Yep, and the reversals of so many of those states' referendums (and laws and constitutional amendments) is no indicator of a sea change, either, is it, B?

But to claim that an Objectivist position should rely on "previously accepted and verified behavior" flies in the face of most things we've experienced in life.

Things change, opinions change, morals and morality change, and usually the last place where the 'adjustment to the new reality' takes place is in the laws of the lands.

Witness: the 'accepted and verified (?!) "truth" about the effects of marijuana versus efforts to even 'make it less illegal.'

Funny, though, regarding what you mentioned about 'random acts principle can't pass down a self-destructive trait.' .... By Whom, when, and where is the "trait" determined to be "self-destructive."

YOU have determined/concluded that 'homosexual marriage" or whatever term it turns out to be... is 'self-destructive.'

In the face of thousands of homosexuals who want to enjoy the same legal rights and benefits accorded to heterosexuals who've "gotten married."

And you think somewhere in there is a 'difference.'

Go talk to a LOT of homosexual "couples" and ask THEM if THEY think their 'lifestyle' is self-destructive.

You might be surprised. Then again, why would you want to do something so risky to your fundamental beliefs?

Sorry, question wasn't even worth asking.
Cheers!

... which, of course, is the foundational basis for never changing any laws once they've been passed because 'they're grandfathered in'... right?

Let's return to Prohibition of Alcoholic Beverages' production and sale, too? After all, THAT 'law' even made it into the US Constitution and remains on the books in many states and counties of the US.... as if nothing ever changed...

Grandfathering something in because you agree with its position has GOT to be one of the weakest arguments I can imagine!

And you're using it.

my, my, my... how we bend the words to our needs...

You are implying that ALL homosexuals who want to marry have exactly the same statistical probability of contracting AIDS or some other STD as the entire population of homosexuals.

That's illogical and lousy math, too! But you consider that some kind of 'proof.'

It isn't.

And 'tyranny of the majority' is also what tends to force 49% of the people to have to obey some law that 51% voted into existence.

The fact that anti-gay-marriage laws and states' constitutional amendments are being deemed unconstitutional by US courts is irrelevant, or in other words, 'those judges making those decisions Just Don't Get It"...

C'mon B... I've often claimed that ALL objections to gay rights, homosexual 'marriage licenses,' etc., can be traced back to some religion's fundamentalist beliefs... Prove me wrong.
Please!

I had just resigned to myself that I was going to accomplish nothing here. Thanks :)

BaritoneGary, this is a board about the philosophy of Objectivism, the writings of Ayn Rand, and the Atlas Shrugged movies.

If you would like to discuss The Bible, there are plenty of online boards on which you can do so.

seriously, you've been battling away here and I'm just now noticing. take a breather. I predict others will step in soon, rip

I will not take a point away, but on this site, that bunch of comment falls flat. not a great place to find or cull disciples. ya gotta stick to reason and rational self interest. this is belief. won't play well.

baritone, you are wrong. your rights are natural. they exist from he time you are born. no god needed.

In addition: 1 Corinthians 10:23
New International Version
"I have the right to do anything," you say--but not everything is beneficial. "I have the right to do anything"--but not everything is constructive.

New Living Translation
You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is good for you. You say, "I am allowed to do anything"--but not everything is beneficial.

English Standard Version
“All things are lawful,” but not all things are helpful. “All things are lawful,” but not all things build up.

New American Standard Bible
All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify.

King James Bible
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Holman Christian Standard Bible
Everything is permissible," but not everything is helpful. "Everything is permissible," but not everything builds up.

International Standard Version
Everything is permissible, but not everything is helpful. Everything is permissible, but not everything builds up.

NET Bible
"Everything is lawful," but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is lawful," but not everything builds others up.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English
Everything is legal to me, but not everything is advantageous. Everything is legal to me, but not everything edifies.

GOD'S WORD® Translation
Someone may say, "I'm allowed to do anything," but not everything is helpful. I'm allowed to do anything, but not everything encourages growth.

Jubilee Bible 2000
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient; all things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify.

King James 2000 Bible
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

American King James Version
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

American Standard Version
All things are lawful; but not all things are expedient. All things are lawful; but not all things edify.

Douay-Rheims Bible
All things are lawful for me, but all things do not edify.

Darby Bible Translation
All things are lawful, but all are not profitable; all things are lawful, but all do not edify.

English Revised Version
All things are lawful; but all things are not expedient. All things are lawful; but all things edify not.

Webster's Bible Translation
All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.

Weymouth New Testament
Everything is allowable, but not everything is profitable. Everything is allowable, but everything does not build others up.

World English Bible
"All things are lawful for me," but not all things are profitable. "All things are lawful for me," but not all things build up.

Young's Literal Translation
All things to me are lawful, but all things are not profitable; all things to me are lawful, but all things do not build up;

Our entire system of law and understanding is based upon religious standards. It would do you well to read, study and understand it (the Bible).

ALL rights are God given!

Orly?

Historically, morality has not been based on individual rights, but on religious grounds. As individual rights progress, societies morality has been shifting steadily.

In 1969 (according to a Gallup poll) 68% of those asked said that pre-marital sex was wrong.

In 2011 it's 36%.

In the 1800's slavery (a complete disdain of individual rights) was considered moral by many - the majority even.

In the early to mid 1900's it was considered morally acceptable to refuse women the right to vote.

Until the 1960's, segregation was morally and socially acceptable by the majority of people.

I won't even go into morality in the Arab nations. They're still in the dark ages.

Shall I go on?

As individual rights evolve in the US, there are yet a few remaining areas where rights aren't equally distributed amongst all. This topic being one of them.

Morality is NEVER outdated!

Thank you for finally admitting your objections are in part due to religious reasons. It is not a straw man just because you didn't bring it up. Nor did you need to bring it up. It's very obvious. Or, are you saying that religious reasons are illogical, even though you stated your objections are based on religious reasons? You're sort of talking out of both sides of your mouth.

First of all, I certainly hope that you are not claiming to be an Objectivist. You may like some of the aspects of the philosophy and choose to glom on to them, but if you also live your life based on faith based religion, you cannot be an Objectivist. You cannot reconcile the two, no matter how much you want to. Not only is Christianity based on faith as opposed to objective reality, it is also altruistic, which is diametrically the opposite of Objectivism.

Regarding your legal objections, bottom line the Objectivist view is that marriage should not be defined or allowed or disallowed by any form of government, whether it be a judge or popular vote. It is a contract between two individuals who make a decision to live their lives together whether you like it or not. Regardless, you also seem to think that redefining existing laws will cause "utter chaos". Really? So abolishing slavery caused utter chaos? Desegregation caused utter chaos? Laws are changed, amended, etc. all the time and have been throughout history. So sorry you don't want to change the definition of marriage, but somehow I think that if it were called any other name, you'd still have a big fat moral religious problem with homosexuals, and frankly, that's your problem. Your argument that a popular vote hasn't changed the definition of marriage is irrelevant and weak. The majority isn't always right and the government should not be ruled by majority vote. All people have the same inalienable rights. PERIOD. The Objectivist view is individual liberty, regardless of any "value." Drugs should be legal. Period. Do drug addicts provide "value"? No not really. But that does not change the fact that it is the choice of the individual. So you asking to show you any value to a homosexual union really makes no difference. You'll never see value in it anyway, again because of your illogical religious views.

Your "logical" reasons are laughable at best. They are nothing but religious propaganda and have NOTHING to do with whether government should define who can get married to whom.

Bottom line for me is this: I'm so sick of right-wing religious conservatives really liking what Rand has to say economically and about certain individual liberties, except when it comes to religious morality being legislated. Then Objectivism becomes a big problem. I'm so sick to death of it. That's like me saying "Yep I'm a Christian because Jesus sounds like a super duper guy, except I'm not going to believe everything he said, just the parts I like." If you have any interest in the Objectivist definition of marriage, here it is. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/marria...

Frankly, you have nothing else to offer in my opinion and your little "wanna try to sound logical and rational" comment just don't cut it. I have no more use for a discussion that's based on religious irrationality. End scene.

When it comes to individual rights - absolutely, because individual rights have not been a constant, or even present at all in a lot or cases, throughout history. Applying any standards of individual rights on the past standards, such as those based on misogyny, sex, race, nationality, creed, religion, or homophobia, because of "tradition" is a dangerous path to take.

And not a single example you cited is a public referendum vote. Every single one of these is in fact the will of the majority being repressed by a minority. Is not this the definition of coercion and repression?

You want to prove the VALUE of the homosexual union to society? Make your case. Show me that homosexuals aren't at a 47x greater risk of HIV (CDC). Show me that they can perpetuate children naturally to further society. Show me that they can model to children the roles of both father and mother in society. They are deficiencies that you can neither ignore nor deny in your proposition.

But maybe I should be asking this: are you seeking for a better society, or merely a different society?

Is Reality defined by today's date? If morality is the study of the interactions of mankind and the repercussions of those interactions forming the basis for acceptable code of conduct in society, would not the results be the same no matter how many times one conducted the test?

"outdated sense of morality" = logical fallacy of ad hominem attack.

I would also point out that it wasn't the People of Massachusetts who chose to redefine marriage, either - just a panel of judges. It takes a general referendum to declare the will of the People - and to my knowledge not a single state has redefined "marriage" to include homosexual unions via a general referendum.

Again, it comes back to the value proposition. Your implication in that statement is that both cases bring equivalent value. I await your attempts to bring empirical evidence in support of this theory.

And a nun chooses that end. She chooses not to procreate. Choice -> consequence. But noone attempts to equate the life of a nun with the life of a housewife.

My opposition to the codification of homosexual union as "marriage" stems from legal, logical, AND religious objections.

Legally, there are many laws which are based on the traditional meaning of marriage. Seeking to suddenly change this meaning and then retroactively apply it to past law would bring utter chaos and is completely unnecessary. It is a far simpler and less destructive matter to give a name to homosexual union and by legislation accord the same rights. The fact that this route is rejected out of hand by homosexual activists tells me that the original claim of "equal treatment" is a sham and farce.

Logically, I object to the furtherance of self-destructive behaviors of all kinds. Recreational drug use impedes the mind and the ability to reason. Recreational sex has been found to cause psychological harm to both participants and degrade their ability to form lasting emotional bonds with others. Homosexuals are at severe risk for not only a plethora of sexually transmitted diseases, but have a significantly higher suicide rate as well. Sociological studies show that children raised by their biological parents who enjoy a solid relationship enjoy a much higher future than otherwise. To pursue a societal course of action that inherently leads to substandard results or self-destruction is not logical.

As for the religious reasons - that is a straw man (a logical fallacy). I never brought up a religious argument in the first place.

I'm also uncertain how you can consider yourself an objectivist when you want individual rights to be defined by your own outdated sense of morality.

As to the first point, I don't necessarily agree with either one. The "Hand of God" principle violates agency/free will and the random acts principle can't pass down a self-destructive trait. I don't find either philosophy sufficiently valid or acceptable.

"The other point is this one: You are trying to apply a 'logical process' to the definition and implications of 'marriage,' and that's the basic, fundamental fallacy of the argument."

Huh? To an Objectivist, EVERYTHING may be dealt with logically. Now if you want to say that because we are dealing with a definition, that as a definition it necessarily precedes the logical conclusion, I am in complete agreement.

But in order to propose that the current definition of an object is incorrect, one must point out specific behaviors OF THAT OBJECT (NOT OTHERS) which do not conform to previously accepted and verified behavior. That is not the case in this instance. The logic I have been using is a repudiation of the attempts to equate one thing with another by pointing out the dissimilarities. A = B ONLY when the two have ZERO dissimilarities.

I would also point out that more than 30 states have passed popular referendums explicitly codifying marriage as between a man and a woman - as in the case so adjudicated before this judge. If you wish to persuade the populace that A = B, recent history shows that you have a lot of work ahead and very little other than personal preference to propel you.

I'm uncertain what you are talking about at this point. I'm also uncertain which "claims" you are referring to - other than when I stated:

"If you define marriage as I and many others do - a life long commitment to another person whom you love and hold in extremely high regard..."

States do not legislate definitions, they legislate what is legally recognized within their commonwealth.

Its clear that if a state has voted to permit gay "marriage" - as opposed to civil unions, as we have in Colorado, they have in fact amended their definition of legally recognized marriage, and you don't have to look too hard to find examples.

I'm confident that within my lifetime, homophobia will fade into the ugly memories of America's bigoted past, and all states will formally recognize marriage as a contract between two adults of same, or opposite sex.

Since you don't seem to be aware of many states legislation (in most cases by POPULAR VOTE) what is legally recognized as "marriage"...

=====
Connecticut

Court Ruling

The state's supreme court ruled in October 2008 in favor of a constitutional right to marriage for gay and lesbian couples; the state started issues marriage licenses to same-sex couples in November 2008.


====
District of Columbia

City Council Legislation

In May 2009 the Council recognized marriages of same-sex couples entered into in other jurisdictions as valid in the District.

====
Iowa

Court Ruling

In April 2009, the State Supreme Court ruled that the state constitution guarntees the right of same-sex couples to marry; the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples that same month.

====
Maine

Statute

By state law, marriage licences should be issued to same-sex couples starting in September 2009.

====

Massachusetts

Court Ruling

In Mary 2004, the Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the state's constitution guarantees the right to marry for same-sex couples; the state began issuing marriage licences to those couples that month.

====

New Jersey

None

No explicit provision in state law that would prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages in other jurisdictions. Domestic partner legislation became effective in 2007.

====

New Mexico

None

No explicit provision in state law that would prohibit the recognition of same-sex marriages in other jurisdictions; state employees may enter into domestic partnerships.

====

New York

Court Ruling

New York's Court of Appeals ruled in February 2008 that same-sex couples legally married in other jurisdictions are entitled to recognition of their marriages in New York.

====

Vermont

Statute

In April 2009 the state legislature enacted, over the Governor's veto, marriage equality legislation; the state began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in September 2009.

I don't agree that the government should be able to define marriage either - as it falls underneath a "grandfather" clause.

However, the practicality of the law dictates that to attempt to alter the meaning of the word now when so many laws in the PAST relied on a specific meaning and to retroactively apply a new definition to those old laws would contravene the intent of those laws, would you not agree? That is the crux of the problem with redefinition.

Liberals are attempting to do the EXACT same thing by attempting to redefine the Second Amendment and claim that only militias have the ability to bear arms. There is no difference whatsoever in attempting to redefine militia to mean military than in attempting to redefine marriage to mean "any consenting couple".

Please identify the exact logical fallacy you claim I have committed. Be specific.

You are attempting to assert that the current definition of marriage should change. I simply point out the very real differences between the various relations such that there is no equivalency between them. Without equivalency, there is every cause to treat them as different things because they ARE different things: A != B.

The only way you can even attempt to make A = B is by using such vague definitions as to muddy the water. Rand would countenance no such thing. Objectivism is the study of the way things ARE - not the way you want them to be. You can not simply drop out this part of something to attempt to make it look like something else. That is deceit - not honesty, obfuscation - not enlightenment.

Your definition lacks a very critical element: that of the differentiation of the sexes involved. It is a critical part of the current/traditional definition. And contrary to your claim, state after state has held popular votes which have passed by wide margins objecting to any alteration to the definition of marriage. Only the Federal Courts have made the attempt to redefine marriage - not the populace. You are attempting to claim that the minority have the right to determine definition. That is fallacy. Name a single state that has - by popular vote - called for the redefinition of marriage.