• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Liberal Fallacies

Status
Not open for further replies.
quadraginta said:
I don't think it was all that warm-hearted. That's a relatively recent social development. The traditional callous disregard for "illegitimate" offspring suggests that children's' welfare was not a particularly high priority.

In Western European culture it has always been more about control and inheritance of property. Not surprisingly this is among the more serious of the securities denied same-sex partners because of marriage bans.
Click to expand...

As opposed to many societies where the term 'bastard' doesn't exist and everybody loves babies.

:D

yes the ownership of women and children is an about historic thing.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
I suppose that morality, such as the marriage tradition, is a product of biological and social evolution and the supposition that a custom we don't understand has no purpose and can be dismissed is as risky as the supposition that an organ we don't understand has no purpose and can be surgically removed without cost would have been in the days before scientific physiology.
Click to expand...

bad analogy, how about that evidence?

It is a great false dichotomy however.

Marriage evolved by whom and when?
 
bruto said:
... The second half of your argument, which really belongs in its own thread, seems to amount to the basic idea that because you believe marriage laws are a bad idea at all, but you can't get rid of them, the next best solution is to exclude people you don't like.
Click to expand...
a) I don't think heterosexual marriage is a bad idea. It's an evolved custom and people of a tempermentally conservative outlook will presume functionality until strong evidence indicates otherwise. Neither do I think stable, committed homosexual agreements are a bad idea. I don't accept the argument that the same cost/benefit calculations that apply to the marriage tradition apply with equal force to same-sex agreements.
b) It has NOTHING to do with like or dislike, except a distaste for taxation above the amount needed by the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in your locality (i.e., the government) to protect persons and property, enforce contracts, and suppress competitors in the interpersonal violence racket.
 
I suppose those who fought against interracial marriage didn't have a clue about the hidden causes for anti-miscegenation laws.

:boggled:

Anything to justify bigotry including appealing to fear of things we know nothing about. Brilliant. Hey, the LHC could have swallowed the world. So could have the Chicago Pile. GMOs might wipe out the world. Be scared folks, be very scared.

GOP: Our message is be scared of everything. Except of course of deforestation and climate change. Man made fiction those.
 
Last edited:
Gay man + lesbian (I know of one such marriage)
Click to expand...
That's the answer. If you can't marry the person you love then marry someone you don't love. Hell, love is over rated. We should all marry people we don't love.
 
Some idiotic ideas die when the people that believe them die. And for that we thank them.

gaymarriagetrend.png


If you think the trend is simply people changing their minds then you don't understand the dynamics of generations and the power of ignorant people dying.
 
RandFan said:
I suppose those who fought against interracial marriage didn't have a clue about the hidden causes for anti-miscegenation laws.
Anything to justify bigotry including appealing to fear of things we know nothing about.
Click to expand...
I don't dive into dark water. Do you? That's a formula for a broken neck.
 
Thing about hatred and bigotry...

...they never get old.

bigotry.jpg


Just don't call it bigotry and hatred. Dress it up as protecting society and children. Never mind the facts.
 
RandFan said:
Just don't call it bigotry and hatred. Dress it up as protecting society and children. Never mind the facts.
Click to expand...

Me, I'm still not finished laughing at the "I'm for limited government and increased personal liberty, which is why I think government needs to regulate marriage and keep gays from marrying" argument.
 
ANTPogo said:
Me, I'm still not finished laughing at the "I'm for limited government and increased personal liberty, which is why I think government needs to regulate marriage and keep gays from marrying" argument.
Click to expand...
Too bad life doesn't come with a laugh track. Then those who otherwise wouldn't get it could at least laugh along.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
a) I don't think heterosexual marriage is a bad idea. It's an evolved custom and people of a tempermentally conservative outlook will presume functionality until strong evidence indicates otherwise. Neither do I think stable, committed homosexual agreements are a bad idea. I don't accept the argument that the same cost/benefit calculations that apply to the marriage tradition apply with equal force to same-sex agreements. b) It has NOTHING to do with like or dislike, except a distaste for taxation above the amount needed by the largest dealer in interpersonal violence in your locality (i.e., the government) to protect persons and property, enforce contracts, and suppress competitors in the interpersonal violence racket.
Click to expand...
I have highlighted the disingenuous part. We're not talking about some sort of "agreement." We're talking about marriage. An insistence that homosexual partners cannot or should not be considered married is the problem in a nutshell. In the real world homosexual adults are marrying and raising families.
 
Malcolm Kirkpatrick said:
Why suppose that they don't love each other?
Click to expand...
Are you being dense on purpose or just not thinking. If you're a homosexual then the kind of love that is implied by marriage will not happen if you marry someone of the opposite sex any more than I, for example, would get the kind of love I wanted if I were forced to marry another man. I might love that man as a brother but it would not be a marriage. Really now, is this a hard idea to wrap your mind around? What must we pretend in order to keep arguing such nonsense?
 
bruto said:
Are you being dense on purpose or just not thinking. If you're a homosexual then the kind of love that is implied by marriage will not happen if you marry someone of the opposite sex any more than I, for example, would get the kind of love I wanted if I were forced to marry another man. I might love that man as a brother but it would not be a marriage. Really now, is this a hard idea to wrap your mind around? What must we pretend in order to keep arguing such nonsense?
Click to expand...
What "kind of love" is implied by marriage? I don't know what motivated that marriage. I suppose financial considerations (like inheritance and access to employer benefits). The guy involved was a friend of mine but we drifted apart and I never met his wife before the ceremony. They don't live on Oahu so I haven't crossed tracks much.
 
ANTPogo said:
Me, I'm still not finished laughing at the "I'm for limited government and increased personal liberty, which is why I think government needs to regulate marriage and keep gays from marrying" argument.
Click to expand...
Keep laughing. Redefinition of "marriage" expands the class of people eligible for State-mandated employer-funded spousal benefits.
 
Why suppose white people can't love white people and black people love black people?

Seems pretty simple. I agree with Offspring, keep 'em separated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom