The buggers are legal now, what more are they after?

Richard Goode's picture
Submitted by Richard Goode on Fri, 2012-10-19 05:50

"Legalising" gay "marriage" is not the solution to the problem of "marriage inequality".

The solution to the problem is for the government to get out of the business of issuing "marriage licences" to opposite-sex couples, not for it to get into the business of issuing "marriage licences" to same-sex couples.

Why should anyone require a licence from the government to get married, anyway? Libertarians should be concerned with abolishing such governmental intrusions, not clamouring for "intrusion equality", or insisting that the State "should recognise everybody’s right to be equally miserable."

The solution has a precedent in the abolition of titular Knighthood and Damehood honours by Helen Clark. (They were restored by John Key in 2009.) Wikipedia says

In April 2000 the new Labour Prime Minister Helen Clark announced that knighthoods and damehoods were abolished, and the order's statutes were amended accordingly. Between 2000 and 2009, the two highest awards were called Principal Companion (PCNZM) and Distinguished Companion (DCNZM), and recipients did not receive the title "Sir" or "Dame". Their award was recognised solely by the use of post-nominal letters, as for the lower levels of the order.

The government simply needs to set a date after which marriage licences will no longer be issued. Civil unions will be the only option available for gay and non-gay couples wanting governmental endorsement of their love lives and living arrangements. Existing marriage licences issued by the government, and those issued by other governments, would continue to be recognised, but the government would cease to issue new marriage licences after the set date.

After much time spent considering my co-bloggers' excellent arguments both for (Tim) and against (Reed) Louisa Wall's "marriage equality" bill, I'm off the fence now and picking the splinters out of my scrotum. I'm for marriage equality and against Wall's bill.

[Cross-posted from Eternal Vigilance.]


( categories: )

Oregon bakery refuses to make same-sex wedding cake

Richard Goode's picture

...And You Still Need To Pony Up

Michael Moeller's picture

I don't see any quotes from me remotely resembling "unrealistic optimism" and "pollyanna-ism". Since you made the claim, I expect you to back it up.

Show me the evidence. Quote me.

I fear sometimes you get ideas stuck in your head that can't be dislodged, no matter the evidence to the contrary. I've told you about 10 times I never took anything personal about "Airhead America", yet you repeat that same thing again. I don't get why you do that, but it's another good example.

Michael

Just Take Responsibility, Linz!!

Michael Moeller's picture

Linz,

You have misrepresented me on multiple occasions, including the topic of this thread. Don't debate if you don't want, but obviously I will stampede right over you if you re-enter the thread with stuff like I am in favor of "Gummint" up to its "frilly knickers". If you insist on such misrepresentations -- without rebutting the actual points -- I will be pissed. Period.

And the same goes for the Romney thing. You are still not taking responsibility with this garbage:

I hereby retract "insistence" and substitute "unrealistic optimism." The distinction is inconsequential in my view because both fall under the rubric of pollyanna-ism.

Really?

If you read my comments before the election, as you said you have, then you would realize that I said multiple times that I put Romney's chances at just above 50-50, and was nowhere near as optimistic as people like Rove and Dick Morris.

And here you are STILL saying "unrealistic optimism" and "pollyanna-ism". Considering Romney lost by 3.5 million votes, I was not that far off with just above 50-50 chance of winning.

And the "I'm Feelin' Good" thing you quoted from me while I was watching the voting returns, and Romney was up early in Florida and Virginia. At that point I was optimistic because he needed those states. Then you can see my mood change as the votes went against him, and this was all during the voting returns.

If you are not going to properly represent what I actually said and contort yourself to STILL justify a false claim about my conclusions, then I will regard you as the enemy.

Take responsibility for misrepresenting what I said. And you are still not correct with my view of your "Airhead America" theory.

Michael

Tangential but not trivial ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

In our side-bar as to which of us is disconnected from reality, Michael demands I “pony up” with evidence that he “insisted” Romney was going to win the presidential election. I have reviewed the relevant thread, and he’s quite right in letter, but not in spirit -– he was not insistent that Romney was going to win, merely unduly optimistic. Hardly "total misrepresentation" on my part; rather, an innocent exaggeration, born of faulty memory born of senility, not intent to misrepresent. Scarcely worth all that Pamplona snorting and stomping.

I hereby retract "insistence" and substitute "unrealistic optimism." The distinction is inconsequential in my view because both fall under the rubric of pollyanna-ism. It was gapingly obvious that Obamarx was going to win, because of the cultural backdrop of which he is the perfect apex: the phenomenon I call "Airhead America."

Of interest was the persistence of Michael's undue optimism. even to the point where the results were coming in and I had already sent up distress signals:

I dont like ...

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Wed, 2012-11-07 01:28.

... the look of it at all at this point. Exit polls showing airheads preponderating, dribbling over The Filth's bedside manner during the hurricane. O'Reilly channeling Doug, saying the demographic has changed and the US has morphed into western Europe. Are you there Moeller?!

I'm Feelin' Good

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Wed, 2012-11-07 01:46.

Romney looks like is going to take Fla and Va from some early signs (like quickly catching up to Obama in Obama's early vote edge in Fla). From what I am seeing and reading, Cuyahoga county in Ohio (i.e. Cleveland) is off by a lot, something like 170K votes, and he beat McCain by 260K votes. That's big trouble for Obama in Ohio.

If Romney goes 1-2-3 in Fla, VA, and Ohio, Obama is finished. We'll see as the votes roll in.

Forget the exit polls, they are worthless. Think 2004 when the exit polls had Kerry up by 5.

Michael

Of course, reality had the final say, and by the end of the evening Michael was acknowledging:

Your fear may just be right. Obama's reelection is a tipping point for America.

Time for a gallon of Vodka.

I became reassured by that, because it told me that Moeller did appreciate the seriousness of America’s situation in a way I thought he’d previously resisted. He’d always been faintly hostile to my notion of Airhead America, mistaking it for a fixation on the current young generation only, and seeming to take it personally. A Moeller who grasped the reality of Airhead America would be a formidable weapon against it; a Moeller who denied it, might well waste his time stampeding like a bull on matters such as whether the government should define marriage.

Imagine my dismay, then, when I read the following on this very thread:

As to my "disconnected Pollyannaism", I am not sure about your evidence, but is it your assertion that you are more "connected" to American culture?

I mean, I deal with the culture up-close day-in and day-out, and with young and old people in various businesses. Yet, Linz, who gets his American cultural views from airheads on TV broadcasted to another country has a better grasp of American culture.

Um, ok.

Now, with all due respect to Michael, that’s just cheap and churlish. I think Michael knows I do have a particular love and knowledge of American history and politics. He certainly knows I spent many extended periods there, during the last of which he and I enjoyed several very agreeable telephone conversations. He knows I’m not some indifferent flibbertigibbet passing empty comment from afar.

The evidence for the reality of Airhead America is overwhelming and ubiquitous. Obamarx’s re-election clinched it. It is now Airhead America, and it is a cultural phenomenon. Not only are bad ideas entrenched, a decisive number of people are now incapable of absorbing or debating ideas. This is the reality organised Objectivism seems not to have caught up with, as Doug Bandler likes to remind us. Organised Objectivism is in a time warp -- though interestingly, one very prominent American Objectivist has acknowledged to me privately:

[T]he political situation in America and elsewhere is grave to say the least. And your points about Airhead America are, sadly, on the mark. After all, elitist statists require an ignorant, dumbed-down population because thinking, intelligent individuals would not let themselves be treated like serfs.

This man remains optimistic, but is under no illusions as to the enormity of the battle.

Michael, my jibe at your reality-disconnect on this matter was in response to yours about mine on the subject of this thread. As such, it was a relevant diversion, and not a ploy. I’ll keep debating your insistence that government define marriage if I feel so inclined, which is unlikely, given my priorities, the empiricist splay of your posts and your puzzling, latter-day bellicose insistence on treating me as the enemy.

The near-terminal state of the culture, not just in America but in the West generally, is of far greater concern to me than campaigning to get the state out of relationships. It sets us all up for demagogic dictatorship where the state will be up to its frilly knickers in everything. As we speak, Obamarx is circling for the kill. Let it not be for future historians to say, Objectivists jerked off while America burned ... or they pretended it wasn't even burning.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

What does this have to do with Romney? You brought that issue up out of the blue on this thread, and totally misrepresented what I said in the process. Smells like a deflection. In any event, of course I'll stampede like a bull right over you if you are going to try and pull that nonsense. And you should either provide evidence to back it up, or take responsibility for the misrepresentation.

If you are going into that topic -- for what reason I don't know -- you can at least quote me and show what I *actually* said. That type of misrepresentation really pisses me off. Pony up the evidence on my alleged "Pollyannaism". Don't know why you bring it up here, as it is a deflection from the thread topic, but be my guest.

I had plenty to say about what you wrote, so I responded in multiple posts. It is certainly your prerogative to respond to none, some, or all of it. However, the last two times you waited at least a month, and still didn't address my points.

If you want to start somewhere, I am certainly interested in your explanation of the difference between the government defining and setting formalities for certain voluntary associations, like a corporation, but not marriage. Again, both restricted by settling property issues. I'm anxious to here your distinction in that case.

Michael

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Linz cannot be bothered to read the counter arguments and respond. No, he'll do as he has done on this thread on two previous occasions. He'll get around to reading the arguments a month or two later, misrepresent what I have said, evade answering directly the scenarios put to him, and declare there is nothing to see.

????

Michael, in the mere day and a half since my post you have proffered five replies to it, to say nothing of your responses to Baade and Reede, and here you are complaining that I haven't dropped everything to respond to you. I appreciate your diligence and vigour, but you must appreciate that when and whether I respond to your responses - all, some or any of them - is my prerogative. I am not obligated to do so at all, much less on a timeline demanded by you.

I have been up for a couple of hours. The first thing to greet me this morning was that SOLO was down. We have it back up. I am all caffeined up and rarin' to get my day going. There are nine things on my to-do list. Replying to you, or doing anything on SOLO, is not one of them, Michael. Nothing personal - these other matters are simply more pressing and of longer standing, and attend to them I shall, if that's all right by you. If and when I do address your posts, I intend to begin with the one concerning your optimism re Romney's being elected president, since that, in a way I shall explain, is much more important than whether government should define marriage.

Whether the latter is concerned, I'd be obliged, Michael if you'd advise when you're actually done, since I see you've posted on it even after this message I'm replying to here. (A hint for future reference: your chances of an expeditious reply from me would be enhanced if you'd take the trouble to distill your case into one, reasonably calm, post, rather than doing your impersonation of the running of the bulls in Pamplona - which is very good, by the way.)

Linz's Dangerous Ignorance...

Michael Moeller's picture

Linz says I am wrong to assert that he is offering an assault on the First Amendment. Further, I assume he disagrees that it is him who is ushering government into the personal lives of individuals.

Who is right?

Consider this statement by Linz:

Not at all. If it's a Catholic marriage, and there's a dispute subsequently as to whether it conforms to Catholic doctrine, of course the government (hereinafter known as "Gummy"), in resolving the dispute, must ascertain what Catholic doctrine is. "Ascertain" does not mean "wade into," much less "dictate." It means "identify what Catholic doctrine is."

Notice that Linz totally evaded answering the scenario directly.

Why? Because to answer directly would refute the distinction he just tried to make. Obviously, if Catholic doctrine holds inconsistencies and contradictions, to decide a the case would be deciding what Catholic doctrine is.

Let's run the scenario again. Note that many modern Christians hold that marriage is between a man and a woman. Yet, in the Old Testament, there are many cases of polygamy, including among those favored by God who were not punished for practicing polygamy (see, eg., David).

Billy and Erin decide to get married as Christians and according to Christian doctrine. They have a full wedding consummated by a priest and in front of family and friends. Erin later finds out that Billy is already married to two women in other states. She wants the marriage declared void because they agreed to get married as Christians, and Christianity does not permit polygamy. She brings in clergy to testify to that effect.

Billy, wanting to get a piece of Erin's wealth, says the marriage is perfectly valid according to Christianity. He wants the marriage declared valid, and instead argues for a divorce because he wants some of Erin's dough. He cites the Old Testament, and brings in clergy arguing in his favor that Christianity permits polygamy.

Well, the court has to decide one way or the other. In deciding whether the marriage was valid and who gets what property, the court must decide whether Christianity permits polygamy. Ergo, Linz has placed "Gummy" in the position of deciding Christian doctrine, contrary to his assertion.

So much for Linz's claim that:

"'Ascertain' does not mean 'wade into,' much less 'dictate.' It means 'identify what Catholic doctrine is.'"

Well, what about the fact that Christian doctrine is contradictory or inconsistent? To speak nothing of ordinary scenarios where the intent and consummation of marriage may be ambiguous?

Blank out.

The real kicker is that Linz accuses *me* of introducing the government into personal relationships up to its "frilly knickers", while he has unwittingly allowed the government to determine Christian doctrine.

No, defining marriage and setting formalities for consummating a marriage is government intrusion, even if just for the purpose of settling property and custody disputes that arise from marriage. Nevermind the fact that the government does it (validly) for all types of voluntary associations, contrary to Linz's general "principles", such as business partnerships, real estate relationships, professional relationships (eg. doctor-patient), and so on. This is intrusive Gummy.

But having two people define marriage any way they want and have it recognized by law, through Linz's mystical notions of "contract", is just dandy. Nevermind the fact that one of the consequences is that government will be intertwining itself with religion.

No specialized knowledge about the law is required. Libertarian dogma will suffice.

Michael

Lemme Guess....

Michael Moeller's picture

Linz cannot be bothered to read the counter arguments and respond. No, he'll do as he has done on this thread on two previous occasions. He'll get around to reading the arguments a month or two later, misrepresent what I have said, evade answering directly the scenarios put to him, and declare there is nothing to see.

Very nice.

Michael

Don't Know Why You Bother, Richard...

Michael Moeller's picture

No, it is not a legal contract. A contract is not any agreement, Ace. Registration is not a contract, like when you register to vote. Or you register a deed to your house.

Go look up the legal definition of contract, or ask Rosie.

Of course they would not want personal liability, you dummy. When an Officer is signing a contract on behalf of a corporation, he is binding the corporation's assets, NOT his own personal assets. Duh!!!

Do you people ever venture out into the real world and sign contracts and such? The downright ignorance is absolutely appalling.

What's more appalling is that you do nothing to rectify your ignorance.

Michael

More Moeller moronry

Richard Goode's picture

it is not a "contract" with the government

Of course, it is. By registering a corporation with the government, the government agrees to recognise and treat the corporation as a separate legal entity, and the owners of the corporation agree to whatever liability and tax rules the government sets for corporations. What is a contract, if not an agreement between parties?

liability is not "escaped".

Of course, it is. To whatever extent liability is limited, it is thereby escaped.

Liability is imputed to the assets of the corporation, not one's personal assets.

Isn't that Reed's point?

Most persons forming a corporation (vs. a sole proprietorship) ... do not want to become personally liable for the actions of the corporation.

That's right, Michael. They want (if we ascribe to them the motives you ascribe to them) to escape personal liability for the actions of the corporation.

Not the brightest neutron star in the firmament, are you?

More of Reed's Ignorance

Michael Moeller's picture

Uh, Reed, it is not a "contract" with the government anymore than registering a deed is a "contract" with the government.

Secondly, liability is not "escaped". Liability is imputed to the assets of the corporation, not one's personal assets.

As I've told you about 100 times before, you really need to educate yourself on these topics before weighing in on them. Ignorance doesn't seem to stop you, unfortunately. Oh well.

Michael

Limited Liability

reed's picture

Most persons forming a corporation (vs. a sole proprietorship) do so because of the different rules governing liability (and taxation). That is, they do not want to become personally liable for the actions of the corporation.

A person should not be able to escape liability by making a contract with the government.

Duplicate

Michael Moeller's picture

Deleted.

Explain Just ONE Thing to Me, Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

You've harped on the murder scenario, and thus totally missed the point. The law must define the *who* and the *what* whether criminal OR civil law. This led you to form the following false general principle:

I would counter Michael's formulation with: Just as the government, in its role as protector of individual rights, must define murder, or any other involuntary relationship, so too it must *not* define marriage or any other voluntary relationship.

Does this mean it is invalid for the government to define what constitutes a corporation, and outline the formalities in forming a corporation? Yes or no.

Most persons forming a corporation (vs. a sole proprietorship) do so because of the different rules governing liability (and taxation). That is, they do not want to become personally liable for the actions of the corporation.

Likewise, people who want the property and custody rules of marriage may marry, and the government defines marriage and the formalities necessary to form a valid marriage.

Note, here, for the government to register a marriage or corporation, it also has to fall in the confines of its limited authority, i.e. in both cases it is only for the purposes of arbitrating disputes over property, and any injuries resulting therefrom. The government does not concern itself with whom one hires, or with whom one marries or sleeps with. (So much for the "frilly knickers".)

Now, if you believe that it is ok for the government to define a corporation and require a set of formalities to register as a corporation, then why not for marriage? Again, keep in mind that, to be proper, the government's role in both cases is only for settling disputes of property (and custody in the case of marriage).

Explain the difference.

Michael

Stellar standards

Richard Goode's picture

Is Moeller up to his usual stellar standards? Has Perigo fallen well below his?

Before trying to answer these questions, let's ask first what species of star are appropriate to the two cases.

In Perigo's case, I suggest the red dwarf - a fulminating micro-intellect.

In Moeller's case, I suggest the neutron star - an extremely dense mass that sheds little light of its own but warps that of other stars.

Is there a hyphen in 'gay marriage'?

Richard Goode's picture

Is there a hyphen in 'gay marriage'?

Is there a hyphen in the term 'gay marriage'? No. 'Gay' and 'marriage' are two separate words.

But the English language is a dynamic, evolving entity. The general pattern is this. New terms formed from two words become hyphenated as the term comes into common use. When the term becomes established, the hyphen is dropped, and the new term becomes a new word in its own right.

A familiar example is the word 'email'. This word started out as the two-word phrase 'electronic mail'.

honeywellad

As soon as "electronic mail" came into common use with the advent of the Internet, the term 'electronic mail' became hyphenated (and simultaneously the word 'electronic' was abbreviated to 'e') and 'electronic mail' morphed into 'e-mail'.

Today, a Google search for "e-mail" yields

About 4,450,000,000 results.

It's an impressive result. But a Google search for "email" (no hyphen) yields more than twice that number! Clearly, the hyphenated term 'e-mail' is now somewhat archaic. Today, the correct term is 'email'. One word, no hyphen.

As more and more governmental jurisdictions around the world recognise "gay marriage", we will see the same, familiar pattern instantiated again.

'Gay marriage' will very soon become 'gay-marriage' (hyphenated) or, more likely, 'g-marriage' (hyphenated and abbreviated).

By the time the children of these g-marriages are themselves old enough to g-marry, the hyphen itself will have fallen into disuse.

'Gay marriage' will morph into 'g-marriage' which will morph into 'gmarriage'. It's a linguistic inevitability.

Nice Logic, Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote:

And if you're going to suggest I am disconnected from reality, I'd remind you it was I who predicted Obamarx's re-election in the face of your lengthily-"reasoned" insistence that Romney would win. Your disconnected Pollyannaism on that occasion would make even Rosie blush!

Is that what I said? That's news to me (and you are misrepresenting me AGAIN!!). Here's what I wrote (multiple times):

As I said before, I have nowhere near certainty that Romney will win. I give him better than even odds, which is about the best I can say at this point.

Whoops!!

Somehow, my statements that I had "nowhere near certainty" and "better than even odds" became "an insistence" that Romney would win. Oh.

And he lost, so my odds were wrong. Is Linz's logic that because my odds on a Romney win were wrong, I am therefore wrong about this topic? Nice logic.

As to my "disconnected Pollyannaism", I am not sure about your evidence, but is it your assertion that you are more "connected" to American culture?

I mean, I deal with the culture up-close day-in and day-out, and with young and old people in various businesses. Yet, Linz, who gets his American cultural views from airheads on TV broadcasted to another country has a better grasp of American culture.

Um, ok.

Michael

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

You have not yet answered the scenarios I put forth. At least you've admitted that you will now have the government determining whether a marriage "conforms" to Catholic doctrine. Now, I would like to see you give your answer to the scenario. Your answer will prove the rest of my point.

You keep answering: the government will decide the validity of the marriage "contract". Somehow. Go ahead and take a stab at being the judge. The rest of my point will be proven.

In any event, your rationalism is much easier to spot, in this case. You wrote:

"I would counter Michael's formulation with: Just as the government, in its role as protector of individual rights, must define murder, or any other involuntary relationship, so too it must *not* define marriage or any other voluntary relationship.

Really?

What about a landlord-tenant relationship?

What about a business partnership?

What about a licensor-licensee?

And on and on and on?

Rationalism rearing its ugly head, writ large. A brief glimpse at reality should have shown how false this is.

Just like these voluntary relationships, the definition and the consummation of them is written into law. By your general principle, the state is wrong to do such. Good luck with that.

And you still -- after about 5 levels of explanation -- do not understand that the point about contracts. You are pretending that two people can define anything as constituting a contract.

Newsflash #1: the government defines a valid contract. That is, the government would still be defining marriage via its definition of contract (i.e. it could STILL reject an agreement between two people as NOT being a marriage because it does not meet the state's requirements for contracts). You still don't get this, and I can't make the point any clearer. Consequently, this statement is also false:

Either or both ways, Government's only task is to recognise whatever contract they thereby enter into and enforce its terms, if called upon.

Government does not just enforce the terms, whatever they may be. For instance, the government will not enforce a contract to murder a 3rd person. Another for instance, and one embodied by one of my examples, the government obviously cannot enforce a contract where the terms are contradictory.

Newsflash #2: the marriage "contract" you just drew up is actually NOT a contract, and as I've explained umpteen times, there is good reason why it should not be treated as one. For instance, if a marriage vow were treated like a contract term, you would be obligated to fulfill it. Like, say, to love the person "till death do us part". Good luck with that.

But since Newsflash #1 seems to be going right over your head, even though I've explained it at least 5 times, I won't harp on it anymore.

The important point here is that you have clearly demonstrated a case of pure rationalism. You are trying to now form a general principle that buttresses what started out as a false idea, and should obviously be a false principle if you just looked to these other simple voluntary relationships (landlord-tenant, business partnership, etc.). **See, again, your general principle bolded above.**

Look at where you've gone with this argument (i.e. your general principle above), and it is not me who is not up to my usual stellar standards, but you who have fallen well below them, sorry to say.

Let me put it to you plainly and simply, Linz. You do not understand the contours of objective law, which is how you arrived at this position and formed your general principle above.

Michael

Nothing to see here ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Michael entreated me to answer his answer to my last post on this thread, even though I had said I'd be bowing out at that point. On the off-chance that Mighty Moeller might indeed have exposed a flaw most foul in my case for the separation of state and marriage, I looked ... and saw nought except reiteration and amusing rhetorical bombast about my being a rationalist and an anarchist, along with other such theatrics more appropriate for a testosterone-filled courtroom:

You may not have found my arguments up to the usual "stellar standard", but I submit it is because you are wedded, ahem, to a rationalist approach. It is directly analogous to anarchists who think all law can be reduced to "contracts", you've just narrowed the scope to marriage. Usually you don't fall for the rationalist approach, but in this case you have.

I have never suggested, by analogy or directly, anything remotely resembling "all law can be reduced to contracts," and any claim that I have is pure and simple bull, Michael! Nice try, but nonsense. And if you're going to suggest I am disconnected from reality, I'd remind you it was I who predicted Obamarx's re-election in the face of your lengthily-"reasoned" insistence that Romney would win. Your disconnected Pollyannaism on that occasion would make even Rosie blush!

Michael again reduces his case, in effect, to: Just as the government, in its role as protector of individual rights, must define murder, so too it must define marriage. Now, I freely acknowledge that murder and marriage are widely regarded as synonymous, especially by married people (and for unimpeachable reasons, no doubt), but I respectfully submit that the law ought not to treat them as such. They are not equivalent or commensurate. Quite the contrary in fact. Michael's formulation is a classic non-sequitur, of the kind to which empiricists are prone.

Murder is an act of aggression, an initiation of force; as such, of course it must be defined by the government as part of the process of prohibiting it. Murder imposes an involuntary relationship on the murdered; it imposes a status on its victim he didn't volunteer for: dead.

Marriage is a voluntary relationship, properly to be defined by the individuals who enter into it and/or the private, voluntary institutions within whose purview they do so. Government's function is, if it comes to that, to enforce the terms of the relationship qua contract, not qua marriage.

I would counter Michael's formulation with: Just as the government, in its role as protector of individual rights, must define murder, or any other involuntary relationship, so too it must *not* define marriage or any other voluntary relationship.

Moreover, to say that it's government's function to define marriage is akin to saying that marriage comes from government, just as to say that it's government's function to define employment in an employment contract is akin to saying that employment comes from government and may not proceed without government's imprimatur. I assume Michael believes government should define "employment"?

For some tortuous reason Michael says it's impossible to hold that government should enforce the terms of contracts but not define their rubrics, without being mired in a hopeless contradiction. Buggered, so to speak, if I can see that. If he and Rosie get "married," it's not for government to dictate what that means exactly; it's for government to enforce whatever they mean when they do it (assuming they make it clear -- if they don't, it's their funeral), in the event of a subsequent dispute. In a free society of the kind that Michael seems to dread as squalid subjectivist anarchism run amok, he and Rosie might draw up their own contract or sign on to one of the many "form" contracts that would undoubtedly be on offer -- perhaps an ecumenical one: Episcopalian to accommodate Rosie, Mormon for Michael (kidding), etc. For them to be married in the eyes of their respective churches or other institutions they must meet the criteria laid down by those churches and institutions; to be married in their own eyes at least, they must meet their own criteria. Either or both ways, Government's only task is to recognise whatever contract they thereby enter into and enforce its terms, if called upon.

Suppose Michael and Rosie wanted to enter a romantic union but not call it "marriage." Let's say they drew up a contract, which they solemnised at a ceremony, and called it a "romantic union contract" and a "romantic union ceremony." Is it Michael's contention that government would first have to define "romantic union"?

Michael says:

you appear to think there is some magical remedy in contracts that escapes the need for the government to define the conduct (for marriage) in advance, which is false on its face because the government already defines the conduct for a valid contract. That is, the government would still be defining marriage via its definition of contract.

The government should define what constitutes a valid contract, and require clarity. It doesn't follow that in so doing it is necessarily defining, or should necessarily define, marriage. Another non-sequitur.

Michael hallucinates that I'm paving the way for a wholesale totalitarian assault on the First Amendment:

I wanted you to answer the John/Sarah scenario for this very reason. As you can see from the scenario, to resolve the dispute the government will have to wade into how the Church defines marriage.

Do you really want the government determining what is and is not Church doctrine? By not defining the conduct in advance, the government will be required to do so. You have created the exact opposite situation from what you desire.

Not at all. If it's a Catholic marriage, and there's a dispute subsequently as to whether it conforms to Catholic doctrine, of course the government (hereinafter known as "Gummy"), in resolving the dispute, must ascertain what Catholic doctrine is. "Ascertain" does not mean "wade into," much less "dictate." It means "identify what Catholic doctrine is."

The funny part of all this is that Michael, at a certain level, agrees with Baade. Michael is completely correct about Baade's "moral eliminatavism" and other such excrement, in which Baade specialises qua subjectivist pomowanker and general twat. Yet he embraces the view Baade holds, qua intrinsicist theocratic dogmatist and general twat, of what makes a marriage, marriage. Baade says marriage is what Gobby says it is in advance (thus there is no such thing as gay marriage); Michael says marriage is what Gummy says it is in advance (and there's such a thing as gay marriage if Gummy's definition allows it). 'Tis Baade, not Rosie, whom Michael should marry! Missing from both their views is any belief that free men and women can work these things out for themselves, and not necessarily in a monolithic way: some institutions may recognise gay marriage, others not -- and Gummy should stay out unless free men and women are in dispute. Even if Gummy offers a definition consistent with individual rights (which it hasn't yet), such a definition is, at best, superfluous.

Contrary to Michael, objectivity does not require that "marriage" mean the same thing the world over at all times, determined in advance by Gummy. As history shows, we got to it without Gummy, and Gobby for that matter; we can carry on without Gummy, and with or without Gobby as we choose.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexol...

The marriage laws and customs of ancient Rome are not easily summarized, because they were rather varied and underwent significant changes in the course of time. Still, without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval.

Separation of state and marriage! Gummy out of relationships!

Again I observe, Michael's arguments on this thread are not up to his usual stellar standard. He deservedly has a big fan club here, of which I remain the most enthusiastic member. On this occasion, though, he disappoints. Perhaps he is suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in the wake of Obafilth's re-election, the certainty of which he was in denial over, and he's failed to imbibe sufficient Vodka with which to get over it. The former, to paraphrase Oscar, may be regarded as a misfortune; the latter can only be seen as careless.

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

Literary allusion.

Revisiting

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I have just trawled back to find the two replies of Michael to me that I haven't yet read. I've put them in a separate file with a view to replying. In the process of trawling, I came across this, from Baade, on October 30:

But, unfortunately, sometimes something truly awful happens. The tyranny of the tawdry majority prevails. If a large enough number of irredeemable fuckwits misuse a word for a long enough period of time, and the guardians of the English language take their eyes off the ball, then the brain dead's misuse becomes use. Sad, but true. The linguistic custom changes and, with it, the meaning of the term. Militant moronry, when preponderant, means dictatorship. And it dictates meaning.

On October 26 I had posted a new thread on Airhead America, as follows:

Behold, I give you the personification of Airhead America. Everything about this loathsome creature, including what she's being paid to say and how she says it—exudes militant moronry, which, when preponderant, spells dictatorship. The Tyranny of the Tawdry via the Despotism of the Demagogue will take hold long before Peikoff's Goblian theocracy does.

On March 10 I had posted on my thread re Faecesbook:

Whenever I go there—as infrequently as possible—I'm overcome by a desire to see the irredeemable fuckwits who pass for humanity under its purview incinerated expeditiously, which, while a consummation devoutly to be wished, is probably not good for my blood pressure.

Imitation may be the sincerest form of flattery, but, when not acknowledged to be imitation by the imitator, is not the most honest form of argumentation.

O look

Jules Troy's picture

http://www.vancouversun.com/to...

They are picking up MaRRiaGe licences.

"Snickers at Baade"

I see

Rosie's picture

Thanks, Reed! Very interesting.

You have inadvertantly cleared up the mystery of another cryptic comment which I received not long ago which I had rightly it seems interpreted to be the opposite of the words said because they didn't make sense to me either! I am grateful to you to have confirmed to me the key to understanding these cryptic comments.

Rosie

reed's picture

I was aiming to be understood. I know I'm not always sucessful at being understood. It's not my intention to cause you (or anyone else) any harm.

My previous comment to you was a gentle rebuke for your benefit.

You were criticising Richard for something which you were doing yourself. Jesus said to remove the log from our own eye then we can see clearly to remove the speck from our brother's eye.

I hope you accept what I've said in the spirit intended.

Cheers

Reed

Reed

Rosie's picture

I am afraid I am the Epanimandos of cryptic comments which, if your childhood literature incorporated his tales, you will understand by that I mean that because I do not speak cryptically myself, I do not understand it. And my experience has taught me that it is more often than not a nasty thing veiled in words that say its opposite. When I discern that another speaks in this cryptic code, as with Epanimandos, I have invariably got it wrong when I have attempted to decipher it but, paradoxically, and again as was the case with poor old Epanimandos, when I don't attempt to decipher it and take it on face value, I am invariably told by the cryptic voice that I have it wrong again!

Therefore, if your comment is cryptic, as my intuition tells me, I would be obliged if you would speak plainly and in a straight forward way to me that leaves no room for doubt or causes me emotional stress with both the confusion it brings trying to work it out and/or suspecting it is nasty. (I am not tough OR subtle!)

I have decided this is the only course for me where cryptic voices speak to me. In the end it saves a lot of time and many misunderstandings. Smiling

P.S. This is not a criticism, by the way! People don't understand my visually absurd sense of humour or my long-winded incoherence half the time either!

There's something in your eye.

reed's picture

Rosie
Your main point is that Richard's entire post rests on unjust presumptions.

But the main point, Reed, is...

Rosie's picture

But the main point is that Richard's entire post rests on his unjust presumption that these people are guilty of "censorship" when (a) one of them attempted to enter in to a discussion which Richard completely ignored since he did not address the man's response in any way but chose an absurd fantasy for his reply; and (b) he understands it to be and even called it blocking (not censorship) and cheerfully applauded this very same act in the midst of discussion, when done by a friend on his facebook page.

That is dishonest and unrighteous to me or, as it is described on SOLO, a case of bad faith. Even moreso to publish it without notice to them so that they can defend themselves (a task I have undertaken) and to then wrongfully imply the most degrading and insulting labels to them - his fellow Christians. Evil, Morally and intellectually weak, A life not worth living.

Reed

Rosie's picture

Rosie
People on all sides of the issue want to shut down discussion. That I think is why Richard posted his FB dialogue here.

Well that is a presumption you have made, Reed (that people on all sides of the issue want to shut down discussion). It certainly has not been my experience at all. In this case, there is no more to substantiate your presumption and theory in respect of these people than my own (other) presumption and theory which I have posited below.

Richard does not agree with the view of the support site (and neither do I).

I thought Richard indicated in his post that he considers "marriage" to conform with the Oxford dictionary - as between a man and a woman/husband and wife. Isn't this the same thing as supporting heterosexual marriage?!

I thought you said on this thread that you thought the government should not support immoral acts - the implication being to me that you thought homosexual marriage was an immoral act and thus supported heterosexual marriage only. Richard did not dispute your point regarding the immorality or morality of it - only the role of the government - thus leading me to believe that he thought it *was* an immoral act. But perhaps I read too much in to this and it is only the government that you thought should not support immoral acts - but that it was ok for you to support what you described as an immoral act hence your now saying that you do not support heterosexual marriage only. Otherwise, I really can not understand what your view actually *is*, Reed. And possibly Richard had simply not made up his mind on the morality or otherwise of this issue and so was saying nothing about it.

Why shouldn't he discuss an issue on a support site? There's nothing wrong with that.

Did I say that there was anything wrong with it? What I said was I couldn't understand why he sought to challenge them when his view (I believed and he says himself) is that marriage is for heterosexuals also. Since he repeats this view in his response to Linz below, perhaps it is better you allow Richard to speak for himself!

Richard does not appear to wish to discuss anything. He made three statements - possibly four if you look at the timing - all in a row and all within three minutes without ever waiting for a reply and before he got one. The response was, "This little boy was not born in to this marriage. It's not natural." Sounds like the person was willing to enter in to a discussion to me. That is until he gets Richard's reply. Richard replies by stating that the little boy's mother is an alcoholic and one of the men is his father! What was the point? It is not clear. The site owner could well be forgiven for thinking that Richard was not the full quid. If you look at the rest of the people on the thread, they seem very straight forward and speak in a straight forward way.

By comparison, if you look at all of Richard's comments, they don't really make too much sense. And they did not seem to be "discussable" points, at all. One (to me, irrelevant) question Richard even answers *for* the person to whom he addresses.

"No one asks to be born." It wasn't alleged that the child asked to be born!
"You can choose your friends but you can't choose your family." At least one of the men was not his family.
"Do you people make as much fuss about single parent families? No." This is hardly a point asking for discussion or even relevant to the site, is it?! I don't even know why he mentions this. In calling them "you people" it also sounds aggressive and just a bit superior. I know Richard has made a big fuss in the past about someone becoming a single parent, so was he saying that they should be "making a fuss" about single parent families as well? He doesn't say what he means at all. And it isn't clear to me either.
"Stephen Berry" I have no idea why this was said! It comes out of the blue! Richard does not explain this link to SOLO readers so we have no idea.
"One of these men is the little boy's father. His mother is an alcoholic." This comment was Richard's imaginative reply which had him ousted, as I said earlier! Again, I am not sure what his point is! How is this comment supposed to be replied to?! It is speculative so would an equally speculative reply, "She is in AA recovering!" be a useful point of discussion, do you think?! Perhaps the man was not in the mood for writing a short modern tragedy!

In short, these comments are mere statements. To me, they do not seem either relevant or to be seeking any form of discussion.

The point he could have made to discuss/inform, but didn't, involves his point about the government keeping out of the issue entirely.

Why not discuss their avoidance/evasion here? It's relevant to this discussion.

If it is avoidance/evasion. You presume this only, Reed. Perhaps they just thought his comments were vague, incomprehensible and unanswerable. Perhaps they did not understand what he was asking of them to discuss and, frankly, I wouldn't have blamed them if this were the case! Maybe the site owner decided that after the flurry of Richard's first four comments/statements, without ever waiting for a response, whilst everyone scratched their heads in confusion at this extraordinary stranger in their midst, that he was stoned or maade and, after his speculation that the mother was an alcoholic but not following through on what this actually would mean in terms of any discussion, the site owner may well have decided that he didn't want to waste any more of his time. And no one else seemed to understand what Richard was getting at either if my interpretation of their silence is correct.

An unexamined life is not worth living.
This is either a quote or he thinks all those people should be killed.

It is a well known quote, Reed. Richard then modifies it to say an unexaminable life is less so. He is basically making many presumptions that these people are "avoiding discussion" - when to me he did not actually seem to *make* any points for discussion. If he had any, they were not communicated in any real or comprehensible way (and it is usually sensible to speak to people in language they can understand if a discussion is what you seek) then, on the basis of those presumptions, he *judges* these Christians (Gasp! and if you know Richard then you will know how fond he is of quoting the expression, "Judge not lest ye be judged") and implies that these Christians' lives are less than worthwhile.

I think to seek to put these people down in such an ignominious, unjust and possibly even malicious way (since they are offered no chance to defend their position and his entire attack is based on presumptions which I have debunked almost as well as Michael Moeller might have done!) is not a decent thing to do by a Christian to his fellow Christians - particularly when there is an explanation that seems to me more likely than the one posited by Richard. I.e., Rather than avoiding discussion, they simply could not recognise or understand anything said by Richard or that he even was seeking to engage in any discussion - other than to make apparently meaningless statements or to attempt to compose some fantastical modern tragedy!

Explaining Richard

reed's picture

Rosie
People on all sides of the issue want to shut down discussion. That I think is why Richard posted his FB dialogue here. Your reaction to Richard is interesting.

Richard does not agree with the view of the support site (and neither do I). Why shouldn't he discuss an issue on a support site? There's nothing wrong with that. Why not discuss their avoidance/evasion here? It's relevant to this discussion.

An unexamined life is not worth living.
This is either a quote or he thinks all those people should be killed. Eye

Rosie

Lindsay Perigo's picture

You to Baade:

Try as I might, I can not see anything redemptive by what I have read in these dealings with the Support Site for Christians or, later, in your reply to Linz's correction of you which was nothing but smartassery and refusing to admit you were wrong.

I am truly bewildered.

I'm not.

A mystery inside a puzzle inside an enigma - Richard!

Rosie's picture

I see now why people get fed up with you, Richard.

"Arguable, but not by me."

1. The other day you told me about, and cheerfully applauded, your friend who blocks people on his facebook page. You did not call it censorship then. Nor did you imply that he was any of the descriptions you attributed to censorship, and impliedly your fellow Christians, in your post. You condoned it.

2. It would seem that the Oxford dictionary is fine when it suits your argument (e.g., the "marriage" definition) but not when it makes your use of the word "censorship" incorrect, which Lindsay correctly pulled you up on and which meaning would be consistent with your attitude as described in 1. above. This sounds twisting and dishonest or, more charitably, at the very least, inconsistent, to me.

Louisa Wall's crowd need a new term to mean "gay union." 'Marriage' must not be misappropriated.

3. Reverting now to the restating of your position on marriage being between heterosexuals, begs the question : why are you trolling and challenging/annoying these Christians on something on which you agree? Their site is not even a site intended for "rational" discussion. They simply are a gathering of Christians who are asserting a moral position commonly thought to be based on Biblical authority from what I can see - and its very name suggests that it is more of a petition or "support group" than a discussion group: "1,000,000 Supporting Traditional Marriage".

And if this is the view you support, then why are you attempting to challenge them? It is a perfect mystery to me.

That you suddenly condemn what the other day you called "blocking" and now call it "censorship" when you are at the receiving end is a puzzle. Except that I can understand that you may have felt hurt to be blocked and without explanation. (Although I can see why and explain it.)

The enigma, however, and I may be taking this to heart a bit much, is this:
Why you (a) then chose to publicise this account you had with these Christians on SOLO; and (b) sought to publicly ridicule them by implying, through the descriptions you attributed to censorship, that they too must be "evil", "morally and intellectually weak" and "their unexamined/unexaminable lives not worth living/or worse".

All this false persecution because they didn't want to talk to you on a support site
? and this only because you were not supportive! But, what is most incomprehensible about it to me, Richard, is why you did not support them if this is a subject you actually agree with them on!

Try as I might, I can not see anything redemptive by what I have read in these dealings with the Support Site for Christians or, later, in your reply to Linz's correction of you which was nothing but smartassery and refusing to admit you were wrong.

I am truly bewildered.

Linz

Richard Goode's picture

... it's not "censorship" when they opt to keep you off their turf. ... "Censorship" is when the government prohibits you from expressing your view on any turf, including your own.

The Oxford English Dictionary agrees with you.

Definition of censorship
noun
the practice of officially examining books, movies, etc., and suppressing unacceptable parts

Arguably, however, there is a more modern, looser definition. Wikipedia says

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals who engage in self-censorship.

Arguable, but not by me. Smiling

There's a lot to be said for traditional definitions, such as this one, also from the Oxford English Dictionary.

Definition of marriage
noun
the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

I need a new term with general application to mean "silencing dissent." 'Censorship' cannot be co-opted.

Louisa Wall's crowd need a new term to mean "gay union." 'Marriage' must not be misappropriated.

Michael

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I haven't read your replies (two of the bloody things?! Eye ). When I said I'd give you the last word I didn't undertake to read it!

This week is full-on, including dinner with one of my heroes, Freddy Kempf, and attending his concert. After that, I might take a look. Eye

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

I hope you didn't skip over my two replies because, quite frankly, I don't think you've due diligence to arguments beyond the stock libertarian position, which is in conflict with the facts and the nature of objective law.

Michael

Baade

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Much as I empathise with your contempt for both sides in this debate, it's not "censorship" when they opt to keep you off their turf. Since it's their turf, they may admit or refuse whom they choose. "Censorship" is when the government prohibits you from expressing your view on any turf, including your own.

And why anyone imagines he or she can have a rational discussion with anyone about anything on Faecesbook is a mystery to me.

This is my first time back on this thread since my reply to Michael. I wonder what I've missed, but there are way too many posts to trawl back through in order to satisfy my curiosity. Eye

Don't mention Stephen Berry!

Richard Goode's picture

I have my own reasons for opposing the "gay marriage" legislation currently before the New Zealand Parliament. They are given and elaborated upon in this thread.

But the truth is that the vast majority of the participants in this debate—both those for so-called marriage equality and those against—sicken me to the quick.

Recently, I was censored by the career queers on Facebook. Now I've been censored by Facebook's "God hates fags" brigade. This time without so much as an attempt at an explanation as to why (unless, of course, you count this festering manifesto).

Censorship is, always and everywhere, an evil.

Censorship is, always and everywhere, a sure sign of moral and intellectual weakness.

An unexamined life is not worth living. An unexaminable life still less so.

Two daddies

Interesting...

Marcus's picture

"What this means is that a landlord who declined to rent a home to a same-sex couple could spend as much time behind bars as an assailant who actually committed an act of physical violence against them."

There was a famous case of a Christian couple in the UK who turned away a gay couple who wanted to rent a room together in their B&B.

They were sued for descrimination. Even though it was their private home this was upheld.

I heard the couple interviewed recently. They still operate a B&B, but now as a trading company. Apparently that means they now are allowed to legally exclude gay couples from staying at their house.

The first part of the story got huge media attention. The second part of the story, the solution, was basically ignored.

The Government and its Gay Marriage Law

Rosie's picture

Is about as necessary in its nannying as The Catholic League and Cavallaro's chocolate sculpture of Jesus.

The New Boise Code

Rosie's picture

Reported here.

"It’s also worth noting that under Boise’s municipal code, sexual orientation discrimination would be treated as an offense as serious as an act of physical assault. What this means is that a landlord who declined to rent a home to a same-sex couple could spend as much time behind bars as an assailant who actually committed an act of physical violence against them.

Thomas Jefferson famously said that his neighbor’s religious beliefs didn’t matter to him because they neither picked his pocket nor broke his leg. To be a crime, an act must involve aggression against the person or property of another human being – that is, it must entail either pocket-picking or leg-breaking.

Boise’s proposed anti-discrimination measure, like similar enactments elsewhere, would empower uniformed leg-breakers to pick the pockets – and incarcerate the persons – of residents whose only offense would be to conduct their business and private affairs peacefully in accordance with their religious and moral beliefs.

Discrimination isn’t a crime. However, seeking to punish it certainly is."

Victory for freedom of speech!

Marcus's picture

Christian wins case against employers over gay marriage comments

"A Christian who was demoted for posting his opposition to gay marriage on Facebook has won a legal case against his employer...

Later Smith said in a statement: "I'm pleased to have won my case for breach of contract today. The judge exonerated me and made clear that my comments about marriage were in no way 'misconduct'.

"My award of damages has been limited to less than £100 – but that is for technical legal reasons and the judge made it clear he was not able to award me a much larger sum.

"But I didn't do this for the money – I did this because there is an important principle at stake.

"Britain is a free country where people have freedom of speech, and I am pleased that the judge's ruling underlines that important principle."...

"Something has poisoned the atmosphere in Britain, where an honest man like me can be punished for making perfectly polite remarks about the importance of marriage.

"I have won today. But what will tomorrow bring? I am fearful that, if marriage is redefined, there will be more cases like mine – and if the law of marriage changes people like me may not win in court.

"Does the prime minister want to create a society where people like me, people who believe in traditional marriage, are treated as outcasts? That may not be his intention, but, as my treatment shows, that's what will happen.

"The prime minister should think very carefully about the impact of redefining marriage on ordinary people."

Michael has convinced me...

reed's picture

... that government should have nothing to do with relationships at all.

There should be no marriage legislation, no civil union legislation, no de facto relationship legislation and no gay marriage legislation.

The discerning reader may be interested to know that I am not politically opposed to gay marriage.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

What is the meaning of a word?

Marcus

Richard Goode's picture

Gay Red Shirt Day

Richard Goode's picture

Yesterday (Friday) was Gay Red Shirt Day.

I signed up to the Public Event on Facebook, thinking that it could be a bit of fun to wear my gay red teeshirt.

Then Stephen Berry made a brief post pointing out that the underlying intent was censorship.

And then ...

And then ...

Kylee Bowater
Hey guys. I've left a load of posts up that other people have contacted me about and asked me to remove, because I don't agree with censorship, as a general rule. However, if I decide that someone's just trolling (as you guys are) then I will remove their post. I don't actually give the slightest fuck whether you guys approve of my actions or not, and if you are going to post simply to be rude and offensive, then you can do it on your own facebook wall, not here Smiling

... we were censored.

Now, of course, as one of the creators of the page, Bowater is entirely within her rights to remove any comments including mine for any reason or no reason at all. However, the fact remains that her action in doing so is not a good look. And it amply confirms Stephen Berry's original point.

It remains only to point out that one of Bowater's co-censors, Kirsty Ren, is a placenta specialist ("I help people get the benefits of their placenta without the 'ick factor'") and the other, Suzy Gallagher, encapsulates said "ick factor" on her Facebook wall. (Seriously, would you let one of the items pictured below pass your lips? I wouldn't.)

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

It surprises you that Objectivists disagree on a position?

"Dictate" is a deflection. The government already says you can't have terms that are illegal (eg. a contract to kill somebody else), a misrepresentation of fact (eg. my fake Rolex that I represent as real), etc. Why? Because such terms are a violation of rights.

Secondly, he then goes on to assume that a government's definition will violate individual rights. That's also false, as false as assuming that the government does not define what a contract is. It does -- a mutual consent to the exchange of property (i.e. offer, acceptance, and consideration). His conception is premised on a false notion of contracts, like most libertarians.

Michael

Marcus

Richard Goode's picture

I don't think there has been a large enough cultural shift yet when even California couldn't bring itself to decriminalise the drug.

I disagree. I think Tuesday's vote was the tipping point.

However legalising "gay marriages" is very cool on the politically correct scene at the moment.

I agree. I think those opposed to "gay marriage" are fighting a rear guard action.

No...

Marcus's picture

"Did I rain on your funeral parade?"

...but in our lifetimes we've seen them come & go.

For example Holland has starting tightening up cannabis liberalisation to be less tolerant.

Also the UK decriminalised cannabis for a few years under new Labour only to reverse it again.

Not even the so-called "cool" liberals like Obama are supporting it.

I don't think there has been a large enough cultural shift yet when even California couldn't bring itself to decriminalise the drug.

However legalising "gay marriages" is very cool on the politically correct scene at the moment.

Get "gvt." outa the business

Richard Goode's picture

Here's what I've been saying all along. (Excerpted from Linz's comment to Doug on another thread.)

From Ari's article I linked to another on gay marriage. Had to laugh at one of the comments by a poster:

Here's the REAL solution. Get "gvt." outa the business. Don't redefine concepts. Reproduction is irrelevant.

Just use the contract relationship, under contract law, to cover contract relationships, every kind. Gvt., proper, doesn't dictate any provisions of any contracts. Its up to the individual to form & define his own concepts. Such concepts have input into forming & defining concepts used in laws, such as, in contract laws. When a relationship between a man & a woman involves reproducing themselves with each other, they can cover that in a contract. Parties to a contract relationship can tailor the contract to their needs.

With gvt., proper, merely enforcing contacts under law, no specific contracts or kinds of contracts get favored treatment. Gvt. gvns., that's all. And that's all there is to it.

Don't tell Moeller! Eye

It is, indeed, up to the individual to form and define his own concepts. Pardon me if I get a bit shirty when people try to redefine mine by gvt. fiat.

Marcus

Richard Goode's picture

What's bet ... all the cannabis legalisation bills get reversed?

Did I rain on your funeral parade?

French cabinet approves gay bill

Marcus's picture

What's bet the gay marriage bills stay and all the cannabis legalisation bills get reversed?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/worl...

It's legal now...

Marcus's picture

America goes liberal with gay marriage, abortion and cannabis votes.

"Three states voted Tuesday to legalize same-sex marriage, including Maine - which voted in a referendum against it in 2009, but reversed that decision with 54 percent in favor to 46 percent against."

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Can you give me a specific example of a pre-Greek lexicographer?

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Fri, 2012-10-26 07:29.

Indeed, the Church "lexicographers" defined the earth as flat, and that was the common usage by the Church.

Submitted by Marcus on Fri, 2012-10-26 06:26.

Actually that is a common myth. The Christian Church never propagated the idea that the earth was flat. Like the Greeks they believed it to be spherical.

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Fri, 2012-10-26 06:46.

I'll change the example to pre-Greek lexicographers

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Tue, 2012-11-06 03:55.

you are wrong on the facts, as usual. Written dictionaries go all the way back to the Greeks.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

You asked the simple question:

"Does the concept 'marriage' include gay unions?"

I already told you that two gay people can marry, and you agreed while trying not to agree.

I didn't agree. To say that I did is subtly incorrect. You asked me a simple question.

Is it true you wrote that about those who want the concept marriage to include gay marriage?

Why did you refer to "those who want the concept marriage to include gay marriage" if it already does (according to you)?

What do you say to the experts on human linguistic customs (lexicographers) who compiled the Oxford English Dictionary? According to whom 'marriage' is

the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife

Oops. Marriage is the formal union of a man and a woman. There is no such thing as gay marriage.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

2008 Libertarian VP nominee and "Mr. Libertarian" penned an article entitled: Mitt Romney is the only sane choice for Libertarians.

In the article, Root says

I’ll take incremental progress over no progress. Mitt Romney is a step in the right direction.

I already specifically debunked Root's argument. By voting consistently for the lesser of two evils, one is consistently voting for evil. One is ratcheting evil.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Submitted by Richard Goode on Wed, 2012-10-31 05:16.

Terms such as 'prescribe', 'proscribe', and 'marriage' have *correct* uses. And the meanings of such terms is determined by their correct *uses*, not by their incorrect *misuses* and outright *abuses*.

Submitted by Richard Goode on Tue, 2012-11-06 20:05.

In my comment, to which you refer, I was careful to distinguish between use, misuse and abuse.

Submitted by Michael Moeller on Wed, 2012-11-07 05:11.

You talked about misuse of the word 'marriage', and how it leads to dictatorship. But even though you mentioned nothing about "abuse", you'll simply insert that now in a desperate attempt to extricate yourself from admittingly voting for those leading us into dictatorship. Oh, ok.

Your claim that I mentioned nothing about abuse is subtly incorrect.

(Also, your claim that I talked about how misuse of the word 'marriage' leads to dictatorship is subtly incorrect.)

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

You talked about misuse of the word 'marriage', and how it leads to dictatorship. But even though you mentioned nothing about "abuse", you'll simply insert that now in a desperate attempt to extricate yourself from admittingly voting for those leading us into dictatorship. Oh, ok.

Hey, maybe you really meant that dictatorship is only furthered by those that abusively misuse a word?

I didn't expect honesty from you. But, alas, your attempt to alter your position is still quite funny:

"I did not refer to those who would abuse the term 'marriage'. They whom I refer to as irredeemable fuckwits, the brain dead, and militant morons at least have stupidity as an excuse."

Haha! So you will vote for "irredeemable fuckwits, the brain dead, and militant morons" that have "stupidity as an excuse"? No doubt this is true, since I assume you voted for yourself.

On your voting analysis, it has all the intelletual content of a third grader. Not one single analysis of one policy. A completely fact-free emotional outburst. That will convince convince nobody but "irredeemable fuckwits, the brain dead, and militant morons" that have "stupidity as an excuse", i.e. people rather like you.

It is rather funny that you call a vote for Mitt Romney "insane". I think many, if not most, libertarians are worthless when it comes to the cause of freedom (see, e.g., Richard Goode), but 2008 Libertarian VP nominee and "Mr. Libertarian" penned an article entitled: Mitt Romney is the only sane choice for Libertarians. Apparently, some libertarians think you're insane, Richard. And they're right!

Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, a libertarian that I respect, breaks it down pretty well why the Libertarian party -- and, by extension, 3rd party candidates like Gary Johnson -- are a mistake in the US presidential system (as opposed to a parliamentary system). Compare his analysis to Richard's moronic mess of cartoons, lame analogies, and empty assertions.

You asked the simple question:

"Does the concept 'marriage' include gay unions?"

I already told you that two gay people can marry, and you agreed while trying not to agree. Remember this?

"Michael: 'Justice of the Peace to Gay Person #1: Do you agree to marry Gay Person #2?
Gay Person #1: Yes.
Justice of the Peace to Gay Person #2: Do you agree to marry Gay Person #1?
Gay Person #2: Yes.

That is impossible? Do explain.'

Richard: 'The dialogue is possible.'

Anyway, Richard, you have once again demonstrated the level of dishonesty to which you will stoop. Enjoy posting pics and cartoons and whatnot. I've got an election to watch.

Michael

We are not a muse

Richard Goode's picture

We are not a muse

Blessed are the Greek

Richard Goode's picture

Written dictionaries go all the way back to the Greeks.

What about the pre-Greek lexicographers, Michael?

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

You're sick, Richard. You're very, very sick.

You're worse than sick, Michael.

If you voted for Romney, or are about to vote for Romney, then you're criminally insane. Please go take this cure for your moral and mental sickness!

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Your whole post is about the misuse of the word 'marriage', culminating in your penultimate that such misuse ultimately invites dictatorship.

Correct.

Is it true you wrote that about those who want the concept marriage to include gay marriage?

Your question is subtly incorrect.

Is it true you wrote that about those who want the concept marriage to include gay unions?

In my comment, to which you refer, I was careful to distinguish between use, misuse and abuse.

In the passage you cited I referred to those who would misuse the term 'marriage'. They whom I refer to as irredeemable fuckwits, the brain dead, and militant morons.

I did not refer to those who would abuse the term 'marriage'. They whom I refer to as irredeemable fuckwits, the brain dead, and militant morons at least have stupidity as an excuse.

The career queers promoting Louisa Wall's bill are militant but they are not moronic. The Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill is nothing more and nothing less than a diabolical attempt to alter the meaning of the term 'marriage' to include gay unions.

You asked me a simple question and I gave you a simple answer.

Here's a simple question for you, Michael.

Does the concept 'marriage' include gay unions?

Richard,You couldn't lie

Michael Moeller's picture

Richard,

You couldn't lie straight in your bed. Your whole post is about the misuse of the word 'marriage', culminating in your penultimate that such misuse ultimately invites dictatorship. You're sick, Richard. You're very, very sick.

In any event, it is rather hilarious that you are trying to dispense voting advice.

Should people also check your arbitrary list of "misused" words that lead to dictatorship to find out if the candidate misuses acceptable words, according to you?

Are you starting to get a clue why nobody takes you seriously? Probably not. You seem to relish the beatings.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Here is what you wrote:

"But, unfortunately, sometimes something truly awful happens. The tyranny of the tawdry majority prevails. If a large enough number of irredeemable fuckwits misuse a word for a long enough period of time, and the guardians of the English language take their eyes off the ball, then the brain dead's misuse becomes use. Sad, but true. The linguistic custom changes and, with it, the meaning of the term. Militant moronry, when preponderant, means dictatorship. And it dictates meaning."

Is it true you wrote that about those who want the concept marriage to include gay marriage?

No.

Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

How about a little honesty for once? Here is what you wrote:

"But, unfortunately, sometimes something truly awful happens. The tyranny of the tawdry majority prevails. If a large enough number of irredeemable fuckwits misuse a word for a long enough period of time, and the guardians of the English language take their eyes off the ball, then the brain dead's misuse becomes use. Sad, but true. The linguistic custom changes and, with it, the meaning of the term. Militant moronry, when preponderant, means dictatorship. And it dictates meaning."

Is it true you wrote that about those who want the concept marriage to include gay marriage?

Simple question.

And for cripes sake -- get your own material!! Not only do you steal other people's ideas, but you also steal their insults!! It's pathetic.

I sometimes wonder if you've ever written a sentence that was NOT stolen from somebody else.

Michael

Moeller's militant moronry

Richard Goode's picture

I asked Richard the following question, and he answered:

"Michael: 'Would you support a candidate that promoted gay marriage?'

Richard: 'Yes.'

I would support Stephen Berry.

I would support Tim Wikiriwhi.

Michael asks

If a candidate was an "irredeemable fuckwit" who misused the word "marriage" and promoted gay marriage through "militant moronry", he would be inviting "dictatorship"?

Michael answers

You will support candidates that will -- by your own assertions -- invite dictatorship.

Wrong question. Wrong answer. Wrong for America.

Rosie's argument against gay

reed's picture

Rosie's argument against gay marriage legislation...

1. Gay marriage legislation should be opposed if it would take away freedoms.
2. While discrimination laws exist gay marriage legislation would take away freedoms.
3. therefore, gay marriage legislation should be opposed while discrimination laws exist.

Is 1 true?
Is 2 true?
Is 3 true?

And a question for Michael...
If Rosie's argument's fails does that mean that there should be gay marriage legislation?

Well, Richard...

Michael Moeller's picture

We learned some interesting things about you.

(1) You will support candidates that will -- by your own assertions -- invite dictatorship. That sort of makes me wonder about the vote you cast for yourself when you ran, but I digress.

(2) Your philosophy, ahem, "book" closely resembles the fetid ideas of a villain in Atlas Shrugged.

(3) And definitions/concepts have no place in your theory of knowledge, quite fittingly; thus, your philosophy degree doesn't appear to be worth the box tops you mailed in to get it.

Michael

Jules

Richard Goode's picture

Why dont both sides of this debate get together and agree ...

Because one side of this debate, viz., Michael Moeller, is an irredeemable fuckwit.

Whew

Michael Moeller's picture

My "subtly incorrect" statements that Reed can never...quite...get around...to...correcting. I'm shaking in my boots.

Michael

Ooo you're good...

reed's picture

That's subtly incorrect. And irrelevant. Must... resist... correcting it.

Whew.

Focus Reed

Michael Moeller's picture

If you don't want to be proven wrong on side issues -- like NZ having legislation for co-tenancy or the definition of muse -- then stop bringing them up. It will also save you the embarrassment of demonstrating that you don't know what you are talking about.

Thanks,
Michael

Richard Supports Dictatorship????

Michael Moeller's picture

I asked Richard the following question, and he answered:

"Michael: 'Would you support a candidate that promoted gay marriage?'

Richard: 'Yes.'

This is very interesting when compared against Richard's earlier statements as follows:

"But, unfortunately, sometimes something truly awful happens. The tyranny of the tawdry majority prevails. If a large enough number of irredeemable fuckwits misuse a word for a long enough period of time, and the guardians of the English language take their eyes off the ball, then the brain dead's misuse becomes use. Sad, but true. The linguistic custom changes and, with it, the meaning of the term. Militant moronry, when preponderant, means dictatorship. And it dictates meaning."

So let's get this straight. If a candidate was an "irredeemable fuckwit" who misused the word "marriage" and promoted gay marriage through "militant moronry", he would be inviting "dictatorship"?

But, alas, Richard would support such a candidate, anyway. Ergo, by his own standards, Richard would support a candidate inviting dictatorship.

In Richard's desperation to make a point, any point, he will run roughshod over his other assertions uttered just a few days ago, sometimes it is within the span of a few paragraphs. Oh well.

Michael

Extraordinary, RIchard

Michael Moeller's picture

Richard wrote:

"You confuse epistemology (the theory of knowledge) with semantics (the philosophy of language). Your entire philosophy is sheer bollocks."

So concepts and the definitions thereof have nothing to do with human knowledge? Concepts and definitions are mere "semantics"? Concepts and definitions are not a part of human knowledge? To you, perhaps.

I find it quite extraordinary that somebody with a PhD in philosophy could assert such a thing. A real, grisly snapshot on the state of modern philosophy.

Not only that, but you are wrong on the facts, as usual. Written dictionaries go all the way back to the Greeks. Did definitions start with the first English dictionary? Another extraordinary claim.

Richard wrote:

"Dictionary definitions are, or ought to be, anchored in the facts of reality (the facts of use)."

Yes, they ought to be, but that doesn't mean they will be. Your whole argument is premised on the idea that they automatically reflect reality. I gave obvious examples, including the definition of the earth being the orbital center of the universe, and you had no counter argument. You simply pretend that no such definition ever existed.

Is it possible, Richard, that a dictionary definition may not be "anchored in reality"? Please answer.

I asked you to debunk Rand's concept of definitions, and you have done nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada.

You assert nonsense, and that is all you ever do.

Michael

Why

Jules Troy's picture

Why dont both sides of this debate get together and agree on the axioms to be used as well as any definitions to be agreed upon by both sides.   

After these are all agreed upon then and only then begin defending your cases so this does not drag out till the second cumming of christ...

Michael and fans

reed's picture

As I understand it the following is Michael's argument...

It is necessary for the government to "lay the ground rules" for every type of interaction that might involve property or children (including gay marriage) because some people are incapable of specifying the terms of their own contracts.
If the government didn't "lay the ground rules" then, in many situations, the courts would lack a basis to settle property and custody disputes.

Is this correct?

Focus Michael

reed's picture

You spend a lot of effort trying to win irrelevant points.

Gay is gay

Richard Goode's picture

PM to radio host: 'You've got that gay red top on'

By 3 News online staff

Just days before finding himself in the firing line for comments made about international footballer David Beckham, Prime Minister John Key has attracted new criticism.

Key appeared on RadioSport's Farming Show on Friday where he criticised long-time host Jamie Mackay’s red sweatshirt – but it’s his choice of words rather than his fashion sense which has landed him back in the hot seat.

“You’re munted mate, you’re never gonna make it, you’ve got that gay red top on there,” he said.

Just minutes earlier he had made reference to Mackay’s top, criticising the host for not wearing blue, the colour associated with Key’s National Party.

“What you’re wearing is an absolute disgrace, you parade yourself as some sort of centre-right interested member,” he said.

The Green Party’s rainbow issues spokesperson Kevin Hague condemns the quip and says Mr Key is reinforcing prejudices and stereotypes.

“The pejorative use of the word ‘gay’ is something gay people have been underlining for a few years now and it’s something we really want to see the back of.

“Its use particularly around kids and young people send a pretty strong signal to young gay and lesbian New Zealanders that being gay is something bad,” he says.

Mr Hague is hopeful Mr Key won’t set trends after his one-liner.

“On the up side, just like he did with planking, his use of this word might kill it.”

Mr Key was not immediately available for comment as he prepares for the release of the Royal Commission’s report into the Pike River mine tragedy.

3 News

Marcus

Richard Goode's picture

Let's drop this whole marriage thing, eh?

You got it.

The solution to the problem is for the government to get out of the business of issuing "marriage licences" ...

I love you too Doug.

Marcus's picture

My God this is getting complicated.

Let's drop this whole marriage thing, eh?

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Your epistemology is sheer bollocks. You wrote:

"Lexicographers report. A reportive definition purports to describe the actual pattern of (approved) use of a term. Dictionary definitions are of this type. A dictionary definition is an attempt to describe the nature of the conventions that govern the (proper) use of a term. Dictionary definitions are, or ought to be, anchored in the facts of reality (the facts of use).
[...]
What is the definition of marriage? Well, how is the term 'marriage' used? Same question. Same answer."

This falls apart in two seconds. Richard assumes that a "lexicographer's" usage or definition will be "anchored in the facts of reality", but we know this to be false. He even refutes himself when he says it "ought to be" "anchored in the facts of reality", meaning there is an objective standard by which we measure definitions, NOT whatever the dictionary says it is. Lexicographers ought to correctly define a concept according to the facts of reality, but that does not mean they will.

Indeed, the Church "lexicographers" defined the earth as flat, and that was the common usage by the Church. So much for that argument, and Richard's epistemology.

Now, instead of asserting that Rand is wrong, let's see Richard prove it using examples, as I just did with his "epistemology".

Michael

You confuse epistemology (the theory of knowledge) with semantics (the philosophy of language). Your entire philosophy is sheer bollocks.

You say, "this falls apart in two seconds," and then proceed to repeat a number of points I had just made. Dictionary definitions are, or ought to be, anchored in the facts of reality (the facts of use). Apparently, you agree.

You also confuse lexicography (the study of the meanings of words) with astronomy (the study of celestial objects). One further problem with your claim that the Church "lexicographers" defined the earth as flat is that there were no true lexicographers until Samuel Johnson and his A Dictionary of the English Language in 1755.

So much for your "debunking" of the "dictionary says it is so" argument numerous times already. Not even once, and not even close.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

What is Libz position on gay marriage?

Linz already answered your question, in a comment addressed to you.

I note that Libertarianz "fully supports the concept of a civil union and would also support allowing marriages between same sex couples, and indeed polygamous marriages or marriages between people who are already related—in all cases as long as all parties are adults and consenting." I wasn't around when that was decided; I wonder where Baade was. Eye

I wasn't around either.

Would you support a candidate that promoted gay marriage?

Yes.

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

I was kinda hoping I could just copy since you're against IP and all.

Of course, you can.

It just so happens that I'm in the process of formatting it for, and uploading it to, the web.

So far, so good ... do.di.ac.nz.

Well...

Michael Moeller's picture

I was kinda hoping I could just copy since you're against IP and all. How much is it? Is it in paperback?

What is Libz position on gay marriage? Would you support a candidate that promoted gay marriage?

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

where can I buy your "book"?

Do you want to buy it?

Hello there, Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

I hope that it IS a book. I sure would like to get my hands on one.

Slight problem, though. I checked a whole bunch of new and used book sites and there doesn't seem to be a single copy in existence, at least for sale. From the photo, I noticed there is no title on the front, so maybe people are confused.

Where can I purchase one of these gems?

On the topic of the thread, would you support a candidate that promoted gay marriage? Does Libertarianz?

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

I am growing more and more curious about your "book".

Do you doubt that it is a book?

Hi again, Richard

Michael Moeller's picture

I am growing more and more curious about your "book". Is this "book" also filled with other people's cartoons in lieu of any semblance of facts?

Michael

Rosie

Michael Moeller's picture

I've already forgiven you, and I figured you must have suffered that shock when dating Richard. Jawdropping!

Michael

Michael

Rosie's picture

I lightly poke fun at Rosie's poetry, and she turns ugly quite quickly and calls me a "transsexual". For all the protestations of NT Christians to "love thy neighbor" and "feed and quench the thirst of your enemy", they readily do an about-face and turn rather nasty when their beliefs are challenged and exposed.

Michael, um, you only said, "Now to the important stuff -- it true that I am your muse?"!! It was hardly challenging or exposing my beliefs, my dear muse!

But I am terribly sorry, that you took offence at my lightly poking fun at your poke of fun, Michael. Calling you a transsexual wasn't supposed to be nasty! (Is being called transsexual a nasty thing? I would not have thought so, you see.) It was supposed to be funny! I thought you would have guessed that with the smiley face thing I added just to make sure you would know it was a joke! I think those pictures are there as very obvious cues for the folk who will use any opportunity to take offence rather than see any humour - even in cases like mine where the humour is often of the absurd type. They are supposed to remove all ambiguity for the reader that he has just read a joke! They are about the written equivalent to "canned laughter" to a tv viewer. But I am very sorry that you missed that it was a joke, Michael. Next time, perhaps, I will add "JOKE" at the end to avoid further misunderstandings. Smiling

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.