Chik-Fil-A 2.0 (D.C. Shooting)

[crispybits]

OK question1 - how is discrimination not upheld when one group of people is denied the legal rights of secular civil union (such as if you die and leave no will your partner is entitled to your estate, rather than ownership passing to the state), while another group is given that right?

(apolgies if the legal point here about inheritance is different in America, I only know that this is one of the main reasons for change in the UK gay marriage legal changes)

[Phatscotty]

OK question1 - how is discrimination not upheld when one group of people is denied the legal rights of secular civil union (such as if you die and leave no will your partner is entitled to your estate, rather than ownership passing to the state), while another group is given that right?

(apolgies if the legal point here about inheritance is different in America, I only know that this is one of the main reasons for change in the UK gay marriage legal changes)

I have a problem with "....being denied their legal rights....". For me, the issue is impressing these brand new out of the blue questions that society needs to figure out, such as gay marriage, which is very controversial and still being debated, as rights.

The issue of the will, which I understand and am sympathetic to, does not require marriage to be redefined. It can be handled at the local level, and I would bet the issue, if and when put to the people, would overwhelmingly support that. I think a civil union probably covers this concern, but if it doesn't then it should..

[Woodruff]

Well, I will try to address more questions. I will try not to be a dick. If anyone thinks I am being ambiguous, they can ask me to clarify at any time. If they are going to be a dick and trash n bash me and then ask me to clarify, then I will probably still continue to ignore that. I will try to be more honest. I will try to acknowledge more points of other people. I will try to keep my demands of others down, except for their money!
I will try logic

I asked you two direct questions, which you (as usual) have failed to respond to.

[crispybits]

OK question1 - how is discrimination not upheld when one group of people is denied the legal rights of secular civil union (such as if you die and leave no will your partner is entitled to your estate, rather than ownership passing to the state), while another group is given that right?

(apolgies if the legal point here about inheritance is different in America, I only know that this is one of the main reasons for change in the UK gay marriage legal changes)

I have a problem with "....being denied their legal rights....". For me, the issue is impressing these brand new out of the blue questions that society needs to figure out, such as gay marriage, which is very controversial and still being debated, as rights.

The issue of the will, which I understand and am sympathetic to, does not require marriage to be redefined. It can be handled at the local level, and I would bet the issue, if and when put to the people, would overwhelmingly support that. I think a civil union probably covers this concern, but if it doesn't then it should..

So does this mean that your opposition to gay marriage is purely semantic, and if all of the actual legal changes proposed were framed under a different name you would have no problem with voting for it?

Edit - also these are not "brand new out of the blue" rights, they are rights that have been granted to heterosexual couples by law for a long time now, and all we are debating is who gets to enjoy those rights, not the rights themselves. Or is that a flawed assumption?

[Phatscotty]

OK question1 - how is discrimination not upheld when one group of people is denied the legal rights of secular civil union (such as if you die and leave no will your partner is entitled to your estate, rather than ownership passing to the state), while another group is given that right?

(apolgies if the legal point here about inheritance is different in America, I only know that this is one of the main reasons for change in the UK gay marriage legal changes)

I have a problem with "....being denied their legal rights....". For me, the issue is impressing these brand new out of the blue questions that society needs to figure out, such as gay marriage, which is very controversial and still being debated, as rights.

The issue of the will, which I understand and am sympathetic to, does not require marriage to be redefined. It can be handled at the local level, and I would bet the issue, if and when put to the people, would overwhelmingly support that. I think a civil union probably covers this concern, but if it doesn't then it should..

So does this mean that your opposition to gay marriage is purely semantic, and if all of the actual legal changes proposed were framed under a different name you would have no problem with voting for it?

Edit - also these are not "brand new out of the blue" rights, they are rights that have been granted to heterosexual couples by law for a long time now, and all we are debating is who gets to enjoy those rights, not the rights themselves. Or is that a flawed assumption?

They are brand new concerning same sex relationships. I understand the benefits and privileges have dominated the issue of marriage in recent history.

I support civil unions as an acceptable compromise to deal with most of this, and if there are some things that civil unions do not provide that they should, then civil unions can be changed. I've wanted to publicly state that I am not so sure that gay marriage can even exist, but I still want to think about it some more. I just think marriage is between a man and a woman, and accept that as the legal definition, along with it's history. And this is another reason why I think the government should not be involved with rewarding redistributed benefits to married people. We should all be treated the same by the government, in the name of equality, if there ever was equality

Homosexuals can do whatever they want with whoever they want, but they have to seek benefit equality a different route. Redefining marriage is not working, and I don't think it will. That is what I observe.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, I will try to address more questions. I will try not to be a dick. If anyone thinks I am being ambiguous, they can ask me to clarify at any time. If they are going to be a dick and trash n bash me and then ask me to clarify, then I will probably still continue to ignore that. I will try to be more honest. I will try to acknowledge more points of other people. I will try to keep my demands of others down, except for their money!

I will try logic

Hey, you know what? That's good to hear, and I'll loosen up a bit.

[crispybits]

Redefining marriage is not working, and I don't think it will. That is what I observe.

What I observe is that it only seems to be religious people who object to the redefinition of marriage on religious grounds. I haven't yet seen any non-theists opposing it on secular grounds.

Which then leads to whether they have any "claim" on themselves defining what marriage is, and of protecting that definition. And seeing as marriage, in one form or anoher, has been happening since way way way before any of the current religions were started, I'd say that none of the current religions has any right to claim their definition of marriage is any more correct than any other.

[Phatscotty]

Redefining marriage is not working, and I don't think it will. That is what I observe.

What I observe is that it only seems to be religious people who object to the redefinition of marriage on religious grounds. I haven't yet seen any non-theists opposing it on secular grounds.

Which then leads to whether they have any "claim" on themselves defining what marriage is, and of protecting that definition. And seeing as marriage, in one form or anoher, has been happening since way way way before any of the current religions were started, I'd say that none of the current religions has any right to claim their definition of marriage is any more correct than any other.

I am not religious. Not one bit. I have certain beliefs and faith in things, but I do not worship. So how does this square with what you said? btw, it truly is nice to be able to talk to someone and I don't have to worry about wording something exactly right because I know you are truly interested in the debate and not a troll

[Woodruff]

Redefining marriage is not working, and I don't think it will. That is what I observe.

What I observe is that it only seems to be religious people who object to the redefinition of marriage on religious grounds. I haven't yet seen any non-theists opposing it on secular grounds.

Which then leads to whether they have any "claim" on themselves defining what marriage is, and of protecting that definition. And seeing as marriage, in one form or anoher, has been happening since way way way before any of the current religions were started, I'd say that none of the current religions has any right to claim their definition of marriage is any more correct than any other.

I am not religious. Not one bit. I have certain beliefs and faith in things, but I do not worship. So how does this square with what you said? btw, it truly is nice to be able to talk to someone and I don't have to worry about wording something exactly right because I know you are truly interested in the debate and not a troll

My questions are still unanswered...

[Phatscotty]

Just to be a little bit clearer, I think the institution of marriage is and should be more based on natural law than political law.

[crispybits]

Then what exactly is your objection to redefining marriage Phat? Sorry I know you may have already ststed it, just trying to get at the reason you think it doesn't work.

[Phatscotty]

Then what exactly is your objection to redefining marriage Phat? Sorry I know you may have already ststed it, just trying to get at the reason you think it doesn't work.

See, I hear that question as "what is your objection to renaming the moon"?

I have said numerous time, and I guess I just have to repeat, if a state (in America) democratically votes to redefine marriage, then it will be redefined. I will not oppose that or protest it. Won't say or do anything about it. I will be tolerant of democracy, I will accept it as the law of my state. So long as it is done correctly, legally, and the people have a voice.

I consider this an issue of people governing themselves, as much as possible and whenever possible, and that is the principle I constantly have espoused, and it is what I consider a mark of a Free society that honors and respects Liberty.

Same goes for drugs, abortion, all that...

[BigBallinStalin]

So, if your issue is one of semantics, then you have no position on allowing gays to "marry," so that they receive the state-granted goodies and other subjectively perceived goodies?

[Woodruff]

Here, maybe this will help you, Phatscotty:

for your third question, lets take murder for example. The bible clearly says Thou shall not murder. Does that mean being against murder is a Christian belief?

I have two questions, which will make the point I have:

1. Is "murder is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?
2. Is "homosexuality is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?

[Phatscotty]

The first thing my buddy said when we pulled up this one, was "would ya?"

[Phatscotty]

So, if your issue is one of semantics, then you have no position on allowing gays to "marry," so that they receive the state-granted goodies and other subjectively perceived goodies?

It's not really the issue though. It's hard to pin down, but there are implications that must be accepted when that question is phrased the way whoever phrased it, and I don't accept that. I just reject that to say marriage is a union between a man and a woman is to say one is "against" homosexual marriage. I just don't accept the definition they are trying to impose. It doesn't register that way.

Dictionary - Marriage

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

[crispybits]

That's a fair enough reply - but you said "I don't think redefining marriage is working". I just want to know why you think it's not working, not so much on whether it should work or not.

[Phatscotty]

That's a fair enough reply - but you said "I don't think redefining marriage is working". I just want to know why you think it's not working, not so much on whether it should work or not.

In 33 states, not a single one has voted to redefine marriage. Many of the rest are voting this November

The Majority of Americans Support Wut?

[crispybits]

See that's why I was confused - I'm one of them "limey brits" so here something is either illegal or its not, it doesnt matter where in the country you happen to be.

Do you think the anti crowd have a strong position if the pro side go all the way up to the supreme court (or whatever the highest possible legal appeal court is over there) or the UN court of human rights or something?

[BigBallinStalin]

So, if your issue is one of semantics, then you have no position on allowing gays to "marry," so that they receive the state-granted goodies and other subjectively perceived goodies?

It's not really the issue though. It's hard to pin down, but there are implications that must be accepted when that question is phrased the way whoever phrased it, and I don't accept that. I just reject that to say marriage is a union between a man and a woman is to say one is "against" homosexual marriage. I just don't accept the definition they are trying to impose. It doesn't register that way.

Dictionary - Marriage

a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

[I'll address your video later.]

1. If you're saying "I just don't accept the definition they are trying to impose," then that means the source of your contention is the meaning of the word "marriage."
2. And (linguistic) semantics is "is the study of meaning... that is used to understand human expression through language" (wiki)
3. Therefore, based on this information, it is an issue of semantics for you.

So, let's make this more understandable for both of us:


Suppose in the society of Yaoi, "gay marriage" is called "garnelliage," which is "a state of being united to a person of the same sex in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

Currently, in Yaoi, the status of garnelliage comes with benefits granted by the state, but garnelliage also comes with social/interpersonal benefits. These benefits are both of a monetary and psychological nature. Within Yaoi is a group of minorities who wish to enjoy the status of garnelliage, but this group of people are heterosexuals; therefore, the state denies them the benefits of garnelliage, thus denying them the social/interpersonal benefits.

Question:

(A) In the society of Yaoi, is it right for the state to deny that minority all the benefits of garnelliage?

(B) If a majority vote was held on the issue, and garnelliage was denied to the heterosexuals across the society of Yaoi, is this just?

(BB) If a majority vote was held across each province of Yaoi, and garnelliage was denied to heterosexuals in some provinces, then is this just?

(BBS)

[BigBallinStalin]

The Natural Law Argument



I didn't watch the video, but in my opinion, it's best to provide a summary. Otherwise, I could find some 10 minute video and say "no, ur wrong."


How does he define "natural" and "natural laws"?

[GreecePwns]

Okay, let me clarify PhatScotty's positions that I've heard from him, maybe it'll help:

1. Personally, Phatscotty believes that if one man and one woman are allowed to received certain state-mandated benefits underthe label "married," two men or two women are allowed to receive the same benefits, but only if the name labeling this set of benefits is something other than "married."

2. But Phatscotty believes the states should decide this issue, and the states have apparently decided through referendum that gay couples should not be considered "married."

Correct me on those two if I'm wrong, but that's what I've gotten out of our conversations on the issue.

My rebuttal to this is the following:

1. The Supreme Court outlawed things considered separate but equal, calling them unequal in nature. So because of this, the nation must put the same set of benefits given for the same license the same thing. A constitutionalist would agree with this view.

2. Yeah, let's cite referenda most of of which are 10+ years old (I'm sorry, SC referendum was this year? What else did you expect from them?). That is a good measure of the attitudes of citizens today? Not really, not at all. Back then, national attitudes toward the issue was anti-gay marriage, while polls now show the majority are for it. If a referendum were held in many states today, the result would be the opposite.

And we still have that problem of "why the states and not the counties/towns/street bocks/individuals themselves? What is the merit to doing this this way?

[Phatscotty]

The Natural Law Argument



I didn't watch the video, but in my opinion, it's best to provide a summary. Otherwise, I could find some 10 minute video and say "no, ur wrong."


How does he define "natural" and "natural laws"?

It's a small, general argument about why political law should not seek to redefine natural law. It's worth your time, and that is the Phat Guarantee. If I know you as good as I know I do, you will find interest in the first minute. Not too much to ask when I need to spend 20 minutes trying to decipher your theoretical yaoi civilization situation

[Woodruff]

Just in case you overlooked it...

Here, maybe this will help you, Phatscotty:

for your third question, lets take murder for example. The bible clearly says Thou shall not murder. Does that mean being against murder is a Christian belief?

I have two questions, which will make the point I have:

1. Is "murder is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?
2. Is "homosexuality is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?

[thegreekdog]

Just in case you overlooked it...

Here, maybe this will help you, Phatscotty:

for your third question, lets take murder for example. The bible clearly says Thou shall not murder. Does that mean being against murder is a Christian belief?

I have two questions, which will make the point I have:

1. Is "murder is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?
2. Is "homosexuality is bad" primarily a religious belief, or is it one held by the vast majority of humans?

I have another question (for Woodruff) - does the belief of the vast majority of humans determine whether something is good or bad? Five hundred years ago, the vast majority of humns thought slavery was good and women voting was bad.

Caveat - Yes, Phatscotty has stepped away from his supposedly libertarian beliefs, so I'm not siding with him. Rather, I'm questioning whether what the majority thinks is always what is good.