Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

Why, is that a man of straw I see swaying in the wind?

Who says we don't believe in free will? I absolutely believe that all organisms have free will to live and behave in whatever way they wish, so long as their physiology and comprehension permit it.

What I DON'T believe is the notion that this free will is a gift from your tantrum-throwing death-monster of a Gaud, or that its purpose is to be the deciding factor of the "Are You Going To Hell" test. Rather, I believe it's a product of the simple facts that we're here and we have the ability and will to act. Nothing more.

Umm that is what free will basically is - we're here and we have the ability and will to act. . . . .
I don't ever remembering it have anything to do with god. If true no laws or punishment to those law could ever be valid. The entire legal system is based on the concept of free will.

[Aristocatt]

Ace can you stop quoting me from like 20+ pages ago. I keep getting updates and look to respond only to realize I am not being responded to. +(

[Aristocatt]

Your definition of free will is not effectively beyond the realm of determinism/indeterminism. Most philosophical debates on the matter reject your definition as being an incomplete one.

One way to flesh out your understanding of free will. . .
Please define what you mean by will.

[Ace]

Your definition of free will is not effectively beyond the realm of determinism/indeterminism.  Most philosophical debates on the matter reject your definition as being an incomplete one.

One way to flesh out your understanding of free will. . .
Please define what you mean by will.

My apologies for over quoting you. No my intention.

I am using free will as in to act or chose.

Will
1. conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions:
the freedom of the will.
2.
power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
4. wish or desire: to submit against one's will.
6. the wish or purpose as carried out, or to be carried out

[Aristocatt]

So the definitions you have provided, do not at first glance appear to be incompatible with determinism/indeterminism.

What do you mean by "power of control the mind has over its own actions"

From my perspective the mind is subject to biochemical reactions which likely determine what action the mind will take. Hence I have a will in the sense that when I will my hand to move, I can make it move, but the will to move my hand was already determined by a number of other causal factors outside of my conscious experience.

[Anima]

Your first block of post is worthless in relation to #2 of you previous response.

2.  Fallacy of a Single Cause:  Similar to the first interpretation of the fallacy you point out it may be said that we never contended homosexuality was the single cause of extinction.  Rather it was the cause to which the focus of our inquiry was directed.  It may readily be said that any number of causes of extinction exists and that we would "undermine" all such causes due to the negative consequence that follows from them.  Thus, choking, stabbing, beating, burning, starving, skinning, infecting, drowning, electrocuting, and so forth as various causes of killing of people are denigrated due to the negative consequence.  It is further recognized the "undermining" of the causes is not limited to the agent, but most definitively in terms of its negative objective consequence.  Choking, stabbing, beating, burning, starving... is bad whether caused by an inanimate object or as the volitional act of an animate object if it results in the death of a person.  Thus, The existence of many causes does not invalidate the negative of a particular cause.  We may readily admit over-consumption leading to extinction is bad, while still maintain it is not the focus of our discussion and its impact as an alternative cause of extinction does not serve to eliminate recognition of other causes of extinction that are the focus of discussion.

How so? The second bullet of my previous post was to say just because there are other causes of extinction is to not say we may not argue or discuss a particular source's tendency to extinction. My first block of post then proceeds to show how my argument proceeds form the orientation to the act which is oriented to a particular resultant than if normalized (made universal) leads a to an extinctive outcome. Thus, my first block of the last post is in keeping with the #2 of my preceding posts, which is in keeping with my initial argument.

To the second block, I am endeavoring to show you that valuations based on plausibility are a bad idea.  When you need to invoke the boogeyman to make a point, your point is probably not a good one to begin with.  If it is a good one, it is not because you invoked the boogeyman.

And I am saying your effort to state my valuation is logically fallacious were not successful. My argument uses the logical methodology of reducto ad absurdum (one of the few methods of logical argument that is not a fallacy) to make poignant that act which are deemed bad are deemed so either in regards to sentiment (which we would say is insufficient justification) or the logical resultant of outcomes when made universal. Once again, my argument proceeds form the orientation to the act which is oriented to a particular resultant than if normalized (made universal) leads a to an extinctive outcome. Something you tried to dispute by means of an externality which does not logically follow as exhibited in arguments #2 and #3.

Now if you are arguing we should not say something is bad based on the logical outcome (that which everyone is calling slippery slope and you are calling a boogeyman) than we are left in a situation where either nothing may be determined as bad (since every act when committed was done based on speculation of an outcome which may not be used to evaluate the badness of the act) or in a situation where even things which are good are considered bad because they are intrinsically bad while being extrinsically good. (For example surgery inflicts harm upon the body with the intention to avoid a more serious potential harm. If we cannot evaluate the act in consideration of the potential than we may only say the act of surgery is harmful especially since we may not evaluate the potential harm as an actual harm if it were avoided.)

To the third block.  It was a different scenario.  Following my recognition that it was a different scenario, I included it in your argument and pointed out that it is still a point that is wildly speculative.  Basically, my response to the response you gave me was already found in my previous post.

In regards to my third block. It seemed to me that you were missing the point of my argument due to the setting or scenario of my argument (which was a superflous addition to add context). So I decided to distill it for you as well as the arguments you were making in response as:

1. Orientation (same sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to lack of conception)

2. Orientation (opp sex) -> Act (opp sex) -> Particular Act Result (conception) -> Universal Act (over-consumption) -> Universal Result (extinction due to over consumption)

3. Orientation (opp sex) -> Act (same sex) -> Particular Act Result (lack of conception) -> Act IVF (hetero) -> Particular Act Result (conception) -> Universal Act Result (continuation by conception).

Not only will you find my #1 is in keeping with the underlying logic of my initial argument in regards to biology, you will also see that it follows logically from the orientation to the universal resultant of said orientation in such a manner as to be applicable to a myriad of settings/scenarios as the means by which we may objectively determine an act as wrong (without being limited to the subject of same sex). For example:

4. Orientation (killer) -> Act (killing) -> Particular Act Result (killing death of a person) -> Universal Act Result (extinction due to the killing death of people).

Your limitation of the argument as "wildly speculative" is based solely on your sentiment of what is reasonable rather than stringent application of the logic of the argument to its universal conclusion. In making this statement I of course assume you recognize the negative nature of the particular act result (lack of conception in #1 and killing death of a person #4), but you do not want to believe the normalization of the particular to a more poignant universal, while being unable to provide a reason within the logic chain. Hence in your arguments #2 and #3 you introduce a secondary act which does not follow from the orientation. Inclusion of the setting/scenario allowed you to endeavor to make this claim was part of the logical chain. Removal of the scenario while maintaining the logical argument underneath exhibits it is not part of the logical chain.

Your final block of text is also largely irrelevant.  A pandemic would be a terrible way to justify your case.  Your case rests on a disproportionate amount of heterosexuals dying.  If a pandemic occurred, and mainly heterosexuals were dying, then we would be truly lucky to have a population of homosexuals that are not dying off.  One because it may mean we could depend on them to continue our existence, and two because we could learn about possible variations in their lifestyle that allow them to avoid contact with the disease.

Historical cases like disease all support having a diverse arrangement of lifestyles.

The thing is, there are dozens of ways of pointing out why your argument sucks.  You just forced me to provide a different line of reasoning as to why it sucks.  It's really not interesting to go through the laundry list of specific examples that show why it is a bad argument though.

Ha ha. I think you are being very liberal with the meaning of lifestyles. Disease encourages people to dispersed rather than centralized and to engage in a cleanly lifestyle rather than a diversity of lifestyles. But I like the spin.

The setting of a pandemic is not irrelevant nor does it rest on disproportional amount of heterosexuals dying (the disease is held to kill indiscriminate of orientation, though such may not be said of all diseases where several are known to have a higher rate of infection and death in homos than heteros. To my knowledge there is no disease which has a higher rate of infection and mortality in heteros than homos. If you know of one I would be interested to hear about it so I can read up on it).

Rather it endeavors to utilize the illustrate of valuation in relation to scarcity. The arguments presented by yourself, pink beard, and others of not hurting anyone are contingent on their being a sufficient abundance of hetero persons to compensate for the harm cause by infertile, elderly, and homo persons. The setting of a pandemics which have occurred is to show that such a contingent assumption is not valid and to further illustrate they are harmful though sufficient benefit is derived by the rest to offset that harm.

However, it seems that whenever I introduce a scenario you get stuck more on the scenario than the underlying argument. So I will say let us stick to argument #1 above and leave our setting or scenarios so that we do not get confused.

[Pyrrho]

It doesn't.  Your reply tells us that you apparently have not wasted too much time reading a lot of bullshit nonsense that has been posted in this thread.  If you doubt it is bullshit nonsense, read it for yourself and then feel free to tell me that I am wrong, that some great pearl of wisdom was posted which shows that giving gay people the right to marry somehow ruins my heterosexual marriage.  I hope that is not the case, as I would hate to think that I must divorce my wife because of some nugget of wisdom you manage to find in this thread.

Pyrrho, do you not think it rude to speak for someone? Expectantly if you already harbor a bias ideology of assumption towards the individual's ideas.  I find it funny how this disrespectful act is done very often in this country, for you are not the only one to do this, in fact many on this board do. Since I have never or will never assume to speak for you or for someone else, with just my personal assumption of their own ideas, would you please extent me the respect and not speak for me.
Thank you

I was not speaking for you.  I do not know why you imagine that I was.

[Anima]

What exactly does he want us to do anyway, I wonder? All storm the high court demanding the discrimination be put back in place before random unconnected stuff starts happening?

First you are demanding discriminations remain in place or should be created for many other things. (If I might catechize you a bit) I believe at one point you said you are on disability and do not work. I am not on disability and do not work. Why are you discriminating against me? I have to earn the means by which I live according to my ability. Shouldn't you? If you are unable to secure the means by which you live by your own ability than natural law shall eliminate you. It is equal treatment. I suspect you will say it is inhumane to which I am willing to agree so long as you recognize that it is humane to discriminate. I trust you would not be so foolish as to say everyone should receive the same benefits or aid you do for your disability since one of two things will happen in such a scenario, either the limitation of resources will cause the benefits to decrease for each such that it has no beneficial result or the receipt of benefits by all shall result in no particular benefit to you equivalent to benefits to none.

They are far from unconnected. In fact one will be legally contingent upon the other.

I do not want you to anything other than understand those who disagree have reasonable reason for doing so. You may not be convinced by those reasons, but that is not to say they are unreasonable or that those who are convinced by those reasons are bigots for not being willing to accept the fallacies presented on the other side.

I think he just wants agreement from us.  Not that it would change the law in any way.  Regardless, he is not going to get the agreement he wants.

Ha ha. So you are saying that in a democracy the agreement of many will not change the law anyway? HA HA!!

Though I am not expecting agreement from anyone in particular. I empathize with you guys and your positions. I see how you got there and I see why you hold them. Though I cannot logically agree with them. I suppose what I want is for you to empathize with mine. Even if you do not agree.

I even donated money to the cause a couple of years back, so that should indicate the strength of my feelings on this topic.  Still, I was pleasantly surprised by the Supreme Court ruling.  But I do think that the ruling makes sense, for the same basic reasons that it made sense that bans on interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional many years ago.

Ha ha. I like this. You put your money where your mouth is (though I would generally consider that a poor measure of your feelings of anything. I put a hell of a lot of money to the military through "voluntary" taxation and I am not a huge fan of war.)

<Sigh> The ruling does not make sense under the bans on interracial marriage being unconstitutional. Loving V. Virginia was about miscegenation laws and not about marriage per se. The law of Virginia prohibited interracial copulation regardless of marital status.

" local police raided their home at night, hoping to find them having sex, which was also a crime according to Virginia law. When the officers found the Lovings sleeping in their bed, Mildred pointed out their marriage certificate on the bedroom wall. That certificate became the evidence for the criminal charge of "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth" that was brought against them.
The Lovings were charged under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code (they could have gotten married in the state as more than 250 couples did that same year), which prohibited interracial couples from being married out of state and then returning to Virginia, and Section 20-59, which classified miscegenation as a felony, punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years.""

I've read through the whole of this thread (and the others on this subject) and I've not been convinced of one tiny valid objection. Even the reasons we had posted from one of the high court judges in opposition read like a logical fallacy wish list.

We are in the same boat then. As I have yet to hear one valid argument in their favor which is not predicated upon fallacies. But as the one who seeks change (in accordance with Hitchen's razor) the onus of logical argument falls upon the one endeavoring to change not the one endeavor to not change.

These are all ways of tiptoeing around the fact that they hate gays and want them to be treated worse. At some points the tiptoeing stops, the facade is dropped and the agenda is revealed. Once this is apparent, it's clear their objections are nothing to do with gay marriage. It's to do with them wanting gays to be treated worse because they are worse, in their eyes.

I would not say worse. I would say fairly, which is not equally. Just as we give aid and benefits to the disabled, but no the rest of the people, we should give aid and benefits who engage in conduct which will perpetuate our society and not to those who do not.

"There is no greater form of inequality than to endeavor to treat two unequal things as if they were equal." - Aristotle

[Anima]

Ace;

Do not argue with them on the subject of free will. Let them have there is no freewill. It is a Pyrrhic victory at best that leads them down a rabbit hole were no actor is liable for their actions or in need of consent from victim who may not consent.

Since the actor is unable to refuse the action (and is essentially in the meat sack for the ride) they may not be liable for their actions. To argue otherwise is to argue punishment of the innocent for the actions beyond their control or to recognize the actor could resist engagement of the action (this is to say had freewill).

Since consent is more than mere understanding of the act being committed, but is an explicit or implicit choice to agreement to that act; one without freewill may not consent. To argue otherwise is to argue because the victim understands or was unwillingly induced to the act they are agreeing to it or the victim's understanding or unwilling inducement does not constitute consent, but rather the victim's willful agreement (freewill) to engage in the act is consent.

By arguing there is no freewill they effectively make it so the action is the actor and the actor is the action. This is to say we must punish the person who commits or is inclined to the act because the actor cannot chose to not engage in the action.

[Ace]

Pyrrho, do you not think it rude to speak for someone? Expectantly if you already harbor a bias ideology of assumption towards the individual's ideas.  I find it funny how this disrespectful act is done very often in this country, for you are not the only one to do this, in fact many on this board do. Since I have never or will never assume to speak for you or for someone else, with just my personal assumption of their own ideas, would you please extent me the respect and not speak for me.
Thank you

I was not speaking for you.  I do not know why you imagine that I was.

I could possible be wrong but in reading the post related to your comment of (possable replay) I am reading it differently.
I could just be me.

What exactly does he want us to do anyway, I wonder? All storm the high court demanding the discrimination be put back in place before random unconnected stuff starts happening?

Hmm inserting idea (but not like). It would be very nice if the laws that were far more for equality were put back. This idea of segregation is only going to either get bigger of more relationships or added or will effect other aspects of domestic life. Either way segregation is not the were to achieve equality, we know that from out segregated history in the past.

I am confused.  I haven't read every single block of text in this thread, so maybe I missed it somewhere.

How does giving a group of people the right to legal marriage make equality worse?

It doesn't.  Your reply tells us that you apparently have not wasted too much time reading a lot of bullshit nonsense that has been posted in this thread.  If you doubt it is bullshit nonsense, read it for yourself and then feel free to tell me that I am wrong, that some great pearl of wisdom was posted which shows that giving gay people the right to marry somehow ruins my heterosexual marriage.  I hope that is not the case, as I would hate to think that I must divorce my wife because of some nugget of wisdom you manage to find in this thread.