Gay marriage and probabilities Gay marriage, states of the worl

[pelagius]

I missed being pelagius so I am switching over to this name.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pelagius of OSU

I missed being pelagius so I am switching over to this name.

Welcome to Pac 10 country.

I hear Corvalis is lovely this time of year.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

Welcome to Pac 10 country.

I hear Corvalis is lovely this time of year.

No its clearly for Oklahoma

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by KneeJerk

The cost benefit analysis approach to civil rights seems pretty disingenuous. So we can afford to offer this civil right 90% of the country, but extending it that last little bit, to the fraction of gay men and women that are actually interested in getting married, is somehow going to break the bank?

Civil rights always come at a cost to society. The right to vote used to be limited to only people with money/land/education/man-parts. Each time voting rights were expanded there was a vocal contingent crying out, "This will be the ruin of democracy!" And those people had a point -- allowing ignorant people to vote is what brought George Bush to power. Civil rights always have a cost, and some times that cost is high, but if we are going to be champions of liberty and justice and fairness, we need to expand those rights to everyone that demands them. It is the right thing to do.

The entire cost-benefit analysis things rings very hollow in my ears. Was there a cost to integration? Is there a cost to the right to bear arms? Was there a cost to women's suffrage? Is there a cost to freedom of religious belief and practice? The answer to all of those is yes. Do we complain about the burden of that cost? Not if we are champions of liberty.

Welcome to the board. I like your moniker.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by KneeJerk

The cost benefit analysis approach to civil rights seems pretty disingenuous.

It fits into cost-benefit analysis just fine. What you are really arguing is that I don't have the costs and benefits right in my analysis and the benefits to gay people who want to marry and society at large (because it means suspporting liberity) is really high. That's fine too. It doesn't mean the framework is wrong and its certainly not disingenuous. Just means my numbers are poorly estimated. For example, if gay marriage is as an important as you suggest then in my experiment they would willing to pay a really high price. Maybe they would pay $1,000,000. They would leverage up to pay the difference, those on the side of liberity would donate.

Note: I am not actually suggesting we setup such a market and I am not requiring anyone to break the bank. I am trying to think about how we should value the benefit with a thought experiment.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Originally Posted by KneeJerk

...allowing ignorant people to vote is what brought George Bush to power.

I thought his ascension was due to people who couldn't read in a straight line across a ballot, or who lacked sufficient upper body strength to punch out a chad.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by KneeJerk

'Age' is the only core human identity trait that I believe we use to legitimately divvy up civil rights. Can you think of any others, besides 'sexual orientation,' where a cost benefit approach like yours would be appropriate? The country has a shamefully long track record of limiting civil rights based on core human identity traits. It also has a long noble record of correcting those wrongs. For me this is about picking which side of history I want to get behind.

What is a 'first principle?' For me the first principle isn't gay marriage. The first principle is the idea that we should not create any civil right that we are unable or unwilling to extend to all people, regardless of their core human identity traits, with the exception of a persons age. Regarding age,

Ya, I changed my mind about the first principle thing. I misread your statement. See the changed comment.

[creekster]

You guys are starting to make this as hard to follow as a Denzel Washington time travel movie.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Pelagius of OSU

Ya, I changed my mind about the first principle thing. I misread your statement. See the changed comment.

I can tell there is going to be a Motel6 moment in the future between these two.

[pelagius]

Originally Posted by creekster

You guys are starting to make this as hard to follow as a Denzel Washington time travel movie.

You can hardly blame Kneejerk for it. I am the one that edited. He just responded to what I wrote.