Trey Givens

As I understand it, this is a discussion of gay marriage in politics, not ethics or morality. That's why there are two threads. I think the incest question does belong somewhere else, though. (I'm willing to try an answer for you, I just don't think this is the place is all.)

I've been lurking in some of the forums occassionally popping in to throw down a couple of cents. First, I want to give a huge THANK YOU to all the participants in these forums. I often grow tired of watching or participating in debates in other forums and mediums because so many people are operating on the wrong premises. I come here and it's a breath of fresh air, if you can forgive the cliche. Sometimes I pop in and leave feeling completely energized, in the same way I feel after being engrossed in a work of great Art. Thank you very much! I guess a since this is to be an introduction, I should say a little about me. I'm in my mid-twenties and gainfully employed at a dot-com as a development manager. I'm also a full-time MBA student at night. I live in the Atlanta area in Georgia and most of my time is consumed with work and school, although I do try to maintain a blog and run for sport. I discovered Ayn Rand and Objectivism roughly three years ago and haven't looked back. I enjoy its applicability, which is due to the fact that it is derived from the facts of reality. So, Hi! I'm here

Yahoo: treygivens

There isn't really enough information in the crockery/cow slaughter example to answer the question of morality. The context is totally missing. Why would you do that? Doing anything for no reason is patently irrational. Either you have good reasons for doing something or you have bad reasons and the expression "no reason" indicates that you do it on a lark - not a good reason. Breaking the wares or slaughtering the farm on a lark both indicate to me in the same way that there's a fixation on destruction, chaos, and death. It's definitely not productive. When a dish is broken or an animal dies, the dish and the animal, in effect, do not exist any more. Those existents are now named "trash" and "carcass" to indicate the difference. There is an element of recognition of animals as alive in the same way that I am alive and that recognition does add some small level of value which manifests itself in some small bit of respect when I encounter them. Similarly, when I meet a stranger I grant them some amount of courtesy because although I don't know them, I do know they're human. But the quality of being alive isn't of the profound value shown on TV. In animals and plants that value is easily superceded by other values. For people, more effort is required, but not much.

heh heh heh... indeed! And it might also be said that as members of our respective sexual orientations that we've done just that!

I've actually only recently started listening to classical music myself. I think that's because it wasn't until recently that I actually started listening to music very closely for extended periods of time each day. (I now have to drive about 100 miles every day.) I started finding most popular music too repetetive and grating for me to listen to for a long time day in and day out. So, since then, I've found Bach, Chopin, and Beethoven. I appreciate the complexity. I'm taking my time in moving to other composers because I've been burned by a few pieces (by Mahler & Brahms) that are just too too too much for me to hear as yet. But my absolute favorite piece of all time is Dvorak's 9th - The New World. I have a recording by the New York Philharmonic conducted by Leonard Bernstein that is like flying.

Nice of you to look that up, Nim. I said in an earlier post that there wasn't evidence available at present that conclusively explains the origins of sexual orientation at all. At the very least the evidence available indicates that sexual orientation is not linked to gender. Simply, having XY chromosomes does not necessarily result in a heterosexual male although it is the most probable outcome. Looks like we're again stalled at the "let Reality arbitrate" state.

I think you should agree that you don't believe him.

Just so we're clear, I didn't say that discrimination in itself if a "Bad thing." I certainly agree that it can be a very good thing if done rationally. What I said is that the change I support would not prevent discrimination against same-sex couples, if that's what you choose to do. I apologize for not making that more clear. Further, that post was made in support of your hypothetical insurance company that wants to discriminate against homosexuals.

This comment is correct up to the last sentence. R states the case clearly and simply. If this is a choice, only then can we discuss the moral value of homosexuality. However, contrary to the assertion that sexuality is a choice, there is scientific evidence available that at least casts significant doubt on the notion that sexual orientation is the product of value-judgments at all. We're confronted at this point with no conclusive evidence in either case, so it seems that individuals will have to decide this for themselves until we know enough about Reality to answer the question.

My questions were directed at understanding the proposition given, so the best answer would have been to both answer "no" to each and then address the notion of "payment by contractual requirements of citizenship." I also agree that in philosophy But that entertaining question is the one before us. It's further helpful conceptually to weigh each proposition against our agreed upon political principles. Like philosophical weight-training, if you will. To the topic: I appreciate MichaelM's summary of how a visiting/inhabiting alien may act within the ideal country with relation to the government. That is certainly a picture of the ideal. The question, however, remains, "How could the ideal government be funded ideally?" Donations, of course, is one option. And there are also per enforcement request options and subscription possibilities. But the government performs two functions, police and military defence, which do not, by the nature of the work they engage in, permit "per use" contracts and payment. So, where might they get their funding in the ideal, though non-unanimous, country? =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= I know this isn't the proper place, but I don't know where it might be proper to say this: I love this forum. I am so, so pleased to have found a place where rational people measure ideas with reason and (most of the time) civility based upon the premises of Objectivism. It's like a breath of fresh air! Thank you!

My reaction: none My number: 0123456789 Why would anyone have a reaction to you collecting numbers and then reposting them? Why are you doing this? What do you wish to show?

Regarding GC's point about Insurance companies I just read this in an unrelated article on Capitalism Magazine by Walter Williams: If those statistics are reliable, then GC's ideal insurance company would be smart to discriminate against homosexuals. However, that doesn't really back up the point argument that there would be no way to discriminate if marriage contracts were expanded to subsume same-sex unions as well.

I'm afraid this has reached an impasse. CF has been very clear: And that is precisely the point that I contest -- unless the point being argued is that sexuality is completely without physiological origins. I don't believe anyone here is arguing that wildly surreal position. And it must be conceeded that given present scientific ignorance on this matter, there isn't a way to conclusively prove that homosexuals are physiologically and morphologically distinct from heterosexuals. However, there have been scientific studies that have given us reason to suspect that there is a physiological origin for sexual orientation. This means that my contention is that there are a fundamental differences between how heterosexuals and homosexuals of either gender function in terms of sexuality. We could go around and around about the relative reliability of such findings and debate the virtue of the various psychological studies on the topic and we could wrangle about the personal virtues of individual homosexuals and their knowledge and experience, but the ultimate conclusion will be that we do not know with 100% certainty that homosexuals are distinct from heterosexuals in the way that is vital to this discussion. Those who have reached conclusions on this matter must be reasonably assured of their position given the information available to them. Those who do have first-hand knowledge of the subject will simply have to make the best judgment possible to them on the matter until science is able to support (or refute) their position, but I do not believe, contrary to my fervent wish, it is possible to resent unquestionable empirical evidence at this time to support the case.

Either sexuality is volitional or not. I believe that to the extent of whether or not one is heterosexual or homosexual it is not. So, in a sense I agree with CF's notion that Except that our scientific understanding, though limited, does indicate that these biological factors that influence your (sexual) identity are not necessarily specific to gender. Meaning, an body that is, by all external appearances, male, may influence that individual's identity in ways that are typically associated with females or, more precisely, in ways that are associated with homosexuals. (I would cite the many studies on homosexual/heterosexual male hippocampus development here along with other medical comparisons.) Based upon that, I would contend that although homosexuality is certainly not the biological norm, heterosexuality or homosexuality is not a matter of choice and therefore not in the realm morality. But consider the notion that it is volitional. CF's list of needs that are satisfied by romantic relationships seems fairly complete, but his understanding of those needs and how they are satisfied is also not supported by observation or definition. Agreed. Indeed. Tenderness: This is where the problems start. There is a difference between petting and being petted. When somebody pets his child or his dog, or when a husband pets his wife, it means: "I love you and I appreciate you for being the way you are. I care for your well-being." When the child or wife pets back, it essentially means: "Thank you." This lacks a clear definition. We may gather from his later examples that this refers to the emotional satisfaction derived from a physical relationship that is directed toward the pleasure and well-being of recipient. There isn't any reason why gay men or woman cannot share this. In a homosexual relationship, one of the partners inevitably has to play the role of a man and the other has to play the role of a woman, even though both are men or both are women. This is an implicit admission that the relationship is just a cheap substitute for something more real. CF's lack of familiarity with homosexual relationships is showing here. First, in a literal sense, both partners are of the same gender. In many cases, neither individual takes "a role" specific to a particular gender but rather both act to their mutual pleasure. It is most likely that CF is identifying particular sex acts as 'masculine' or 'feminine,' but the imagination need not travel far to think of some particular actiona in which a heterosexual couple might reverse roles in the sense that CF means without any compromise to either party's gender identity. There isn't any reason to draw a distinction between "petting" and "beng petted" as both acts provide pleasure to both the giver and the recipient. Indeed, there are many actions, both homosexual and heterosexual, that may be subsumed under this euphemism of "petting" wherein it is impossible to make such a distinction. Masculinity and femininity aren't precisely objective sets of characteristics and behaviors, but rather, many, if not most, are set by social convention. Such conventions vary arbitrarily even within the United States to a certain extent and exist for the sake of making communication and interaction easier and more efficient. Much of CF's later posts and conclusions rely upon these assumptions and false distinctions to draw conclusions. This should not be included for two reasons. 1) Individuals are individuals and they do not have identical bodies unless you're an identical twin and even in the unlikely event that a couple were not related but had identical bodies, they still remain separate and distinct individuals. The "element of surprise" that CF seems to relish is still present. 2) This isn't necessary to maintain a healthy, fulfilling sexual relationship otherwise, would not aged couples lose interest due to a simple exhaustion of their options? Self-respect: A self-respecting person will strive to earn the love of another by being as attractive as possible, spiritually as well as physically. If you happen to be a woman, this means being beautiful, charming, lovely, cute, and attractive in a feminine way. If you are a man, it means being strong, brave, resolute, and handsome in a manly way. Trying to defy the reality of your sex and attempting to put a man into a woman's body, or a woman into a man's body, is bound to turn you into a pitiable creature that is neither attractive as a man nor as a woman. This presumes that homosexual men are not attracted to masculine men but only feminine men and therefore all of them strive to appeal to one another by increasing their feminine characteristics. That's also demonstrably false. This ignores the values upon which romantic relationships are established. Between men and women friends and lovers there is still the task of discovering mutual values. The extended description CF offers also presumes that men are simply sex-crazed animals waiting a willing recipient. Heterosexual and homosexual men alike should object to just a noxious accusation. To conclude: If homosexuality/heterosexuality is not a violitional part of an individual's nature, and it most likely is, then it is outside the bounds of moral regard. If it is voltional, it remains unestablished why a wo/man cannot value another wo/man romantically.

There are businesses that create contract templates. They are usually lawyer's offices, but my real estate agent uses contractual templates and I'm sure there are tons of other organizations who perform that function. In fact, upon reflection, my own company has contractual templates it uses. I'll bet most places are like that. But marriage contracts are not issued by companies or individuals, really. The government issues them to couples and they are subsequently endorsed. That definitely seems wrong. If we start from the idea of no government and we ask ourselves if two people should be allowed to enter into a contract that will allow them to combine their property, ensure that said property is passed on to their heirs properly, provide either party with the power to make medical decisions for the other in the case of incapacitation, and whatever else (?) comes with a marriage contract, surely we conclude that this should be permitted. How did marriage contracts originate? Probably with churches. The terms and conditions thereof were simply inherited and used by the government. My main point is that such contracts should be permitted by all couples who wish to enter into such a contract. Secondary to that, I contend that using the term "marriage" to describe those contractual states is legitimate and there isn't any real reason why a new term should be coined to distinguish between traditional and non-traditional contracts that have identical terms and conditions at their essence. Ultimately, I am using the notion of using templates as just a practical consideration more than anything else. They aren't necessary, but for the sake of simplicity, they're a predictable development in the course of so many people entering into such agreements. The party that proposes the use of such contractual elements seems like a small issue to me because all parties would be able to accept or reject those terms. But you do make your point well so I agree that this is a job best not left to the government at all. There could be marriage companies! They would write up the contracts with all the special terms and conditions. They could use their own templates and file them for the individuals in question with the government for the purpose of protection. That would be a great idea in an ideal nation! However, if the contract terms are changed to exclude the basic conditions of a marriage contract (This begs the question of what a marriage is essentially from the perspective of the government.) then it cannot be said they are entering into a marriage contract. (Keenan previously argued that one of the essential characteristics of a marriage contract is that the parties be one male and one female. How this is objectively necessary remains a mystery to me.) I'm admittedly ignorant about this: But are any specific terms and conditions outlined in marriage certificates presently? It seems like someone somewhere must have a comprehensive list of the terms and conditions for marriage contracts, although may be not. Anyone know?

It's definitely clear that government could be a lot less expensive if it stuck to the core essential functions of government. I'd like to note this quote to bring up my question: I'm assuming that every person who wishes to make use of government services would sign up as a citizen. Citizenship would grant them the right to vote and run for office and would also grant them the protection of the government all in return for annual "citizenship fees." Does that sound right? I'm not sure how this would really work, though. I mean, if we needed to defend the country against an invader, non-citizens would be making use of our government service as well as the citizens. And could our police really allow a serial killer on the loose, so long as it's killing only non-citizens? And what about other criminals? As long as their victims are non-citizens, would the government just look the other way? It seems to me that if citizens and non-citizens co-exist in the nation, there is a difficult practical issue regarding the protection of only the rights of the citizens. It would be easier and cheaper for many to remain noncitizens and set up a mafia for their protection. OR Is the contention also that noncitizens would be controlled under some kind of visa program?

I think the contractual template idea is a great idea. (Clearly, it works very well in this case.) And as you've pointed out, is that the word "marriage" refers to a specific type of union with certain terms and conditions. That's different from other common contracts out there. In all other cases, if you asked someone if they're in such-and-such kind of contract, you have to further inquire after the terms. Marriage contracts aren't like that. They assume monogamy and affection in return for some property rights and some other specific powers of attorney. That's why we assume we know what someone is talking about when they say "I'm married." I think that's probably a good thing. But I don't think it's necessary that such contracts assume heterosexual couples because it is possible for homosexual couples to also fullfill the terms of such a contract.

As I mentioned, I don't know of any insurance companies who look at this the way that you do. In fact, the ones I do know of (and I admit they are few) do not discriminate in this way. Also, I think you're probably focusing on only one STD, HIV, in making this comment. The CDC reported in 2000 that men who have sex with men are only responsible for 42% of the new HIV infections reported annually in the US. The other 58% must come from somewhere else.CDC: Tracking the hidding epidemics: Trends in STDs in the United States 2000 Further, minorities tend show a greater statistical liklihood of having STDs over all. I realize this point is somewhat off the topic of gay marriage in terms of proper governance but in so far as it is used to argue that there are practical, business reasons why a distinction should be made between gay marriages and straight marriages, this argument should be abandoned. As I said, before, if you wanted to discriminate, you could. Just say that all your contracts signed before X date refer to heterosexual unions and of course they do. That's hardly a consideration for the government.