Gays, lesbians, bisexuals, PART II

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

How is he forcing you to do anything?

I didn't say he was forcing me to do anything. I said he was forcing his opinion (of how marriage should be defined) on me (if we lived in the same society).

Is he saying you should only be allowed to marry a woman like you are saying gays should only be allowed to marry people of the opposite sex? That would be forcing his opinion on you. But hes fine with you marrying a man or a woman. He is not attempting to control another person's freedom simply because of how he views those people. He is saying let them do what they want to do in this regard.

Then let anyone do anything. If we were both in the UK or both in the US, and if he votes, then he is taking action to force his opinion on others, just like I would if I voted.

There is no justifiable reason to bar them from marrying.

There most certainly are several very good reasons, and I've explained them quite a few times. You guys don't agree with the reasons, though, because your worldview (and thus your derived definition of "harm") is different. That's your right. I don't agree with YOUR reasons for saying it's fine, and that's my right. Personally, I think the evidence for your worldview is pretty lousy, so that's why I don't accept it, and that's why I don't accept definitions of harm derived from that worldview.

Yet you want to. Thats the facist aspect.

By EITHER ONE of us voting, we're attempting to force our opinion on others. Whoever has the most votes will happen to win.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

Do you think the intangible/unproven thing is actually a part of reality (i.e., it actually exists in reality, although intangibly to you at least for now), or is it merely something in the imagination?

Both. Because it is unproven and intangible there is the possibility that it could exist in reality. However, for us to be able to believe in it since it is intangible and unproven it must also be in our imaginations.

If it is entirely intangible, how can you discover it? Do you think the peace comes about because that thing is reality, and if so, what aspect of that thing has the capability to bring peace?

We may discover it through imagination and/or through any tangible effects that might logically be attributed to it.

The peace does not come about due to the thing's reality or non-reality, it comes about because the belief in the thing acts as an agent for us to achieve peace.

It isn't really the thing being believed in which is important, it's the strength of the belief and the belief's ability to motivate the person who holds it to grow and learn and develop strong relationships and engage in positive social interactions etc.

[Rían]

So would you encourage a person's belief in something that you thought was not true, as long as it was a strong belief and it motivated things that you thought were good?

(I'm not asking in an attacking way - I'm trying to explore your thoughts on this issue)

Originally Posted by Maggie

We may discover it through imagination and/or through any tangible effects that might logically be attributed to it.

OK, so IYO there can be some tangible effects. I think that makes sense, too. So it isn't fully intangible then, right? Just partially?

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

So would you encourage a person's belief in something that you thought was not true, as long as it was a strong belief and it motivated things that you thought were good?

I wouldn't necessarily encourage it. But I certainly wouldn't say: "This is wrong, you need to stop believing it." Not if it was having a positive effect on them. After all, one shouldn't fix things that aren't broken.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I didn't say he was forcing me to do anything. I said he was forcing his opinion (of how marriage should be defined) on me (if we lived in the same society).

No hes not. You don’t have to accept it. Two men marrying does not effect you at ALL so how is anything being forced on you. You are living your life completely unchanged no matter if a gay couple gets married or not.

Then let anyone do anything.

More like let people pursue the same freedoms you can pursue.

You guys don't agree with the reasons, though, because your worldview (and thus your derived definition of "harm") is different.

Harm can be proven. You have not proven any significant harm at all. Secondly, harm is NOT a prerequisite to ban things (as has been shown time and time again when focusing on cigarettes, alcohol, driving, using electricity, etc.). Marriage can be harmful to heterosexuals too but we allow heterosexuals to engage in marriage because that’s their right to enter into something that they know could end up in divorce or bankruptcy or sexual disease or emotional breakdown or even murder-suicide for gods sake. But theres no calls for a constitutional amendment because of that potential harm. So your harm argument is empty. And your attempt to impose a ban on certain people because of this reasoning is at best based on religious notions if anything at all. And therefore unconstitutional.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

No hes not. You don’t have to accept it. Two men marrying does not effect you at ALL so how is anything being forced on you. You are living your life completely unchanged no matter if a gay couple gets married or not.

It affects the society that I live in, so it affects me. Period.

More like let people pursue the same freedoms you can pursue.

Then open marriage up to anyone(s) and anything(s) and any definition (including marrows) if you want to be logically consistent. If not, then we're on the same playing field - you have your definition, I have mine.

Harm can be proven. You have not proven any significant harm at all.

A person's definition of harm depends on their worldview. If mine is right, then homosexuality is definitely harmful. If it's not right, then anyone's opinion is as good as anyone else's opinion about what is harmful.

So your harm argument is empty.

Then your "it's not harmful" argument is empty, too!

And your attempt to impose a ban on certain people because of this reasoning is at best based on religious notions if anything at all. And therefore unconstitutional.

I don't recall anything in the constitution saying that a person can't vote according to their beliefs. How in the world do you get that it's unconstitutional? Or do you think the separation of church and state ruling should extend to checking to see if a person is religious at the ballot box, and turning them away if they are? How then do you justify voting against murder, which is a religious notion? You think certain groups should not be allowed to marry, and so do I. Both of our definitions are based on our beliefs. Go ahead and call mine "religious", it doesn't matter. They're both beliefs.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

I wouldn't necessarily encourage it. But I certainly wouldn't say: "This is wrong, you need to stop believing it."

Is searching for what is true, then, not important to you? IOW, if you think something is untrue, but you see "good" results from believing it, then the results are more important than the truth?

(again, please don't take offense - I'm trying to explore/analyze your thoughts)

Not if it was having a positive effect on them. After all, one shouldn't fix things that aren't broken.

How do you know what is positive? Do you think your definition of positive is better than anyone else's? If so, why?

(thanks for being so patient! Tell me if you've had enough!)

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

Searching for what is true is important, but since that search goes on and on and on and will probably never come to a single, proven conclusion in our lifetimes, if at all, the results remain more important than whether the gallvanizing belief is true or not. And one should remember that small truths can be very depressing and in that sense unmotivating towards anything positive, so truth is not always a good thing.

As for what is positive. I believe I already defined that as that which aids survival (either as an individual or in a social group or both) and brings pleasure (in the broadest sense of the word).

[Rían]

re positive - I didn't ask what you thought it was (which you did already state and I remember); I asked how you KNOW what it is. To me, there's a huge difference.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

I'm basing my definition of positive off of what I have learned of human psychology and what I've observed about human ideals in their most objective forms.

I don't know it for sure, I'm still undecided on whether or not I think we can know anything for sure. It's just the guess I think makes the most sense.

[Rían]

ok, thanks for your patience with all my questions! You express your thoughts well.

gtg now It's been a very interesting conversation, all!

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

No problem, it's good mental exercise for me.

[klatukatt]

A lot of the time I think we need to just scrap human society and start all over again.

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

Trouble with that is that if one scraps all of human society, who would be left to start it again? And this line of questioning couldn't touch on-topicness with 12 foot spork.

[klatukatt]

Okay fine. On topicness.

You know Dan Savage said that there was no such thing as bisexuals, just people that want to get a free blow job.

He has recently recanted this, saying instead that you will be emotionally attracted to one sex though.

[inked]

Originally Posted by Lady Marion Magdalena

I'm basing my definition of positive off of what I have learned of human psychology and what I've observed about human ideals in their most objective forms.

I don't know it for sure, I'm still undecided on whether or not I think we can know anything for sure. It's just the guess I think makes the most sense.

Since you can't know anything for sure, why bother arguing about anything?

[klatukatt]

Originally Posted by inked

Since you can't know anything for sure, why bother arguing about anything?

That's exactly MY point!

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

Since you can't know anything for sure, why bother arguing about anything?

I said I'm not sure if we can know anything or not. Either way, the argument is to support what I believe is a worthwhile cause. And because it's a challenge.

[The Gaffer]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

What?! Both of us have opinions on how we think marriage is best defined. Why is mine fascist and yours not? Aren't you trying to force your opinion on me? If it came to a vote in the UK, would you decline to vote because you didn't want to force your opinion on anyone else? Seems like a double standard to me.

No, because your definition is narrower.

But that's not what makes it fascism-lite. Fascism is, if you like, the tyranny of the majority, where people in certain minority groups are forced to conform to a norm.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Then why should any person be forced to fit into a role that doesn't fit ANY part of them? Why stop at marriage? If I like to set little fires in people's house, because that fits who I am, why should I feel constrained to stop?

I think that's been made abundantly clear throughout this thread, but let's just confine ourselves to one specific aspect: say, "informed consent".

You see, that's the problem with this "relativism means do whatever you want and/or anything goes" argument: it is totally abstract. Relativism is REALLY about clarifying, understanding and debating specifically where these dividing lines (e.g. between right and wrong) exist, how they arise and what should be done about them.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

*protects her marrows*

Ohh, baby that's some sweet, sweet marrow.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Are you proposing that doing moral gymnastics to make peace with the issue is actually a GOOD thing? It seems to me that if one has to do gymnastics to justify something, then the thing isn't worthy of being justified.

Well, I think it's kinda what we all do every day anyway. You think there's no moral gymnastics involved in justifying war?

[Lady Marion Magdalena]

Then why should any person be forced to fit into a role that doesn't fit ANY part of them? Why stop at marriage? If I like to set little fires in people's house, because that fits who I am, why should I feel constrained to stop?

Because when you're setting fires to houses you are deliberately destroying a material piece of private property and in doing so leaving the owner (probably) homeless which very definitely harms their chances of survival.

Destruction of property is judged on a rather more solid moral scale than affection between two people of the same gender. The two things really aren't that comparable.