When I was in the 2000 para—I MEAN NO!
I choose to reply to very little of what you said because I think we’re more or less in the same place.
I do support gay marriage, but I don’t support just assuming that communities don’t have the freedom to make that decision however they choose. In addition, I don’t know if I support a constitutional amendment about marriage, but I at least agree that communities would not be free to restrict marriage if one existed. But, in the absence of such an amendment, they remain free to do as they wish.
So, as long as a community decides an issue in a way that you approve of, you think that they should be allowed to decide it. This . . . makes no sense.
In theory, they should be allowed to choose, but they’re not making the right choice, so they should not be allowed to choose. This is your appearent position. I don’t think that I even really need to make an argument demonstrating that this position doesn’t make any sense. So, which position do you really take? Should the community be allowed to actually decide issues of importance to them, or shouldn’t they?
Not at all. This debate was begun with the assumption that gay marriage is necessary as both of the debaters believed that it is. My position is that if gay marriage is as good as we seem to think it is, then an amendment is needed. The argument against gay marriage is different than this debate. I would recommend reading what we have previously posted.
I think you are correct. I did not intend to argue the current rights of the community, merely what I thought those rights should ideally be.
I am well aware that you feel that allowing gay marriage is the way to go. I’m wondering what you meant when you said that you believed that communities should be allowed to decide this issue, in theory. If you feel that they should, in theory, be allowed to decide, then it cannot be that you believe unconditionally that gay marriage should be allowed, because allowing a decision obviously allows for any of the possible decisions to be made. On the other hand, if you believe that an amendment is necessary, than it must be that you feel that the community should not be allowed to decide on this issue. So, your statement that the community should be allowed to decide, but that this is at the same time something that should not be allowed, is an inconsistent statement. I suppose that what it left me wondering was, do you feel that a community should be allowed to decide upon certain issues, or do you feel that the community should not be allowed to decide? In other words, when you say that you feel that the community should, in theory, be allowed to decide upon this issue, what exactly do you mean? Because it seems clear that you feel exactly the opposite of this, and your subsequent posts would seem to indicate that you feel that, in theory, the community has no place making such a decision.
Note that I have not yet argued for any position. I am simply asking that you state your argument consistently. If you would read what I wrote, it would be clear to you that I was not trying to debate the merits of gay marriage. I was merely attempting to discern what exactly it was that you meant by your comments.
Of course, now that I am engaged, I do need to question the “necessity” of such an amendment. You say that this would be necessary because you feel that gay marriage is an important right. I can understand your view that it is important. However, there are many policies that I feel are important, and many others that you or LPFab might feel that way about. Does our feeling this way, possibly in defiance of community feelings, make an amendment a necessity? If I desire that a certain policy be enacted, does that in general indicate that I should feel that the community’s preferences are unimportant, and should be subverted if they disagree with my own? If this is true in general, why is it true? If it is not true in general, why is it true in this case?
You state that a community should never restrict freedom “for no real reason,” but communities clearly restrict freedom everyday. You have never offered a standard from which to judge whether such a restriction is made for “real reasons.” What constitutes, to you, a “real reason?” Surely you understand that it would be difficult for anyone to debate the “goodness” of any law with you without knowing what type of points you might be swayed by. I would therefore appreciate some discussion regarding what, approximately, constitutes a “real reason.”
Hooray, arguing semantics is fun!
I think all gays really want is a tax break for being married. That’s like… all the good things that come of it from the government.
Note that I have not yet argued for any position. I am simply asking that you state your argument consistently. If you would read what I wrote, it would be clear to you that I was not trying to debate the merits of gay marriage. I was merely attempting to discern what exactly it was that you meant by your comments.
What I meant by that line is that I believe under the current law, communities can choose whether or not to allow gay marriage. I added the “in theory” part because Bush has plans to restrict that without adding an amendment. I at no time meant that I believe that communities choosing to allow gay marriage or not is the correct course of action. I can see how this would be confusing, as you read “should” to mean “I believe they should be able to” instead of “under the current law, they should be able to.” In the context of what I wrote, I had thought this was understood, but I can see why it might not have been.
Of course, now that I am engaged, I do need to question the “necessity” of such an amendment. You say that this would be necessary because you feel that gay marriage is an important right. I can understand your view that it is important. However, there are many policies that I feel are important, and many others that you or LPFab might feel that way about. Does our feeling this way, possibly in defiance of community feelings, make an amendment a necessity?
No. Again, we are operating under the assumption that gay marriage is indeed a right that every individual should ideally have. I went through no lengths to prove that this is true. My argument in no way suggests that simply because one person believes everyone should have a certain right that they should have that right. The reason I was not arguing that gay marriage is a right everyone should have is because the person I am arguing with already believed that. Thus, arguing the point with him would accomplish little. Regardless, my entire argument was simply “communities should not disallow anyone a right that they should have.” If you would like we can discuss whether or not gay marriage is or is not a right that every individual should have.
You state that a community should never restrict freedom “for no real reason,” but communities clearly restrict freedom everyday. You have never offered a standard from which to judge whether such a restriction is made for “real reasons.” What constitutes, to you, a “real reason?” Surely you understand that it would be difficult for anyone to debate the “goodness” of any law with you without knowing what type of points you might be swayed by. I would therefore appreciate some discussion regarding what, approximately, constitutes a “real reason.”
Well, since we were arguing under the assumption that the advantages of gay marriage outweigh any disadvantages it may have, to the point where disallowing it is actually an insult, it logicially follows that there is no acceptable reason to disallow this (did you want me to go into more depth on this?). Also I thought I did mention something of what I thought was a bad reason, but I’m not positive… Didn’t I say something about any right that doesn’t infringe on the rights of others, harm yourself, or remove equality? Maybe I didn’t. Oh well, even if I did, I truthfully didn’t put all that much thought into that at the time. But really, it wasn’t at all important to the argument. Regardless, we can also talk about what should be a good reason not to disallow a freedom if you like.
No! Remind me and I’ll go on about this for a long time in IRC. I think this thread is too cluttered with various debates to do it here.
I thought about reading the arguments in this thread, but instead I stared at a wall for three straight hours.
Okay, my mistake. I thought that you were using “should” in the moral sense, not “should” in the sense of existance of possibility. I apologize for my confusion.
No. Again, we are operating under the assumption that gay marriage is indeed a right that every individual should ideally have. I went through no lengths to prove that this is true. My argument in no way suggests that simply because one person believes everyone should have a certain right that they should have that right.
I can see that this is not what you meant to suggest with your argument, but by offering little in the way of argumentation you left open that interpretation. Again, I apologize.
Regardless, my entire argument was simply “communities should not disallow anyone a right that they should have.” If you would like we can discuss whether or not gay marriage is or is not a right that every individual should have.
That will not be necessary. My feelings on gay marriage are somewhat more complex than the simple question of, “should gays legally be allowed to marry or shouldn’t they?” Yes, they should be allowed to do so, but I think that, using well defined language, the Constitutional means exist now to secure that right.
Well, since we were arguing under the assumption that the advantages of gay marriage outweigh any disadvantages it may have, to the point where disallowing it is actually an insult, it logicially follows that there is no acceptable reason to disallow this (did you want me to go into more depth on this?). Also I thought I did mention something of what I thought was a bad reason, but I’m not positive… Didn’t I say something about any right that doesn’t infringe on the rights of others, harm yourself, or remove equality? Maybe I didn’t. Oh well, even if I did, I truthfully didn’t put all that much thought into that at the time. But really, it wasn’t at all important to the argument. Regardless, we can also talk about what should be a good reason not to disallow a freedom if you like.
Actually, I was asking for reasons in the general sense, not this particular one, and I was asking for good ones, not bad ones. It is of course possible to imagine bad reasons for restricting freedom, or even reasons why restricting freedom is bad; I was asking you what you would consider a good reason to restrict freedom. Also, I am uncomfortable with your use of the word “right.” Using freedom would be a better choice. A right is something that the state guarantees that it will not take away; it is trivial to say that rights should not be restricted, from the definition of rights. I was asking, in the case of general freedom, what to you constitutes a good reason to restrict that freedom?
I am sorry to make a semantic debate, but on the issue of the use of “rights” I feel that I have an important point. Your argument (if I follow)indicates that gay marriage is not a right (it is not guaranteed); that it is a freedom that should be enjoyed (there exist no good reasons to restrict it); that this freedom will be unduly restricted by the state (the community will decide not to allow it); that, for these two reasons, gay marriage should be made a right (gay marriage should recieve constitutional guarantee). I would argue that, were marriage better defined than is currently the case, ample means exist currently within the Constitution to guarantee it. As it is currently defined, I agree that it is not a right and that communities are theoretically free to restrict its practice.
I played Animal Crossing.
Since T is handling the good philosophical end of this debate, I don’t feel I need to jump in there. However…
If this is sarcasm, it’s brilliant. If not, you’re insane.
And that’s something everyone can agree on!