Hello everybody

[Zevico]

If you're trying to deny certain sections of society the rights that others have,

What are those rights for goodness sake? You keep saying marriage is a right without explaining what it is about marriage that makes it a right. You're assuming marriage is a right without thinking it all about what it is is.

It's like I'm engaging Kentonio in a religious debate. State recognised marriage is a right and gays are entitled to it and it's discriminatory to say otherwise. What part of marriage is a right and why? Why, all of it of course! Why's that? As that famous advocate, Denis Denuto once said: it's the vibe of the thing!



A circular, pointless argument, a matter of faith and not discussion and debate.

Remember, self-validation is not a right. We don't hand out certificates of self-esteem for people who turn up to a state registry and tell the registrar they have high-self esteem.

If marriage is a right, then abolishing it discriminates against heterosexual couples and homosexual couples alike. Isn't MikeH's suggestion that we abolish marriage a form of bigotry and discrimination against heterosexuals and homosexuals alike, kentonio? MikeH must be one of those evil Republican conservatives I keep hearing about.

[Jon Miller]

"genetics" really?

My mind starts from "we should look at an individual thing and see if it needs changing or not".

I think conservatives and liberals both want some things to stay the same, and both want some things to change. Depending on whether the current standard matches their political preference or not.

liberals only tend to want change in social policy because they believe in equality and freedom and current social policies are still very unfair. If we already had free and equal societies, liberals would want things to stay the same.

You get massive protests from liberals when governments want to introduce restrictions on civil liberties and in that case they are resisting change.

note in these case I am using liberal and conservative in their non-political meanings, in the same way JM is. the words have been horribly abused, especially in US politics.

There are multiple genes which are tied to how we (humans) view change. To deny people the right to be conservative is the same (or worse) as to deny people the right to engage in homosexual activity.

The conservative or 'liberal' view is similar to optimist/pessimist... they are both 'valid' ways to see the glass.

The conservative says:
"is there a good reason to change this? no, then we don't change it."
The liberal (I don't think this is the right word) says:
"is there a good reason not to change this? no, then we change it."

This is an important distinction.

It is like the burden of proof.

Are people guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty? There are reasons why I favor the latter, but in the case of conservative/liberal it is due to genetics/sociology it is obvious to me that even if I favor one approach that those who favor the other should not be denied.

To say to conservatives 'bigot bigot bigot' is to deny them who they are (OK, some are bigots and they are more likely to be bigots, but that is incidental).

JM

[dannubis]

Ben is now going to supply a quote from the Bible were Christ himself says that homosexuality is sinful and should be persecuted.

And no, I am not interested in stuff that comes before and after the gospels since that obviously didn't originate from Christ himself...

[MikeH]

There are multiple genes which are tied to how we (humans) view change. To deny people the right to be conservative is the same (or worse) as to deny people the right to engage in homosexual activity.

The conservative or 'liberal' view is similar to optimist/pessimist... they are both 'valid' ways to see the glass.

The conservative says:
"is there a good reason to change this? no, then we don't change it."
The liberal (I don't think this is the right word) says:
"is there a good reason not to change this? no, then we change it."

This is an important distinction.

It is like the burden of proof.

Are people guilty until proven innocent or innocent until proven guilty? There are reasons why I favor the latter, but in the case of conservative/liberal it is due to genetics/sociology it is obvious to me that even if I favor one approach that those who favor the other should not be denied.

To say to conservatives 'bigot bigot bigot' is to deny them who they are (OK, some are bigots and they are more likely to be bigots, but that is incidental).

JM

They can believe what they want as long as it doesn't infringe the rights of anyone else.

And there is a reason why our legal systems have evolved to have the burden of proof on the prosecution. It doesn't matter what ones preference might be, you need to consider the matter rationally.

[Jon Miller]

I will acknowledge that some of them don't realise they are being bigots by opposing equal rights to marry for everyone and explain to them why opposing this change amounts to bigotry.

It is that you are not a conservative, you don't have the conservative mind.

That is also fine. Maybe even better.

But just because they (like Zevico) say 'give me a good reason to change'.

To a conservative mind, the argument 'we are unfairly denying them the right to marriage' is nonsensical.

It doesn't mean that they are bigots.

JM

[dannubis]

Yes. He has that right. The problem is that entities like Ben (I don't want to take the word "persons" on my lips anymore when refering to him) want to infrange on the rights of everyone else.

[MikeH]

Being predisposed to maintaining the status quo is fine.

If, when presented with the evidence from gay people about what inequality in marriage rights means, you still maintain they shouldn't be allowed to marry, you have chosen to take a bigoted position. Plenty of people resistant to change do not resist that particular change.

[Jon Miller]

They can believe what they want as long as it doesn't infringe the rights of anyone else.

And there is a reason why our legal systems have evolved to have the burden of proof on the prosecution. It doesn't matter what ones preference might be, you need to consider the matter rationally.

It is true about our legal system. It is because of the lack of information.

You are ignoring that they are being rational.

Their thinking is different from you. The same as a homosexuals thinking (about sex) is different from a heterosexuals.

This doesn't make them bigots or evil or irrational.

JM

[MikeH]

To a conservative mind, the argument 'we are unfairly denying them the right to marriage' is nonsensical.

Are all conservatives really too stupid to understand that a person might love another person and want to marry them, and that the person might feel that being denied that right when others are allowed it is unfair?

[MikeH]

It is true about our legal system. It is because of the lack of information.

You are ignoring that they are being rational.

Their thinking is different from you. The same as a homosexuals thinking (about sex) is different from a heterosexuals.

This doesn't make them bigots or evil or irrational.

JM

The spectrum of "how a person thinks about sex" is vastly broad and I disagree that there is a fundamental difference between men/women/straight/gay that isn't narrower than the spectrum within each band.

[Jon Miller]

Being predisposed to maintaining the status quo is fine.

If, when presented with the evidence from gay people about what inequality in marriage rights means, you still maintain they shouldn't be allowed to marry, you have chosen to take a bigoted position. Plenty of people resistant to change do not resist that particular change.

And Zevico has given other arguments.

But for many of the people here, ones who are probably genetically more predisposed to risk taking than others, you are a bigot towards homosexuals if you do not agree with the argument "we are unfairly denying them the right to marriage" which is a nonsensical argument for them. I would even argue, based on what I have seen of the discussion, that many people do not hear anything but that argument.

Also, humans are not all rational in the same way (and are not rational period). Being a irrational does not mean that you are a bigot.

Just because some conservatives will look at those arguments that Zevico gave earlier (which I find convincing), and not be convinced, does not mean they are a bigot. It doesn't even mean that they are more irrational than you or I.

JM

[MikeH]

gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married === interracial couples shouldn't be allowed to get married.

In 50 years it will seem as crazy that it wasn't allowed as it is now that interracial marriage was ever banned.

[MikeH]

What is the risk in letting gay couples marry? There is none. So how can risk aversion be a factor?

[Jon Miller]

Are all conservatives really too stupid to understand that a person might love another person and want to marry them, and that the person might feel that being denied that right when others are allowed it is unfair?

How in the world can a man marry a man? No man has a right to marry another man, there is no right being denied?

It doesn't have anything to do with them being stupid.

Although arguably having risk taking genes improves ones chances for success and intelligence.

You are demonstrating the same inability to understand those different from you as those who can not understand how a man would want to have sex with another man.

JM

[MikeH]

Just read Zevico's arguments.

Even if the only reason for marriage is for legal rights to guardianship of children, the technological advances that mean that gay couples can have children now makes it essential for just that reason.