Heartland

12 Years A Slave is a a distinctly average fillum & should never have won Best Picture at the oscars

Re the Mozilla thing:

So, in the "browser wars" we have: one made by tax-dodgers, one made by homophobes, and one that doesn't even have a version for sane operating systems. Great choice.

markfiend wrote: doesn't even have a version for sane operating systems. Great choice.

Maybe it's got a version for holy operating systems... like

TempleOS.

OTOH, the guy probably considers networking support blasphemous, so you'd be stuck with playing hymns and shooting potted plants.

markfiend wrote:Re the Mozilla thing:

So, in the "browser wars" we have: one made by tax-dodgers, one made by homophobes, and one that doesn't even have a version for sane operating systems. Great choice.

Given the thread title...

I object to this language - it is Orwellian. A phobia is an irrational fear. Those who object to same sex marriage do not have an irrational fear of homosexuals; they have moral disapproval of homosexuality, which is not the same thing at all. When a claustrophobe throws a fit because he or she is in an enclosed space, we do not morally condemn them - we recognize it as a debilitating disorder. The same goes for triskaidekaphobia (fear of the number thirteen). If those who use the term "homophobe" actually thought that "homophobia" existed, they would not use it as a term of moral approbation.

Such language is a way of avoiding having the actual argument about principles and whether or not redefining marriage is desriable. It is much easier, of course, to label your opponents crazy (as the use of the term "homophobia" does) than it is to engage in thoughtful and rigorous discussion. One might also point out that labeling one's political opponents as insane was a feature of one of the great 20th century tyrannies.

I actually think that framing the argument as being about "redefining marriage" is disingenuous. It presupposes that marriage has been unchanged in its entire history; a notion that is patently untrue.

Marriage has, over the centuries, included polygamy, ideas of "ownership" of women (still reflected in some wedding ceremonies today; the father of the bride "giving her away" to her new husband), marriage as a business transaction between two patriarchal family groups, and many more.

It is only recently that the modern idea of marriage as the ideal of a romantic relationship based on two consenting partners has evolved. It seems strange to me to argue that there is anything particularly special about extending this relatively recent definition of marriage to all of those who consent to such relationships.

markfiend wrote:I actually think that framing the argument as being about "redefining marriage" is disingenuous. It presupposes that marriage has been unchanged in its entire history; a notion that is patently untrue.

Marriage has, over the centuries, included polygamy, ideas of "ownership" of women (still reflected in some wedding ceremonies today; the father of the bride "giving her away" to her new husband), marriage as a business transaction between two patriarchal family groups, and many more.

It is only recently that the modern idea of marriage as the ideal of a romantic relationship based on two consenting partners has evolved. It seems strange to me to argue that there is anything particularly special about extending this relatively recent definition of marriage to all of those who consent to such relationships.

In all of the arrangements you describe, at the core, is a heterosexual relationship that includes the biological possibility of children. Hence: redefinition.

My own view is that insofar as marriage is a sacrament in a religious ceremony, it's none of the state's business. Insofar as it is a contract freely entered into by two consenting adults... it's none of the state's business, unless and until it becomes a matter of adjudicating the dissolution thereof.

Also, while I take your point about the dictionary definition of φόβος we also use the word "xenophobia" in ways that don't directly or exactly mean "morbid fear of the strange". Language evolves.

There is a difference between claustrophobia and homophobia, yes. It is one thing for a person suffering with claustrophobia to "throw a fit" in an enclosed space; this is an involuntary panic-reaction to an immediate threat (even though that threat is merely perceived, as opposed to being actually real). It is entirely another for proponents of (for instance) Prop 8 drafting the proposition and spending months campaigning for it. It is rare to find a claustrophobe arguing for enclosed spaces to be banned.

If you sat down with someone who suffers from claustrophobia in a safe environment, I would expect them quite willingly to concede that there is nothing inherently (morally, if you like) wrong with an enclosed space. However those who oppose marriage equality are quite likely to tell you that they believe that there is something inherently morally wrong with homosexuality.

And I certainly do think that this belief, this homophobia is irrational; here is where the "phobia" comes in; the homophobe perceives a threat from homosexuality where none actually exists. How can someone's inherent sexuality be a threat to anyone else?

If we cannot make a rational response to attitudes in others that we ourselves view as irrational then where does that leave us? I'm not allowed to argue against intolerance because that in turn makes me intolerant?

(That crossed with your post just above it)

a heterosexual relationship that includes the biological possibility of children

My great-grandmother remarried at the age of 80. I suppose this counts as "redefining marriage" as she was post-menopausal and there was no "biological possibility of children"?

sultan2075 wrote:My own view is that insofar as marriage is a sacrament in a religious ceremony, it's none of the state's business. Insofar as it is a contract freely entered into by two consenting adults... it's none of the state's business, unless and until it becomes a matter of adjudicating the dissolution thereof.

But the state has made it their business by granting privileges including (but not limited to) tax breaks to married couples. Denying these privileges to gay couples merely on account of their sexuality is discriminatory and unfair.

(Edited to consolidate three separate posts into one)

markfiend wrote:Also, while I take your point about the dictionary definition of φόβος we also use the word "xenophobia" in ways that don't directly or exactly mean "morbid fear of the strange". Language evolves.

There is a difference between claustrophobia and homophobia, yes. It is one thing for a person suffering with claustrophobia to "throw a fit" in an enclosed space; this is an involuntary panic-reaction to an immediate threat (even though that threat is merely perceived, as opposed to being actually real). It is entirely another for proponents of (for instance) Prop 8 drafting the proposition and spending months campaigning for it. It is rare to find a claustrophobe arguing for enclosed spaces to be banned.

If you sat down with someone who suffers from claustrophobia in a safe environment, I would expect them quite willingly to concede that there is nothing inherently (morally, if you like) wrong with an enclosed space. However those who oppose marriage equality are quite likely to tell you that they believe that there is something inherently morally wrong with homosexuality.

And I certainly do think that this belief, this homophobia is irrational; here is where the "phobia" comes in; the homophobe perceives a threat from homosexuality where none actually exists. How can someone's inherent sexuality be a threat to anyone else?

Here is the difference: it is not irrational. It proceeds on the grounds of different premises - ultimately premises rooted in a concept of nature as teleological that is abandoned by modern philosophers (Hobbes especially). The current debate is, if one wants to take it seriously as a debate rather than condemn those one disagrees with as irrational or motivated by hatred or fear, one small element in a wider debate about whether or not certain developments in modern philosophy were desirable.

markfiend wrote:
If we cannot make a rational response to attitudes in others that we ourselves view as irrational then where does that leave us? I'm not allowed to argue against intolerance because that in turn makes me intolerant?

So far you haven't argued. You've asserted that people who hold different views are intolerant and irrational. That's not an argument. No offence, but you don't actually seem to be acquainted with the actual arguments. I'd suggest looking at Princeton's Robert George, for a start, or Anderson and Girgis - I probably spelled that last one wrong; Justin Raimondo - himself gay, if that matters - has written extensively against same-sex marriage.

markfiend wrote: (That crossed with your post just above it)

a heterosexual relationship that includes the biological possibility of children

My great-grandmother remarried at the age of 80. I suppose this counts as "redefining marriage" as she was post-menopausal and there was no "biological possibility of children"?

The only reason you would bring this up as a counterargument is that you are not actually familiar with the teleological conception of nature (abandoned in modernity) that underlies the disagreement. Feser's The Last Superstition does a good job of making clear what is at stake in that disagreement (though he pushes ancient metaphysics too far in the direction of support for his own religion, and occasionally devolves into crude polemics of the Dawkins variety).

markfiend wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:My own view is that insofar as marriage is a sacrament in a religious ceremony, it's none of the state's business. Insofar as it is a contract freely entered into by two consenting adults... it's none of the state's business, unless and until it becomes a matter of adjudicating the dissolution thereof.

But the state has made it their business by granting privileges including (but not limited to) tax breaks to married couples. Denying these privileges to gay couples merely on account of their sexuality is discriminatory and unfair.

(Edited to consolidate three separate posts into one)

I think those privileges should be denied to heterosexual couples as well.

The state has made many things its business that never ought to have been its business, and many people have allowed it to play a role in their private affairs that it never should have been granted. There was a time when a liberal was a lover of the private. Now, the word seems to mean a lover of the state. I am no lover the state and the way it tramples on individual autonomy.

Pista wrote:12 Years A Slave is a a distinctly average fillum & should never have won Best Picture at the oscars

Until the Oscars i thought that Steve McQueen the director was white...

sultan2075 wrote:

markfiend wrote:And I certainly do think that this belief, this homophobia is irrational; here is where the "phobia" comes in; the homophobe perceives a threat from homosexuality where none actually exists. How can someone's inherent sexuality be a threat to anyone else?

Here is the difference: it is not irrational. It proceeds on the grounds of different premises - ultimately premises rooted in a concept of nature as teleological

Premises rooted in an irrational concept of nature as teleological are not themselves irrational. Gotcha.

sultan2075 wrote:No offence, but you don't actually seem to be acquainted with the actual arguments. I'd suggest looking at Princeton's Robert George, for a start, or Anderson and Girgis - I probably spelled that last one wrong; Justin Raimondo - himself gay, if that matters - has written extensively against same-sex marriage.

Here's the thing. If you want these arguments to be taken seriously, present them, don't just handwave some names in my direction. The existence of some self-hating gays is hardly surprising in the toxically heteronormative society in which we live.

sultan2075 wrote:

markfiend wrote:My great-grandmother remarried at the age of 80. I suppose this counts as "redefining marriage" as she was post-menopausal and there was no "biological possibility of children"?

The only reason you would bring this up as a counterargument is that you are not actually familiar with the teleological conception of nature (abandoned in modernity) that underlies the disagreement.

If it's been abandoned, then why is anyone still having this argument? It has been known that a teleological universe is bunk for a couple of centuries, at least. I don't need a perfect working knowledge of the idea to know this. Not only is there no teleology there, there is no "there" there. It's not my fault that some folk are still living in the dark ages.

sultan2075 wrote:I think those privileges should be denied to heterosexual couples as well.

The state has made many things its business that never ought to have been its business, and many people have allowed it to play a role in their private affairs that it never should have been granted. There was a time when a liberal was a lover of the private. Now, the word seems to mean a lover of the state. I am no lover the state and the way it tramples on individual autonomy.

It was found that classical liberalism led to things like corrupt one-company towns, children working as chimney-sweeps, and cholera outbreaks. That's why governments set up welfare states, because private enterprise and private charity was insufficient to protect the most vulnerable in society. It may be unfashionable, but I happen to think it a good idea.

And OK, if you want some actual arguments:

Gay people have been turned away from their dying partners' hospital bedsides because they weren't "next of kin". That is monstrous. And it's harder to justify in the face of a marriage certificate.

I have been trying to follow the arguments and I'm not sure I understand them but is this the reason all claustrophobic homosexuals have come out of the closet.

million voices wrote:I have been trying to follow the arguments and I'm not sure I understand them but is this the reason all claustrophobic homosexuals have come out of the closet.

Thanks for puncturing my pomposity

1)I wish I there was a studio version of TOL '92 available without Ofra Haza.
2)I liked the '93 version of "Alice", and wanted more studio reworkings in the same style.

A few points are worth making, Mark. To begin with, it seems that we cannot abandon the necessity of teleological thinking even though we try (Hobbes and the early moderns conscientiously tried, however!). Why does the spider build a web, or the beaver a dam? Professor Stephen Barr (Physics, U of Delaware):

Barr wrote: Contrary to what is often claimed, even by some scientists, modern science has not eliminated final and formal causes. It uses them all the time, even if unaware that it is doing so. For example, a liver and a muscle are made up of the same material constituents—hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and so on—acting on each other by the same basic forces. It is precisely their forms, their organic structures, that differ and enable them to play different roles in the body. 

The same is true in physics. The very same carbon atoms can form a diamond (transparent, hard, and electrically insulating) or a piece of graphite (opaque, soft, and electrically conducting). What explains their different properties is the difference in form, in intelligible structure. Indeed, as one goes deeper into fundamental physics, one finds that matter itself seems almost to dissolve into the pure forms of advanced mathematics. 


Some people think that the Darwinian mechanism eliminates final causes in biology. It doesn't; the finality comes in but in a different way. Why does natural selection favor this mutation but not that one? Because this one makes the eye see better in some way, which serves the purpose of helping the creature find food or mates or avoid predators, which in turn serves the purpose of helping the animal to live and reproduce. Why do species that take up residence in caves gradually lose the ability to see? Because seeing serves no purpose for them, and so mutations that harm the faculty of sight are not selected against. (Even a Dawkins would not deny purpose in this sense; he would deny only that these purposes were in the mind of God.) Darwinian explanations can account for very little indeed without bringing intrinsic finality into the explanation.

The modern science you frequently base your claims on might be less modern than you think (Descartes, Hobbes and Spinoza may have rejected ancient metaphysics more coherently, concretely, and knowingly than the modern scientists who work in the world that they built). More importantly, I would not dismiss Aristotle as irrational out-of-hand as you do. He is indisputably one of the greatest thinkers in history (the jury is still out on us, I might add). I would also caution you against it for another reason: your response to my suggestion that there are rational disagreements here was the claim that no, the only rational position is the one that you have adopted. But that amounts to retreating into the claim that those who disagree with you are deficient in some way, and we are then back to the name-calling that so frequently characterizes discussions of this issue. Perhaps - just perhaps - it is more complicated than it seems to be to you.

As for the arguments of George, Ryan, etc., I don’t feel any need to make them. I’m not arguing for them. I’m arguing against the anti-intellectual and frankly fascist tendency to deride all those who disagree with a given position as irrational (which you have done repeatedly. Please note also that I am not calling you fascist; I know you're not. But this approach to argument is). And I would advise you against calling Raimondo self-hating. He’s not. Or does he axiomatically become self-hating because he holds and defends views that you feel he should not hold?

Also, please note that I am not an anarchist who rejects all exercise of state power or the very existence of state power. I’ve simply asserted that among many things (which I have not enumerated) that are not the state’s business, I include religious sacraments and relationships between consenting adults. How you get from that to cholera epidemics and underage chimney-sweeps is a marvel of straw-man construction.

mother of internet bickering. i guess that all threads here must come to a political discuss.

time for a moderator to split that discussion off into a separate thread that only two people will ever look at?

It wasn't me who brought up teleology. Cholera and chimney sweeps follow from unfettered free markets; again, it was not me who brought up classical liberalism.

Quite frankly, metaphysical wankery about the motivation of opponents of marriage equality is a red herring. What matters is the negative impact they are having on the lives of real people in the real world.

Well, I'm not gay, and not standard, either. And I know that gays can be assholes as much as everybody else,
but in case, they were asshole enough to pay others (organisations or troops) to make my life less lifeable,
I'd definitely wouldn't want to work with any such person as my superior ...

Tolerance is a lovely word. IMHO, one precondition for tolerance is - same level.
Whoever might be in a position to destroy my life even by ordering others to do so,
can never ever tolerate whatever I am, but mercy me at the utmost.

While I from below ... err ... sorry, I can't but disgust ... destruction, suppression, overpowering, violence, death

- disgust, mere, blank, raw, completely unintellectually and utterly shattered D - I - S - G - U - S - T ...

...


Sorry, I'm - yeah heaven forbid - an emotional girl ...
That's why against all reasoning I've signed this, and no, I don't regret it:

http://act.credoaction.com/sign/mozilla ... B&rd=1&t=1

My fourpence worth :-

People is people, all the same and all different

I liked the phrase "tolerance is - same level" from being645 I think that is the best way forward.

However, people are entitled to their own opinions and views and if they don't happen to coincide with yours, then if they are not doing any harm, then that is tough s**t.

sultan2075 wrote:My own view is that insofar as marriage is a sacrament in a religious ceremony, it's none of the state's business. Insofar as it is a contract freely entered into by two consenting adults... it's none of the state's business, unless and until it becomes a matter of adjudicating the dissolution thereof.

If marriage is none of the state's business then why should the state have any say in adjudicating the dissolution thereof?

sultan2075 wrote: I’m arguing against the anti-intellectual and frankly fascist tendency

It's gone a bit Godwinistic in here. You automatically lose the thread.

sultan2075 wrote:[I am no lover the state and the way it tramples on individual autonomy.

Individual autonomy is a myth, unless you're living alone in and off the woods like an animal. As soon as you have to interact with others to satisfy some of your needs, you will become dependent.

stufarq wrote: If marriage is none of the state's business then why should the state have any say in adjudicating the dissolution thereof?

Right.. plus... constructs like 'marriage' are defined only in the context of a community. It doesn't make sense outside of that, if you're the only two people on Mars, does it matter if you're married? Therefore I fail to see how marriage could be the 'business' of religion but not of the state, in particular since religion is just a primordial form of statehood.

stufarq wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:My own view is that insofar as marriage is a sacrament in a religious ceremony, it's none of the state's business. Insofar as it is a contract freely entered into by two consenting adults... it's none of the state's business, unless and until it becomes a matter of adjudicating the dissolution thereof.

If marriage is none of the state's business then why should the state have any say in adjudicating the dissolution thereof?

The state always plays a role in the dissolution of a contractual relationship initiated by one party when the other party does not agree to the dissolution. Or did you not realize I was talking about divorce?

stufarq wrote:

sultan2075 wrote: I’m arguing against the anti-intellectual and frankly fascist tendency

It's gone a bit Godwinistic in here. You automatically lose the thread.

No. Sorry. Fascists actually did do such things. But i guess it's easier than engaging arguments.

nowayjose wrote:

sultan2075 wrote:[I am no lover the state and the way it tramples on individual autonomy.

Individual autonomy is a myth, unless you're living alone in and off the woods like an animal. As soon as you have to interact with others to satisfy some of your needs, you will become dependent.

Missed the bit where I said "I'm not an anarchist"? I don't reject the existence of the state. I reject unnecessary interference with autonomy. Don't confuse autonomy with godhood or beasthood.

nowayjose wrote:

stufarq wrote: If marriage is none of the state's business then why should the state have any say in adjudicating the dissolution thereof?

Right.. plus... constructs like 'marriage' are defined only in the context of a community. It doesn't make sense outside of that, if you're the only two people on Mars, does it matter if you're married? Therefore I fail to see how marriage could be the 'business' of religion but not of the state, in particular since religion is just a primordial form of statehood.

I'm not sure what was unclear. Marriage is either a) a sacrament in a religious context or b) a freely entered contract between consenting adults.

In the case of a) it is none of the business of the state. In the case of b) it is none of the business of the state either (unless the terms of the contract have been violated).