Gay Marriage --- The Opposition, Please Clarify

[puppydog85]

Frigidus,

What is your ultimate truth? I have no problem with you assuming it. Heck, I will even assume it and attempt to prove its inconsistency.

[jay_a2j]

1. How would you feel about a Bed & Breakfast that refused service to an interracial couple? How about someone that held different religious beliefs? How about left handed people?

2. What if this wasn't a single Bed & Breakfast refusing to serve gay people, but rather an entire city. What recourse would a homosexual have if nobody within 100 miles was willing to provide them with food, shelter, or transportation? If it's OK for one individual business to turn people down, is it OK for everyone to turn people down?

1. That would be discrimination because it has nothing to do with religious beliefs. If a bunch of Muslims want to open up a "Allah's Bed & Breakfast", I couldn't care less. (I would choose not to stay there but I would not object to their right to exist)


2.In that case, the homosexuals might want to think about opening the cities first gay eatery/bed & breakfast etc. !!!! Imagine the profits being the only one in town!!!

[Woodruff]

Woodruff,
Why is it that what you believe does not have to be proven (ie you can mock it and just state that it is wrong), but that your own views are not held to the same standard?

I have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with my views being held to that standard. What is it that leads you to believe I don't think my views should be held to the same standard?

The same way we would decide how anything else is right, Woodruff. Which belief system comports with reality best is what it right.

So then Atheistic Agnosticism is what is right, in your view? Or do you actually believe that Christianity comports with reality better than Atheistic Agnosticism?

Anyone can come in and say that they are right but all are to be examined.

But you don't seem to want to have your views be examined - you appear to want to be able to claim that yours are simply right.

Any Joe can walk in and say that everything came from the little green man on mars/evolved from gas/was created by God, but the one that is right is the one that makes the best sense of the world as we live in.

That's simply not true. At one time, "the one that makes the best sense fo the world as we live in" stated that the sun revolved around the earth. That was not at all "right".

[puppydog85]

What is it that leads you to believe I don't think my views should be held to the same standard?

Oh, I don't know woodruff, maybe your snarky tone whenever you say something and the fact that you act like I questioned God almighty whenever I question one of your statements.

Yes, I think my view holds up better that yours. If you actually interacted with my statements instead of just holding them up for ridicule you might find that I am perfectly willing to have them examined. And for the 99th time, yes I believe my views are right and I state them as something I believe in. You believe yours are.

Your last point actually is a point. And it was a good one. I will restate what I said. If there are two opposing views of reality then the one that is right is the one that actually comports with reality as it is and the one that is wrong is the one that does not. If neither of them make sense of reality then neither is right.

[Woodruff]

What is it that leads you to believe I don't think my views should be held to the same standard?

Oh, I don't know woodruff, maybe your snarky tone whenever you say something and the fact that you act like I questioned God almighty whenever I question one of your statements.

Then you'd be sadly mistaken.

Yes, I think my view holds up better that yours. If you actually interacted with my statements instead of just holding them up for ridicule you might find that I am perfectly willing to have them examined. And for the 99th time, yes I believe my views are right and I state them as something I believe in. You believe yours are.

You haven't answered many of the questions I've asked of you, so how is it that you're having your views examined?

Your last point actually is a point. And it was a good one. I will restate what I said. If there are two opposing views of reality then the one that is right is the one that actually comports with reality as it is and the one that is wrong is the one that does not. If neither of them make sense of reality then neither is right.

In the frame of reference of God, which is something that cannot at this time be proven as reality , how do you rectify which one "comports with reality and which one does not"?

[BigBallinStalin]

Is not all life conflict BBS? Are you proposing that the best way to go is the way that avoids conflict? Neville Chamberlin anyone? Is that not how things are resolved? By taking two ideas and seeing which is right?

Concerning 1a- I would make the claim that my way is the best for all groups. Biblical law was set up on 2 major overarching principles, subdivided in 10 further laws. The rest of the law given was case law that is a particular interpretation of one of the 10 for that age/custom. Our job as lawmakers in our own local area would be to apply those general principles to our particular case. E.g the Bible state that everyone should have a fence around their housetop. This was because of conditions in the Middle East and was an application of the commandment to not murder. Obviously, we do not have people throwing parties on our rooftops here (well, some do but you get the point) however, we do have large pools of self-contained water. It would be irresponsible and reckless of me to have a open pit on my property that people can kill themselves in. Using the 6th commandment and the application of it in the case law given, I would have no problem supporting/suggesting that a law be enacted that everyone with an in ground pool have a fence around it.
Did I understand and answer your question here?

Let us use Iran as a case study. Their religious elite implemented their own legal code of Islam, which let's presume is the Right Religion. Do you think the conflict and continued oppression is worth it? Is it Chamberlin of me to suggest that theocracy in this case was not a good idea?

How would a Christian theocracy, based on the Old and New Testaments, be any different?

Forcing people to adopt the teachings of a holy book would require immense enforcement. Let's use ideology as another example: the Bolsheviks had a well-intended plan to bring the good life to people. It turned out that their plan required an immense amount of enforcement to create the incentives for people to abide by their law--however impractical it was. The anti-Chamberlin would say, "gotta break a few eggs to make an omelet." I say, "well, you didn't make an omelet, so now what? Continue beating people while expecting different results??"


Are you starting to see the problems involved in imposing the moral codes of specific group of people in a specific time and place onto other groups of people?


Furthermore, let's use the Amish Mennonites as support for your argument. It actually works! But only because it's a voluntary association--you're free to leave if you want (and the laws of the Amish are influenced by the US government to a degree). With a theocracy, you must abide, and the inconsistency between the Bible's laws and the naturally developing (and government-imposed) laws across the various States and Municipalities of the US will lead inevitably to conflict and bloodshed--as we've seen with the well-intended central planners of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Soviet Bolsheviks.


edit: really, the problems of 1a and 1c are huge problems for your Theocratic argument. I mean, you presented a neat little case about fences on rooftops, so I guess that we all must put fences on our rooftops, even if we don't have access to the roof. The Bible says so, so even if it's impractical, we must do it. It's the Theocratic Law of the Bible!

[BigBallinStalin]

Is not all life conflict BBS? Are you proposing that the best way to go is the way that avoids conflict? Neville Chamberlin anyone? Is that not how things are resolved? By taking two ideas and seeing which is right??

This is off-topic, but I'll run with it. The best kind of legal system is one which no organization enjoys a monopoly over the legislation and enforcement of the law across all groups of a political boundary. FOCJs and market-preserving federalism (Barry Weingast) seem to be the most practical ways to go.

Sure, conflict is inevitable, but the difference in the outcomes of foreseeable conflict matters. If you promote a well-intended plan and disregard the consequences and criticism, then you're acting as rashly as Lenin.

For you, this isn't about taking "two ideas and seeing which is right." You're saying that your idea is the right one, which means that all others are wrong. Why? Because God. Whoa, now, Mr. Crusader! And, you couldn't "see which is right" because you're granting a monopoly on the legal system to a theocratic organization.

But, as far as competition in reducing domestic conflict goes, the theocracies and religious legal systems of today are imposing some serious costs to their people compared to the significantly less religious legal systems of the West.


Come on, man!

[BigBallinStalin]

(3) Those who oppose gay marriage often cite the Bible as to why they are against it. Yet, they seemingly ignore other facets of the Bible (such as stoning a woman who has had sex before marriage) that are considered obsolete socially. Which parts of the Bible are to be taken literally and which aren't?

The ones they like are literal. The ones they don't like are just stories or should be considered to be overcome by the passage of time.

Apparently, if we follow puppydog's Theocratic Plan, we'd be forced to stone women who have had sex before marriage.

I'll be opening a Stone Shop soon! "BigBallinRocks"! "We chip 'em, you chuck 'em!"

(insert picture of BBS seated at a thick wood table, smiling while in the process of chiseling the perfect throwing stone).


Is that the makings of an ideal society?

[jonesthecurl]

Why can't the B&B owner just put the gay couple up in a barn?

Why? is there no room at the inn?

[jonesthecurl]

Is not all life conflict BBS? Are you proposing that the best way to go is the way that avoids conflict? Neville Chamberlin anyone? Is that not how things are resolved? By taking two ideas and seeing which is right?

Concerning 1a- I would make the claim that my way is the best for all groups. Biblical law was set up on 2 major overarching principles, subdivided in 10 further laws. The rest of the law given was case law that is a particular interpretation of one of the 10 for that age/custom. Our job as lawmakers in our own local area would be to apply those general principles to our particular case. E.g the Bible state that everyone should have a fence around their housetop. This was because of conditions in the Middle East and was an application of the commandment to not murder. Obviously, we do not have people throwing parties on our rooftops here (well, some do but you get the point) however, we do have large pools of self-contained water. It would be irresponsible and reckless of me to have a open pit on my property that people can kill themselves in. Using the 6th commandment and the application of it in the case law given, I would have no problem supporting/suggesting that a law be enacted that everyone with an in ground pool have a fence around it.
Did I understand and answer your question here?

What about graven images?

[puppydog85]

Ok, Stalin (am I really having a discussion with a guy name stalin about the wrongness of coercion?)

One- I you seem to think I want to force it on someone. I don't. I fully support a republican form of government. A side note here, I am not forcing gay marriage, they are. It is the norm in society that they not marry. Should you not tell them not to raise such conflict? I think that any new law should be made with the consent of the people and if they want to be stupid and enact crazy laws then so be it. But that won't stop me from telling them that it is stupid (that would be your situation #2 from earlier). But until that point I would be willing to use my rights as a citizen to vote a against a law that I think is immoral or frame a law that I think is right (ie. don't kill people)

Most Muslim law has no problem enforcing there law upon a people by the sword. I would strenuously object to any effort by a Christian to do so. Most Christian missionaries work in such a way as to change a culture from within rather than enforcing in from without (exceptions obviously).
Let's use Mass. and PA as examples. Massachusetts legalizes gay marriage. Wrong by me but now it is the law of the land for them. I do not advocate nuking them to change their laws. I would attempt to convert them and get it changed by popular support furthermore if I was so put out by it I would move. Now on to PA, (let's assume that the Anabaptists here would actually vote) some homosexual couple wants legalize gay marriage. I would fully support any law enacted by our republican form of government outlawing it and it would pass because of popular support. I would not support breaking the law though to sneak some ban through by oh let's say a Supreme court order (I don't believe in judicial review). And if they don't like it then they can move, too.

Your Amish example, well, I live in Pa and work and live with the Amish/Mennonites. And trust me they have ways of enforcing their laws. You are free to go but your family might shun you/ refuse to do business with you and you can kiss you friends goodbye.

[Lootifer]

@ Saxi: Can the pursuit of eqality in opportunity qualify as a valid religion?

[kentington]

Ok, this is my view on the thing. I didn't read all of the pages that popped up today.

I think the government should be in the business of civil unions and get out of marriages. Those who consider marriages to be religious can do so at a church of their choosing. Those who don't find it religious can perform the ceremony in the way of their choosing. I don't see the government doing that and so I don't mind if they get married.

Personally, I think homosexuality is wrong. But I also think it is wrong to treat people differently and I don't think Christ would appreciate it. He tells me the greatest commandments are to love your God with all your heart, mind and soul; and to love my neighbor as myself. We are called to compassion, we are no longer to stone people (let he who has not sinned cast the first stone). I think it is wrong to lie. I lie sometimes and I still expect to be treated with love from those around me.
I respect people even when I don't agree with them, hopefully that shows on here as well.

[saxitoxin]

@ Saxi: Can the pursuit of eqality in opportunity qualify as a valid religion?

As I said, in Evola's interpretation, if all men are created equal, then no man (individually or collectively) can impose his will on another man. If that's the case, there is no objective basis for laws. In order for laws to exist, a superman would have to create them, otherwise there's no difference between your nation and a street gang ... either a West Side Story-esque, comically inoffensive street gang (see: New Zealand), or a Gangs of New York-style, brutally violent street gang (see: Saudi Arabia).

So if "pursuit of equality in opportunity" involved a superman or a super-consciousness of some type, then yes, I suppose. If it's an abstract, formless code of ethics subject to interpretation of the laity, then no, I don't think so.

tl;dr ... Evola once said - "The living will must be directed by a Thought."

I think the government should be in the business of civil unions and get out of marriages. Those who consider marriages to be religious can do so at a church of their choosing. Those who don't find it religious can perform the ceremony in the way of their choosing.

That seems like an extremely rational approach. Unfortunately it would allow people, no longer distracted screaming at each other over "gonadal politics" (phrase courtesy, Ralph Nader), the luxury of time to inquire who is behind the curtain.

[BigBallinStalin]

Ok, Stalin (am I really having a discussion with a guy name stalin about the wrongness of coercion?)

Hey, no worries. I'm BigBallin, so it's all good. And Stalin was just misunderstood. He's such a great guy if he doesn't suspect that you're against him!

One- I you seem to think I want to force it on someone. I don't. I fully support a republican form of government. A side note here, I am not forcing gay marriage, they are. It is the norm in society that they not marry. Should you not tell them not to raise such conflict? I think that any new law should be made with the consent of the people and if they want to be stupid and enact crazy laws then so be it. But that won't stop me from telling them that it is stupid (that would be your situation #2 from earlier). But until that point I would be willing to use my rights as a citizen to vote a against a law that I think is immoral or frame a law that I think is right (ie. don't kill people)

What's the Deal with Theocracy?
When you say, " What's wrong with a theocracy?", I'm going to list reasons that are wrong with theocracy. Hopefully, you've distanced yourself from any remote appeal you may have had for imposing a theocracy on 330+ million people. To be clear, asking that question to me is similar to asking, "what's wrong with Applied Socialism--Soviet Union style?" It's almost as funny as "what's the deal with airline food?"


Consent?
In a representative government like the US, you don't get direct consent of the people. You vote for a promised, political package which hopefully is released through the State's monopoly on the legislative and legal system. I don't find this form of governance to be one founded on proper consent; therefore, it is not legitimate and in fact does not convey the consent of the governed. Furthermore, majority rule doesn't automatically lead to the promotion of justice.

My main policy is promoting the incurrence (*copyright pending) of consequences on the political boundaries whose residents have created them. That is, people should eat their own costs, instead of being able to impose them on everyone else (or onto huge groups of other people). If community A doesn't want gays to marry, then fine, but their jurisdiction is limited to their own community, and they can suffer (or gain) from the consequences.


Fighting the Good Fight?
Using the state-granted means to prevent gays from marrying is morally impermissible on the grounds that consenting adults should be free to love another and should have equal access to the state-granted benefits from marriage. So, yes, people should support individual freedom and equality before the law, and yes, the conflict is justifiable. It's definitely worth the costs of offending a portion of the religious whose religious managers won't be required to marry gay couples.

Call me a libertarian, but that's how it should be.

Of course, you'll disagree with this because the Christian God says so, and I eagerly await for you to push for new laws requiring that all women who have had sex before marriage shall be stoned to death. You'd have to be logically consistent to push for such a barbaric practice, but I think your own moral intuition prohibits you from stoning extra-marital sex offenders (which would imply that your morality is at times independent of the Christian god's word).

What explains your inconsistency here? I can only wonder why... Maybe it's similar to jay's underlying reasons for being against gay marriage?

Most Muslim law has no problem enforcing there law upon a people by the sword. I would strenuously object to any effort by a Christian to do so. Most Christian missionaries work in such a way as to change a culture from within rather than enforcing in from without (exceptions obviously).
Let's use Mass. and PA as examples. Massachusetts legalizes gay marriage. Wrong by me but now it is the law of the land for them. I do not advocate nuking them to change their laws. I would attempt to convert them and get it changed by popular support furthermore if I was so put out by it I would move. Now on to PA, (let's assume that the Anabaptists here would actually vote) some homosexual couple wants legalize gay marriage. I would fully support any law enacted by our republican form of government outlawing it and it would pass because of popular support. I would not support breaking the law though to sneak some ban through by oh let's say a Supreme court order (I don't believe in judicial review). And if they don't like it then they can move, too.

Ultimately, all laws are enforced through the threat of violence, which is the last resort, so your criticism against Islamic law applies to Christian law and laws legislated by the State and through customary law. Interestingly, the Muslims provided tax incentives for those who wished to convert--according to Bernard Lewis' The Middle East.

Again, majority rule doesn't automatically lead to upholding that which is just. But if your means are peaceful, then at least your means are peaceful...


"they can move if they don't like it" argument

Your means for changing such laws would be fine if the laws only applied within a municipality or a district of a city. The transaction costs of moving from a district or city are significantly less than the transaction costs of moving from a State or the US. So, in my mind, the difference in transaction costs matter because I'm a moral consequentialist. It's less fair to require someone to move from an entire country compared to it being more fair to require someone to move from a city district.

Why do I support this? Because it's voting with one's feet. This form of competition induces politicians to ensure that they incur the costs of their own policies--and do not impose such costs on others. This form of competition ruins the "concentrated benefits, dispersed costs" incentive, which enables perhaps all crony capitalist policies.

Your Amish example, well, I live in Pa and work and live with the Amish/Mennonites. And trust me they have ways of enforcing their laws. You are free to go but your family might shun you/ refuse to do business with you and you can kiss you friends goodbye.

Oh, of course, peer pressure acts as an enforcement mechanism, but with that voluntary association, the costs of defecting are significantly lower than being pressured to leave a State or country. Due to the difference in these costs and in the means of enforcement, I'm fine with peer pressure being applied to such a small political boundary--compared to the alternatives.

Besides, other associations (like living in a State or country) can impose more than just peer pressure. If you disagree with your family, you can move out. If your dad holds a gun to your head to enforce his will, then at least you have legal means to seek redress, or you can covertly leave.

If you disagree with the state, well..., haha, you can be violently coerced into tolerating it, or incur a tax for leaving (and incurring the significant costs of moving to another country)--assuming the state even allows that. And if the state holds a gun to your head, well you can appeal to their monopolized courts, haha. As for leaving covertly? The Amish got nothing on the NSA, CIA, FBI, DoD, and the blah blah and blah.

[BigBallinStalin]

@ Saxi: Can the pursuit of eqality in opportunity qualify as a valid religion?

As I said, in Evola's interpretation, if all men are created equal, then no man (individually or collectively) can impose his will on another man. If that's the case, there is no objective basis for laws. In order for laws to exist, a superman would have to create them, otherwise there's no difference between your nation and a street gang ... either a West Side Story-esque, comically inoffensive street gang (see: New Zealand), or a Gangs of New York-style, brutally violent street gang (see: Saudi Arabia).

That's all a bunch of phooey because the "choice" isn't between Superman Law and Gang of Bandits. There's also customary law, as in law without the State.

[kentington]

I think the government should be in the business of civil unions and get out of marriages. Those who consider marriages to be religious can do so at a church of their choosing. Those who don't find it religious can perform the ceremony in the way of their choosing.

That seems like an extremely rational approach. Unfortunately it would allow people, no longer distracted screaming at each other over "gonadal politics" (phrase courtesy, Ralph Nader), the luxury of time to inquire who is behind the curtain.

Yes, the government doesn't approve of rational. How can you divide and conquer that way?

[AAFitz]

I still don't understand the following with the issue on gay marriage:


(1) No religion has the legitimate right to define what a marriage is in the US. No single religion enjoys that jurisdiction. So, why do people continue to think that their own particular religion somehow has the right to define what a marriage is over an entire country? (that screams of theocracy to me).

Okay, let's clear up a confusion. There's "religious marriage" and "legal marriage" (a.k.a. civil union). I'm talking about legal marriage and religious marriages, which differ across religions (which further compounds the problem of #1). A religion can define marriage and regulate marriage, but only within in its own jurisdictions (churches, but not across the entire country), hence a "religious marriage."

(2) Suppose the US legalizes gay marriage and requires people to recognize it as a legitimate marriage (in regard to contract laws, etc.). However, the US does not force religious organizations to oversee the marriage of gay couples because those organizations are free to deny their services (e.g. no gays in the Boy Scouts case). If (2) is true, then why would people oppose gay marriage?

Actually, upon reading this, it has become clear, any real opposition, is stupid on a basic level.

[saxitoxin]

@ Saxi: Can the pursuit of eqality in opportunity qualify as a valid religion?

As I said, in Evola's interpretation, if all men are created equal, then no man (individually or collectively) can impose his will on another man. If that's the case, there is no objective basis for laws. In order for laws to exist, a superman would have to create them, otherwise there's no difference between your nation and a street gang ... either a West Side Story-esque, comically inoffensive street gang (see: New Zealand), or a Gangs of New York-style, brutally violent street gang (see: Saudi Arabia).

That's all a bunch of phooey because the "choice" isn't between Superman Law and Gang of Bandits. There's also customary law, as in law without the State.

All customary law originates from a Superman.

For instance, Tort and the four-part liability test - pretty much the foundation of all civil law in the English-speaking countries - was created by a Court that "discovered" the entire concept in a single passage in the Old Testament (Exodus 22:14): "If a man borrows anything of his neighbor's, and it is injured, or dies, its owner not being with it, he shall surely make restitution."

Thousands of tort judgments handed out just today in the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland and UK were all based on judges ritually divining the intent of a supernatural creature the Jews claim did, or does, exist.

Perhaps one day Bagger 288 will replace The Tetragrammaton?

[Woodruff]

Ok, this is my view on the thing. I didn't read all of the pages that popped up today.

I think the government should be in the business of civil unions and get out of marriages. Those who consider marriages to be religious can do so at a church of their choosing. Those who don't find it religious can perform the ceremony in the way of their choosing. I don't see the government doing that and so I don't mind if they get married.

You and I are in complete agreement.

I respect people even when I don't agree with them, hopefully that shows on here as well.

I mostly respect people even when I don't agree with them...but when I don't respect them, it has nothing at all to do with not agreeing with them.

[BigBallinStalin]

@ Saxi: Can the pursuit of eqality in opportunity qualify as a valid religion?

As I said, in Evola's interpretation, if all men are created equal, then no man (individually or collectively) can impose his will on another man. If that's the case, there is no objective basis for laws. In order for laws to exist, a superman would have to create them, otherwise there's no difference between your nation and a street gang ... either a West Side Story-esque, comically inoffensive street gang (see: New Zealand), or a Gangs of New York-style, brutally violent street gang (see: Saudi Arabia).

That's all a bunch of phooey because the "choice" isn't between Superman Law and Gang of Bandits. There's also customary law, as in law without the State.

All customary law originates from a Superman.

For instance, Tort and the four-part liability test - pretty much the foundation of all civil law in the English-speaking countries - was created by a Court that "discovered" the entire concept in a single passage in the Old Testament (Exodus 22:14): "If a man borrows anything of his neighbor's, and it is injured, or dies, its owner not being with it, he shall surely make restitution."

Thousands of tort judgments handed out just today in the U.S., Canada, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland and UK were all based on judges ritually divining the intent of a supernatural creature the Jews claim did, or does, exist.

Perhaps one day Bagger 288 will replace The Tetragrammaton. Evola might say we can pick any god we want. (Though, of course, most gods will try to impose an economic monopoly, as is the case with The Tetragrammaton using market coercion - "no gods before me.")

So, before the holy books, there was no law founded on a Superman?

And you may be right about that one particular example, but some degree of customary law deviated or is not founded upon a Superman.

And maybe the connection becomes so weak over time, that the Superman idea becomes kind of silly. E.g. what does the Superman have to say about extending extremely limited liability to nuclear power plants in the US?

[saxitoxin]

So, before the holy books, there was no law founded on a Superman?

Pre-literate societies had Law, and that Law was also based on orders that had come from a Superman. See:

http://books.google.com/books?id=awrOHv ... &q&f=false

[puppydog85]

What explains your inconsistency here? I can only wonder why

Try ignorance on your part. The Bible does not say to stone all women who have sex before they are married. I have read through the Bible multiple times and you are not going to shock me. In my circles I am the case law specialist. Again, you assume some moral standard to judge me. What moral is it that you are appealing to, Mr. Empericist? Have you observed it? Why would it be wrong to stone all women? I have my reasons for not stoning them, what would be yours?

Edit* thanks woodruff.

When you say, " What's wrong with a theocracy?"

That whole paragraph made no sense to me. I know you will challenge me and I am fine with it. That other thread I started was not about you.

Consent?

I thought you might squawk at that. Yes, I realize that we have far overgrown what the founders intended but we still elect who we want, thus matching the requirements of the consent governed people. You just don't realize how in the minority thinkers are. But I will note that you are not really disagreeing with me. You are just saying that you disagree with the degree that I take it to. You as a fan of Friedman should know that.

is morally impermissible on the grounds that consenting adults should be free to love another

Please tell me how you empirically validated that statement. Morals? From where?

It's definitely worth the costs of offending a portion of the religious

So it all comes down to a cost analysis for you? Ever watch the The Magnificent Seven? None of that made economic sense. You would have had them cave in? Ever read what happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence?

Your means for changing such laws would be fine if the laws only applied

So here you say all you are fine with my views, it is just a matter of degree that you disagree with

[BigBallinStalin]

What explains your inconsistency here? I can only wonder why

Try ignorance on your part. The Bible does not say to stone all women who have sex before they are married. I have read through the Bible multiple times and you are not going to shock me. In my circles I am the case law specialist. Again, you assume some moral standard to judge me. What moral is it that you are appealing to, Mr. Empericist? Have you observed it? Why would it be wrong to stone all women? I have my reasons for not stoning them, what would be yours?

Edit* thanks woodruff.

Right, you base your morals on an appeal to authority. That's a nice logical fallacy to start with, and finish the 1-2 with circular reasoning. Then, there's again the Euthyphro dilemma. So either your morals are arbitrarily determined by a Superman, or morality is independent of a Superman.

Yeah, I'll abandon that ship for adhering to logic and reason, but then you'll respond with "oh empiricism is based on circular reasoning." How so? Err, something connected to an existentialist argument. Great. The mouth talks, but the hand does not doubt the reality of the door knob as you open the door. And even if I assume your counter-arguments to be true, I can simply shift to a moral consequentialist mode and say, "compare empiricism v. an adherence to existentialism and religious morality." Which modes of thought brought greater benefits to humankind? Empiricism. Darn that sensual experience, amirite?

Oh, but wait! There's more! In order to read your book, you must rely on sensual experience! Oh no! The arguments against empiricism cut both ways! How can you know that the holy book is really a book from god? Boogah boogah boogah!


So, to answer your question, I don't have the presumption to dictate what method of punishment would be best for so-and-so case. I have no idea, and it would depend on the circumstances, because these matters are not absolute--no matter how much your book says so. This should be a matter of spontaneous order, through customary law--without state intervention. It's a matter of trial-and-error through a competitive process, which would not be based on the involuntary extractions of people's wealth.

Also, when are you going to sell all your earthly possessions? When are you going to start loving your fellow human being as Jesus did?

When we will you cease cherry-picking from your book?

I'm sure there's plenty of moral reasons beyond your god-given morality which you use to conveniently justify ignoring other parts of the book. Not only is your god arbitrarily giving moral commands, but apparently, you're dodging some of his arbitrary commands in whatever ways you can justify. lolwut.

When you say, " What's wrong with a theocracy?"

That whole paragraph made no sense to me. I know you will challenge me and I am fine with it. That other thread I started was not about you.

I guess you forgot the part when you said, "what's wrong with theocracy?" And all those posts where I explain what's wrong with it? Yikes. Okay, Mr. Crusader, the term aptly fits.

Consent?

I thought you might squawk at that. Yes, I realize that we have far overgrown what the founders intended but we still elect who we want, thus matching the requirements of the consent governed people. You just don't realize how in the minority thinkers are. But I will note that you are not really disagreeing with me. You are just saying that you disagree with the degree that I take it to. You as a fan of Friedman should know that.

I'm not quite a fan of Friedman. Maybe David Friedman, but not so much Milton.

Besides, this point is irrelevant. Your simply dodging the lack of effective accountability which voting has on political behavior. You don't care because only in this particular circumstance, you can use the laws to oppress a minority of people. You enjoy majority rule when it turns in your favor, but that appeal cuts both ways. It's not just, and you ignore that.

And how is your means moral? OH, right. You appeal to the authority of the arbitrary Christian God. Good job. Jesus smiles on you as you deny a minority group equal access to the benefits of marriage. Way to love your brothers and sisters as Jesus did.

is morally impermissible on the grounds that consenting adults should be free to love another

Please tell me how you empirically validated that statement. Morals? From where?

From humans. From right there. Deal with the sentence with logic and reason, but without logical fallacies like appealing to your book.

Go ahead, try it! I don't think you can.

Why can't adults give their consent on matters of love?
Why can't consenting adults be free to love another?

Why not? (without the appeal to authority, go ahead).


Oh, you left out this part: "[they] should have equal access to the state-granted benefits from marriage."

Where's your argument against that one? I'd love to hear an argument favoring your discrimination, so please go ahead. You can use the book for this one. I'd love to see you make an argument in support of discrimination based on religious "values." Haha!

It's definitely worth the costs of offending a portion of the religious

So it all comes down to a cost analysis for you? Ever watch the The Magnificent Seven? None of that made economic sense. You would have had them cave in? Ever read what happened to the signers of the Declaration of Independence?

So it all comes down to a cost analysis for you? No, not always. Remember that part about me being libertarian? I guess you don't.

Ever watch the The Magnificent Seven? None of that made economic sense. I've seen the original, the Seven Samurai. It makes economic sense to me because profit is determined monetarily and psychologically. Apparently, the psychic profit offsets the monetary. I could get even deeper into this, but I still don't see how this is relevant because it doesn't always come down to a cost-benefit analysis, but surely such an analysis is useful.

Sometimes I'm a moral consequentialist, when the costs and benefits are apparently obvious:

(1) Shall I uphold equality before the law and adhere to my principles of individual freedom--concerning consenting adults and love? The benefits definitely are worth it.

(2) Or shall I uphold a discriminatory belief that denies equality before the law and denies individual freedom because a figure in a book says so? Haha, seriously?

Please. The comparison is to show how ridiculous your stance is.

So what. I offended some discriminating and seemingly hateful religious types. Big deal.

Your means for changing such laws would be fine if the laws only applied

So here you say all you are fine with my views, it is just a matter of degree that you disagree with

Sure, but my position still doesn't lend any appreciation for yours, which appeals to the State and the Federal government. Besides, the degree matters, the transaction costs of exile/defection matter, and it's an issue you've completely ignored. It's on you to defend why asking people exile themselves from a State or country is justifiable--compared to my municipal/city district level. I'd love to see that justification. Maybe it's in your book somewhere, so with any luck, your logical fallacy will rescue you again.


And the lack of reply to my last response was telling. You definitely appreciate a system where you can involuntary force people to adhere to the claims in your special book--no matter how hateful or discriminatory the views within it may be.


As much as you deny supporting a theocracy, a theocracy is the only superior means for applying your god-given moral code. It's god's morality! It must be upheld! Otherwise, we all sin, and go to hell. Aren't the costs of killing people to create a christian theocracy low compared to the benefits of salvation and restoring God's morality across the Earth? Of course, this should justify a coup d'etat in favor of Christian theocracy. Your Old Testament is ripe with examples on this, so get cracking.

But wait, why not? What's in your book that contradicts the morality of all those stories of conquest and spreading Christianity? Oh, the stories upon stories can be so vague. It's almost as if you can cherry-pick anything in that book to excuse yourself from fulfilling other parts in that book. Oh, wait! That is what you do, isn't it?

[BigBallinStalin]

So, before the holy books, there was no law founded on a Superman?

Pre-literate societies had Law, and that Law was also based on orders that had come from a Superman. See:

http://books.google.com/books?id=awrOHv ... &q&f=false

Oh blarg and a half, sax. Yeah, maybe, I'll look at that, but I can't promise you much. =P