How is it more distant than incest? Are you saying there are people genetically predisposed to be incestuous?

The analogy between anti-miscegenation laws and anti-gay-marriage laws rests on identifying both sexual identity and race as social classifications that have borne a great deal of discrimination where the reasons for the discrimination seem to reduce entirely to in-group/out-group dynamics, or something similar. In other words, the analogy is that in both cases the only motivation for the laws appears to be prejudice; there aren't any other good reasons to discriminate.

Incest is different both in that there is an objective reason to avoid incest (even noting Wookie's qualification about non-child-bearing couples), and because "incest-preference" (so to speak) does not appear to occur nearly as universally in human cultures as homosexuality does, and does not appear to be as core to human identity as other expressions of sexual identity.

Now, sexual identity isn't perfectly immutable either, but if we evaluate laws in terms of the burdens they place on people and evaluate the burden in this case by how fundamentally it impacts a person's core sense of themselves as human, then it's clear that denying rights to gay people is far more harmful than denying the right to incest. That's an empirical observation, rather than some kind of deduction. In the absence of a compelling reason to discriminate, it seems clear we shouldn't. The taboo on incest may also be purely cultural, but we're less concerned with the rights of non-reproductive incest-seeking people because there's far fewer of them, and far less reason to suppose that incest being illegal is an impediment to their general well-being

They don't speak to what a marriage is, just who is allowed to marry. Should a state say Lefties bump elbows and raise educational expenses, therefore the state will not recognize a marriage between two left handed persons, the state is restricting the latter, not the former of redefining marriage.

and well named, you based your point on feelings and numbers. How bad do people feel and how many are of them? Essentially saying the meaning of marriage changes every time a loud faction can fill the public square.

Uh, the meaning of marriage has changed many times, based on what sufficient numbers of people recognize it to be.

1) That's still hateful. It's just doing it by proxy, like it's applying the hateful impulse to discriminate against gays to an unrelated subject.

2) LOL it doesn't even follow. What part of gay marriage being legal forces adoption agencies not to discriminate? Like I said, SMPers adore logic above all else but are SO BAD at it. You'd think people so eager to get into dick measuring contests would be packing, but here we are.


So easy. One non-hateful argument. Your failure says a lot, but that you try says more.

one post later

Who am I kidding, we all know DMW ain't a big fan of interracial marriages either. But still, one post.

I agree with this although I am not certain that "willful" is always correct.

---

A few pages back someone said having the discussion about same-sex marriage is akin to a a discussion about interracial marriage. Neither should have a place in any academic setting because the issue should be considered settled. (paraphrasing here)
To this I say that I don't think they are comparable because one is established law that is not going anywhere while the other is still a current fight for equality. Until same-sex marriage is as uncontroversial as interracial marriage there is still a time and a place to have this discussion. Even if it is only to point out that there are only flawed arguments against marriage equality.
This is not a comment on whether this should have happened in the incident brought up in this thread.

OK then let's roll back to where we were. This wasn't a "Homosexual Rights" class or whatever. Allowing gay marriage was, correctly, provided as a way to apply the Rawlsian principle of ethics that the class was about. "BUT I HATE DEM QUEEEEHS" isn't relevant to that. You can disagree with the principle being demonstrated personally, that's fine, but what sort of safe space bull**** is it that now conservatives need classes to be a Safe Space from learning about ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS that might disagree with their personal opinions?

Obviously FoldN didn't read his example, but go back to this,
http://www.anorak.co.uk/414432/news/...iversity.html/

and tell me where in the transcript you think the TA did or said something wrong.

NOTE: Sklansky, that goes for you, too! You might want to evaluate why is it that your SUPER TECHNICAL POINTS OF LOGIC are literally taken word-for-word from the arguments used by bigots.

NOTE #2: I just can't get over how dumb FoldN was to post that as proof that safe space culture is run amok because the professor got in trouble, when the HERO of the story is the bigoted student who says, and I quote,

Oh we all know that the SMP crew isn't going to follow a link, let me just quote it. After reading this, the only criticism I have of the TA is that she didn't punch this smug little prick in the mouth:

It's been read Fly. What was your point?

I wouldn't agree with your violence approach but that didn't happen so nothing to criticise on that either.

chezlaw- My point is that FoldN is a bigot who doesn't read his own links. Which I wrote already.

So kinda proving my broader SMP point about how you don't read anything, instead preferring to ceaselessly wage a trolling vendetta against everyone who isn't as racist as you are.

If only campuses would drop the safe spaces and put an end to victim culture!

http://www.academia.edu/10541921/Mic...Moral_Cultures

Well we know you keep saying stuff like that for whatever reason you feel the need to but did you have any point about the SMP crew's view on what you quoted:

As I said. I don't agree with your view that violence should have happened but I assume you dont really believe that either. Was there anything else?

What did the grad student say that merited death threats against her? What did she say that is a threat to free speech?

Nothing. Any death threats are both totally unjustifiable and (I hope) criminal.

Nothing at all.

Any disagreement?

I don't know what is meant by 'SMP crew' but if it includes me then maybe Fly will tell us what he disagrees with.

Foldn thinks the grad student was over the line.
You bend over backwards with apologetics for Foldn.

But most of it really is just wank. At some point you're going to have to come to grips with the fact that criticism of philosophy is largely justified.

Maybe chez is just doing this to train for the world championship in verbal tennis?

If Foldn ever supported death threats then I missed it. I'll condemn it totally if it happened - did it?

I gave my views on the other bits - tell me what you disagreed with, if anything.

I bend over backwards to try to understand what people are saying and what is being disagreed about. I don't think it's a bad thing and nor is it apologetics. Is that what Fly means by SMP crew?

Uh, have you read the thread? You were just accusing me of not being very familiar with it due to not knowing the greatest personal attackers. I thought you would have followed one of the most prominent topics.

If I missed Foldn supporting death threats then I'll be shocked (that's far more than surprised btw) both for missing it and because he did.

Did he?

Not quite; FoldN doesn't even understand what happened. He thinks it was the professor who stopped the gay marriage discussion rather than the grad student.

I think the point is to understand where the criticism is justified. A lot of what purports to be philosophy is wank but then I think much of the criticism of philosophy isn't actually criticism of philosophy but the wank that is served up in it's stead.

That's mostly a myth written to make gay marriage seem more historically normal (it is not). Ancients use the word marriage like we do. even in the isolated cases like Greece where homosexuality was tolerated, they did not confuse what is or isn't a marriage. Which isn't a surprise as there was only one way to make babies.

That conversation is a spoof right?

Who is the "we" of "we do"? Personally I consider marriage to the the lawful union of two consenting adult, marriage also doesn't make babies. Previously there is a good chance that our forebears believed marriage resulted in the woman becoming the property of the husband, has that changed and should it?