George Martin's posts start with:

http://grrm.livejournal.com/417125.html

Keep hitting next and when you get to his A reply to Larry Correia you'll be at the end of the road.

:)

Many religions' scripture define marriage as a union between man and woman. Before cloning and in vitro, any conception of humanity interested in its survival through time kind of obviously related to such concepts. This clearly includes every single mainstream religion. You know this, and you also know religious people (not just Christians) may and do object to redefinitions of marriage, away from said cultural norm. In our particular example said objection is being expressed via refusal to participate in such ceremonies. Your argument about the amount of gay sex is funny (to me), yet less funny is your willingness to completely disregard both deeply held convictions and more relevantly (to me) how imposing tolerance is coercive.

Now you do kind of agree with me (and notice how my opinion is only in two parentheticals so far, yes?) since you then go on into public good, public infrastructure, and freedom affecting other people. I won't actually go farther on the 'offensive' though, and instead ask: what is the public infrastructure that you see as being abused? What freedom has been limited by my refusal to serve you? What exactly is the public good gained by forcing me to bend the knee?

PS: For the actual libertarian question: what do secular states get from regulating the form personal unions may or not take?

Regarding libertarian opposition or lack thereof to regulation, I think if you look closely you will find it revolves around the presence, or lack, of coercion and of justice. Of course justice guided by responsibility, instead of equality, or to use a different word for responsibility: by ownership and property rights.

Regarding journalism, I won't stop using it as example. Both the media and academia are excellent examples of ingrained ideological bias, certainly in the U.S., which is still, for good and bad, the dominant cultural source for the world we live in.

I think part of our differences regarding subjectivity and objectivity is semantical. You seem to see subjectivity as the opposite of objectivity. This has a lot of truth, but it's not completely true. In general (I'm explicitly going to point out I don't mean the following in the context of journalism) there is nothing unethical about subjectivity. It is part of the universal objectivity which to me defines reality. I do recall you once saying that objectivity and... it wasn't truth, was it... accuracy maybe? Something like that, you said they were not related. I can understand saying they're not identical, but unrelated? Honestly I wonder mate, what did objectivity ever do to you? :)

Anyway, and feel free to ignore this, it is obvious you do want journalism to be guided by subjective values. The fact you haven't explicitly stated which values you prefer is to me irrelevant, since I find any rejection of objectivity to be wrong, and leading only to divisiveness, not diversity. Diversity is a given to me, assuming coercion is restrained. And really, don't be ashamed, you are somewhat reserved yes, but you do express yourself explicitly enough that your values (some at least) shine through. I have only respect for that, even if we get heated up from time to time.

I'd just like to say that before this whole puppy thing came about, all I used to differentiate between the Hugo nominations were the sub-genres. There was always some fantasy, some space opera, some hard sci-fi, some urban, maybe some speculative or alt-history. I didn't know whether the authors were black, LGBQT, sometimes I didn't even know if they were man or woman. It didn't matter. And they were, by and large, deserving nominees. If there was ever a worry about bias, it was for the established names trumping out newer writers - but even that was negated come the final vote.

Now, looking at the nominees, I'm sure many better works and people were robbed of the chance of a lifetime. Even some of the legit nominations aren't up to my standards for a Hugo ballot. And for what? KJA? If I didn't know anything else, that would be enough to tell me these puppies have shit for taste. The rest seem to range from mediocre to plain bad. Even the few good choices on their slate will be ill served, either by a fan backlash or by the mere suspicion that they didn't get there on their merit alone.

I'd actually have paid attention if they'd organised a right-wing/old-school/non-PC/whatever award of their own. This is just sad.

A lengthy evaluation of Sad Puppy manifesto:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2015/04/09/the-sad-puppies-are-goddamned-idiots/
"Idiots" is not even particular hyperbole. These are sci-fi fans who don't understand sci-fi.

Here's the strategy of vote manipulation laid out for the puppy followers. Note how in this outlet, "the SJW" is the enemy figure that basically justifies obliterating basic democratic structures:
http://monsterhunternation.com/2015/02/02/sad-puppies-3-the-slatening/

Militarist puppy anthem, 8chan style:
https://otherwheregazette.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/the-sad-puppy-anthem/

Linking to Martin's blog, this time properly and to a later part. GOG-GG certified "nowhere near extreme", what Martin literally says here is that the puppies' entire quarrels are simply made up.
http://grrm.livejournal.com/418285.html

Central quote: In the exact same way, gamergate is fighting to regain what they never even remotely came close to losing.

The sci-fi world, I'm convinced, will listen to reason. It will not continue to stumble in the dark like games culture.

It's rather strange that Martin's argument that there isn't a problem references the last 50 years and total nominations. Just saying, he seems to take no account of recent trends at all in his attempt to claim nothing has changed and there is no problem. This seems a bit disingenuous to the Sad Puppies claims.

When you say every mainstream religion, do you not consider Buddhism to be a "mainstream religion"? Its practised by half a billion people.

I can't speak for most religions, I grew up in a Christian household, but you might be surprised how little the Bible speaks of marriage. You might also be surprised to know that the Bible doesn't expressly state that a man cannot marry another man or that a woman cannot marry another woman, although the assumption is certainly made in many paragraphs that men will be marrying women, etc. Interestingly, the Bible also says it is good for a man not to marry at all. Of course these comments are based on an English interpretation of the Bible which has been shown to be inaccurate on many occasions, precise language being so important, as we have discussed previously.

The Bible appears to say men shouldn't sleep with other men (in the same way that we shouldn't eat shellfish, or wear clothes of different fabric), but it doesn't say men shouldn't marry other men. So, just like when people used religion to justify segregation and to refuse to allow people of different races to get married, its not the express word of the Bible that are against gay marriage. So it really is, all a matter of interpretation.

On that point, is it fair to say that you also think people should be able to bake a cake for an in interracial marriage if it is against their religious belief?

I think that people should be permitted to use their deeply held religious convictions to justify taking or not taking certain actions, but the Bible (like all religious texts) can and has been interpreted to say almost anything. As such, there will be conflicts between religious rights and other rights.

Censorship is a perfect example. The Koran has been interpreted to suggest that people who blaspheme should be put to death. I think that if someone genuinely holds that deeply held religious conviction, they should be coerced not to follow through on it.

I believe there should be limits on how people can express their religious freedom and those limits should be enforced by coercion. Do you agree with that proposition or do you think religious freedom should "trump" all other rights?

roads and other infrastructure, police, fire departments, etc.

Pursuit of happiness is the one most generally quoted.

Nobody is forcing you to "bend the knee". Do you mean "forcing me on bended knee"? This is a phrase that refers to supplication or asking for forgiveness. I don't think anyone is asking you to ask for forgiveness. Did you mean something else?

Not sure what you mean by "get", but it affects laws relating to, for example, who has the right to inheritance or superannuation, access to sick loved ones and tax obligations.

If Budhist scripture recognizes same sex marriage then it's the exception proving the rule. I don't think it does? Enlighten me.

Now, you go on to point out how subjective religious interpretation is. So what? It is a valid interpretation. You again make a point regarding sex not being the same as marriage, which I already addressed. It's another example of how you take concepts which are related and overlap in areas (marriage, sex, reproduction), and impose a distinction quite artificially.

I replied on race to sussurus, there are significant differences between race and sexual orientation that to me justify different approaches. Do you find racism to be a more illustrative example? Why? Because it's easier to shame others into compliance using racism? :) And you missed a 'not' in there I assume.

Anyway you're of course correct that rights and values will conflict. I was most interested in your answers to my questions about those tradeoffs, which you gave lower. Ill here mention again my fundamental distinguishing principle: coercion. If you consider avoiding violence (not harm, violence) one of the big goals, then refusal to serve you does no violence, though it may harm you (subjectively? it's not like not having catering caused any deaths... a lot of hurt egos most certainly). Forcing me to serve is completely different.

Moving on, do you think I oppose coercion that is opposing other coercion? I actually agree with you on that, yes. Why would coercion to prevent censorship (or murder, or genital mutilation, or ...) be wrong to me? Again, I already brought this up with sussurrus, conflict as necessary evil and all that. The kid might have been aggravating in his language but he got my points, even if neither of us changed their minds.

Put simply, coercion to prevent hatred is wrong unless it is about preventing coercive expressions of hatred. Because coercion is way easier to be objective about than hatred. You see how objectivity keeps popping up? I submit as evidence that we all agree the enforcing of catering at gay weddings is coercive. We don't all agree the refusal to service gay weddings is hatred. Certainly the ones refusing, in the face of significant public opprobrium, seem to believe they are doing the right thing. Martyrs to the cause, etc... Though it's so easy to imagine them as villains.


Have we kind of exhausted the religion topic? I'd find an exploration of the tradeoffs involving rights quite interesting. The distinctions between those free to do whatever they want that is non coercive, and those that choose some value that limits them even further should become obvious. Like a judge, which presumably shouldn't just decide what he damned well pleases huh? (Or a journalist write, heh?) :p I apologise if I'm pissing you off, but I didn't actually give up trying to find different angles so you understand why I (and others that argued identical points with you) think subjective journalism is an oxymoron and a necessary evil (objectivity being impossible, etc) but not good nor desirable.


Are roads mine or not? I also contribute to society, why is my right to use my infrastructure conditional on moral precepts? Certainly that public infrastructure belongs equally to the religious bigot and the gay bigot. To the religious tolerant and the gay tolerant. It's public, yet you want to impose additional obligations on its use that exclude me. Don't you see how that is different from excluding privately? You are suggesting 'stealing' my portion of the public good. Coercive, I don't support it.

Anyway, you dodged this implicit question: what is the abuse of that infrastructure you see? You focused on the 'what', when the key qualifier in my question was 'being abused'. You say roads and police are being abused. I don't understand how.

So me not cooperating with you reduces your right to pursue happiness? Or rather your effective happiness? Does an individual refusing to have sex with another remove in any way the requestor's right to happiness? Bullshit and you know it. I might be unhappy that she doesn't want me, but she didn't actually take anything from me, she just didn't give me something I wanted. This is almost sophomoric... of course the conflation between having a right to an opportunity at happiness, versus the right to an outcome of happiness does come up often in these discussions.

To bend the knee = swear fealty. So let me rephrase the question. What is the public good from imposing an obligation of service? I understand the gay couple will be happy with that, but the caterers will be miserable. What exactly did society gain?

I know marriage status affects other things, but should it? Is there a public interest in those being limited to specific individuals? There are related marriage laws around incest and polygamy, yet the aspects you mentioned would have nothing to do with those. Why shouldn't my brother have visiting rights? Or the three roommates that can prove they share a flat with me? Etc... you see where I'm going. What does the state care who gets married or not, at all? The things you mentioned do not need to be related to marriage (I know the answer of course, states have an interest in their preservation through time, they inherited models that incentivize that from religions).

Based on media coverage one would assume marriage is about a party that requires catering. And cake. No cake = no wedding. Whoa, bakeries are more powerful than I thought ;) I am not particularly religious, but I find it disingenuous if anyone refuses to admit there is a push to change the normal meaning of marriage. You might argue it's wrong that norm excludes same sex marriages, which doesn't change the fact the norm does exist and has a lot of history. Some people clearly care about that... like those pizza owners in Indiana. All of this talk about happiness is camouflage. A lot of people disagree with traditional opinions, and find ways of imposing marginal obligations on those they disagree with. It's about power mate. You know it, and I know it. Bend the knee, or else... coercion, pure and simple. I don't agree with that, even if you're trying to coerce assholes.

Anyway good stuff. Cheers

Oh please, you know perfectly well, that marriage especcially in Christian circles always was about sex / creating offspring and bringing it up in a certain manner. A marriage actually was invalid until both had sex together, it was a conjugal duty. This whole modern redefining is just as strange as the catholic church in the middle ages trying to force married people having sex only in one certain position (missionary) and even clothed, I'm sure many/most people back then didn't take that serious either.
Of course Leviticus 18:22, 20:13 doesn't speak of marriage, but it's quite clear that it's insane to think people back then thought it's ok to marry same sex, even if they probably didn't care what people did in their beds when they had so many more important things to worry about. Well, maybe they did at some point when syphilis was such a common cause of death.

Lev. 18:22

‘You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." (NASB)
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination." (ESV, NKJV)

Lev. 20:13

"If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them." (NASB)
"If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them." (ESV)

You really think there is any tolerance for same sex marriage in Christianity?
Having it both ways without lying to yourself is just impossible, that's why I think gay Christians are so hilarious.

Buddhist scriptures discourage love, sex, friendship and everything related, it's not a religion made to form a society but to actually disband it. Read the "Dhammapada" someday, it's quite interesting and shows how hypocritical most modern "buddhists" are (as well as most followers of any other religion too, it's too tiring for most people to actually live consistent under any codex, even if it's the humanist one).

I didn't say that. Seriously, sometimes I wonder if you even read what I write. Let's recap:

Brasas: Many religions' scripture define marriage as a union between man and woman. Before cloning and in vitro, any conception of humanity interested in its survival through time kind of obviously related to such concepts. This clearly includes every single mainstream religion.
Htown: When you say every mainstream religion, do you not consider Buddhism to be a "mainstream religion"?

I say Buddhism does not define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. I didn't say it recognizes same sex marriage. Do you really think Buddhist "scripture" defines marriage as a union between man and woman?

I absolutely agree. It is also a valid interpretation to say the Bible supports slavery and is against interracial marriage. Do you agree?

You did? Where?

Really? Its artificial to distinguish marriage, sex and reproduction???? I've had sex a couple times, not been married once, pretty sure I have not had any kids. How is the distinction artificial? They are three distinct things and have been for a very long time. People have been having sex long before marriage was even thought about (unless you believe the world is 6000 years old...).

I did miss a not. Thank you for pointing that out. Notice how its ok to admit when you make a mistake? *points at pizzeria being burned and coughs* :)

I don't draw the parallel to try to shame you, I draw it because it is generally accepted that one should not be permitted to discriminate based on race. I asked if you agreed with that proposition or not. You didn't respond [insert shock here] I just wonder if you think religious freedom trumps other rights here, do you think it trumps other rights in that situation.

I don't know what you said to sussurus. Perhaps you could answer the question. Do you think people should be permitted to use genuinely held religious beliefs to refuse to serve at an interracial wedding? Don't be scared to answer.

But they don't force someone to serve. The person can just accept the fine.

So it doesn't matter if someone holds a genuine religious belief or not? They can just say, I don't want to serve gays or blacks or whites or men because I hate them and you think they shouldn't be 'coerced' into doing so?

Obviously they are not. They are owned by the State.

Nope, it belongs unequally to both, it is owned by the State, not the religious bigot, not the gay bigot.

I didn't dodge the implicit question, there was no implicit question. I also didn't say the infrastructure was being abused. or that the roads and police are being abused. Seriously, again, do you even read what I write? Its a little annoying that you write something, I read it and think "I said that?????" and I look back and I didn't say that at all. Why do you keep doing that?.

Its the right to pursuit of happiness, not the right to happiness.

If the person offering the sex is a prostitute and his reason for refusing to have sex with you is because of your race, notwithstanding you are willing to pay for it, then that would be an interesting argument. I think I would be on your side for that one, but its not something I've thought about before. That's not to suggest he should be forced into having sex with you, but perhaps he should be fined, or stop being a prostitute.

The public good is simply the prevention of discrimination. Why would the caterers be miserable? They can pray to their god and explain to him or her that they were forced to do it by society, even though they hate gay people. Their god will forgive them. They can continue to serve at gay weddings in the knowledge that they will go to heaven because they were forced to serve by the State and they asked for forgiveness from their God. There's no reason for them to be miserable. They get paid AND they go to heaven. Definition of win/win.

If you think those laws should be changed, by all means advocate that change. In the meantime, I might get together with a bunch of my friends, and try to get this small marriage law changed so that it will have wide ranging impact on the lives of gay people. I suspect you haven't had much involvement in amending legislation, but its much easier to permit gay people to get married than it is to change literally 1000s of laws that relate to the rights of married couples.

You can absolutely go about advocating for a law that will let your roommates visit you when you are unwell, I think its a great one for you.


well said

wont let me write my last bit

I think Christianity can be used to be intolerant of many things - gays, shellfish, growing different crops in the same field, wearing different fabrics, various meats.

I have no problem with people saying that they are a Christian but they won't follow a particular part of the Bible because they disagree with it. I think its fair to say there are quire a few contradictory parts of the Bible, you have to pick which contradictory statement you're gonna follow.

And that last bit to Brasas...

Hey I took over this thread again...

Interestingly in my country there was a push to change the definition of marriage. It happened in 2004. A definition was added to our legislation which said "marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life", before that, there was no definition. Yes, Australia has been accused previously of being a little behind other countries, possibly this is an example.

I agree that we are talking about changing the definition of marriage (in Australia's case, again). Why does that matter? If the norm is wrong, why not fix it? Why does the fact that we have been doing it wrong for hundreds of years matter in the case?

When they decided the earth is round, was it a valid argument against that theory to say "You might argue it's wrong that norm (tells us the earth is flat), which doesn't change the fact the norm does exist and has a lot of history."

How is that even an argument? The human race has been doing shit wrong for millennia, we realise, we fix it.

A norm cannot be wrong or right. It is simply the majority state. And not, people during the middle ages did not believe the earth was flat, Galilei only got into trouble with the Church because he was publishing his works in Italian, the language of the laymen, instead of Latin, the language of the elite.

Here is a question: why even have marriage at all? It's not to make people happy, if it was about that anyone could just make up any BS ritual they want and call it a marriage. It's about children. Gay couples want to be fully recognised as families and be allowed to adopt or have surrogate mothers/fathers get their children. And you don't need a God to know this is just as wrong as claiming that the Earth is flat.

Just throwing in here, that some cultures gathered that the earth was more or less round long before the catholic church declared otherwise in spite of all knowledge gathered up to this point (mostly by mariners and mathematicians) and one could argue, that the left mob is acting just like the catholic church did back then in some regards.

Personally, I don't understand why people living so far away from traditional norms want to change parts of it for everyone else (by redefining) in order to "copy" them, it must have something to do with the last remnants of traditional upbringing that are still left and very present in the mind of those people.

Give it another name than "marriage" and everybody would be happy, it would serve the (shrinking) traditional family based part of society as well as the more chaotic modern kind. With using the term "marriage" one clearly relates to conservative habits and isn't this what especcially gay people should rather avoid?

Having more terms when different things are meant would be the logical way in my book, redefining stuff is quite aggressive and has to create unneccessary conflict.

Well, I'm not going to argue with you that same sex marriage is wrong. If you haven't read between the lines enough my point of view is that the state should basically let individuals associate in whatever non coercive way they might wish for. If they want to call that marriage fine, and if they want to say others' marriage isn't marriage also fine, (cos freedom of speech) but granting state legitimacy to either choice is actually stupid. Well, one of the sides at least has tradition on their side...

There is an argument to be had between you and someone like those pizzeria owners over whether same sex marriage is or isn't wrong. It's an ethical debate, a religious debate, a political debate, whatever. Feel free to have it with someone that disagrees with you on that, as I don't care to be devil's advocate over it right now. What you are trying to do, is a priori say that debate should not be had, or rather, implying it while refusing to even engage in said debate. Taboo much?

You do throw a lot of distraction over the fundamental fact that you are refusing to grant legitimacy to the other side on that debate. Like false equivocation between astronomy and sociology (tradition does count for a lot in human culture, it certainly does not in astronomy or physics...) Or equivocation between legistation and culture, since the fact the legal definition was recently explicitly aligned with what was common understanding earlier is itself a sign that someone was unconfortable with some change, change which had some cause, as it certainly was not some universal religious revelation to humanity. One with my political preferences further wonders: how coercively said change in mores might have been pished? But whatever. Do note that disconfort with change by itself does not prove anyone wrong in the ethical, political, religious debate that you are not having with them. You get my point?

PS: Don't worry about taking over the thread. In our own way we are just derailing the thread in the wonderful GOG tradition. We just do it with walls of text, whereas others do it with humorous oneliners ;) Hurray for diversity I say.

PPS: I need to run, I'll reply to your larger post later today.
Yes, it's called cultural appropriation and in other contexts they understand quite well how oppresive it can be.

There's an interesting book about that topic - "Virtually Normal" by Andrew Sullivan.
But in the end it's as simple as: You can be homosexual and still have a very conservative life plan including marriage and kids. :-)

Uhm... No, I don't know how wrong that is. My aunt and her partner raised their son just right I'd say... I don't see a problem.

Pretty sure a norm can be both the majority state and wrong or the majority state and right.

You agree there was a point when people thought the world was flat though, right? It hasn't always been known that it was round? And it's not a valid argument to say, we have a history of saying the world is flat so we should stick with that, right?

In my view, the only reason to have marriage is to ensure that partners have certain rights as between each other and each other's children, but that's just my personal opinion.



I wasn't speaking of Catholicism when I was talking about the flat world thing, I was actually trying to find a non-religious example. I guess that those guys stick their heads into every argument :)

From a pragmatic point of view, as I said earlier, its so much easier to allow gay people to get married than it is to change ever law that references marriage. The time taken and money spent to pass amendments to each piece of legislation would be astronomical.




Wow. I didn't even read this. lol.
I hate when people misuse a priori like that. Lawyers do it all the time. I'm not saying people shouldn't debate it. Debate away. If you want to say gay marriage shouldn't be permitted or people shouldn't be forced to cater at gay weddings or straight weddings or interracial weddings, I support your right to say it, but I am not talking about debate.

I don't understand why you say that. Because I disagree with it? Are you refusing to grant legitimacy side of the debate because you don't agree with it?

I absolutely do not get your point.