Your stance on gay marriage

[Saint Ferdinand]

It should be legalized. My reasoning:
- Alcohol is often served at wedding receptions
- Allowing same-sex couples to marry leads to more weddings
- More wedding leads to more wedding receptions
- More wedding receptions means more alcohol
- More alcohol is great

[The Murtunian Tribes]

What? That's quite an assumption you're making there.

Since when was NSG populated by well-adjusted, happily married (or in a long-term committed relationship), older men?

What's your point? Do you have something to actually say about the subject other than that we can't possibly know what we're talking about? If not, you're wasting processing power.

[Intangelon]

Once again I've been forced to go look stuff up.... *sighs*

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/20 ... nvocation/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_Robinson

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 656617.ece

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,36 ... 94,00.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/06 ... -2009dec06

Obviously you looked them up and DIDN'T READ.

Gene Robinson is an Episcopalian you twit.

A completely seperate denomination from the Roman Catholic Church.

You're still dead wrong.

Please don't do that.

[Ludwig Drums]

No, you shouldn't campaign because you have no idea what you're talking about.

By that Logic, nobody should have campaigned to end slavery because those with the ability to campaign were not slaves themselves.
The womens rights movement? WOOOW you cant consider a politicaian supporting it? HES A MALE! He knows not of these things.

That is rediculous. Just because you yourself do not put up with persecution does not mean you cannot find it unjust or unfair.

Actually, no, because slavery fundamentally affected everyone within the United States if not the world. Even if you were a white wage worker in Maine, thousands of miles away from slavery, you were (for example) affected by the depressed labor costs initiated by southern plantation owners. Equally, their demand to expand in the Western frontier directly conflicted with your future hopes to do the same.

Equally for Women's Rights: even the most secluded male in the world is still affected by women, or at the very least his mother. Every man has a direct interest in making sure, even if at only the evolutionary level, that his SO is well provided for.

Please, your examples are fallacious and not properly thought out.

[Seperates]

I'm just going to throw this out there, after reading about a dozen or so pages of this drivel: why are you guys discussing this? The vast majority of you watch more porn than hitting the real thing, assuming you have ever had some fuzz, and I'd bet my left testicle that virtually all of you debating the issue (for or against gay marriage) have little idea what is involved in a committed relationship. For fuck's sake, it just seems bizarre for y'all to be debating an institution that you have no idea what it is about.

I have eyes. My parents are married. I can see what goes on. I'm not bloody stupid.

[Ludwig Drums]

No, you shouldn't campaign because you have no idea what you're talking about.

I mean, you can, there's no one stopping you. I just wanted you to know that it's bizarre to be talking about the "definition" of something you've never experienced. In effect, no matter what side you're arguing for, you end up telling people who have been married for longer than you've been alive what their marriage is really about.

Which, for the most obvious reasons, doesn't make a lick of sense.

Who said anything about telling people what their marriage is about? The entire point is to simply include homosexuals under the term of marriage; This wouldn't be telling anyone to redefine what their marriage means to them. This said, unless you have definitive proof that the majority of people on NSG aren't married, you are simply making assumptions.

No, that argument doesn't hold any water. According to a goodly amount of people, marriage to them is defined by a man and woman. Is that the right definition? Honestly, I couldn't give a crap less but that's beside the point. The point is, rightly or wrongly, you are arguing about something that you have (at best) a theoretical knowledge of, gleaned from the odd Daily Beast or Fox News article.

And if you believe the vast majority of NSG is in a marriage, or even a relationship... You need to get your head checked. Pronto.

[Soheran]

So it's indeed about my morals are more worth than yours?

Truth is worth more than falsity. It is false that (a) homosexuality is in any way inherently morally inferior to heterosexuality and also that (b) such moral inferiority, were it real, would be a legitimate basis for legislation.

DOMA is unconstitutional? Aren't you mixing reality with wishful thinking?

No. Sexual orientation discrimination is rightly subject to heightened scrutiny (see, e.g., AG Holder's letter to that effect) and DOMA probably cannot even meet rational basis scrutiny.

Morals and ethics are subjective. Therefore they have no usefullness to governance and law.

If we don't consider morality, we have no defensible ground for preferring one policy to another.

[Ludwig Drums]

I'm just going to throw this out there, after reading about a dozen or so pages of this drivel: why are you guys discussing this? The vast majority of you watch more porn than hitting the real thing, assuming you have ever had some fuzz, and I'd bet my left testicle that virtually all of you debating the issue (for or against gay marriage) have little idea what is involved in a committed relationship. For fuck's sake, it just seems bizarre for y'all to be debating an institution that you have no idea what it is about.

I have eyes. My parents are married. I can see what goes on. I'm not bloody stupid.

So everything you see, you automatically understand?

Hm, why aren't you out solving world hunger?

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Who said anything about telling people what their marriage is about? The entire point is to simply include homosexuals under the term of marriage; This wouldn't be telling anyone to redefine what their marriage means to them. This said, unless you have definitive proof that the majority of people on NSG aren't married, you are simply making assumptions.

No, that argument doesn't hold any water. According to a goodly amount of people, marriage to them is defined by a man and woman. Is that the right definition? Honestly, I couldn't give a crap less but that's beside the point. The point is, rightly or wrongly, you are arguing about something that you have (at best) a theoretical knowledge of, gleaned from the odd Daily Beast or Fox News article.

And if you believe the vast majority of NSG is in a marriage, or even a relationship... You need to get your head checked. Pronto.

So, I'm assuming the answer to my question was no, you don't have anything constructive to say?

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Morals and ethics are subjective. Therefore they have no usefullness to governance and law.

If we don't consider morality, we have no defensible ground for preferring one policy to another.

Sure we do. It's called rationality and logic.

[Soheran]

Sure we do. It's called rationality and logic.

Oh dear.

1. Why do you assume that "rationality and logic" and "morality and ethics" are mutually exclusive?

2. What kind of non-moral argument using "rationality and logic" can you make for any policy, given that any argument for a policy, tautologically, is an argument of "ought" and hence a moral argument?

[Ludwig Drums]

Since when was NSG populated by well-adjusted, happily married (or in a long-term committed relationship), older men?

What's your point? Do you have something to actually say about the subject other than that we can't possibly know what we're talking about? If not, you're wasting processing power.

It's a slow, summer day. I don't have too many of them, and I'll 'waste' it anyway I chose. If that isn't the march of progress, I don't know what is.

That all said, I'm not here to shut you down. All I want is for you to reconsider if you really need to be so shrill next time you're about to denounce some angry, sexually frustrated virgin whose only understanding of marriage is the front his parents put on for him.

[Distruzio]

What one set of parents has done or does has no impact of the meaning of a word to the majority of the public.

However it does show that marriage outside of religion is both possible and meaningful, a point that some religious people dispute.

Only some. I would hasten to add that marriage outside of the State is both possible and meaningful as well. A point some non-religious people dispute as well.

If you don't require God, who is said to be the author of all creation to sanction your love, then you certainly shouldn't require Uncle Sam either.

[Tekania]

No, you shouldn't campaign because you have no idea what you're talking about.

I mean, you can, there's no one stopping you. I just wanted you to know that it's bizarre to be talking about the "definition" of something you've never experienced. In effect, no matter what side you're arguing for, you end up telling people who have been married for longer than you've been alive what their marriage is really about.

Which, for the most obvious reasons, doesn't make a lick of sense.

That's of course assuming none of us are married, which isn't true. So, to put this in the most succinct wording possible, you can go suck it.

[Distruzio]

It should be legalized. My reasoning:
- Alcohol is often served at wedding receptions
- Allowing same-sex couples to marry leads to more weddings
- More wedding leads to more wedding receptions
- More wedding receptions means more alcohol
- More alcohol is great

You know... I'm thinking that this argument trumps everything else posted in this thread. I'm for realz too. I love me some rum and coke!

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Sure we do. It's called rationality and logic.

Oh dear.

1. Why do you assume that "rationality and logic" and "morality and ethics" are mutually exclusive?

2. What kind of non-moral argument using "rationality and logic" can you make for any policy, given that any argument for a policy, tautologically, is an argument of "ought" and hence a moral argument?

1. I didn't say they were. That doesn't mean they're the same.

2. Honestly, it's impossible to completely seperate the two, given the way humans tend to think. But we can try.

What's your point? Do you have something to actually say about the subject other than that we can't possibly know what we're talking about? If not, you're wasting processing power.

It's a slow, summer day. I don't have too many of them, and I'll 'waste' it anyway I chose. If that isn't the march of progress, I don't know what is.

That all said, I'm not here to shut you down. All I want is for you to reconsider if you really need to be so shrill next time you're about to denounce some angry, sexually frustrated virgin whose only understanding of marriage is the front his parents put on for him.

I'm not being shrill.

[Ludwig Drums]

No, you shouldn't campaign because you have no idea what you're talking about.

I mean, you can, there's no one stopping you. I just wanted you to know that it's bizarre to be talking about the "definition" of something you've never experienced. In effect, no matter what side you're arguing for, you end up telling people who have been married for longer than you've been alive what their marriage is really about.

Which, for the most obvious reasons, doesn't make a lick of sense.

That's of course assuming none of us are married, which isn't true. So, to put this in the most succinct wording possible, you can go suck it.

No, it's just assuming the vast majority of you aren't; which according to Alexa.com is true.

To put it another way, how long have you been married? How many others? For how long?

[Intangelon]

I cant believe much of the United States is so backward on this issue.

Believe it, mate. My countrymen are seriously considering this woman for President:

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/cbs-bob-schieffer-calls-out-bachmann

If this is the kind of person we're considering putting in the highest seat of power, how in logic's name do we get ourselves forward on anything?

[Ludwig Drums]

If we don't consider morality, we have no defensible ground for preferring one policy to another.

Sure we do. It's called rationality and logic.

If rational arguments worked, marriage wouldn't exist.

[Ludwig Drums]

No, that argument doesn't hold any water. According to a goodly amount of people, marriage to them is defined by a man and woman. Is that the right definition? Honestly, I couldn't give a crap less but that's beside the point. The point is, rightly or wrongly, you are arguing about something that you have (at best) a theoretical knowledge of, gleaned from the odd Daily Beast or Fox News article.

And if you believe the vast majority of NSG is in a marriage, or even a relationship... You need to get your head checked. Pronto.

So, I'm assuming the answer to my question was no, you don't have anything constructive to say?

Not anymore or less constructive than what you're doing.

[Soheran]

1. I didn't say they were. That doesn't mean they're the same.

No, they're not. But they're not mutually exclusive. So it's possible--indeed, it's the case--that part of the way "rationality and logic" are useful to us in determining optimal public policy is via their relevance to morality.

2. Honestly, it's impossible to completely seperate the two, given the way humans tend to think. But we can try.

You aren't answering my question. Given that normative public policy (what laws we ought to have) is necessarily a moral question, why on Earth are moral considerations irrelevant to it? In other words, why is the temptation of humans to invoke morality in that context a bug, not a feature?

[Soheran]

From personal experience--but also from other kinds of evidence--I tend to think that people who think "personal experience" is the only or even the best way to understand something generally end up being pretty egregiously wrong about more or less everything.

Human beings are bad at many things, but we are especially bad at using anecdotal evidence from our own experiences to reach rational conclusions.

[Intangelon]

What? That's quite an assumption you're making there.

Since when was NSG populated by well-adjusted, happily married (or in a long-term committed relationship), older men?

Besides LG, myself, Gallo/Nanatsu, Big Jim P, and at least a dozen others? Dude, wake up.

[Ludwig Drums]

Also, for those who still believe (somehow) that NSG has a preponderance of married individuals: an unscientific but I'd guess reliable poll.

[The Murtunian Tribes]

Sure we do. It's called rationality and logic.

If rational arguments worked, marriage wouldn't exist.

Careful with that joke there, it's an antique.