Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 1:57 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm
You seem to have ignored the parenthetical remark ("the same, of course, can be said about some heterosexual marriages"). The comment applies generally, not simply to gay marriage. For many people, getting married (regardless of whether it is same-sex or opposite-sex) is a terrible mistake. So, having an opportunity to marry is sometimes a bad thing, because someone marries when they should not, when doing so makes them terribly unhappy. Of course, that is not what they are expecting to happen when they marry, but their expectation is not a guarantee of anything.
So (and this is the main point), the opportunity to marry is not necessarily a good thing, and may turn out to be a horrible thing.
Do you think it is good for you to have the opportunity to shoot yourself in the foot? For some, they would be happier if they had done that rather than getting married.
Again, the problem is not in having the opportunity to marry, but in our choices as to what to do with that opportunity. Having the opportunity is not in itself harmful in any way.
The point is, having an ability to choose is not always a benefit, contrary to what you stated earlier (You stated: "Furthermore, it is a benefit to allow people freedom to do what they want so long as it does not harm others"). If you and I were in the same room right now, and if there were a large electric meat grinder in it, and I gave you the opportunity to stick your right hand into the meat grinder while it was on, would I be giving you anything good? I am not forcing anything; you get to choose if you stick your right hand into the meat grinder or not.
Is there an advantage for you in that situation, an advantage over the real situation, in which we are not together and I am not giving you a choice? Is the opportunity to stick your hand into a meat grinder beneficial to you? If not, then your previous claim is false, that having a choice is beneficial.
I will venture to affirm that not only is there not an advantage to getting such an opportunity, which gives you a choice, it is actually worse because, with the choice, you could, in a moment of insanity, stick your hand into the meat grinder. You certainly won't do that if you can't do that, if you don't have the opportunity to do that, if you don't have the choice to do it.
So, when you have a choice, you might grind off your hand, but if you don't have a choice, you won't grind off your hand. The choice in such a case is not beneficial.
With that, which I hope is an obvious example to you, I will now relate this to the previous example.
If you have the opportunity to marry someone who would make you unhappy, so you get to choose to marry the person or not, as it pleases you, is that opportunity an advantage over not having the option to marry the person who would make you unhappy if you married that person?
I say it is not an advantage, and not only is it not an advantage, it is a disadvantage, because one might make a mistake in the choice. It would be better to not have the option to make the wrong choice, and to have the better outcome automatic.
Now, to be clear, I am not saying that marriage is always a bad thing; far from it. But for anyone who could not be happy in marriage, because they do not have the right temperament or inclinations or whatever, for such a person, the option to marry is not a good thing; it can only be a bad thing, because they might do it, whereas if they don't have the option to do the bad thing, then they obviously won't do it.
Keep in mind, this applies regardless of whether we are discussing same-sex or opposite-sex marriage; that is entirely irrelevant to the point.
The general rule is, if one gets a choice to do something bad (which will be defined in subjective terms, meaning, the outcome will be something the person does not like), having such an opportunity to make that choice is a bad thing (subjectively). At best (subjectively), one will make the right choice (again, this is defined subjectively), which is the same outcome as having no choice, no opportunity, to do the bad thing (what is subjectively viewed as bad).
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 1:57 pm
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm
I will give a little digression, primarily for others (if anyone else is reading this, though I expect many will pass over our exchange as a waste of time), it is for others, not you, because it might distract you from the main point, and I do not want to distract you from the main point. You can ignore this part for responses, as it is irrelevant to the main point. The U.S. government has statistics on marriage and divorce, and it turns out certain things correlate with the divorce rate, some of which should not be surprising. One of them is the age of the people getting married. For reasons that are not altogether clear, in this government document that I am about to quote, they just used the age of the woman at the time of first marriage, not the age of the man. (And, just in case you might be confused by the expression, "first marriage," that does
NOT imply that there will be a second marriage, nor does it imply that there will not be a second marriage.) Here is a bit from the text:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_23/sr23_022.pdf
If one looks at the Table 21 referred to in that text, one finds that 59% of those who marry before 18 get have a "disrupted" marriage within 15 years of marriage. We can see from this that we probably should prohibit such marriages (which, by the way, I do think we ought to prohibit children from marrying), though that is not the case in the U.S.; people can, if one has parents stupid enough to approve of it (or gets a judge to approve of it), marry before one is 18, depending on the state of residence, with the exact minimum age varying by state.
It is worth noting that marriage before 18 must happen with great frequency, or they would not have enough statistical data to tell us about this, as there are some things in the report that they mention that they lack sufficient data to come to any conclusions about the particular thing that is of interest to those who wrote the report.
I might also note the fact that it is nothing short of idiotic to say that someone is old enough to decide to supposedly commit to someone for life in marriage, but not old enough to decide whether one will have a glass of wine with dinner; these two should be reversed in order of when one may legally decide to do them. But enough of this digression.
Interesting statistics. And they might be used to argue that marriage be postponed until 21. I've heard that the brain of an adolescent has not completed its development until some time after high school.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
But if the gay couple doesn't have the same opportunity to marry, they suffer the loss of the objective legal benefits we've discussed. They also suffer the continued social disrespect for their relationship. But if their relationship is recognized by law, they gain that social respect over time. For example, the Pope just recently endorsed civil unions for gay couples.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm
You mean, the gay man should have the same opportunity to make a mistake as the straight man.
Perhaps you should be having this discussion with your wife. 🙂
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
But no one is suggesting that we impose marriage upon anyone who does not wish to be married. The issue was whether they shall have the opportunity to marry.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm
You respond as if you did not read what I wrote at all. The legal aspects of a marriage may harm one. The idea that it is always good is ridiculous.
You seem to have the same problem. I've never said that marriage is always good.
You said that having the choice is always good. That is what I am disputing. Having a choice when the option is bad is not a good thing.
Let's try another example. Suppose there are two restaurants in town. They are identical in every way except one. One of them has two things on the menu, items 1 and 2. Item 1 is delicious and nutritious and makes you feel good when you eat it. Item 2 tastes terrible and is unhealthful and makes you feel bad if you eat it. The second restaurant has only one thing on the menu, and it is identical to item 1 at the other restaurant. Which of the two restaurants is better?
According to what you have claimed, the first one is better, because you have a choice. According to me, the second one is better, because one will not accidentally (or on purpose) order item 2 on the menu. If the choice gives you a bad option, then it is better to not have a choice; it is better to be "forced" to have the good option.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm
Do you believe that all marriages are happy? That no one ever makes a mistake when they decide to get married? Well, if it is always a good, like you are pretending it is, then it would never be a mistake to get married. But that is absurd.
It is indeed absurd, that's probably why I never said it.
It is better to not have the option to choose a bad marriage than to not have that option, if all else is equal. However, you have claimed that having a choice is good. But the thing is, having such a choice will in fact lead to some bad marriages, which, if they could not be chosen, then there would not be bad marriages. To put this another way, legalizing gay marriage will be good for some gay people who get married and are happy with it, but it will be a bad thing for some gay people who get married and are miserable because of it. The ones who are miserable would have been better off if they had not been given a choice in the matter, if they had not been allowed to be married. The same thing, of course, can be said of heterosexual marriages, that the people in bad marriages would be better off if they had not been allowed to get married, if they had not been given the choice to marry.
I am disputing your claim that a choice is a good thing. I am saying that it can be a good thing to have a choice, but sometimes it is a bad thing to have a choice. If what one gets to choose is a bad thing, then getting the opportunity to choose is bad.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm
... The point is, what constitutes a "harm" and what constitutes a "benefit" will be judged differently be different people. Your claim that it is all objective is just silly. ...
And if nothing is ever objective, then everything is silly.
Matters of fact are objective. Feelings about them are another matter.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm
It is no benefit to me to be able to marry a man, because I have no desire to do so. You see that, right?
Yes. I agree with the objective fact that you just stated. That objective fact is the basis of your conclusion that being able to marry a man is of no benefit to you.
It is a subjective preference that we are discussing. It is an objective fact that it is a subjective matter.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm
But, for a gay man who wants to marry a man, it is a benefit to him. You see that, right?
Indeed. That too would be an objective fact used to identify a benefit.
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm
This means that what is a benefit and what isn't a benefit is dependent upon the individual, and, in this case, upon individual preference.
Hey, that's three objective facts in a row that you've used to support your moral arguments. Good work!
You seem to fail to notice that this is all about subjective preferences.
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
...
Jack D Ripper wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 12:45 pm
Well, one can reason about morality, and if one does that accurately, one will notice that the essential feature of it is that it is the result of feeling. It is how one feels about the facts of the world. But not just any feelings; it pertains to feelings of empathy or humanity or benevolence or whatever one wants to call such feelings, for reasons quoted in the opening post.
Feelings are attached to beliefs. When objective facts change beliefs, feelings change. Feelings are malleable. Objective facts are more secure.
The problem with what you are saying is that we are dealing with beliefs about objective facts, rather than just objective facts themselves. And beliefs about objective facts are malleable (to use your word).
Marvin_Edwards wrote: ↑October 26th, 2020, 9:04 am
Therefore, it is better to first determine what is good and what is bad by reasoning with objective information, and second, to attach the appropriate feelings to those beliefs.
That cannot work because what is good or bad is determined by feelings. Without feelings, nothing is good or bad.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume