TED Conversations

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Gay Marriage Rights








Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Jul 8 2013: here is the libertarian point of view:

    any two persons can decide if they want to live together or not, have sex with each other or not, or engage in any kind of activities as long as they don't damage or take other people's property or threat or harm them.

    no couple have the right to have recognition from any 3rd party. they don't have the right to be treated as a married couple by any hotel, church, transport company or any other person or organization. it is because recognition exists in said 3rd parties' minds, and nobody has a claim on other people's minds.

    nowhere in my analysis i used the fact that said couple would be gay or not. it has no relevance whatsoever. any 3rd parties can recognize or not recognize a couple's status based on any arbitrary properties, like age, skin color, religion, details or existence of a ceremony, etc. if a hotel refuses to treat couples of mixed color (like white-black) as married couples, it is its right to do. it is also okay for people to boycott the hotel for being racist.
    • thumb
      Jul 29 2013: It seems that "the libertarian point of view" is limited to "any two persons" and "couples" in your recitation.

      Surely the right of non-recognition extends to live-in groups of whatever size and composition.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: your logic is faulty. "any two persons can" does not imply "any three persons can not".
        • thumb
          Jul 29 2013: Cute, Kris.
          Specifying 2 usually means 2.
          You didn't come clean about what we should conclude. I illogically concluded that when you said 2 you meant 2. Did you mean to include 3, 4, or 20? Help us out.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: i exactly meant two. i said any two people can do this and that. i did not say anything about 3 or more people. thus you can not deduce my position on what triples can do. modus tollens?
        • thumb
          Jul 29 2013: I know I can't deduce it, and I didn't deduce it. That's why I asked. Does "the libertarian point of view" include the same rights for married groups of greater than two persons? Like polygamists.

          There's a clear question.
      • thumb
        Jul 29 2013: where i came from, questions end with a question mark. this is not a question: "It seems".

        if you meant to ask a question: quite logically, the libertarian position is that any number of men and women can form any kind of relationship as they see fit.
        • thumb
          Jul 30 2013: Good answer, though it took a little while.

          (You're right, of course, that semantic customs vary. Where I come from implied questions are usually understood, while in other places a question mark is needed. Just differences in custom.)


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.