nothing to do with public acceptance, many of which applies to committed straight couples as well as the laws regarding gay marriage (not having access to legal recognition is a relative disincentive to marry).




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    This doesn’t follow and it certainly wasn’t what I was implying. Rather, I was pointing out that using an existing and established definition for a term isn’t an appeal to tradition fallacy, because its status as existing and established is what gives it, by definition, shared meaning, which is what makes language, well, language.
    First off, your earlier argument did not contain the shared understanding argument. It just stated that the traditional definition is the better one which is an appeal to tradition fallacy unless there is something intrinsic in it being traditional that makes it superior. And as I explained a couple of times, after a period of time tradition hampers shared experience so I reject the "older is better" argument. I have seen no rebuttal to this argument that I've made three times already so I will consider it conceded - older is not necessarily better when it comes to "shared understanding".

    I certain accept the "shared understanding" argument on its own merits, of course.

    And as I said, when describing a gay "marriage", the word "marriage" relays the best shared understanding, even amongst those who don't agree with gay marriage. They may not like what was said, but they do understand what was meant.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    And we come full circle back to the point I made earlier. Clearly it is the best term to use because you, and presumably the people you are talking to, have either made the mental substitution to equate the two concepts (my Orwell argument) or are being required to by the change in the law (a la the hypothetical licenser or photographer).
    It's the mental substitution.

    And I am no longer responding to your Orwell argument. We have had a significant disagreement on the book and therefore the book is no longer a good method for communicating shared concepts (who is right and who is wrong doesn't matter) and this is not the appropriate place to hash it out (we'd be having another debate entirely). Not to mention that book is a work of fiction and therefore what happens in the book does not necessarily apply to the real world and therefore pointing out a negative consequence that happened in the book does not necessarily apply to what will happen in the real world. So referring to the book and using the word "Orwellian" do not constitute valid arguments against this issue.

    That's not to say that you can't forward some dire concept used in the book but you will need to explain how it is likely to happen in the real world and showing that it happened in the book does not do that.

    But regardless of the process, because of "shared understanding", "marriage" is the best word to describe by step-brother's union (he's now married). So if we accept "shared understanding" as a valid measure of the correctness of a definition (and I'm willing to accept that premise) I have supported that "marriage" is the best word to describe my brother's union. Any "disturbing ramifications" you may want to forward as a rebuttal need to be clearly explained (what problem will realistically occur) and supported (show that it's more likely to happen than not).





    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Except I am pointing to material differences in the concept, not to the idea that I feel they are the same as you did. Remember, this section of my reply arose around your discussion of your brother’s planned union and your feeling that it was the same as any other marriage and hence the term should be used.
    You are sneaking in the premise that there are material differences.

    And my position is no less based on feelings than yours is. I feel that their marriage has no relevant difference to any other marriage and you feel otherwise.



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    That isn’t quite right because your analogy is about reversing terms, when your argument is about mixing them.

    You are saying that a concept should be included into a pre-existing concept thereby removing the distinction. In the analogy it would be including the concept of minor into the concept of adult, making the idea of statutory rape nonsensical.

    “I think the most appropriate term for the girl was “adult,” I don’t see any material difference between what you would consider an adult and what I consider an adult. If you want to add “young” on there that’s fine, but when I’m communicating with people about her, the most appropriate term to use is “adult.””
    My rebuttals is pretty much the same.

    The judge can either say "We are not using your definitions here" so it won't effect the outcome (which is by far the more realistic outcome).

    Or the judge agrees, adopts the term "young adult", and the case moves on without a real hitch.

    Either way, this doesn't really cause a problem.




    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    These two statements are internally incoherent. You cannot hold both that they are identical in all relevant aspects (ie material aspects) and not hold that they are identical in all relevant aspects (ie material aspects)
    My bad. I was defining "material" as "physical", not "relevant".





    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Well you would need to show that definitions are subjective, which is a hard task I think. Otherwise, I would ask you to retract that my definition of marriage is based on subjective criteria.
    To be clear, I wasn't making the positive assertion that it was.

    Let me reintroduce the statement I made.

    "I don't hold that they are identical in all material aspects. But I do hold that they are identical is all relevant aspects to definition of marriage.

    And of course that is based on my admittedly subjective definition of marriage so I decline your request for support as subjective beliefs cannot be supported.

    I likewise hold that you cannot support your definition of marriage as it likewise is based on subjective criteria."


    What I "hold" is my position but it's not necessarily something that I assert. So I am not attempting to argue that your definition is subjective but informing you that that is what I believe and therefore will not accept the contrary position without support.

    When I seek to argue that your definition is indeed subjective is when I need to support it. So I suppose you can consider what I "hold" to be retracted as in it's not something that I have forwarded as an argument (and not forwarding something as an argument is technically a retraction). But to be clear, it IS my position - I'm just not seeking to support it as of now.


    But on the other hand, it's probably not too difficult to support that your definitions is subjective.

    Subjective means "existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought". Words and their definitions exist in the mind. So all definitions are subjective. Therefore your definition of marriage is subjective.

    Again, I wasn't seeking to support this position with my original argument but I might as well at this point.


    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Likewise, there are very different results from saying, “we are going to include a new type of relationship and society can decide how to incorporate it” and “we are going to replace an existing relationship that society has already incorporated and which society has pre-existing relationships based upon.”
    And I hold that either way, we are BOTH advocating the first policy.

    We are incorporating a new type of relationship and are simply debating what to call it. Either way, we aren't replacing heterosexual unions. There is no effective change to heterosexual unions at all.

    If you disagree, please give a reasonable scenario of how your marriage will be materially effected if we go with "marriage" instead of "civil union".



    Quote Originally Posted by Squatch347 View Post
    Nor did you really answer the question asked, which was, if you are going to insist that it would cause no harm (as you have) some kind of defense around that claim beyond an appeal to “equality” would be necessary. An analysis of the existing relationships, or feedback loops. A third or fourth order effect analysis, something of that nature.
    When it comes to governmental functioning, an appeal to equality works just fine. Equality is even legally enshrined in the 14th amendment.

    Likewise people have the right to be treated with a certain level of dignity from the government. It IS illegal to write "you suck" on all gay marriage licenses. Likewise other treatment that could reasonably be seen as insulting to a specific group should not be practiced by the government.

    Again, what if the government decided to give black marriages a different name than white marriages?
    Last edited by mican333; August 31st, 2015 at 09:00 AM.

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 116
    Last Post: January 26th, 2013, 05:38 PM
  2. Gay Marriage vs Incestuous Marriage argument
    By Apokalupsis in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 33
    Last Post: October 17th, 2011, 05:43 AM
  3. Marriage
    By chadn737 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: March 6th, 2007, 10:45 PM
  4. What is Marriage?
    By chadn737 in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: July 17th, 2005, 10:18 AM
  5. The Bible opposes interracial marriage
    By 3rdPersonPlural in forum Religion
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: August 3rd, 2004, 11:04 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •