California overturned gay-marriage ban today!

Post Reply New Topic

The laws of the land, just or unjust, apply to you whether or not you think they should. Clearly anyone who can't deal with authority is going to be unhappy in civlized society. Rules are part of being civilized. Learn to deal.

Oscuria is a perfect example of the dangers of tyranny of the majority. I find these anti-gay marriage referenda and claims of "activist judges flouting the will of the people" extremely disturbing, because when a democratic republic degenerates into a tyranny of the majority a populist dictatorship isn't far behind. Rights exist to protect the minorities and minority opinions from being trampled on by the opinions of the majority.

I never said that there weren't laws passed for equality, I just said that equality had no validity in and of itself. Honestly though, you can't take the actions of certain judges in your favor given the fact that a number of people explicitly reject their actions as bad judging and hold to more conservative views of law and frown upon the non-conservative views as simply wrong. Take Scalia's notions of living constitutionalism being idiocy.

I never said I was happy with it at all. I am just implying that asserting an ideology is not an argument. It is only an assertion that would not stand against any opposition. After all, you aren't working with bare facts, but rather some metaphysical interpretation that your opposition does not seem to agree with. Rhetoric is and always will be rhetoric, I don't listen to it for that reason. People also talk about how this nation is blessed by God, but that does not mean he is doing any blessing of it.


I know, it is relatively democratic. Not absolutely and I never would have said it were. I put stock in whatever the government holds to be true because that is what this debate is about. I really don't care much about the government at all, but apparently one government exists and people want this government to various things. I would really just prefer that the government got out of the business of marrying people period.

Yes, I am positing an entirely pragmatic take on government and I know that most people would not agree to my ideology and attempt to fervently rebuke it, so I don't invoke it. I am not arguing morality with you though, I am merely arguing that this is what is happening and to say "rights" when others do not agree with you is futile. I tend to believe that the US will legalize gay marriages, but that does not mean I will necessarily like the arguments for or against.

I never said we should either. However, I am bringing it up because your assumptions about what exists. I am not much of a rights absolutist like you are.

No, he isn't. Ragtime is a perfect example. Oscuria is just weird. I find the judges rulings somewhat disturbing, but also the fervor against gay marriage is disturbing as well. The big issue here is that the right involved is not a pre-existing right, it is a right that we are trying to establish as one, so the danger is significantly less than you seem to think. Frankly, I am more afraid of the summer gas tax cut than the fools against gay marriage, as the former represents a flagrant anti-intellectualism, while the latter seems to me to be a lost cause and a delaying of that which seems inevitable at this point. Really though, all you are outlining is why governments suck.

Sheesh, AG, what DO you believe about anything? Half the time you sound like an anarchist, the other half an apologist for fascism. Do you just like to argue for the sake of arguing?

What IF I were an anarchist who believed that governments were inherently fascist? Would that make some sense?

Judging by what I've seen of you (and what I know of anarchists in general) that is quite possible. However, it doesn't explain why you have spent a good portion of this thread as an apologist for state power, and arguing from a framework that assumes an all-powerful state. Not to mention you have more or less explicitly denied the concept of "rights," which most anarchists would regard as central to their philosophy. Plus, the utilitarian views you've expressed on and off don't always blend well with more common deontological anarchist positions.

Well, the existence of a non-minarchist state, would mean that the state's power effectively has no limits, doesn't it? Not only that, but I have also stated a belief in moral skepticism, which would stand against the concept of rights. Not only that, but Friedmanite anarcho-capitalists argue based upon utilitarian grounds. I also very rarely actually express moral ideas, and utilitarian ideas are probably too common to really ascribe much to them.

In related news, Texas bans overturning gay-marriage bans

That depends on how strict a definition of minarchist you hold to, and whether you believe that our government really does or does not hold absolute power. I haven't met very many Friedmanite anarcho-capitalists, don't Chicago School adherents usually ascribe several functions (such as monetary policy) to the state? The Friedmanites I've heard all advocate a smaller state on utilitarian grounds, but I've yet to hear one of them propose abolishing the state entirely. I have noticed that you seem to rarely (if ever) express moral ideas, and yet post continuously in threads dealing with them. I'm growing more and more convinced that you really do argue just for the sake of arguing.

Well, I don't mean Milton, but David. David Friedman, the son of Milton Friedman is a well known anarchist who wrote the book "The Machinery of Freedom". http://www.daviddfriedman.com/

Well, the issue is that I don't argue ethics in threads involving ethics, but rather I end up arguing metaethics and do so explicitly in favor of moral skepticism, which is a valid metaethical position.

Oh right, I forgot about David. OK, so there certainly are Friedmanite anarchists, just a different Friedman.

I don't understand the overwhelmingly bigoted anti-gay sentiment that seems to rule on this thread, bar a few exceptions??

I'm not sure what you're talking about. There are only a handful here who oppose gay marriage, to my knowledge. Ragtime, oscuria, iamnotaparakeet... I can't think of any others. AG doesn't seem to care as much about gay marriage as whatever abstract philosophical points about the existence or non-existence of rights he feels like making. I've more or less stayed quiet because I don't think who marries who is any of my business.

Maybe they're just overwhelmingly vocal, then... either way, I find it strange. Why does it matter who loves who? Doesn't the fact that they love each other mean anything? Surely love should be encouraged, especially given the state of the world at the moment...

Yes, I see no point. It is not for me to respond to their want. I only answer for mine. If they wanted legal arrangements, there can be accommodations, but why Marriage? There is NOTHING that forbids homosexual couples to live together. I am far too conservative in family issues that I wont answer the last question.

Now, my rules are a bit excessive especially to a person who is liberal. I made that point in another thread. BUT I see no problem in banning any of these things because certainly in my opinion, such a scene is not a proper atmosphere for a family. I enjoy the fact that there is no public drunkenness, I deplore the fact that there are idiots who put people in danger on weekend nights (clubs etc). I abhor alcohol and drugs. These are my beliefs, and if there was a voting measure, I would vote to minimalize these things.


It most certainly does not make me a tyrant.