prev <-> next
[2004-03-17 10:39:00] - Paul: actually, I just finished Alias S2, and I only have two discs left of Shield S2, and I've finished Firefly, and I'm on hold for Angel S3.
- pierce[2004-03-17 10:18:00] - Pierce: We're still on season 1, mostly because we've been mixing in some B5 while going through Angel. -Paul
[2004-03-17 10:17:00] - Pierce: Yeah, now you have lots of things to do without her. I'm sure she is ecstatic about that.
-Paul[2004-03-17 10:15:00] - http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=37615 Terrorist or freedom fighter? -Paul
[2004-03-17 10:05:00] - I guess being separated by 250 miles isn't that bad then... I doubt I'd ever get through Babylon 5... or maybe it would be the opposite... maybe she never would.
-- Xpovos[2004-03-17 10:00:00] - Hey, where are you guys wrt Angel, incidentally? - pierce
[2004-03-17 10:00:00] - Travis: Fortunately, Lisa was bored by the one episode of Firefly she watched... she also didn't particularly like the first episode of Alias, and she's never been interested in The Shield. Phew. - pierce
[2004-03-17 09:51:00] - http://www.pvponline.com/archive/2004/pvp20040316.gif firefly and a paradox about girlfriends - travis
[2004-03-17 09:40:00] - http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-03-16-anti-smoking-ads_x.htm Anti-smoking campaign could go off air. -Paul
[2004-03-16 18:32:00] - Stupid classes, I missed all the fun.
-- Xpovos[2004-03-16 17:17:00] - http://www.apache.com is sfw - it's just weird is all - aaron
[2004-03-16 17:16:00] - I was thinking, "Apache has a library in greenland?" and then i thought, "lord jesus christ? hmmmm..." it's pretty subtle - aaron
[2004-03-16 17:16:00] - What's at apache.com?
[2004-03-16 17:15:00] - That's enough now... - pierce
[2004-03-16 17:14:00] - note: http://www.apache.com != http://www.apache.org - aaron
[2004-03-16 17:14:00] - Aaron & Adrian --> A`ri` - pierce
[2004-03-16 17:14:00] - vinnie: I think even i get that one - aaron
[2004-03-16 17:14:00] - Pierce: Geek. -Paul
[2004-03-16 17:13:00] - Paul & Pierce --> Pae` - pierce
[2004-03-16 17:11:00] - I guess we could use the bitwise AND of the characters... "Travis" & "Vinnie" --> "T``fia" - pierce
[2004-03-16 17:04:00] - Vinnie: Nah, I liked yours better. -Paul
[2004-03-16 17:03:00] - pierce's comment was more clever anyway
- vinnie[2004-03-16 17:02:00] -
[2004-03-16 17:02:00] - Vinnie: I get it too... but a fat lot of good that does us. - pierce
[2004-03-16 17:01:00] - Vinnie: HAHA! I get it.
-Paul[2004-03-16 17:00:00] - celtic34 will be my codename for referring to paul and pierce - vinnie
[2004-03-16 16:57:00] - aaron: I think travis and vinnie might get offended if I started referring to them as "trannie". - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:55:00] - If you want to direct a comment to more than one person, form a new name which is a hybrid of both of their names - aaron
[2004-03-16 16:54:00] - pierce: I think he excludes symbols and spaces, assuming that if you have used symbols, it's a sentence and not a name - aaron
[2004-03-16 16:54:00] - I vote for the age limit of 0! -Paul
[2004-03-16 16:53:00] - a: the code that colors "name:" at the beginning of a comment should color anything of the form "x & y&z:" or "a and b and c:" (where x, y, z, a, b, and c are all single words) - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:51:00] - Paul: again, it's not clear, and one might describe any chosen line as "arbitrary". But that doesn't absolve us from having to draw a line, and it doesn't make the laws we define based on that term arbitrary. - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:48:00] - Pierce: And therein lies the problem. How DO you decide who gets to vote and not? -Paul
[2004-03-16 16:45:00] - Paul&Aaron: I agree, though I consider it similarly biased to classify a sixteen-year-old of advanced maturity as a child. - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:44:00] - Pierce: A lot of people would take exception to any kind of voting test. -Paul
[2004-03-16 16:43:00] - pierce: Although that idea is flawed in that the test could be biased - aaron
[2004-03-16 16:41:00] - or, alternatively, we should find a definitive test that would establish whether a given citizen has achieved it. (aaron's "voting test" idea) - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:40:00] - Paul: wrong... in recognition of the fact that critical reasoning ability is a developed trait, we should define an age boundary at which we estimate an acceptable proportion of citizens will have achieved it. - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:36:00] - Pierce: So, in order to play devil's advocate here, should we only let those whose "contribution would not reflect a constructive understanding of the political process" vote? -Paul
[2004-03-16 16:34:00] - Paul: your original question was if we gave "kids" the same voting rights as adults. I don't think the world would end, but their contribution would not reflect a constructive understanding of the political process. They're "kids" because they still need us to make their decisions for them. - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:33:00] - Pierce: I see your point, and hopefully you see mine. The world probably would continue to function just fine if we gave younger adults full rights. -Paul
[2004-03-16 16:32:00] - Paul: you understand my point, though... appropriately-defined kids are not thinking critically about politics. - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:30:00] - Pierce: Barring some huge population boom, I don't think it would make much sense for politicians to go after the younger "consenting adult" population, though. My guess is that they would tend to vote like their parents do AND excessive pandering to them could drive away older voters. -Paul
[2004-03-16 16:29:00] - Paul: And yes, the world would end if we granted kids the same rights as adults. Didn't you read "the girl who owned a city?" - aaron
[2004-03-16 16:29:00] - Paul: yes, but at least currently-defined "legal adults" are ostensibly thinking about the big picture, and are not just guided by the desire for immediate gratification </naïveté> - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:28:00] - not tax returns. but thanks for that info anyway
- vinnie[2004-03-16 16:28:00] - sorry, I meant the refund that bush gave out - vinnie
[2004-03-16 16:28:00] - Vinnie: ~$1300 -Paul
[2004-03-16 16:27:00] - A little over $1k - aaron
[2004-03-16 16:27:00] - Pierce: Is that really much different from how things work now, though? -Paul
[2004-03-16 16:26:00] - that'd be really expensive! how much did people get on their tax returns? - vinnie
[2004-03-16 16:25:00] - Travis: yeah, and that's one reason I think the public health issue of inbreeding may be part of the argument about legalizing incestuous marriage. - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:25:00] - i didn't realize some states make you take a medical exam to get a marriage license - travis
[2004-03-16 16:24:00] - It wouldn't end, but six-year-olds don't think critically about the world. You could easily win the six-year-old segment by proposing a gov't program that distributed free gamecubes. - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:24:00] - hah, in alabama and virginia, a minor can get married without parental consent if they were previously married. i guess they assume once the parent gave permission, they gave permission forever - travis
[2004-03-16 16:23:00] - Paul: no, it is arbitrary. eighteen is also arbitrary. It's only the concept of basing laws on the terms defined by these ages that is not arbitrary. - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:23:00] - Aaron: Just out of morbid curiosity, I wonder if the world would end if we granted kids the same rights as adults? -Paul
[2004-03-16 16:22:00] - Travis: I need to move to Kansas.
-Paul[2004-03-16 16:21:00] - that's why I added "possibly". with parental consent, I think it goes as low as 14 - vinnie
[2004-03-16 16:21:00] - For the record I am exactly %71 joking - aaron
[2004-03-16 16:21:00] - Pierce: By your definition, isn't the drinking age being 21 NOT arbitrary? -Paul
[2004-03-16 16:21:00] - You know, you walk around with a chaperone who judges your decisions for one day - and if you make good ones, you're officially adult - aaron
[2004-03-16 16:20:00] - I think the real solution is a "driving test" for life - aaron
[2004-03-16 16:20:00] - http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/Table_Marriage.htm - travis
[2004-03-16 16:20:00] - "the age a child can possibly get married at is way lower than 18" in most states the age of consent for marriage is 18 without adult consent - travis
[2004-03-16 16:17:00] - Vinnie: well, it does make sense to have a definition, but we don't seem to practice it. I don't think 14-year-olds should be allowed to get married, for example. And I think the drinking age being 21 is arbitrary, baseless, and stupid. If you're considered legally mature enough to vote, you're mature enough to decide to poison your body. - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:17:00] - Vinnie: It seems like we should at least have a consistent one. I suggest conception.
-Paul[2004-03-16 16:11:00] - so it almost doesn't make sense to have a definition - vinnie
[2004-03-16 16:10:00] - what's funny is that defining a child and then using that definition in making laws hasn't always worked out in practice. the age a child can possibly get married at is way lower than 18 while the drinking age is higher. so it's almost like within the def of child, there is a case for every law that uses the def - vinnie
[2004-03-16 16:08:00] - Pierce: I'm just amused that you framed the discussion in a way where it was impossible for me to be correct.
-Paul[2004-03-16 16:07:00] - Pierce: Ok, then to use your strange way of speaking, "legalizing gay marriage is a step close to walking the path of legalizing other types of marriage". -Paul
[2004-03-16 16:05:00] - Paul: yes, that's true. But you make it seem like circular reasoning, when in fact it's not. We define the line between "kids" and "adults" as some level of logical reasoning ability. The specific level is not the issue, and is changeable with the times... but the method of defining the term is valid regardless of the specific line. - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:03:00] - Because, to quote the matrix, there's a difference between knowing the path, and walking the path. Legalizing gay marriage will allow us to "know" (recognize) the path of legalizing other types of marriage. But it won't force us to "walk" the path, so it's too ambiguous to say we'll be "on that path". - pierce
[2004-03-16 16:01:00] - Pierce: Fine. If we define kids as "people who cannot vote" and define adults as "people who can vote" then yes, you're absolutely right, kids will never, EVER, be able to vote. -Paul
[2004-03-16 16:00:00] - Pierce: Ok, so what was wrong with me saying that we will be on the path to legalizing other types of marriage? -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:59:00] - Paul: no, because this debate is about legal recognition. So the legal definition applies. So they're not kids, because they're not legally defined as kids. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:59:00] - Paul: yeah, you're "telling" the future to some extent when you do that. My educated guess was based on the reasons I've given here today, boiling down to "legal recoginition of marriage is analogous to a contract", and "contracts should be open to any consenting adults". - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:57:00] - Pierce: But for the purposes of this debate, kids will be voting. -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:57:00] - Pierce: I'm making an educated guess about the future in the same way that you were making an educated guess when you said that gay marriage won't lead to beastiality. -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:56:00] - Paul: yes, he's a kid by nearly all definitions except the legal one... which means that from a legal standpoint, he's not a kid. So for the purposes of debating legal concepts, the legal definition is the only one that applies. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:55:00] - Paul: but you seem to be trying to tell the future to some extent, because you're saying that doing one thing "puts us on the path" to another. If you can't predict the future, then what path are you talking about? - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:55:00] - Pierce: I think you're missing my point, that a 6 year old is still a kid by nearly all definitions even if the law considers him an adult. -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:54:00] - Paul: only if you're using the conceptual definition of "kids", rather than the legal definition of "kids". - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:54:00] - Pierce: I'm sorry I can't tell the future. If I could, I assure you that I wouldn't be here debating the likelihood of the legalization of polygamy... -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:54:00] - Paul: you're missing my point. Raising or lowering the "adult" age does not change the fact that we're saying "adults can vote/marry, and non-adults can not". - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:53:00] - Pierce: Fine, fine. I'll pull a Worldnet then. The new definition of consenting adult was closer to letting "kids" vote than the older definition.
-Paul[2004-03-16 15:53:00] - Paul: and when you say that it would put us "on the path", you're not really saying anything definitive at all. You might as well say that getting on the beltway definitely means we're going to end up on 66. We'll go there if that's where we want to go, but it's not a necessary consequence. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:53:00] - I think that if there was as concentrated, large scale effort comparable to the pro-gay marriage movement that was pro-child voting rights, I think it's entirely possible that the age could be reduced by even more. -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:52:00] - Paul: no, because the law would not be changed to allow "kids" to vote. Even if we define a legal adult to be anyone over the age of five, "kids" won't be able to vote because we've decided that six-year-olds aren't kids at all. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:50:00] - An adult is conceptually a person who is capable of logical reasoning at a level that makes them able to make decisions about their own life. Whether we draw that line at eighteen or eighty doesn't affect the validity of laws that refer to "adults". - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:49:00] - Pierce: Ok, well, the new definition of consenting adult was closer to letting kids vote than the older definition. Good? -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:48:00] - Pierce: No, not at all. That has never been my stance. Without passing any kind of judgement, I'm just saying that I feel that legalizing gay marriage would lead us on the path to legalizing other kinds of marriage. -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:48:00] - Paul: of course it's relevant, but the arguably arbitrary nature of the specific definition of an adult or consenting adult, does not modify the concepts those terms are meant to represent. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:46:00] - Pierce: I thought the definition of terms is not relevant to this discussion.
-Paul[2004-03-16 15:46:00] - Paul: and do you think making the other "abnormal" marriages look less threatening is a bad thing? We shouldn't be threatened by any idea... if it's wrong, we should just recognize it as wrong; not be afraid to think about it. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:45:00] - Paul: it didn't let kids vote, though... it just redefined what is or is not a kid. The original rule, that kids can't vote, is still in place. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:44:00] - Vinnie: Which I think adds to my point. Legalizing gay marriage will make the other abnormal marriages look less threatening to the public I think. -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:43:00] - Pierce: Right, I'm just saying that the one time when there was a major effort in the direction to let kids vote, it passed. -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:39:00] - yeah, my point was just that public acceptance plays some degree too - vinnie
[2004-03-16 15:38:00] - Paul: I see no conflict there. It would be pretty atrocious if we considered a person to not be capable of reasoning, but capable of killing and dying for us. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:38:00] - Vinnie: It's not all about money, a lot of it is about votes (or perceived votes) too. If someone threw billions at legalizing polygamy (after gay marriage gets passed), though... -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:36:00] - Pierce: I think you're probably right that the law still wouldn't have been changed, although it is interesting that when there was lobbying to lower the voting age to the draft age, it passed. -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:36:00] - right. they would just change the definition of person with full reasoning capabilities - vinnie
[2004-03-16 15:35:00] - yeah, i wanted to get to lobbying but that point got lost somewhere. it doesn't all come down to lobbying. I think even if someone threw billions at trying to legalize murder it still wouldn't happen - vinnie
[2004-03-16 15:34:00] - Because the law's line, that of allowing voting only to people with full reasoning capabilities, is a reasonable, nonarbitrary line, and therefore needs no changing. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:34:00] - right. paul wasn't arguing that a -> b, just that a would -> b if the real world worked differently - vinnie
[2004-03-16 15:33:00] - Paul: I think that even if there were lobbying groups for child voting, they wouldn't have succeeded in changing the law that only an adult can vote. At best they would have lowered the age at which you're considered an adult. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:32:00] - a: The reason why it didn't come about is the reason I explained earlier about the difference between ideal logic and the practical real world. In the real world, nobody lobbied for children to vote. -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:31:00] - the former analogy does fit, because it does not cross that line. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:31:00] - the latter analogy doesn't fit, because it crosses that "ability to reason" line I described. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:30:00] - I thought "the analogy" referred to the analogy of "women voting" to "gay marriage"... not "women voting" to "dogs voting". - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:30:00] - Vinnie: You're half right. I think your comparison to my analogy is slightly flawed but I think it still works a bit. -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:30:00] - Okay, I talked to paul in your absence, adrian, and figured out where my confusion was... - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:29:00] - ha, I fully agree with your analogy, but I don't think it relates to what paul was talking about anyway. paul would've asked why we weren't giving the right ot vote to children - vinnie
[2004-03-16 15:28:00] - you can't group me in with paul. i have a moral objection to him but not me - vinnie
[2004-03-16 15:28:00] - vinnie: oh, well i thought you were with paul on this one. i guess i may have missed some messages where you weren't. ~a
[2004-03-16 15:27:00] - me? what do I have to do with it? - vinnie
[2004-03-16 15:26:00] - i don't have a regular internet connection (i'm in a lab where most of the machines are classified) so i won't be able to respond regularly. ~a
[2004-03-16 15:25:00] - because it (in my mind) makes paul's statements look silly. and that's my job. seriously though, i just want to know why paul and vinnie think the anolgy doesn't fit and i thought this was the best way to express my interest. ~a
[2004-03-16 15:19:00] - huh? adrian, why don't you put your question in your own words, and not Paul's. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:16:00] - yes. ~a
[2004-03-16 15:15:00] - Pierce: No, I don't think you understand what he's saying. He's arguing against the argument I was making. -Paul
[2004-03-16 15:13:00] - a: it does fit. women should be able to vote because they have a clear capability of logical reasoning, and should be able to make their own decisions. Adult homosexuals also have that ability, and should be able to make their own decisions. - pierce
[2004-03-16 15:12:00] - except the last one. that one didn't need modification
~a[2004-03-16 15:11:00] - (and in case you don't recognize them, all the lines in that text file were modified paul quotes) ~a
[2004-03-16 15:10:00] - pierce: ok. so you're agreeing with me. i'm trying to (re)pose the analogy of women voting with gay marriage. why doesn't the anology fit? ~a
[2004-03-16 14:42:00] - That, and nobody lobbies to let children and animals vote. -Paul
[2004-03-16 14:40:00] - a: There never was a response.
-Paul[2004-03-16 14:36:00] - travis: shaddup, I'm debating here.
- pierce[2004-03-16 14:35:00] - really, that should be "potentially" equal ability, though not all adults of either gender exercise that ability to its greates extent. - pierce
[2004-03-16 14:34:00] - i think my music video link derailed the debate train - travis
[2004-03-16 14:34:00] - a: because we recognize that, from a legal perspective, men and women have essentially equal ability to make their own decisions, which is based on observation. Similarly, we recognize that children and animals do not have the same such ability as adults. - pierce
[2004-03-16 14:34:00] - they all declared themselves winners and left - travis
[2004-03-16 14:33:00] - where'd everybody go? ~a
[2004-03-16 14:29:00] - i know this is an overused argument . . . but i never saw a response: http://aporter.org/women.txt ~a
[2004-03-16 14:28:00] - Well we think we won, and we outnumber you two to one. - pierce
[2004-03-16 14:27:00] - I thought I won.
-Paul[2004-03-16 14:25:00] - we won - vinnie
[2004-03-16 14:22:00] - Well that was an invigorating debate. - pierce
[2004-03-16 14:12:00] -
! -Paul[2004-03-16 14:10:00] - paul: i think we're all quite clear you weren't really joking - vinnie
[2004-03-16 14:08:00] - Mmmmm. that was a yummy worm. (Paul: shut up and pretend it was a joke) - pierce
[2004-03-16 14:05:00] - The funny thing is that while I intended it to be amusing, I was fairly serious. Marriage is in many ways a win/win situation for women. -Paul
[2004-03-16 14:02:00] - Pierce: You don't know me anymore!
-Paul[2004-03-16 14:00:00] - Paul: you're a dumbass. You're wrong wrong wrong, you misogynist pig. Close the browser with "askmen.com" on continuous five-second refresh. - pierce
[2004-03-16 14:00:00] - Travis: That must've been expensive to make. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:59:00] - Okay! - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:59:00] - do it! it looks delicious - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:59:00] - Hey, look at that shiny worm, all wriggling and delicious. I wonder if I should take the bait... - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:58:00] - Vinnie: But am I being serious?
-Paul[2004-03-16 13:56:00] - haha, I knew you were gonna say that
- vinnie[2004-03-16 13:56:00] - Pierce: Marriage isn't significant for a woman anymore. She can get out of it whenever she wants and if she's lucky, she can get some cash out of it. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:55:00] - that too - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:54:00] - Paul: I would still be against a minor getting married, even without sex. It's still entering into a contract, which I don't think minors should be able to do with something this significant. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:54:00] - like doesn't marriage give you emanicipations from your parents? i'd have a problem with that too - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:53:00] - that's only the primary concern. there are others - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:52:00] - time for some levity: http://no.brain.free.fr/flims_real/emiliesimon.htm (neat music video, completely safe for work) - travis
[2004-03-16 13:52:00] - I wonder, when are women typically able to bear children? -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:52:00] - Vinnie: Well, you could still allow child marriage but have underage sex be illegal.
-Paul[2004-03-16 13:51:00] - right, that was the point I was trying to make - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:50:00] - current definition meaning above 18 - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:50:00] - Paul: I don't speak for vinnie, but I think that since "underage" is recognized as not being an adult, we cannot give legal credence to a minor's sexual consent. Therefore, I would say that it should be illegal. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:50:00] - well, by definition a consenting adult should be one that is smart enough to make decisions on their own. I don't agree with the current definition, but yes I think I agree with your statement - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:49:00] - Paul: More or less. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:48:00] - Vinnie: So you're of the opinion that underage but otherwise consensual sex should be illegal? -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:47:00] - Pierce: You're not saying that gender differences are any more arbitrary than consenting adult differences, you're saying one is more based in law. Right? -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:46:00] - Paul: I don't understand your statement starting with "so it really"... can you clarify? - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:45:00] - but not within the confines of marriage, IIRC. I thought sex between married individuals could never be called statutory rape - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:45:00] - Paul: I agree that that's a fallacy. But it is nevertheless relevant in the real-world execution of these laws. We would be remiss to analyze the legality of incestuous marriages without mentioning the public health effects of inbreeding. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:44:00] - Vinnie: Marriage != Sex though. Non-consenting sex is assault, which is already illegal. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:43:00] - Pierce: So it really doesn't have as much to do with arbitrariness as it does legality. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:43:00] - allowing a non-consenting adult to marry is likely to leave the child or animal with lasting psychological damage. that's the argument against underage rape anyway, and I think it holds for marriage since that will probably involve sex - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:42:00] - It's funny how we have been equating marriage and sex, though, which is a big fallacy. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:42:00] - Paul: consenting adult is nonarbitrary because it's part of what legal recognition of marriage really boils down to: a contract. Non-consenting adults can't sign a contract, consenting adults can. Gender is not a part of that distinction. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:41:00] - Travis: There's a variety of different arguments against gay marriage, many of which aren't religious. Mostly it has to do with vague social ideals. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:40:00] - Pierce: I don't see how you can just decide that gender is arbitrary but consenting adult isn't. I mean, it's all a matter of personal opinion but it just doesn't seem to hold up too well. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:39:00] - no, there the breeding aspect, which Paul already mentioned. again, not something I agree with, but... - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:38:00] - whereas "consenting adult" is a nonarbitrary line to draw (though its specific definition may or may not be arbitrary), and is therefore valid as a defining part of "marriage". - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:38:00] - yes. I mean I can justify why I think it is wrong, but I suspect you already know the argument - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:38:00] - Paul: what is the justification against gay marriage? isn't it just religious, which precludes all logic since it's based on faith? - travis
[2004-03-16 13:37:00] - Paul: what's wrong with the justification against gay marriage is that it is, at best an arbitrarily defined line ("gender difference requirement" is arbitrary), and at worst it's founded on religious beliefs rather than secular arguments. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:37:00] - Vinnie: Well, I guess that's what it always boils down to in the end... -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:36:00] - Paul: yes to what vinnie said. They can get protection by arguing their points independently. And since fundamentally, marriage is essentially recognized as a legal contract on the government level, I think we will asymptotically approact the normal restrictions of legal contracts (consenting adults, specifically). - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:35:00] - I don't personally agree with it - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:35:00] - Vinnie: So what's wrong with the justification against gay marriage? -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:34:00] - Vinnie: Well then I guess my real issue is with the rhetoric of the compaign then. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:34:00] - we've given you the justification for all those things (except polygamists) - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:33:00] - Pierce: Assuming you count that as starting something, it certainly wasn't directed at anybody here specifically. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:33:00] - that means the current laws against incest, polygamy would still apply - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:33:00] - Pierce: Ok, sure, unequal protection under the law. And how come polygamists/incestimists/beastiasts/pedoists (sorry for lumping them together) don't deserve equal protection? -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:32:00] - the real argument is that in terms of marriage there should be no difference between a man and a woman - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:32:00] - ummm, paul... you did start this debate, by posting the WND link: "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." - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:31:00] - Vinnie: People really mean, "give us the right to marry and the hell with everyone else"? -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:31:00] - Paul: that may be the internal reason, but since the debate is for a legal change, we need to focus on legal reasons. The legal, commonly accepted reason is that forbidding gay marriage constitutes unequal protection under the law. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:30:00] - that may be the argument but that's not what people mean - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:30:00] - Vinnie: No need to be sorry. It's my fault for not explaining it well enough. -paul
[2004-03-16 13:29:00] - Pierce: I've been responding to your criticisms. I'll point out that I didn't start this at all. Who are YOU arguing with? -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:29:00] - i'm sorry if I'm missing your point. please take the time to clarify it - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:28:00] - My point is that it seems to me that the big common accepted reason to allow gay marriage (and I realize that this isn't necessarily yours) is because we should let two people who love each other be free to get married without discrimination. Agreed? -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:28:00] - what I don't get is how you lump them completely together. I understand that one will use a lot of the same arguments as the other. but I don't see how one will necessitate the other - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:27:00] - Paul: who are you arguing with, then? I'm obviously not going to say that "gay marriage is okay but incest is wrong because god says so", so what value is there in presenting arguments that no one else here supports? - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:27:00] - Vinnie: But that's not the point. Arg. I hate this format. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:26:00] - yes, but not all. like I said, there's no concern over genetic defects with gay marriage. that's a big difference - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:25:00] - And I'm lumping them together because they are all things that are currently illegal which I think, according to a lot of the arguments for gay marriage, should be made legal if gay marriage is legalized. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:24:00] - Pierce: I know it's not your argument. It's never been my intent to debate your arguments. My intent was always to debate the arguments that others have used. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:21:00] - Paul: see, again you're lumping incest and child marriage into the same category. They are as different as can be, based on the most fundamental part of my argument. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:21:00] - paul: it's not weird. i'd only see it as weird if I didn't agree with the justification, and I see a reason why gay people would want to get married but not want children to get married - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:20:00] - Paul: again, you're selecting arguments that are not mine. I don't necessarily say, as some do, that gay marriage should be legal and polygamy should not. I think it's definitely wrong to dismiss polygamy arguments out of hand. But legalizing gay marriage doesn't mean that we have to explicitly allow or forbid it at this juncture. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:20:00] - "Let people who love eachother marry! As long as they aren't under a certain age or are related or..." -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:19:00] - oh definitely. and as it turns out I completely misread xpovos' statistic, so I think I still have a moral objection to inbreeding, or at least inbred inbreeding (second-generation and onward) - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:19:00] - pierce: Well, speaking for myself, I think that's a good rationale anyway. Consenting adult is used for most other government laws involving some level of responsibility. So i think that's logical. - aaron
[2004-03-16 13:19:00] - Pierce: And all I'm saying is that it seems weird that a group would be complaining about discrimination and touting these high ideals and then saying "but we don't want this to apply to THOSE people". -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:18:00] - Vinnie: care to clarify? Are you focusing on "consenting adult" as your definition of marriage? - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:17:00] - Also, pedantically, "tenant" should have been "tenet" in your statement, I think. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:16:00] - Paul: I don't speak for them, but I think vinnie is very much focusing on that definition... and I think travis and aaron concur with it, even if they're not focusing on it as their primary justifications. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:15:00] - Additionally, I think the arguments we've given here are self-sufficient, complete, valid, and truthful justification for the legalization of gay marriage. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:15:00] - Pierce; Mainly because you make an effort to concentrate on "consenting adults" as a prime tenant of marriage, which I don't know if anybody else is really focusing on right now. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:14:00] - Paul: maybe with a selective subset of some of the more extreme arguments for gay marriage, but I don't think you can make that claim about the arguments we've given here. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:13:00] - Pierce: Depends on what size ballpark we're talking about. I'm saying that the arguments driving the effort to legalize gay marriage could be used to justify child marriage and bestiality. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:12:00] - Paul: yes, because I see a logical, nonarbitrary line between gay marriage/incest/polygamy, and child marriage/bestiality. You, on the other hand, seem to be claiming that they are all in the same ballpark, which I disagree with. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:11:00] - Pierce: Yes, and in my opinion, legalization of gay marriage will lead to a debate about other types of marriage. Who knows what the government will chose to do regarding that debate. It depends on how powerful the beastiality lobby is, quite frankly. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:10:00] - Pierce: "Our" whole argument hasn't been. I've been arguing them all while you've been wanting to concentrate on bestiality and child marriage.
-paul[2004-03-16 13:10:00] - So, in my (our?) opinion, gay marriage will lead to debate of other types of marriage. Of our own judgement (and not as a necessary consequence of gay marriage), we may decide polygamy and incest should be legal. However, I do not think we will then go on and make bestiality or child marriage legal. Get it? - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:09:00] - yes. children and animals are a whole different can of worms to me. also, I'm not saying there is no moral difference between polygamy and gay marriage. just that I don't see one. if one is brought up, my reasoning would change - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:09:00] - Vinnie: Even if he is wrong, we allow people who are at high risk of passing on birth defects to marry. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:08:00] - Pierce: Yes, logically I think that legalization of gay marriage would be a step closer to legalization of bestiality. I think the moral outrage against it is too strong to legalize it now, though. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:08:00] - Paul: you included more than just the types of marriage vinnie listed in your original point. Vinnie's were all the ones that are ostensibly between consenting adults, but our whole argument has been based on the line between consenting adult and non-consenting adult. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:07:00] - that's only if xpovos was right about his statistic, and then, that's only my opinion. I could see someone having a valid moral concern about inbreeding - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:07:00] - Pierce: I think it is as "simple" as gay marriage, but we'll save that for another time.
-Paul[2004-03-16 13:06:00] - Paul: you may think bestiality is far from legalization, but you lumped it in with polygamy, incest, and gay marriage, which makes it part of your argument. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:06:00] - Vinnie: Hurray, I'm glad somebody finally sees my point.
-Paul[2004-03-16 13:05:00] - Paul: I'm not going to get into a debate on the validity of my objections with respect to incest, because I don't yet know my own position. Nevertheless, it's not as simple as, say, gay marriage being between two (unrelated) consenting adults. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:05:00] - and probably incest too, if what xpovos said was true - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:05:00] - but logically I would agree with you that polygamy and gay marriage have the same moral objections holding them back - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:04:00] - On the other hand, there is also a public health issue with incest, which may be overstated but is not nonexistant. Again, I'm not claiming one way or the other, but I see it as a place where the government might have a responsibility to get involved on some level. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:04:00] - i think polygamy probably should be legal, but there are different things to think about vs. gay marriage, like complications with our current laws. so I think that is one more thing holding back polygamy at least - vinnie
[2004-03-16 13:03:00] - Pierce: And what's wrong with that? We're all products of our upbringing. It's not illegal. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:03:00] - because her consent may have been formed when she was still a minor. I'm not sure if it invalidates her consent, but more specifically I'm not sure at all of my position on that matter. - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:03:00] - Pierce: I do, but I don't necessarily agree. I'm sure beastiality is far from being legalized in this country if ever, though. -Paul
[2004-03-16 13:02:00] - With incest, I do see some caveats, though: incestuous relationships are, in many cases, based on formative childhood experiences. If a father raises his daughter by constantly telling her that she'll burn in hell if she doesn't marry him, then I think her "consenting adult" status is questionable... - pierce
[2004-03-16 13:00:00] - Paul: and that's why I haven't clearly defined my position of incest, and I'm not strictly against polygamy. But I do see a line between them and child marriage, and bestiality. Do you see my point? - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:58:00] - The reasoning against incest and polygamy is not used universally and I don't think hold up legally or logically. The only thing holding them back (IMHO) is moral objections to changing marriage. The kind of moral objections that would be swept aside by legalization of gay marriage. -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:57:00] - "The same reasoning applies to incest and polygamy at least" was in response to "we do not apply that reasoning universally, we cannot selectively use it to restrict gay marriage" -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:56:00] - Pierce: Well, that's what I believe, but you're right, it wasn't my original point. Let me explain. -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:55:00] - Paul: that the government has no place defining marriage at all. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:54:00] - Pierce: You don't think what was my point? -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:53:00] - Paul: I agree, but I don't think that was your point, at least not originally. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:53:00] - That's where I agree with you, Paul. I think "marriage" is a spiritual concept and the government has no place enforcing it (and we can use legal contracts to achieve the non-spiritual benefits). But that means we have to undefine straight marriage, legally. - pierce
[2004-03-16 12:51:00] - Pierce: Right, and now you are starting to see my point, I hope. The same reasoning applies to incest and polygamy at least. -Paul
[2004-03-16 12:50:00] - Pierce: I'm not saying it's logical BECAUSE it's old, I'm saying it's not right to refer to marriage as some government responsibility because it's really not. -Paul
prev <-> next