Blog on Same-Sex "Marriage," Atheism, and More

[Enai de a lukal]

You expect a serious response to your comparison of apartheid and SSM?

Oh dear...

 

[fantome profane]

Well, do you have anything substantive to respond to my earlier response to you? Because this just seems as if you are conceding the point and accepting that the comment you made earlier was rather pointless. No skin off my nose, I guess.

You are really not worth my time.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

"Ripped to shreds"? I'm not sure I remember it like that. As is widely accepted in philosophy, one can show an argument to be defective by either demonstrating that it is not deductively valid such that its premises do not deductively guarantee the entailment of the conclusion or otherwise showing that (at least) one of the premises is false. Imagine my surprise, then, when people brilliantly "defeated" my argument by launching volleys of "bigot" and "fascist" at me.

Clearly your memory is a bit hazy. I did no such thing (here), and most other posters responded in a similarly civil vein.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

You expect a serious response to your comparison of apartheid and SSM?

Oh dear...

To be honest, no. But I did expect another one of these pointless comments which seeks to ridicule instead of address a relevant matter I brought up.

Also further note that I did not say that SSM and apartheid are analogous insofar as they are similar in their goals. I simply pointed out that telling people that "they've lost the argument" and that they should "either accept it or fume in impotent rage" is utterly pointless for if one were to take this advice seriously, we'd end up telling anti-abortion individuals the same thing, or anti-apartheid individuals the same thing, or anti-Holocaust individuals the same thing, etc.

But you should probably write another "lol, seriously?" comment in response.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I use so-called "scare quotes" (see, I'm doing it again) when speaking of same-sex "marriage" because to yield that a same-sex "marriage" is something that is legitimate and that is not in conceptual contention is simply to concede the point and render my argument moot.

You use scare quotes for a lot more than the word "marriage". Heck - you used them four times just in the title of this post, and only one of those cases was the word "marriage":

Sovereign Dream: Building a Case Against Same-Sex "Marriage," Part 1: On "Equality," "Injustice," "Discrimination," Etc.

I was thinking more about statements like this than your quotes around the word "marriage":

Well, the problem with this argument is that it is quite clearly question-begging. How? Well, quite obviously, it assumes a number of things. It assumes, for example, that it is, in fact, "unjust" or "unequal" to disallow, say, two men or two women from "marrying."

In this context, the scare quotes on "unjust" and "unequal" imply that the term is being used in a way you don't agree with. However, in the context, it was already obvious that you were stating someone else's argument. In this case, the scare quotes are unnecessary. They don't help to express your meaning more clearly; they just make you seem ranty, as I pointed out.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

To be honest, no. But I did expect another one of these pointless comments which seeks to ridicule instead of address a relevant matter I brought up.

It wasn't really a relevant matter. Here's a better analogy: should people have just given up on slavery, or the repression of women, even after the country started to move in another direction? Well, yeah. Just like people should give up on legalized discrimination against homosexuals- its a lost cause at this point, and was a bad cause to begin with.

Also: lol, seriously?

 

[Sovereign Dream]

You use scare quotes for a lot more than the word "marriage". Heck - you used them four times just in the title of this post, and only one of those cases was the word "marriage":

Sovereign Dream: Building a Case Against Same-Sex "Marriage," Part 1: On "Equality," "Injustice," "Discrimination," Etc.

I was thinking more about statements like this than your quotes around the word "marriage":


In this context, the scare quotes on "unjust" and "unequal" imply that the term is being used in a way you don't agree with. However, in the context, it was already obvious that you were stating someone else's argument. In this case, the scare quotes are unnecessary. They don't help to express your meaning more clearly; they just make you seem ranty, as I pointed out.

That's a good point. Thanks.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

It wasn't really a relevant matter. Here's a better analogy: should people have just given up on slavery, or the repression of women, even after the country started to move in another direction? Well, yeah. Just like people should give up on legalized discrimination against homosexuals- its a lost cause at this point, and was a bad cause to begin with.

Right. Note, however, that whether it is in fact "discriminatory" to disallow, say, a man from "marrying" another man or whether this "discrimination" has no rational basis is something that is in contention in the first place and so to assume that it is discriminatory or to assume that that there is no rational basis for this discrimination is simply to beg the question.

Also: lol, seriously?

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Right. Note, however, that whether it is in fact "discriminatory" to disallow, say, a man from "marrying" another man...

... is settled by looking up the word "discriminatory" in the dictionary.

... or whether this "discrimination" has no rational basis...

Can be answered in the negative, after examining the purportedly "rational" basis that is offered for this discrimination.

is something that is in contention in the first place and so to assume that it is discriminatory or to assume that that there is no rational basis for this discrimination is simply to beg the question.

Sure. But to conclude as much, after examining the justification that is offered, is not.

But this is basically playing "yeah-huh", "nuh-uh"; we can continue this, to no avail, or look at your argument. As you can see, you never responded to my criticism of your thread RE "consistency", so that could be a place to start. Or maybe you'd like to paraphrase your blog entry, for those who got turned off by the hand-waving and didn't make it through the whole thing.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Oh, and lol, seriously?

 

[Alceste]

But see, if you had read the "Building A Case Against SSM, Part 1" post, you'd realize that this is either simply question-begging or false. To assume that we are treating individuals "unjustly" by disallowing them to marry someone of the same sex is to assume that two men or two women "marrying" is not in conceptual contention when it is, in fact, in contention. And to assume as much is just to assume that marriage just is, say, individuals "lovingly committing" to one another or something akin to this. But, of course, the opponent of SSM disagrees with that assumption in the first place. So this is just to beg the question and to talk past the opponent of SSM.

I'm not going to read your blog until the quality of your writing improves, and neither will anybody else.

Check out this website for loads of free resources for content writers.
Content Marketing Solutions from Copyblogger

I've found it very useful for my work. (I'm a paid blogger).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Right. Note, however, that whether it is in fact "discriminatory" to disallow, say, a man from "marrying" another man or whether this "discrimination" has no rational basis is something that is in contention in the first place and so to assume that it is discriminatory or to assume that that there is no rational basis for this discrimination is simply to beg the question.

Well, no. It is discrimination. You're saying that certain freedoms (e.g. marrying a man) should be granted to one group (i.e. women) but not to another (i.e. men). This is discriminatory.

The question that you should be trying to answer is whether this discrimination is justified.

 

[Alceste]

Right. Note, however, that whether it is in fact "discriminatory" to disallow, say, a man from "marrying" another man or whether this "discrimination" has no rational basis is something that is in contention in the first place and so to assume that it is discriminatory or to assume that that there is no rational basis for this discrimination is simply to beg the question.

You're "doing" "it" "again". Your fingers must get tired when you're talking.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Well, no. It is discrimination. You're saying that certain freedoms (e.g. marrying a man) should be granted to one group (i.e. women) but not to another (i.e. men). This is discriminatory.

Exactly-

Right. Note, however, that whether it is in fact "discriminatory" to disallow, say, a man from "marrying" another man...

... is settled by looking up the word "discriminatory" in the dictionary.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

... is settled by looking up the word "discriminatory" in the dictionary. . . Can be answered in the negative, after examining the purportedly "rational" basis that is offered for this discrimination. . . Sure. But to conclude as much, after examining the justification that is offered, is not.

There's all sorts of discrimination that has a rational basis. Consider, for example, a women's debate club. Would they acting in a discriminatory manner by disallowing a man to become a member of the club? The answer would be that they are behaving in a discriminatory manner insofar as they are selective about who can become a member of the club, but this discrimination has a rational basis, namely, that the club exists for women, not for men, and so it is not unjust to disallow a man to become a member of the debate club for women.

But this is basically playing "yeah-huh", "nuh-uh"; we can continue this, to no avail, or look at your argument. As you can see, you never responded to my criticism of your thread RE "consistency", so that could be a place to start. Or maybe you'd like to paraphrase your blog entry, for those who got turned off by the hand-waving and didn't make it through the whole thing.

I address this very topic at length in my blog post on the matter (namely, building a case...part 1). Regarding your "criticism," it was a mere sentence or two long and it was point-missing. Perhaps I'll get around to responding but it's not a priority.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

I'm not going to read your blog until the quality of your writing improves, and neither will anybody else.

Check out this website for loads of free resources for content writers.
Content Marketing Solutions from Copyblogger

I've found it very useful for my work. (I'm a paid blogger).

Thanks. I'm not interested in money, however.

 

[Sovereign Dream]

Well, no. It is discrimination. You're saying that certain freedoms (e.g. marrying a man) should be granted to one group (i.e. women) but not to another (i.e. men). This is discriminatory.

That's confused. If marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation, then no one is being "treated unfairly" or being treated "unjustly" by being disallowed to marry a member of the opposite sex, for it just doesn't make sense to "marry" someone of the same-sex in the first place. Moreover, in the status quo marriage law (that is, assuming that we are talking about traditional marriage -- whose public purpose is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another or something akin to this), both homosexuals and heterosexuals share the exact kind and amount of restrictions as to whom they can marry. Consider: any individual x, be he homosexual or otherwise, can marry any individual y iff (if and only if) individual y is of the opposite sex of individual x (and is not directly related to individual x, and is not already married, etc.). So, besides whatever superficial and question-begging appearances to the contrary, homosexuals can indeed marry. What that means, though, is that they can only marry someone of the opposite sex like everyone else. A homosexual man, for example, could no more marry someone of the same sex than a heterosexual man. But a homosexual man may marry a woman; a homosexual woman may marry a man. On this view, then, no one is being treated differently as to whom they can marry. So if the public purpose of marriage just is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, absolutely no one is being "wronged" or being "treated unfairly" or "unjustly" by not being allowed to "marry" someone of the same-sex.

The question that you should be trying to answer is whether this discrimination is justified.

Right. If the public purpose of marriage is just to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another, then discriminating (note that I'm using the term discrimination technically, viz. "selective") against same-sex couples who want to marry has a rational basis. It has the same sort of rational basis that, say, denying a man to enter a debate club for women would have, or denying a blind person from receiving a driver's license would have, etc. Again, however, I argue this at length in my relevant blog post.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

There's all sorts of discrimination that has a rational basis. Consider, for example, a women's debate club. Would they acting in a discriminatory manner by disallowing a man to become a member of the club? The answer would be that they are behaving in a discriminatory manner insofar as they are selective about who can become a member of the club, but this discrimination has a rational basis, namely, that the club exists for women, not for men, and so it is not unjust to disallow a man to become a member of the debate club for women.

Ok, and? You disputed that it is discrimation; which is ludicrous. It is clearly discrimination, which needn't entail that it is wrong- but the fact that it is unjustifiable discrimination (as the offered justification is completely inadequate) does.

I address this very topic at length in my blog post on the matter (namely, building a case...part 1).

Not really.

Regarding your "criticism," it was a mere sentence or two long and it was point-missing. Perhaps I'll get around to responding but it's not a priority.

Well, you can't really claim your argument stands until you do so. And the fact that one only needs a sentence or two to point out how and why your argument is not sound is sort of instructive; your argument hinges upon some extremely dubious if not patently false claims, claims you have not substantiated (and we shouldn't be holding our breath here, either).

Also, you're giving yourself too much credit here; you aren't making very many arguments in your blog entry, and I've pointed out why your argument from your thread is unsound. For instance, this is not an argument:

"Yet the contemptible social movement for the acceptance of same-sex "marriage" that many a "tolerant" teenage ignoramus is eagerly ready to defend on his Facebook against "bigots" by adopting a mathematical symbol as a profile picture just is, for the most part, the by-product of the wholesale accepting of a thoroughgoing materialistic and naturalistic worldview and the rejecting of truths about the nature and applicability of morality, metaphysical truths of all sorts, and certainly the existence of God and the nature of the human individual."

This is all smoke and no fire, but it is unfortunately par for the course. The first few pages of your post drones on and on about how it could, in principle, be just or acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals- but never really gets around to arguing that it is just or acceptable, much less showing that. Also, if opposition to SSM stems from belief in "truths about the nature of morality", "metaphysical truths", "the existence of God", and the outdated and untenable worldview which naturalism has replaced- so much the worse for opposition to SSM.

And, at the end of the day, you're left without any credible answer to the knockdown argument for SSM I mentioned; its a win-win scenario in which many people stand to gain something (freedom, happiness, equality, tax/adoption/inheritance benefits, etc.), and nobody stands to lose anything (since moral indignation does not count as losing something). But please, do tell us why discriminating against homosexuals is a good idea (and perhaps you'd like to argue for apartheid and segregation as well?).

 

[Enai de a lukal]

That's confused. If marriage just is the metaphysically comprehensive union between a man and a woman that is ordered towards procreation

And who gets to stipulate that?

then no one is being "treated unfairly" or being treated "unjustly" by being disallowed to marry a member of the opposite sex, for it just doesn't make sense to "marry" someone of the same-sex in the first place.

Since the premise upon which this is based is unacceptable(not to mention question-begging), this is entirely moot.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Marriage is a social construct that has never had a static definition. Originally, it seemed to be a device to manage inheritance rights. Women were seen as property in this arrangement and it would include slaves, too. For centuries and in many areas, that was "traditional marriage". The sort of marriage we see today in the modern West that consists of a man and a woman who get married because they "love" each other and not because their families have forced them into it because of social benefits, is a very new concept. So the right-wing's definition of "traditional marriage" is less than 200 years old. Marriage changes all the time, as societies change.

Also, by including reproduction in your definition of marriage, you leave out heterosexual marriages where they never have children. There is no requirement to reproduce in other to get married. However, there are also many gay and lesbian couples who do have children. So they meet your definition of marriage more than the infertile hetero marriages do.