[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272469]How can increasing freedom be bad when that freedom doesn't actually harm anyone in any real way that matters?[/quote]It can't.

But the burden of proof is on you that it does not actually harm anyone in any real way.

[quote]I agree that it's the ideal situation, but I think when people talk about wanting the ideal, they often stop thinking in real world terms that the ideal can't always exist, so we have to do what's fastest and safest in each case for the child in question.[/quote]Agreed.

[quote]Biological differences are fine as long as you don't use the old reasoning of things like "Since women have the babies, they should stay home with them in every case".[/quote]Agreed.

[quote]Breast feeding is no longer what it used to be and it might be medicine's idea of "best" which fluctuates every few generations, but with formula and milk banks, that's one less reason to confine a role to women simply because of biology. Women are not always by nature the ones who should stay home with the children just because they are the ones who give birth. Ignoring it totally isn't rational, but relying on it as a standard that is never questioned is also irrational. The roles may not be irrelevant, but the idea of "This is what a father and mother do and nothing else" without respect to individual parents in a situation or their psychological makeup is dangerous.[/QUOTE]Agreed.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272472]It can't. But the burden of proof is on you that it does not actually harm anyone in any real way.[/QUOTE]Why is it not on shoulders of the person who wants to ban it? Freedom should be an afterthought outside of countries with a backward mindset. There should have to be some extremely obvious overriding reason to disallow something from one group that everyone outside that group can already do. "Me" having to prove "why I can or should be allowed" to you so you "allow it" is backwards, I think. I'd go so far as to say that it should be up to the "anti-freedom" person/group because they're the only ones who think it shouldn't happen.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272522]Why is it not on shoulders of the person who wants to ban it? Freedom should be an afterthought outside of countries with a backward mindset. There should have to be some extremely obvious overriding reason to disallow something from one group that everyone outside that group can already do. "Me" having to prove "why I can or should be allowed" to you so you "allow it" is backwards, I think. I'd go so far as to say that it should be up to the "anti-freedom" person/group because they're the only ones who think it shouldn't happen.[/quote]There are a lot of issues here, and I wish I had time to discuss them all but I really do need to finish writing my grant proposal. Let me mention just a few things here, and hopefully someone else will reply.

1. Any change in law which introduces new rights could be characterized as an "expansion of freedom" and those opposed to the expansion as "banners" or "change-a-phobes" or "anti-freedom persons". Is that fair? Where does the burden lie in showing the change does or does not expand freedom?

On the other hand, when legislation is passed which does ban certain activities (rather than clarify what is meant) where does the burden lie?

How do we decide whether a change in law is an extension of rights vs. a clarification of what were already rights?

2. In the US the main legal issue with actual bans on gay marriage are whether (a) they are rationally based, and (b) whether they need to pass strict scrutiny. On the rational basis test, the burden really lies with the opposition to the bans. On the strict scrutiny, if it can be shown that the laws discriminate against a protected class then the burden falls to the supporters of the bans.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272472]But the burden of proof is on you that it does not actually harm anyone in any real way.[/QUOTE]No, the burden of proof is on those who can describe an actual real harm (just as in your latest post, you lay the burden of proof of irrational basis on those who can show such irrationality!).

If you can't describe any example of harm in any real way, then you have no real basis for complaint, do you?

You know perfectly well what's wrong with demanding proof of a negative (and with trying to get away with arguing two opposing ways in the same argument).

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272529]There are a lot of issues here, and I wish I had time to discuss them all but I really do need to finish writing my grant proposal. Let me mention just a few things here, and hopefully someone else will reply.

1. Any change in law which introduces new rights could be characterized as an "expansion of freedom" and those opposed to the expansion as "banners" or "change-a-phobes" or "anti-freedom persons". Is that fair? Where does the burden lie in showing the change does or does not expand freedom?

On the other hand, when legislation is passed which does ban certain activities (rather than clarify what is meant) where does the burden lie?

How do we decide whether a change in law is an extension of rights vs. a clarification of what were already rights?

2. In the US the main legal issue with actual bans on gay marriage are whether (a) they are rationally based, and (b) whether they need to pass strict scrutiny. On the rational basis test, the burden really lies with the opposition to the bans. On the strict scrutiny, if it can be shown that the laws discriminate against a protected class then the burden falls to the supporters of the bans.[/QUOTE]See, that's the problem. It's not a new right unless you just disregard the reason that straight people marry each other is because they love each other and gay people can't marry who they love by and large because there are people who think it's wrong. As to your second point, the burden, I believe, should lie with those whose job it is to make the laws to justify them without using a biased or one-sided argument or one that simply isn't justifiable or proper to be used like, "We believe it's morally wrong/evil, so you can't do it." The decision on the difference should be common sense, but it's not due to the reasons for bigotry and all the other things that straight people gain/meaintain from keeping the status quo who are homophobic.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272601]See, that's the problem. It's not a new right unless you just disregard the reason[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Motivation does not create the right, the wording of the law does. As things currently stand, in most jurisdictions, the law does not grant the right. Whether, or not, that is appropriate law is the topic of discussion.

[QUOTE=Wacky;272641]I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Motivation does not create the right, the wording of the law does. As things currently stand, in most jurisdictions, the law does not grant the right. Whether, or not, that is appropriate law is the topic of discussion.[/QUOTE]It's not "motivation". Straight people are allowed to marry the person whom they love. Gay people are not allowed that same opportunity equally. That's wrongful discrimination, which is supposed to be illegal.

[QUOTE=Jwb52z;272642]It's not "motivation". Straight people are allowed to marry the person whom they love. Gay people are not allowed that same opportunity equally. That's wrongful discrimination, which is supposed to be illegal.[/QUOTE]
No, by law, a man and a woman are allowed to marry, with some limits. That law may have the effect that you note. However, as worded, each individual man or woman is afforded the same "right" to marry, and, in fact, there are many instances where gay individuals have exercised that right by marrying someone of the opposite sex.
You are arguing that everyone should have a different right, namely the right to marry the individual whom they love.
(I'm not arguing the merits of your argument. I'm just pointing out that you are wishing for a different right. The law says just the law says. If you want to talk about a different set of circumstances, then that is is an arguably good, but different, right.)

[QUOTE=cheesehead;272577]No, the burden of proof is on those who can describe an actual real harm (just as in your latest post, you lay the burden of proof of irrational basis on those who can show such irrationality!).

If you can't describe any example of harm in any real way, then you have no real basis for complaint, do you?

You know perfectly well what's wrong with demanding proof of a negative (and with trying to get away with arguing two opposing ways in the same argument).[/QUOTE]

Just so I understand consider the following example. Joe proposes to allow polygamy in his country, because it "expands freedom". George is worried (perhaps irrationally so, perhaps not) that such a change will not be good. He expresses those worries to Joe, who rejects them out of hand.

What level of burden does George have on himself to show his fears have a foundation before they should be considered as relevant to the issue of whether polygamy should be legalized? Does he have to run lots of experiments to show that polygamy will be bad for his country? Will he be given the time to do so before the change is forced upon the electorate?

How much burden does Joe have to show that George's fears are not based in reality? Any at all? If the people around George are convinced by him to vote for a law against polygamy, can it be negated because George didn't yet validate his fears?

[SPOILER]My personal opinion: If George's fears appear rational, then they should be considered rational until proven otherwise, and thus be allowed to counter Joe's claim that the change "expands freedom".[/SPOILER]

[QUOTE=Wacky;272647]No, by law, a man and a woman are allowed to marry, with some limits. That law may have the effect that you note. However, as worded, each individual man or woman is afforded the same "right" to marry, and, in fact, there are many instances where gay individuals have exercised that right by marrying someone of the opposite sex.
You are arguing that everyone should have a different right, namely the right to marry the individual whom they love.
(I'm not arguing the merits of your argument. I'm just pointing out that you are wishing for a different right. The law says just the law says. If you want to talk about a different set of circumstances, then that is is an arguably good, but different, right.)[/QUOTE]The problem wth the law is that only straight people want to do what the law allows. Marriage is about love and building a life with that person in our time and not about gender. It's not a different right because everyone should just understand that marriage is marriage, period.

[QUOTE=Zeta-Flux;272652]Just so I understand consider the following example. Joe proposes to allow polygamy in his country, because it "expands freedom". George is worried (perhaps irrationally so, perhaps not) that such a change will not be good. He expresses those worries to Joe, who rejects them out of hand.

What level of burden does George have on himself to show his fears have a foundation before they should be considered as relevant to the issue of whether polygamy should be legalized? Does he have to run lots of experiments to show that polygamy will be bad for his country? Will he be given the time to do so before the change is forced upon the electorate?

How much burden does Joe have to show that George's fears are not based in reality? Any at all? If the people around George are convinced by him to vote for a law against polygamy, can it be negated because George didn't yet validate his fears?

[SPOILER]My personal opinion: If George's fears appear rational, then they should be considered rational until proven otherwise, and thus be allowed to counter Joe's claim that the change "expands freedom".[/SPOILER][/QUOTE]The problem is that you can't preemptively be discriminatory. It shouldn't be allowed. It's like arresting people for crimes they might committ instead of have already committed. There is no rational, unbiased, and unbigoted reason for not allowing gay marriage. Polygamy, however, does have at least one rational argument, but even the one it has would be discriminatory on a wide scale due to the people who want it are willing to live with the bad consequences it might have at some point.