prev <-> next
[2004-03-16 12:50:00] - Anyways if gays aren't consenting adults, as was joked about earlier, than is it really moral to put a gay person in jail
"in response to the murder charge, my client pleads homosexuality" - aaron[2004-03-16 12:50:00] - Paul: but since we do not apply that reasoning universally, we cannot selectively use it to restrict gay marriage. If we allow infertile couples to marry, then "procreation" cannot be used as a restriction on marriage. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:49:00] - Paul: but so has slavery, and restricting the right of women to vote, and things like that. It's not logical simply because it's traditional. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:49:00] - Pierce: No, the reasoning behind it was that marriages tend to produce children and families which help promote stability and provide more good citizens for the future of the country. -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:48:00] - Aaron: Both. Actually, it's more logical for societal reasons since marriage has been a societal and religious thing for a LOT longer than it was a government matter. -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:48:00] - Whereas the only basis for the "straight marriage only" laws seems to be an illogical basis of "that's the way it's been defined before", or the ambiguous basis of "it's morally wrong". - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:47:00] - Paul: but what I'm saying (and I think aaron too) is that, though we may or may not define "adult" arbitrarily, it is not illogical to base our laws on that definition. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:46:00] - Paul: Logical for christianity, or logical for the government? - aaron
[2004-03-16 12:45:00] - Aaron: I agree. Yes, one might claim that the definition of "adult" or "consenting adult" is arbitrary, but that doesn't mean that the restriction of voting to adults is an arbitrary restriction. That was kind of the point I was trying to make with the "addition" analogy. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:45:00] - Pierce: I prefer the journal format because it's hard to fit everything I want to say in two or three lines. -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:44:00] - Aaron: Going by that rationale, though, we only let men and women marry for logical reasons. -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:43:00] - I still think the voting analogy holds. We (now) allow women and blacks to vote but we don't allow kids to vote. People still can't vote for multiple candidates. These are all what paul might call "arbitrary" decisions but they're made for logical reasons. - aaron
[2004-03-16 12:42:00] - I like this forum better, since the argument started here anyway. A journal entry is a bit unfair as a setup for a debate, because you get to get all your statements out at once, and you get the moral high ground of "this is my journal, I can write what I want" if I claim you said something stupid.
- pierce[2004-03-16 12:40:00] - I'm thinking of writing a journal entry on this later, so we don't have to continue here if you don't want.
-Paul[2004-03-16 12:36:00] - well damn. as if on cue. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:36:00] - Xpovos: actually, it seems to be trickling down. And with you and Paul inactive, and Vinnie and Travis and I essentially in agreement, there's not much argument left to be had. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:35:00] - Did I miss anything important? -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:34:00] - Time to go grab lunch and head for class. Let the debate rage in my wake. It always does.
-- Xpovos[2004-03-16 12:31:00] - oh, and the defense of marriage act that clinton passed defined marriage as one man and one woman for federal purposes, so i stand corrected - travis
[2004-03-16 12:31:00] - interesting quote from cornell's law school site: "One power that the states do not have, however, is that of prohibiting marriage in the absence of a valid reason" - travis
[2004-03-16 12:31:00] - As evidenced: http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-sou--xgr-sodomy0308mar08,0,2265249.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 12:29:00] - http://www1.law.ucla.edu/~williamsproj/news/LawrencePR.html I stand corrected. I do know that VA at least is attempting to work around it. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 12:28:00] - I believe the case is Lawrence vs. Texas. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:27:00] - Xpovos: If I'm not mistaken, the supreme court has ruled that all state or federal laws against sodomy are unconstitutional. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:21:00] - Which could lead to an interesting situation where a homosexual could get married, legally, but could not legally have sex. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 12:21:00] - Pierce: There are such laws defining marriage thusly, they are rapidly being overturned. There are also laws against sodomy in several states which have not yet been overturned -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 12:20:00] - However, I see the previous definition as irrelevant, unless there's a logical, secular argument for why that definition is valid. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:16:00] - Travis: I think there were state statutes and things that explicitly defined it as between a man and a woman. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:15:00] - Xpovos: what I'm saying is that making a rule based on an arbitrarily-defined term does not make the rule itself arbitrary. It is simply the manipluation of an arbitrary term in non-arbitrary ways. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:15:00] - Damn... typo changed my meaning a lot. With respect to my "addition" analogy, Xpovos: - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:14:00] - Paul: "We used to say that marriage is between a man and a woman but now some want to change that definition" i thought the law never actually specified that, but there are people that want to add that limitation now - travis
[2004-03-16 12:13:00] - Paul: with respect to how you're getting into the issue of whether gay marriage is good... you asked us why gay marriage is more or less valid than straight marriage. That question is the crux of moral arguments against gay marriage. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:11:00] - the only one of these things that I see as the government's business is the last one. And that one is most clearly independent of the issue of gender. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:10:00] - it hasn't lost the original intent. I am still saying that the difference between adults and children to me is not at all arbitrary, much as my thinking murder should be illegal is not arbitrary - vinnie
[2004-03-16 12:09:00] - legal strength (for medical records, etc), which have no constraints on gender. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:09:00] - On the other hand, I see a few key factors that apply to both gay and straight relationships: love, which I don't think we would presume to define legally. sexual relations, which are not illegal in their straight or gay forms. family support, which will only ever have partial validity if there are no more kids in orphanages... - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:08:00] - I think the thread has lost my original intent, and I can't seem to find it anymore... -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 12:07:00] - well, the popular definition probably will prevail, but I'd like to think that that definition won't be arbitrary and that it will be based somewhat on reason. now that that's said, I think there is a good difference between letting adults marry and children marry - vinnie
[2004-03-16 12:06:00] - and I've never seen an argument that explains why complimentariness is a necessary part of a marriage definition. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:06:00] - As I see it, procreation is an invalid reason, because we allow straight, infertile couples to marry. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:06:00] - I gotta go, damn. Be back in a little bit. Sorry.
-Paul[2004-03-16 12:05:00] - Paul: there are only two valid arguments I see in favor of defining marriage as between a man and a woman: procreation, and the fact that the genders are "complimentary" in some way. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:05:00] - Pierce: How am I getting into that? -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:04:00] - just because you're calling it arbitrary doesn't mean it is. that's all I'm saying. I assume is you have a reason why murder is illegal. I may disagree. that doesn't make your rule arbitrary! - vinnie
[2004-03-16 12:04:00] - Vinnie: So you're saying that the popular definition of marriage should prevail? -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:04:00] - Paul: now you're getting into the question of whether gay marriage is right or wrong. I just want to make sure you realize that so you don't get mad that we're arguing in favor of gay marriage. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:04:00] - You want it to be between two consenting adults, how is that any more or less valid than saying it's between a man and a woman? Or three consenting adults? -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:03:00] - my reason is better than theirs because it makes sense to me. same with my reason that killing bugs is ok but killing people isn't. it's not like everyone is going to always agree on everything, but I think most people agree with me at least that only consenting adults should be allowed to marry - vinnie
[2004-03-16 12:03:00] - Xpovos: what I'm saying is that making a rule based on an arbitrarily-defined term does not make the rule itself arbitrary. It is simply the manipluation of an arbitrary rule in non-arbitrary ways. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:03:00] - Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you guys are simply redefining marriage to be how you think it should be. So what's to stop somebody else from doing the same thing? -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:02:00] - I am too. -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:01:00] - "Paul: the rule of "addition" is not arbitrary, though the numbers that you add with it are arbitrarily defined, for example. -pierce" I am so totally lost and confused by this. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 12:00:00] - them from making their decisions until later in life, if ever, but they could fake it well enough at 18. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 12:00:00] - Vinnie: Since consenting adults definitions contain such panderings as age of maturity, and legal stipulations of questionable veracity, it is arbitrary. I was capable of making decisions at an early age. I would argue 12 or 13. Let's say 15 or 16 for argument's sake. But several people in my class possesed handicaps that prevented(...) -- Xpov
[2004-03-16 12:00:00] - Vinnie: You say there is a good reason why only consenting adults should be allowed to marry, I dare say that many would say there is a good reason behind why only a man and woman should marry. What makes your reason better than theirs? -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:59:00] - Paul: the rule of "addition" is not arbitrary, though the numbers that you add with it are arbitrarily defined, for example. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:59:00] - i mean, would you say any law is arbitrary? you could, but then the term is meaningless - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:58:00] - it's not arbitrary. there's a good reason behind why consenting adults only should be allowed to marry. because only they can properly make decisions - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:58:00] - We used to say that marriage is between a man and a woman but now some want to change that definition. So why can't we change the definition of marriage to include multiple mammals? -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:58:00] - Paul: "consenting adult" is one of the foundations of our legal system. You may think it's arbitrary, but that doesn't mean that our definition of marriage is arbitrary, even if it uses that term. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:56:00] - Paul&Xpovos: what vinnie said. The fact that we're not currently providing an explanation for how we define consenting adults does not mean that that definition is irrelevant. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:56:00] - Pierce: but that's ok, because clearly a moral distinction is arbitrary and available to workaround and semantics as well -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:56:00] - Pierce: Don't you see, though? Consenting adult is another arbitrary constraint in the definition of marriage. Why does marriage have to involve two "consenting adults" (whatever that means) anymore than it has to involve two people of opposite gender? -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:55:00] - we don't have to change a law allowing any consenting adults to marry just because we changed the definition of the term. we just set up a centralized definition for the term and change it as we see fit. By definition (literally), we will have changed the original law. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:55:00] - Pierce: I don't care about your argument about consenting adults. It's arbitrary, and as such, completely available to all kinds of legal and semantic work arounds. --Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:54:00] - but what I'm saying is that there is a legal (and to me, moral) difference between allowing children to marry and adults to marry, so that allowing one doesn't necessarily have to allow the other - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:54:00] - Paul: no, because they're separate, modular issues. We can use the term "consenting adult" in the creation of our laws, and the laws will always apply to the group we currently define as consenting adults. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:53:00] - Xpovos: how do you respond to my claim that you are not addressing the original issue? By asking whether your dog is a consenting adult, you are changing the argument to "how do we define a consenting adult" without addressing my point about consenting adults (however we define them) having the right to marry any other consenting adults. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:53:00] - Pierce: But if you're using "consenting adult" in your definition of marriage, then a debate about who can legally marriage MUST include a definition of what a "consenting adult" is. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:51:00] - Paul: since the original point of this argument was not "what qualifies as a consenting adult", there is no need to prove that his dog is or is not one to make my point on gay marriage valid. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:51:00] - That's all I ever tried to do. I don't approve of bestiality and more than I approve of homosexual marriage. I just recognize the progress from point A to point C. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:50:00] - Pierce: No, I'm not. I'm merely showing you the fact that removing the moral backing for marriage will inherently lead to people claiming (and at least in some cases winning) the same legal distinctions and protections of any other married person, even if we may not currently approve of such a union. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:50:00] - Pierce: Going by your definition of marriage, the definition of what is a consenting adult is totally relevant. Otherwise I could claim that gays can't be consenting adults. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:50:00] - Paul: Xpovos's statement starting with "why shouldn't he be" was not an argument per se. When he followed it up with a non-hyperbolic reasoning behind his statement, I responded to that. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:50:00] - i can't prove he's not but I don't need to. i've given a reason why I see a difference and I think most would agree it's a good one - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:48:00] - Pierce: Either give us a reason why it doesn't make sense or say that you can't. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:48:00] - Xpovos: so at the very least, you've shifted the debate from "should consenting adults be able to get married" to "what is a consenting adult". That's valid, but since we recognize homosexuals as consenting adults under the current law, you're dodging the relevant issue completely. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:48:00] - Pierce: You can't just call somebody's argument stupid and end a debate like that. It's poor taste. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:47:00] - Why can't a mature 17 year old decide to get married but an immature 18 year old can? (or whatever the age of consent is) -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:47:00] - Xpovos: I'm with vinnie. If you're truly saying your dog qualifies as a "consenting adult" (even hypothetically), then I don't think there's a lot of hope for your argument. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:47:00] - Vinnie: I say the dog is smart enough. I trained him long and hard to bark yes and no. Can you prove he's not? See how I've deftly turned the burden of proof onto you? -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:47:00] - Pierce: One could also say that requiring one of the members of a marriage to be a valid legal signee is an arbitrary distinction as well. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:46:00] - Pierce: There is always divorce, if the 16 year old daughter wants out. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:45:00] - Xpovos: emancipation does not make someone a consenting adult, as far as I know (or as far as I'm concerned). Still can't legally sign a contract without many, many legal hurdles, all of which are in place to make sure the minor doesn't make a decision that they won't be able to get out of without significant harm. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:45:00] - same as I wouldn't allow an 8 year-old to make a decision like that - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:45:00] - what? the dog is not smart enough to make an important decision like that, so I don't think the dog should be able to enter the contract - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:43:00] - Pierce: why shouldn't he be? He can bark yes and no, he's an adult and consenting? -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:43:00] - Pierce: Part 2, instead of going around your constraint, I'll go through it. My 16-year old daughter wins emancipation from the state, and then we elect to get married. Incest, and still technically a minor, even if granted emancipation. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:41:00] - exactly - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:41:00] - Xpovos: is your dog a valid legal signee to a contract? - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:41:00] - Pierce: Polygamy and incest generally involve consenting adults, otherwise it's called rape and is illegal for other reasons. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:40:00] - Pierce: Bestiality first, then. I have a 7-year old dog, adult in dog-years that I love and loves me, and who over the course of his life, I have taught to bark once for yes and twice for no. I asked him to marry me and he barked once. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:39:00] - ok, let's leave incest alone and shift to animalism since I honestly don't know whether your statistics about inbreeding are correct. the moral backing is definitely different there from what I see - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:39:00] - The only arguments against polygamy and incest that hold up are the same "moral" ones that keep gay marriage illegal. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:38:00] - I think "consenting adults" is one such non-arbitrary constraint, because of my personal recognition of "legal marriage" as a type of contract. So, since "consenting adults" is a non-arbitrary constraint on legal contracts, it is valid for marriage as well. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:38:00] - I think I know where Andrew is going with this, and so I'll just back him up here. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:37:00] - Pierce: I challenge you to name one that can't be fought down legally. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:37:00] - Paul: and I'm saying that there are non-arbitrary restraints we can create, and that we can create them through analysis of the issues. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:36:00] - Paul: but your point seems to be that [legal gay marriage] will directly lead to [legal incest marriage]. And I'm saying that while there is an indirect link, we won't necessarily arrive at the latter unless we decide it to be right. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:35:00] - Legalizing gay marriage removes what seems to be an arbitrary constraint on the definition of marriage. I am saying that once you do that, there seems to be no good reason to deny removing any other arbitrary constraints. That is ALL I am saying. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:35:00] - Vinnie: I'm saying that the legal, and scientific, in general the logical reasons that might limit such relationships are easy fodder for substantive arguments once a moral backing is lost. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:33:00] - for each other, does that count for nothing, what if they don't want to have kids, but simply want the same legal protections and benefits? -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:33:00] - Pierce: Yes, and as I've said MANY times, that is irrelevant to my point. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:33:00] - to be honest, I sometimes wonder whether it is morally wrong to prevent people from inbreeding, but that's definitely a difference between the two and something to consider - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:33:00] - Vinnie: It's very easy to prove that the odds of genetic inbreeding in a specific incestuous marriage are fairly low. Even with relatives as close as borther and sister, pairs could successfully mate for a generation or two before becoming problematic under 90% of circumstances. And then, what about the love these siblings have (...) -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:32:00] - Paul: as I said, I've not yet made my determination on the incest issue. What I am saying is that I don't think we should prevent legalization of gay marriage simply so we don't have to analyze the incest issue. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:32:00] - Paul: I think that's the gist of it, if you start to run with that argument and say something I didn't imply, I'll smack you with a cluebat. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:31:00] - yeah, I understood that. what I don't understand is why the same moral argument holds them all back. what about inbreeding? - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:31:00] - Xpovos: "morality" is also an unacceptably ambiguous term. The only morals that should be enforced by government are the ones with clear logic behind them... NOT the ones with popular support. "Consenting adults" is a clear, logical argument which allows gay marriage, but not child marriage or bestiality. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:31:00] - Pierce: So you're saying that there can be a logical reason to accept gay marriage and a logical reason to deny incest? -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:29:00] - Vinnie: He is saying that the only thing keeping incest and polygamy illegal right now is moral arguments against it. Making gay marriage legal would seem to remove that. Is that fair to say, Andrew? -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:29:00] - Paul: I claim the opposite. In a logical world, since the arrow I described is not inherently valid, legalizing gay marriage does not necessarily lead to incestuous marriage. However, since we do not live in a perfectly logical world, that fallacy may be exercised after all. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:29:00] - but gay marriage and polygamy and incest aren't perfect parallels, so I don't see how they logically lead to one another - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:27:00] - Pierce: close. The second arrow is not required, but definately a strong possibility. I see your point that it needs to be a necessity in order to be a legitimate "slippery slope" argument, but 'strong possibility' is equally important to a moral minority. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:27:00] - ??? i am so confused by your argument, xpovos - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:27:00] - Ok, let me try again. In a perfectly logical world, I believe that making gay marriage legal would necessarily have to lead to the legalization of polygamy and incest. We do not live in a perfectly logical world, so the legalization of polygamy and incest doesn't HAVE to happen. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:26:00] - restraining marriage to a man and a woman. Once that morality is lost, then there is no further morality to be ruled over in the realm of marriage, only tenuous legal differences. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:26:00] - Xpovos: so here's what I think you're trying to argue: [gay marriage made legal] --> [analysis of incest/bestiality/polygamy issue] --> [i/b/p made legal]. What I'm saying is that the second arrow is not inherently valid. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:25:00] - Pierce: the direct link there is that in order to recieve rights, you have to seek them. And the only rights that would be refused would be ones considered morally unacceptable. It is unacceptable for religious cults to practice human sacrifice. But we're assuming we've eliminated the moral outrage in marriage debate, that of (...) -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:24:00] - Xpovos: you're not saying what the terminus of your link is. If homosexuals receive marriage rights, then the direct cause will be that incest supporters can seek marriage rights. But seeking rights does not have an inherent, direct link to receiving rights. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:22:00] - ok, then you asked what gay marriage being a good idea has to do with this. it's because you asked earlier why would draw the line there. we think gay marriage is a good idea but the others not necessarily - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:21:00] - Paul: "open the door" is unacceptably ambiguous. Are you saying that bestiality will have to be made legal, or are you saying that the arguments in favor of bestiality will have to be heard? - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:21:00] - Vinnie: Logically, I think it has to directly lead. Practically, in terms of government legality, it doesn't. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:19:00] - Vinnie: Ok, well, I stand by my original "logically has to open the door" as well. I was saying possibly now because I don't assume that the government will always follow the logical path. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:19:00] - Vinnie: I missed some of the arguement. When did it turn to "only could lead"? -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:18:00] - Pierce: That's exactly what the homosexuals are doing right now. And until they recieve it, there's no reason for the incestuous and animalistics among us to attempt to demand such protections because they don't exist for others. But once they do exist -then- you have a direct relationship. That is the slippery slope. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:17:00] - we argued why it doesn't have to open the door, and then suddenly you switch your position and say "don't get angry! I only said it could lead" - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:16:00] - Xpovos: yes, there is a direct consequence of people seeking legal protections, but that is very distinct from receiving legal protections. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:16:00] - and what I am saying is that that wasn't all you were saying. your link to the article said "a good argument for why... homosexual marriage logically has to open the door", not that it will possibly open the door, which is what you're saying now - vinnie
[2004-03-16 11:15:00] - Slippery slopes are only valid as an argument form if you can prove direct and inherent links between the stages of the slope, which I have not seen in your arguments about gay marriage. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:15:00] - Pierce: of course homosexual marriage will directly lead to others seeking the same legal protections. It's human nature to demand the right to live as you choose, and if it's unpopular, it needs to be protected... at least, if other people get that protection, I should too! Direct consequence. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:14:00] - Paul: and that is the fallacy of the slippery slope argument... that it draws direct causal relationships where none exist, and then use those relationships to argue against the initial step - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:13:00] - Darn, I thought you were going to be my misogynistic/homophobic voice, so I wouldn't have to be. -- Xpovos
[2004-03-16 11:13:00] - Paul: my point is that you're overgeneralizing your use of the word "lead". You're claiming one thing as a direct consequence of another, when at most the relationship is indirect. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:11:00] - Paul: wrong. Gay marriage won't inherently lead to legalization of other forms of marriage. At most, it will cause further analysis of why those forms are illegal; but if we subsequently decide that those laws are wrong, it won't be as a direct consequence of legalizing gay marriage, it will be because we analyzed the issue. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:11:00] - In fact, that's often why I try to defend points like "gay marriage might lead to polygamy", because I see those people get accused of being irrational homophobes and I see that happening to me on a lesser level sometimes when I try debating with certain people (not anybody here, I don't think) and I feel sympathy for them. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:09:00] - Just in my own defense. I don't want you all thinking I'm some racist/misogynistic/homophobic whatever. -paul
[2004-03-16 11:08:00] - Without assigning any blame, since it could easily be my fault, this is a reason I sometimes get frustrated when debating topics with people. Because people always seem to be assuming that I am standing for or saying things that I don't intend to stand for/say. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:06:00] - Which has been frustrating, because you keep arguing that gay marriage isn't wrong.
-aul[2004-03-16 11:06:00] - Pierce: I think (and I could be wrong here), that I've just been trying to point out that it's not crazy to say that gay marriage could lead to legalization of other forms of marriage. -Paul
[2004-03-16 11:02:00] - Paul: it seems like your past argument has been that gay marriage should be illegal, because if we legalize it we'll also have to legalize things that are closer to the "clearly wrong" line. It doesn't seem like you're saying that anymore, or maybe you were never saying that and I misunderstood you. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:00:00] - What I think differs with what I've understood in the past is that legalizing gay marriage doesn't directly translate into having to legalize polygamy and incest; but it does mean we'll have to scrutinize those issues more carefully. Which I see as a Good Thing. - pierce
[2004-03-16 11:00:00] - Pierce: "I'm just saying that the possibility of gay marriage leading to polygamy and so forth is not a crazy idea." -Paul
[2004-03-16 10:59:00] - Vinnie: Ok, so what does this have to do with whether or not gay marriage is a good idea? -Paul
[2004-03-16 10:58:00] - Paul: yes, it might. And so what? If polygamy is wrong, then we'll deal with it at that juncture. I know you're pseudo-agreeing that the slippery slope shouldn't affect the current battle for legalization of gay marriage, but I guess I don't understand what you are trying to argue. - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:56:00] - yes it does. you asked why we agree with removing one constraint and not the others. nobody disagreed with you that allowing gay marriage would give other groups more precedent - vinnie
[2004-03-16 10:50:00] - Yes, yes, this has nothing to do with whether or not gay marriage is a good idea. I'm just saying that the possibility of gay marriage leading to polygamy and so forth is not a crazy idea. -Paul
[2004-03-16 10:46:00] - I completely agree with pierce. I've always hated slippery slope arguments. how common they are should have no impact on whether something should or shouldn't be done. gay marriage seems right to me. if that opens doors to other groups trying to get marriage rights, we'll deal with them as they come - vinnie
[2004-03-16 10:45:00] - pierce: What about companies who offer benefits towards married families? Those kind of benefits could be really exploited if polygamy was made legal. I guess they could just make the policies more specific - aaron
[2004-03-16 10:37:00] - Pierce: I think I mainly agree with you, all I'm saying is that, outside of whether or not gay marriage is right, there is a legitimate concern. If we allow gay marriage then there WILL be people who will want to legalize polygamy and incest and they will have some good logical and legal arguments behind them. -Paul
[2004-03-16 10:36:00] - I just think it's a bad idea. - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:35:00] - also, strictly speaking, I'm not against polygamy, as long as everyone involved is fully cognizant of and consenting to the situation, and the legal terms are explicitly defined. - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:32:00] - When you're sick, treating the symptoms might make you feel better faster, but you're still sick; instead, you should treat the disease and sacrifice short-term happiness for long-term health. - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:31:00] - And by allowing ourselves to do the crappy workarounds, we just make it harder and harder to reform the legislative process in the future. - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:30:00] - Paul: then the solution is to reform the legislative process so that slippery slopes don't occur; not to find kludgy workarounds that go against what's right and wrong. - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:29:00] - But again, you're not addressing the original argument. We shouldn't avoid doing the "right thing" just because we're afraid it might lead to the "wrong thing". We should just allow the right thing and then deal with forbidding the wrong thing. What's right and wrong is, of course, up for debate. - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:28:00] - All I'm saying is that slippery slope arguments may not be valid logically, but they seem to work out surpringly often when it comes to the law. -Paul
[2004-03-16 10:26:00] - When the social security number was implemented, critics worried that it would become some universal identification but the government said that was crazy, it would only be used for keeping track of social security benefits. Now look at what happened. -Paul
[2004-03-16 10:25:00] - Pierce: It's more like an aside to the debate but I think it's a legitimate point. When the Texas sodomy ruling was made, some people predicted that it would make polygamy legal and everybody laughed at such a crazy idea, but now polygamists are using that ruling as to why polygamy should be legal. -Paul
[2004-03-16 10:16:00] - Paul: maybe not "totally wacko", in the same way that speculating in 1960 that "equal rights" would lead to things like affirmative action isn't "totally wacko". But it's fallacious at worst, and doesn't address the original argument at best. - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:14:00] - Pierce: I think it's "people's", but I got a C in english. -Paul
[2004-03-16 10:13:00] - Pierce: I know, and by my arguments for privatization of marriage it wouldn't be an issue either, my only point is that it's not totally wacko to say that allowing gay marriage logically opens the door to other types of non-legal marriage. -Paul
[2004-03-16 10:11:00] - as an aside: what's the possessive form of "people"? "people's" or "peoples'"? - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:10:00] - Paul: child marriage can't be justified with the argument I gave. I can't speak for other people's arguments. - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:09:00] - Overriding "two people" is sketchy, but the same principles as contracts with multiple signees should apply. "Opposite gender" is fallacious because it has no bearing on the validity of a relationship contract. "Unrelated" is, as I said, not as clear-cut. "Consenting adults" is clearly valid, because they can agree to a contract. - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:08:00] - Pierce: For the record, I tend to agree, but logically I have to point out that most of the same arguments used for gay marriage can be used to justify child marriage. -Paul
[2004-03-16 10:05:00] - Paul: I just answered that very question. Where do you stop: at "consenting adults". Why: because they are entering into a contract, which only consenting adults should be able to do. - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:05:00] - Pierce: Right now the definition of marriage seems to have 4 restraints: Two people, opposite gender, unrelated, consenting adults. If you want to get rid of one, why not the other three? -Paul
[2004-03-16 10:05:00] - and on the one hand (again), I see a twist on the "consenting adult" definition with incestuous relationships, since they may have been established based on formative childhood experiences (when the people in question were minors), but on the other hand there are cases like siblings separated at birth. - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:03:00] - Pierce: The point is that once you start removing constraints from the definition of marriage, the question becomes where do you stop and why. -Paul
[2004-03-16 10:03:00] - the only applicable part of the wnd article is the incest issue, and I'm honestly torn on that point. on the one hand, I recognize a clear, specific public health issue in allowing incest. but on the other hand, we don't forbid unrelated people who both carry genetic disorders to procreate; we just try to explain the risks to them. - pierc
[2004-03-16 10:00:00] - your dog can't sign a nondisclosure agreement, why can't we forbid entrance to a marriage contract on the same grounds? - pierce
[2004-03-16 10:00:00] - I don't see what "argument" you're referring to in the wnd article, paul. do you not see a difference between a consenting adult and an animal? it seems to me that the legal force of marriage is essentially a contract; and in theory, any two consenting adults should be able to enter into such a contract. - pierce
[2004-03-16 09:57:00] - that was in response to the washtimes link. - pierce
[2004-03-16 09:55:00] - yeah, he seemed to lose track of what he was trying to say... he started off with a focus on media bias, and then jumped the rail and talked about the validity of the war all of a sudden. - pierce
[2004-03-16 09:55:00] - http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37575 I think the article is intended to be sarcastic, but here is a good argument for why I think that allowing homosexual marriage logically has to open the door to permitting other types of currently forbidden marriage. -Paul
[2004-03-16 09:40:00] - http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20040314-101717-3868r.htm I thought the first third of this article is interesting, the rest not so much. -Paul
[2004-03-15 17:34:00] - since only two people commented so far, http://www.livejournal.com/users/misterdreamer/ spoke on friday if you're interested - travis
[2004-03-14 21:12:00] - http://www.laurasnyctales.com/current/chris-rock.html random girl gets assigned chris rock's old mobile phone number - aaron
[2004-03-12 23:26:00] - it's pretty fast too. i'm getting at least 9 mbps over the internet. ~a
[2004-03-12 23:23:00] - aaron: there are six wireless networks viewable from our apartment. four of them are open. i'm browsing the web right now on someone elses connection. ~a
[2004-03-12 20:11:00] - objective.jesussave.us is indeed legit despite it's childish design. they're campaigning to get landover baptist (which is a satire site) shut down. - mig
[2004-03-12 18:30:00] - no no. they're just trying to be on the edge of the "it is satire" "it isn't satire" boundary. they want people to not know for sure. but it is. ~a
[2004-03-12 18:28:00] - but the site http://objective.jesussave.us/ seems legitimate. It looks serious. - Melissa
[2004-03-12 18:24:00] - it is. it is. stop being silly "I'm overweight" is not something an 8 year old would say. ~a
[2004-03-12 18:22:00] - I don't think it satire... It -is- funny though. "If you find an Atheist in your neighborhood, tell your parent or pastor right away" - Melissa
[2004-03-12 18:21:00] - aaron, you didn't check your email. ~a
[2004-03-12 18:16:00] - actually... i don't know if that's satire anymore! When i first saw the "lambuel and friends" page a few years ago i really thought it was - but now it's so elaborate - aaron
[2004-03-12 18:08:00] - http://objective.jesussave.us/kidzart.html kidz christian art... obviously satire but i thought it was pretty funny - aaron
[2004-03-12 16:16:00] - Travis: I don't know why, but I find the idea of schools confiscating Love Hina from students as very amusing. -Paul
[2004-03-12 16:13:00] - http://www.shelbystar.com/portal/ASP/article.asp?ID=8709 - travis
[2004-03-12 16:10:00] - Vinnie: I can't believe you forgot. I would love to have two more hearts...
-Paul[2004-03-12 16:08:00] - ha, you know I totally forgot I got those two hearts! i was on five hearts for so long i forgot there was a way to get more - vinnie
[2004-03-12 16:00:00] - I don't think i've played much more than any of you. I think our memory counts are like +/- 3 memories except travis - aaron
[2004-03-12 16:00:00] - On a barely related note: I would really like to see one of us get a high score in the Selepation Cave so we can get the Earth Armor scroll. Maybe we should try cooperating with eachother next time to try to help somebody get a real high score there? -Paul
[2004-03-12 15:56:00] - and i only get to kill monsters when they happen to be weak to whatever element spell i use, otherwise all i do is cure - travis
[2004-03-12 15:55:00] - Vinnie: I think a lot of your problems have been solved now that you got your two more hearts. I don't think any of us have played the game that much more than you. -Paul
[2004-03-12 15:50:00] - I swear I just need to play the game solo sometime to catch up to the rest of you. i'm so puny - vinnie
[2004-03-12 15:40:00] - Aaron: Well, your Peepo would be much safer if you didn't play as him. Zero chance of dying then.
-Paul[2004-03-12 15:38:00] - hmph. i cannot condone a course of action which will lead to the destruction of my Peepo. - aaron
[2004-03-12 15:31:00] - Except for Aaron, his character is strong enough that he doesn't have to come.
-Paul[2004-03-12 15:05:00] - we have a go on FF:CC tonight. over and out. - travis
[2004-03-12 15:01:00] - beer and cigarettes were the ones I was talking about. I just can't see it happening for some reason - vinnie
[2004-03-12 14:55:00] - I don't know - in high school? I mean, it totally depends on the grade. But i would imagine something like that could pass unnoticed in high school - aaron
[2004-03-12 14:54:00] - Vinnie: I think you and Aaron are supposed to show up around 7:00 at Travis' tonight for FF:CC if I recall correctly. -Paul
[2004-03-12 14:54:00] - Vinnie: I've seen enough playboy bunny shirts being worn by girls to believe that one. Can't speak on the others. -paul
[2004-03-12 14:45:00] - "They always say other kids who wear shirts with a playboy bunny, Marilyn Manson, beer ads or cigarette ads never are pulled aside by a teacher." I can't believe this would be true - vinnie
[2004-03-12 14:41:00] - is FF:CC a go for tonight? - vinnie
[2004-03-12 14:32:00] - ACL WHO? ~a
[2004-03-12 14:06:00] - http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37539 Where is the ACLU? -Paul
[2004-03-12 12:21:00] - Vinnie: I was more thinking that it doesn't seem like libertarianism necessarily has to be against consensual sex regarding children. -Paul
[2004-03-12 11:01:00] - if you're only planning on doing one a week, it doesn't matter when it gets posted really - vinnie
[2004-03-12 10:54:00] - but since some of you may be bored (you're talking enough here, after all
) i posted a new one anyway - travis[2004-03-12 10:50:00] - and now it's friday, so most people won't be checking up on web stuff much until monday, and the comments work better when people kinda talk back and forth - travis
[2004-03-12 10:49:00] - vinnie: i have five more pieces already written, i just didn't wanna rush through them all before i had more stuff written - travis
[2004-03-12 10:39:00] - sorry, the joke just didn't sound right with "advocator of child molestation"
i'm curious what you think his valid point is though. that children know when they're old enough to stand up? that it's beneficial for children to have sex with adults? (maybe for the adults, heh) - vinnie[2004-03-12 10:27:00] - I would love to stay and discuss this further, but I have a meeting that I need to attend now. Hopefully I'll be back sometime this afternoon. -Paul
[2004-03-12 10:26:00] - Well, I just thought it was interesting because the "child molester" seems to have a valid point regarding some aspects of libertarianism and "child molestation". -Paul
[2004-03-12 10:20:00] - so in the list of occupations, software engineer is just slightly more admirable than child molester? ouch - vinnie
[2004-03-12 09:57:00] - when are we gonna see more writing, travis? I want to see this dialogue you promised - vinnie
[2004-03-12 09:36:00] - http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_888228.html The naked reporter. Somewhat safe for work (prominent picture of a woman in her underwear). -Paul
[2004-03-12 09:35:00] - http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/8165888.htm Interesting dilemma for the LP. -Paul
[2004-03-12 09:33:00] - Aaron: I know
I found that entire article to be fairly amusing. -Paul[2004-03-12 09:21:00] - "you're not allowed to have sex in your car, so why are you allowed to watch it?" There's 2 things really ridiculous about that sentence - aaron
[2004-03-12 09:19:00] - Travis: Heh, I saw that Boondocks this morning and got a chuckle out of it.
-Paul[2004-03-12 09:18:00] - http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=562&e=1&u=/ap/drive_by_porn Porn in minivans. -Paul
[2004-03-12 09:17:00] - http://www.penny-arcade.com/images/2004/20040312l.jpg the ages old apple vs windows battle - travis
[2004-03-12 09:14:00] - http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bo/2004/bo040312.gif paul when he's old (and black
) - travis[2004-03-12 07:39:00] - - mig
[2004-03-12 07:39:00] - i am touched you people remember
[2004-03-11 16:29:00] - .
[2004-03-11 14:11:00] - Travis: Yupyup, I was merely agreeing with you without saying as much. -Paul
[2004-03-11 14:08:00] - Paul: that's basically my point, most "christian" holidays don't have much (if anything) to do with the religion anymore - travis
[2004-03-11 13:45:00] - yeah, can't we change it to miguel yet or does it stay up until it's actually miguel's birthday? - vinnie
[2004-03-11 13:42:00] - Giving gifts for Christmas and chocolate for Easter has more to do with Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny than it has to do with Jesus.
-Paul[2004-03-11 13:40:00] - and i think adrian can take down the "happy birthday aaron & paul" at the top of the page
- travis[2004-03-11 13:39:00] - if all you do for christmas is exchange gifts, i don't think you're actually attaching any religious aspect to the holiday. if just giving gifts is christian, then everyone that gives birthday gifts is christian - travis
[2004-03-11 13:37:00] - haha, my whole family becomes christian who it comes to those things - vinnie
[2004-03-11 13:37:00] - yeah, but does religion play a significant part in their life if they don't do anything religious? i guess maybe the moral side of it is - vinnie
[2004-03-11 13:32:00] - vinnie: I thought at least 20%. So many people I know don't go to church and only act christian when it gets them presents/chocolate - aaron
[2004-03-11 12:29:00] - Travis: Mmmmmm, prostitutes... -Paul
[2004-03-11 12:28:00] - Vinnie: I agree, although I think there is a big group of people who are functionally agnostic but they tend to pick the religion side. -Paul
[2004-03-11 12:25:00] - ok, never mind. no one check your email. ~a
[2004-03-11 12:25:00] - http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/03/10/crime.pigfarm.reut/index.html aren't humans supposed to taste like chicken, though? - travis
[2004-03-11 12:17:00] - people, check your email. ~a
[2004-03-11 12:05:00] - big = bit. but now that I think about it, it's more than a bit. i was expecting like 30-40% - vinnie
[2004-03-11 12:04:00] - too high or too low? I thought it was a big low - vinnie
[2004-03-11 11:54:00] - I'm always really surprised by the percentage of americans for whom religion doesn't play a significant role - aaron
[2004-03-11 11:04:00] - http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040309-112656-2924r.htm Atheist political action committee set up. -Paul
[2004-03-11 11:01:00] - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113808,00.html Judge rules that 'Girls Gone Wild' is not child pornography. -Paul
prev <-> next