Gay marriage - is it any of your damned business?

[PaliRichard]

It doesn't matter what her reason is, she is different to me and has a good reason for eating Brussels sprouts, if she was the same as me she would find them disgusting but life would be crap is everyone was the same.

 

What an absolutely terrible get out.

 

All that answer says is I respect her opinion to like brussel sprouts

 

It in no way goes into why she has a good reason for liking them.

 

You have yet to tell us why she has a good reason for liking them - all you've done is say you respect her opinion for liking them.

 

But if you think her good reason for liking them, say for example, is that they taste good - then by default you too think they taste good - because you are agreeing with her good reason.

 

If you say my wife likes brussel sprouts but I don't - you can't possibly think she has a good reason for liking them unless you agree with that reason.

 

If you think they taste bad you can't possibly think her reason 'they taste good' is a good reason, because you are opposed to it.

 

It's tantamount to saying I don't like brussel sprouts, for what reason, because they taste good - it's an absolutely flawed position.

 

I'm running out of ways to put it to you respecting someone's opinion is completely different to thinking they have good reasons for that opinion the second position requires that you agree with those reasons.

 

---------- Post added 16-02-2013 at 11:00 ----------

 

So in other words all those marriages that have happened for a thousands years or so shouldn't have been allowed because they discriminated against gays who couldn't marry. What a wonderful fantasy world some folk live in.

 

Ah the 'tradition argument'.

 

Why haven't you answered my question?

 

Do you think twelve year olds should be allowed to marry?

 

Do you think marital rape should be legal?

 

Traditionally they were allowed, do you think them not being allowed now discriminates against paedophiles and rapists?

[MrSmith]

 

No, it's not about concieving a child, but it's perfectly reasonable to assume a brother/sister union might concieve one - and due to potential genetic defects this is currently illegal - so it would be discriminatory against the straight siblings to allow same sex siblings to marry.

 

I really can't believe you've pulled me up on such a blatantly obvious point.

 

It’s been an argument throughout the thread that marriage isn't about making children and not all married people make children.

 

Brother and sister can conceive a child outside marriage so stopping them getting married won't stop them having a child if that’s what they want.

 

---------- Post added 16-02-2013 at 11:11 ----------

 

What an absolutely terrible get out.

 

All that answer says is I respect her opinion to like brussel sprouts

 

It in no way goes into why she has a good reason for liking them.

 

 

The good reason is that she is different to me so has different things she likes and different opinions on different things. The fact she is different is a very good reason for being different, acting different and thinking different.

 

Different people have been acting different and thinking different since humans could walk the earth, why do you want everyone to be the same and think the same?

[PaliRichard]

It’s been an argument throughout the thread that marriage isn't about making children and not all married people make children[/Quote]

 

It isn't about making children but a married sibling couple can potentially make children. I've already explained this.

 

Brother and sister can conceive a child outside marriage so stopping them getting married won't stop them having a child if that’s what they want.

 

Not in law they can't.

 

If it was legal for them to do so then there would be an argument for their being allowed to marry. As it is illegal your argument has no merit.

 

---------- Post added 16-02-2013 at 11:26 ----------

 

The good reason is that she is different to me so has different things she likes and different opinions on different things. The fact she is different is a very good reason for being different, acting different and thinking different[/Quote]

 

Look, I've tried explaining it to you, you are simply trolling now. Her being different is not a good reason that she has a particular opinion you don't hold. It's an opinion that should be respected, but you can't possibly think a specific reason is a good reason if you are opposed to it.

 

Instead of trying to stir trouble up why don't you try answering the question in the fashion I suggested.

 

Different people have been acting different and thinking different since humans could walk the earth, why do you want everyone to be the same and think the same?[/Quote]

 

How do any of my posts suggest I want everyone to think and be the same?

 

I fully respect people have different opinions - that's fine - and indeed right, but that is in no way the same as me thinking those opinions are good.

 

To think they are good I would have to agree with them.

 

Mr 'x' thinks shooting dogs for fun is good. I think 'fun' is not a good reason for shooting dogs.

 

If I said I think someone has a good reason for shooting dogs and someone asks 'what is that reason' and I replied 'fun', I would be agreeing with them by default.

 

If someone else said 'I have a good reason for shooting dogs' and I asked 'what is that reason' and they said 'fun', I would be opposed to that reason - I wouldn't say 'Oh yes, that is a good reason' because that would mean I agreed with them - I would say, 'I'm sorry I disagree - fun is not a good reason for shooting dogs'.

 

I don't know how many different ways to put it to you, I'm starting to get bored trying - I'll come back later to see if you have grasped it.

[Dingus]

 

Ah the 'tradition argument'.

 

Why haven't you answered my question?

 

Do you think twelve year olds should be allowed to marry?

 

Do you think marital rape should be legal?

 

Traditionally they were allowed, do you think them not being allowed now discriminates against paedophiles and rapists?

You didn't ask a question you simply repeated the question I asked you, which isn't the same.

 

I suppose what it all boils down to is terminology, because no one is preventing gays from doing anything they want. It is just a word they want to hijack a bit like they did with the word gay I suppose.

 

I go motor racing. Folk who play darts aren't being discriminated against by me playing darts. They could if they wanted hi-jack the term motor racing and use it for darts players. It wouldn't mean they went racing just that they had stolen the word. But folks who go racing in cars would simply develop another term for their activity. So if gays hi-jack the term marriage such marriage will not be recognised by religious institutions or some countries for that matter. Real married couples will merely find a new term like sanctified marriage to cover their union. It will be like my kids going to the store and buying a toy town driving license. It might make them feel good racing around the garden in their pedal cars, but it doesn't mean much in the real world when you want to take the car down to Devon for the weekend.

[MrSmith]

It isn't about making children but a married sibling couple can potentially make children. I've already explained this.

 

 

 

Not in law they can't.

 

If it was legal for them to do so then there would be an argument for their being allowed to marry. As it is illegal your argument has no merit.

 

---------- Post added 16-02-2013 at 11:26 ----------

 

 

Look, I've tried explaining it to you, you are simply trolling now. Her being different is not a good reason that she has a particular opinion you don't hold. It's an opinion that should be respected, but you can't possibly think a specific reason is a good reason if you are opposed to it.

 

Instead of trying to stir trouble up why don't you try answering the question in the fashion I suggested.

 

 

 

How do any of my posts suggest I want everyone to think and be the same?

 

I fully respect people have different opinions - that's fine - and indeed right, but that is in no way the same as me thinking those opinions are good.

 

To think they are good I would have to agree with them.

 

Mr 'x' thinks shooting dogs for fun is good. I think 'fun' is not a good reason for shooting dogs.

 

If I said I think someone has a good reason for shooting dogs and someone asks 'what is that reason' and I replied 'fun', I would be agreeing with them by default.

 

If someone else said 'I have a good reason for shooting dogs' and I asked 'what is that reason' and they said 'fun', I would be opposed to that reason - I wouldn't say 'Oh yes, that is a good reason' because that would mean I agreed with them - I would say, 'I'm sorry I disagree - fun is not a good reason for shooting dogs'.

 

I don't know how many different ways to put it to you, I'm starting to get bored trying - I'll come back later to see if you have grasped it.

 

I did suggest we end this many pages ago because of the language barrier, but you insisted so I answered again, I tried to put it in a different way but alas I can’t answer in a way that you can understand, try to stop thinking like you and think like someone that opposes gay marriage when you read their reasons.

 

Since empathy involves understanding the emotional states of other people, the way it is characterized is derivative of the way emotions themselves are characterized. If, for example, emotions are taken to be centrally characterized by bodily feelings, then grasping the bodily feelings of another will be central to empathy. On the other hand, if emotions are more centrally characterized by a combination of beliefs and desires, then grasping these beliefs and desires will be more essential to empathy. The ability to imagine oneself as another person is a sophisticated imaginative process.

[Halibut]

try to stop thinking like you and think like someone that opposes gay marriage when you read their reasons.

 

Why would one want to do that? None of the 'reasons' stands up to scrutiny - they're all rubbish.

[PaliRichard]

I did suggest we end this many pages ago because of the language barrier, but you insisted so I answered again, I tried to put it in a different way but alas I can’t answer in a way that you can understand, try to stop thinking like you and think like someone that opposes gay marriage when you read their reasons[/Quote]

 

I don't want to end it, if I wanted to end it I wouldn't keep asking you to answer. I said I was bored of trying to explain the difference to you.

 

There is no language barrier, it is very simple.

 

Since empathy involves understanding the emotional states of other people, the way it is characterized is derivative of the way emotions themselves are characterized. If, for example, emotions are taken to be centrally characterized by bodily feelings, then grasping the bodily feelings of another will be central to empathy. On the other hand, if emotions are more centrally characterized by a combination of beliefs and desires, then grasping these beliefs and desires will be more essential to empathy. The ability to imagine oneself as another person is a sophisticated imaginative process.

 

wonderful, yet entirely irrelevant.

 

I'll have another go using both your examle and mine side by side.

 

(it hasn't escaped my attention btw that you simply ignored the example I gave)

 

Your wife likes sprouts. You don't.

 

A man like shooting dogs. You don't.

 

The reason your wife sprouts is because they taste nice to her.

 

The reason the man likes shooting dogs is because it's fun to him.

 

There are three options you have regarding those reasons.

 

You can think they are good reasons.

 

You cna think they are bad reasons.

 

You can be indefferent to them.

 

If you think the reasons are good you agree, by default.

 

If you think the reasons are bad you disagree, by default.

 

If you are indeferrent then you neither agree nor disagree.

 

You cannot think the reasons are good but disagree.

 

So you cannot think the man who shoots dogs and give the reason as being 'for fun' has a good reason because you are opposed to that reason.

 

You cannot think your wife who likes sprouts and give the reason as being 'they taste nice' has a good reason because you are opposed to that reason.

 

It cannot be a good reason if you are opposed to it.

 

You can respect the right of both people to hold those views but that is not the same as thinking they have good reasons.

 

Now regarding gay marriage, you claim you are indefferent, you are neither for or against it. I personally have no difficulty with that - you may simply not have seen any of the arguments on either side.

 

But you also claim that both sides have good reasons.

 

If you think either side has good reasons for their position then you must be aware of what those reasons are - and you must agree with them - otherwise you would not agree that they were good reasons.

 

What I have been asking you to do is share with us those reasons that you think are good - and thus that you agree with, from the perspective of those who are against same sex marriage, and explain why you think they are good reasons.

 

If you don't think they have good reasons - that is if you don't agree with any of the reasons they give yet respect their right to have opinions contrary to yours that is fine too.

 

But what you are claiming is that they have good reasons, so by default you have to agree with them, so answer the question already

[mikem8634]

I suppose what it all boils down to is terminology, because no one is preventing gays from doing anything they want. It is just a word they want to hijack a bit like they did with the word gay I suppose.

 

I go motor racing. Folk who play darts aren't being discriminated against by me playing darts. They could if they wanted hi-jack the term motor racing and use it for darts players. It wouldn't mean they went racing just that they had stolen the word. But folks who go racing in cars would simply develop another term for their activity. So if gays hi-jack the term marriage such marriage will not be recognised by religious institutions or some countries for that matter. Real married couples will merely find a new term like sanctified marriage to cover their union. It will be like my kids going to the store and buying a toy town driving license. It might make them feel good racing around the garden in their pedal cars, but it doesn't mean much in the real world when you want to take the car down to Devon for the weekend.

 

Are you aware of how many times the social and legal parameters of marriage have been recast and redefined to serve the prevailing attitudes and pragmatism of the time?

 

Indeed we have a comprehensive tradition of tinkering with marriage. Why should that evolution stop now?

 

Not so long ago marital rape was actually exempted from prosecution. It was deemed that in law consent could not be withdrawn by a spouse and therefore rape could not exist. It was actually considered not to be a crime.

 

As stated here -

 

Rape in marriage was criminalised as recently as 1982 in Scotland and 1991 in England. Before these dates a woman had no legal protection for the crime of rape perpetrated against her by her husband.

http://www.rapecrisis.org.uk/maritalrape2.php

 

Is this a case of marriage being hijacked by the non-rapey brigade?

[PaliRichard]

You didn't ask a question you simply repeated the question I asked you, which isn't the same[/Quote]

 

I put the same qiuestion to you that you put to me from a different perspective - I asked you a question, you are yet to answer it.

 

I suppose what it all boils down to is terminology, because no one is preventing gays from doing anything they want. It is just a word they want to hijack a bit like they did with the word gay I suppose[/Quote]

 

So by that logic did those oppose to marital rape and paedophilia hijack the term when the laws regarding marriage were changed to criminalise them?

 

Why didn't you answer my questions regarding rape and paedophilia?

 

I go motor racing. Folk who play darts aren't being discriminated against by me playing darts. They could if they wanted hi-jack the term motor racing and use it for darts players. It wouldn't mean they went racing just that they had stolen the word. But folks who go racing in cars would simply develop another term for their activity[/Quote]

 

It's not the same because motor racing and darts are fundamentally two different things.

 

Marriage is one thing that throughout its history has evolved and changed, this is just the latest stage in that evolution.

 

So if gays hi-jack the term marriage such marriage will not be recognised by religious institutions or some countries for that matter[/Quote]

 

They are not hijacking it, it's 'marriage' itself that is changing as it has done ion the past and that term will be accepted by the religious institutions when the law changes.

 

Real married couples will merely find a new term like sanctified marriage to cover their union[/Quote]

 

I'm a straight person who is married I wont find a new term, I will be happy with the term marriage and accept that it has been changed in law to become more inclusive.

 

It will be like my kids going to the store and buying a toy town driving license. It might make them feel good racing around the garden in their pedal cars, but it doesn't mean much in the real world when you want to take the car down to Devon for the weekend.

 

It's nothing like that at all, your analogy is flawed.

 

They will be really married like I am really married because the law will have changed to accomodate same sex partership.

 

Why do you keep avoiding my questions?

 

Would it be acceptable for a man to marry his own sister?

 

Do you think twelve year olds should be allowed to marry?

 

Do you think marital rape should be legal?

 

Traditionally they were allowed, do you think them not being allowed now discriminates against paedophiles and rapists?

[Dingus]

 

Is this a case of marriage being hijacked by the non-rapey brigade?

 

No. Just by those who want marriage to include same sex couples. I'm totally unaware of any changes in the history of marriage where marriage has refered to anything but the union of a man and woman. You can dress it up any way you like but this is just a play on words. Same sex couples may be able to obtain a piece of paper claiming that they are married. But that doesn't mean that others have to regard it as anything other than a civil partnership under a different name.

 

You can stick a Bentley badge on a Sierra if you like but that doesn't mean that I need to recognise it as a Bentley.