Philosophy Now Forum

The Inglorious One wrote:Ever hear of the "butterfly effect"?

have you?

I mean you obviously heard the words

do you know what they mean?

they are not part of a cautionary tales for butterflies not to flap their wings too hard

I don't see "gay" marriage being destabilizing in the short term, but there are always unintended consequences in the long term.

everything has unintended and unforeseen consequences

my decision to switch to tea from coffee after my morning runs has unintended unpredictable consequences, what of it?

"Gay" marriage deligitimizes any distinction between males and females.

how so

most laws do not make any distinction between males and females - whatever those differences might be there is no reason for those laws to address those differences

men and women (on average) tend to have different driving styles - does that mean driving laws should be different for men and women?

Yet, one doesn't need to be a graduate in biology or psychology to know that the difference between the sexes is much more than skin deep. So, right off the bat, we know the whole movement for SSM is based on a lie,

SSM has nothing to do with the issue of differences between men and women

the two are obviously different -- if they were not I would have no reason to prefer girls over boys

just like opposition to mixed-race marriage is based on a lie. (I'm in a mixed race marriage.)

odd how the structure of the argument against both is so similar - as is the demographics

You said yourself, "Issues like inheritance and ownership and stuff and so forth would be more complex." That alone is destabilizing.

how so

Someone else said that the "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy,

it is, but not because anyone denies that a change may change the world in a way that makes further changes possible

but there are already demands that unions between siblings, parent and child, and multiple partners be legally recognized. What next? People wanting to marry members of another species?

if those species have sufficient intelligence to understand what marriage is and consent to it, sure

but this is a stupid argument

those demands should be dealt with on their own merits

if you want to marry your sister by all means argue for this right, lobby politicians, join forces with the likeminded

Wait, that's already happened.[/quote]

artisticsolution wrote:

Kayla wrote:
i was talking to a cranky old man at the coffee shop few days ago - he was saying that he was against mix race marriage back in the day - and now he can't even remember what the big deal was - he thinks that in a few years it will be like that with gay marriage

That's what they say to your face. It's another story when you are not around.

well lol yes

running a business in rural south means that i have to deal a lot with older white men - no way around that

and when I am noticed to walk into a room the levels of sexism/racism/homophobia often drop (i have a talent for walking into a room without being noticed so I see such things) - as does the view that young people dont know what they are doing and learning that takes decades of experience

still, this is progress. within living memory i would not have been allowed into the room at all and no one would see any need to down down their bigotries on my account

i have also heard "you have less balls than those lesbian girls" (meaning my wife and i ) used as an insult in that crowd

The "butterfly effect has to do with chaos theory and accumulative effect of minor changes due to the sensitivity of initial conditions. The flutter of a butterfly wing can be the cause of a hurricane somewhere down the line. Redefining marriage to include SSM changes initial conditions with unpredictable results.

Kayla wrote:everything has unintended and unforeseen consequences

my decision to switch to tea from coffee after my morning runs has unintended unpredictable consequences, what of it?

It changes the initial conditions: switching to tea can effect how you sleep which can effect your performance which can lead to who-knows-what.

"Gay" marriage deligitimizes any distinction between males and females.

how so

How can it not?

most laws do not make any distinction between males and females - whatever those differences might be there is no reason for those laws to address those differences

men and women (on average) tend to have different driving styles - does that mean driving laws should be different for men and women?

Both are true, but that does not mean they are the same. Heck, even their brains are hard-wired differently.

SSM has nothing to do with the issue of differences between men and women

Actually it does. The difference between men and women means that a union between members of the same sex is qualitatively different; not better or worse, but different.

the two are obviously different -- if they were not I would have no reason to prefer girls over boys

That's fine, but what are the long-term consequences for society to put SSM on the same footing as traditional marriage? The fact is, you don't know and may not know until several generations have passed.

just like opposition to mixed-race marriage is based on a lie. (I'm in a mixed race marriage.)

odd how the structure of the argument against both is so similar - as is the demographics

The point is, both positions are based on a lie.

You said yourself, "Issues like inheritance and ownership and stuff and so forth would be more complex." That alone is destabilizing.

how so

You're the one who said it would make things "more complex." A stove with lots of fancy controls has a lot more that can go wrong than a simple one, but both can do the same things.

Someone else said that the "slippery slope" argument is a logical fallacy,

it is, but not because anyone denies that a change may change the world in a way that makes further changes possible

I agree. It is. But in this case it seems to be a pretty good prophecy.

if those species have sufficient intelligence to understand what marriage is and consent to it, sure

And all the confusion and long term consequences be damned, right? That might be emotionally fulfilling, but it's not rational.

those demands should be dealt with on their own merits

Which implies something well thought-out, not a knee-jerk response to what seems fair.

if you want to marry your sister by all means argue for this right, lobby politicians, join forces with the likeminded

And the consequences be damned, right? Why do you think sibling marriage grew out of favor?

The Inglorious One wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:Every major civilisation in human history ultimately collapsed because it failed to adapt to change.

Every civilization has a supporting structure of some kind; no exceptions. Flexibility allows change, but without roots to anchor the structure, the whole thing washes away.

Are you taking the piss? What meaning are we to attach to the term "a supporting structure of some kind" and how are we expected to make the leap in logic from this fatuous statement to your bizarre conclusion that gay marriage will lead to the end of the world as we know it? How about providing an argument to back up this absurd canonical doctrine.

The Inglorious One wrote: Do you even know what philosophy is, what it entails? There is (to me) a fascinating but unfinished series of videos on YouTube that reads and explains Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Paragraph 24 (video #10) is something you should make an effort to understand, especially the part about "random thoughts."

This won't help you against those gay butterflies.

Obvious Leo wrote:
What meaning are we to attach to the term "a supporting structure of some kind"....

If you don't know something as elementary as that, what the bloody hell are you doing in a philosophy forum?

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote: Do you even know what philosophy is, what it entails? There is (to me) a fascinating but unfinished series of videos on YouTube that reads and explains Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit. Paragraph 24 (video #10) is something you should make an effort to understand, especially the part about "random thoughts."

This won't help you against those gay butterflies.

I truly hope that your comment does not represent your idea of depth in philosophy.

The Inglorious One wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:
What meaning are we to attach to the term "a supporting structure of some kind"....

If you don't know something as elementary as that, what the bloody hell are you doing in a philosophy forum?

Am I free to assume that you decline to answer my question?

The Inglorious One wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:
What meaning are we to attach to the term "a supporting structure of some kind"....

If you don't know something as elementary as that, what the bloody hell are you doing in a philosophy forum?

Hi Inglorious,

I am with Leo on this one. You have not made clear what you mean by "a supporting structure of some kind".

I know you think you are being clear but we can't read your mind, ya know...

There are all sorts of types of supporting structures, can you pinpoint the kind you are thinking of in your mind and verbalize it so that we may understand you?

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:
What meaning are we to attach to the term "a supporting structure of some kind"....

If you don't know something as elementary as that, what the bloody hell are you doing in a philosophy forum?

Am I free to assume that you decline to answer my question?

Of course. But few things in philosophy are more obvious or as well understood. No civilization can be built or sustain itself without guiding principles of some kind -- principles with which not everyone will agree.

Hell, giving structure is what philosophy does.

You still haven't addressed the point. Why is heterosexual marriage a foundational guiding principle without which no society can sustain itself, bearing in mind that it specifically discriminates against a significant proportion of the population for whom such a marriage is not a viable option?

The Inglorious One wrote:Hell, giving structure is what philosophy does.

I've been in the philosophy business all my life so it is quite unnecessary for you to instruct me on its protocols.

Obvious Leo wrote:You still haven't addressed the point. Why is heterosexual marriage a foundational guiding principle without which no society can sustain itself, bearing in mind that it specifically discriminates against a significant proportion of the population for whom such a marriage is not a viable option?

Conservatives like inglorious' don't feel they have to explain their point of view. I think inglorious thinks he is the patriarch and as such, his word is just law.

At least that has been my experience with male conservatives in my country.

Obvious Leo wrote:

The Inglorious One wrote:Hell, giving structure is what philosophy does.

I've been in the philosophy business all my life so it is quite unnecessary for you to instruct me on its protocols.

Apparently it is. Why should I explain something I didn't say?

Case in point: I didn't say "heterosexual marriage is a foundational guiding principle without which no society can sustain itself."

artisticsolution wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:You still haven't addressed the point. Why is heterosexual marriage a foundational guiding principle without which no society can sustain itself, bearing in mind that it specifically discriminates against a significant proportion of the population for whom such a marriage is not a viable option?

Conservatives like inglorious' don't feel they have to explain their point of view. I think inglorious thinks he is the patriarch and as such, his word is just law.

At least that has been my experience with male conservatives in my country.

Since it is irrefutable that I did not say what I am expected to explain, am I free to say that in my experience liberals are philosophical morons?