Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban
lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 391 of 448 (470133)
06-09-2008 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 380 by Fosdick
06-09-2008 10:56 AM


Re: Alphabet bigotry
I sense a bigoted move on your part by your use of an upper case "G" for Gays and a lower case "s" for straights. Maybe all the straights should storm their governments and demand equal captalization under the law.
You might want to consider that straights, like atheists, have not formed a proper group while Gays, like Catholics have. If you you want to impugn my motives you'll have to go for something less transparent.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 380 by Fosdick, posted 06-09-2008 10:56 AM Fosdick has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 392 of 448 (470137)
06-09-2008 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 373 by Taz
06-08-2008 8:24 PM


Re: Same-sex marriages
You seem to be forgetting that we went down this route regarding interracial marriage. Heck, we went down this route with segregation. Are you going to try to convince me now that interracial marriage ban and segregation in the various states that chose them were right and moral?
Legally a state reserves the right to enact and enforce its own laws, so long as it is in compliance with federal law. It is also the right of citizens to move to other states that they feel cater their beliefs and demographics better than their home state.
Listening to your constituents as a Senator, Governor, or Representative is always prudent. So if the majority of Californians, Floridians, New Yorkers, etc want gay marriage, then it would be in the best interest of those in positions of authority to give the People in the majority what they want, again, so long as it is in compliance with the Constitution which cannot legally be usurped.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 373 by Taz, posted 06-08-2008 8:24 PM Taz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 395 by Taz, posted 06-09-2008 8:05 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 393 of 448 (470141)
06-09-2008 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 378 by Rrhain
06-09-2008 12:25 AM


SCOTUS
denial of constitutional rights should be decided by popular vote.
There is nothing in the Constitution that protects or prohibits marriage, as it is silent on the issue. Perhaps it could be construed as one of those "self-evident truths", so sensible that it needn't be even mentioned, but that would be a difficult argument to make in court. But that is why we have SCOTUS in the first place, as a failsafe.
So it seems that one would first have to find a reasonable way to irrevocably show that marriage is a basic right in the first place. Then they would have to redefine what a marriage is. And then homosexuals would have the right to be legally married. The other approach is that it should be delegated to the states to decide for themselves, which, to me, seems like it best summarizes the spirit of the Constitution.
Remember: When Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the population thought that interracial marriage should be outlawed.
Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong to overtun the will of the people?
We can't simply overturn something because some people don't like it. If the majority wanted murder to be legal all of a sudden, SCOTUS wouldn't simply overturn it because the majority wanted them to. And that is only because it is something already strictly prohibited. So a popular vote would not change that. It is different with the institution of marriage, since there is no basis for defending it or prohibiting it in the first place.
Besides, there are a lot of things that I don't personally like, but it may be legal as per SCOTUS. I simply have to deal with it, and fight it through legislature. The idea behind SCOTUS is to interpret what was already written so that the spirit behind the Constitution can be extricated from manipulative interpretations. If there is a reasonable basis to legalize homosexual marriage, as per the Constitution, then a majority vote is meaningless. If there is no basis, then a popular vote would be the next equitable thing.
What I am saying is that in the event SCOTUS decides that this is not a Constitutional question, they may end up delegating authority to the states to decide for themselves. And that should come down to a vote since We the People means something.
You seem to have forgotten that oh-so-quickly when that Constitution goes against you.
Not at all, you just seem to have misinterpreted me. I trust that my clarification will suffice. If not, I will try and explain it again.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 378 by Rrhain, posted 06-09-2008 12:25 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Taz, posted 06-09-2008 8:11 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 407 by Rrhain, posted 06-10-2008 7:47 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Fosdick 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5500 days)
Posts: 1793
From: Upper Slobovia
Joined: 12-11-2006


Message 394 of 448 (470168)
06-09-2008 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 389 by bluescat48
06-09-2008 3:34 PM


Re: The comparison
bluescat48 writes:
Why would their institution be threatened. They would still be married under the law only the law would extend to previously denied couples. I still cannot see what the difference would be or why heterosexual couples would lose anything if homosexual couples could marry.
You would have to ask them, not me. But I believe that's how they feel, whether or not you like their feelings. What they say they lose from legalizing "gay marriage" may not be reasonable to you. But it's still what they feel. The only way to settle this "gay marriage" issue is have a referendum on it and let people vote.
”HM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by bluescat48, posted 06-09-2008 3:34 PM bluescat48 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 408 by Rrhain, posted 06-10-2008 7:54 AM Fosdick has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 395 of 448 (470178)
06-09-2008 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 392 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2008 5:33 PM


Re: Same-sex marriages
Nem writes:
It is also the right of citizens to move to other states that they feel cater their beliefs and demographics better than their home state.
This is a bullshit argument, and you know it. Many, if not most, people can't afford to simply move to another state for economic reasons. Based on your logic, the Lovings only had to move to another state to be able to live in peace.
Listening to your constituents as a Senator, Governor, or Representative is always prudent. So if the majority of Californians, Floridians, New Yorkers, etc want gay marriage, then it would be in the best interest of those in positions of authority to give the People in the majority what they want, again, so long as it is in compliance with the Constitution which cannot legally be usurped.
You completely dodged my point. Segregation and interracial marriage ban were particularly popular in the states that had them. In some states, more than 80-90% of the people voted overwhelmingly to have them.
So, again, are you trying to tell me that in such cases in the past the will of the majority was just and moral?
Nem, I am willing to drop the whole thing if you're willing to admit that if the people of a state decides to ban interracial marriage than it is ok for that state to ban interracial marriage. Are you ready to admit this? Please don't play the semantic game. Give me a frank answer.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 392 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 5:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Rrhain, posted 06-10-2008 7:59 AM Taz has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 396 of 448 (470179)
06-09-2008 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 390 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2008 5:24 PM


Re: Same-sex marriages
A Constitutional Republic is an example of democracy. There are several forms of democracy, and a CR is just one example.
No it's not. In a democracy elected representatives are still subordinate to the voters, while in a republic they are independent of the voter (until the next election) but subordinate to some form of charter. Our charter is the Constitution. There is a bit more to it but this is the bit important to this discussion.
The American voter doesn't have the right to vote on everything. They can't vote to hang everyone named "Harry" for example. One could in a straight democracy. That is why no thinking person would ever want to live under a democracy.
Now, when our founding fathers wrote up the Constitution the idea of people as autonomous agents was a fairly new one and not fully thought out. "People" was defined as "The folks we here would talk this over with at dinner." Women were obviously not people, nor were blacks ” yelling back and forth to the kitchens would be absurd. Non land owners hadn't made the grade in most quarters. But, against the tide, the definition has matured. (Many felt their own franchise would be diminished by the change in definition.)
The form of the autonomy recognized in the Constitution was also immature. It was recognized as "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in The Declaration of Independence. The Bill of Rights got to "life and liberty" with acuity but were pretty vague when it came to the "pursuit of happiness". The 9th amendment may well be a concession to their feelings of incompleteness. You know . that feeling you get when you did most the chores on your list but seem to have forgotten one. Well, they didn't remember it at 3:00 am, and left it to us to sort out. I'm pretty sure myself that last chore was self-determination.
But then again a woman can't self-determine to marry a tree and remaintn within the context of what a marriage is.
A woman can't do it and remain within the context of what a contract is. A tree does not have the ability to form consent.
But their are no distinguishable duties between the parties in a civil marriage contract. Is spouse "A" the male or female? Is spouse "B" the male or female? Without assignment of separate duties ascribed to the parties any definition based on the sex of the parties is extraneous.
If a person who doesn't agree with your view is a bigot on those pretenses*, then what does that make you?
If a pick pocket ineptly steals my wallet, but I manage to snatch it out of his hand before he gets away does that make me a thief?
My view is that self-determination takes precedent over the definition of a word. We the definitions of the United States, in order to form a more stable dictionary . just doesn't have the same ring to it.
If a person doesn't understand the differences between forcing others to abide to their will and the others forcing that person to leave them be then I don't see that person's opinion deserving a whole lot of consideration.
*I assume that your dangling modifier is meant to apply to my reasoning. Is this intended to be a slight or a statement of fact? I can be thick at times. Either way, what do you find to be disingenuous about my reasoning?
Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 390 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 5:24 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 9:33 PM lyx2no has replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 397 of 448 (470181)
06-09-2008 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2008 5:52 PM


Re: SCOTUS
Nem writes:
Besides, there are a lot of things that I don't personally like, but it may be legal as per SCOTUS. I simply have to deal with it, and fight it through legislature.
This is not a question of whether you or I like it or not. I don't particularly like the fact that christians are free to breathe the same air that I breathe, but does this mean I have the right (as a human being and not necessarily as a citizen) to go out and vote to put you christians on air tanks?
The constitution isn't there to entertain your likings, nem. It's there to protect you, me, and everyone else from the tyranny of the majority.
Someone once told me this, and I thought it was the most brilliant thing ever. People are alive. Laws are not. If a law conflicts with the rights or interests of people, then between choosing the people or law I'd rather choose the people. Legal arguments, no matter how valid, aren't always the answer.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 5:52 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 398 of 448 (470189)
06-09-2008 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by lyx2no
06-09-2008 8:05 PM


Re: Same-sex marriages
No it's not. In a democracy elected representatives are still subordinate to the voters, while in a republic they are independent of the voter (until the next election) but subordinate to some form of charter. Our charter is the Constitution. There is a bit more to it but this is the bit important to this discussion.
The United States is a democracy overall. That it is a Constitutional Republic is simply a description of one form of democracy. Its like saying that while all Floridians are Americans, not all Americans are Floridians. A Constitutional Republic could represent Florida, and democracy could represent America, if you will oblige the analogy.
"A constitutional republic is a form of democracy, but not all democracies are constitutional republics. For example, though the head of state is not elected in a monarchy, it may still be a liberal democracy if there is a parliament with elected representatives that govern according to constitutional law protecting individual rights (called a constitutional democratic monarchy). Also, a representative democracy may or may not be a constitutional republic. For example, "the United States relies on representative democracy, but [its] system of government is much more complex than that. It is not a simple representative democracy, but a constitutional republic in which majority rule is tempered by minority rights protected by law." - Source
Indeed, I doubt there is a legitimate democracy because of the infallibility of man in the same way that there has never been a legitimate communist nation by virtue of the fallibility and corruptablity of man. There is a reason why the United States is a Constitutional Republic, as explained below:
Direct democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Constitution and some signers of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. As a result, they advocated a representative democracy in the form of a constitutional republic over a direct democracy. For example, James Madison, in Federalist No. 10 advocates a constitutional republic over direct democracy precisely to protect the individual from the will of the majority. He says, "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." John Witherspoon, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, said "Pure democracy cannot subsist long nor be carried far into the departments of state ” it is very subject to caprice and the madness of popular rage." Alexander Hamilton said, "That a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity." -
Now, when our founding fathers wrote up the Constitution the idea of people as autonomous agents was a fairly new one and not fully thought out. "People" was defined as "The folks we here would talk this over with at dinner."
I understand what you are saying, and in many ways we actually agree. However, what you are describing is indeed still a democracy, albeit a form with checks and balances. A direct democracy is not feasible in the sense that how could 300 million Americans all voice their opinion to the president of the United States? There are physical limitations preventing just that, and so, in the infinite wisdom of the Framers, they decided to establish Representatives who would "represent" their constituents.
A woman can't do it and remain within the context of what a contract is. A tree does not have the ability to form consent.
A woman and a seventeen year old could. But there are problems there as well. Signing a contract does not become the arbitration to do as one pleases, especially if it operates outside of the law. Myself and a third party may have a contractual agreement. I offer him services as a hitman in exchange for money. That obviously isn't legal because I am operating outside of the law in order to do it.
But their are no distinguishable duties between the parties in a civil marriage contract. Is spouse "A" the male or female? Is spouse "B" the male or female? Without assignment of separate duties ascribed to the parties any definition based on the sex of the parties is extraneous.
Why couldn't reasonably be said that age is also extraneous? I mean, who is to say as long as there is no Grand Arbiter? It simply comes down to the opinion of one against another, does it not? And so there is a crux where they vie for the majority opinion -- hence, a democratic vote, which is what should be done here in my opinion.
If two men want to have a legally binding contract for reasons of property and of sentimental reasons of signifying their devotion to one another, I certainly not opposed to it. But saying that a persons sex is totally irrelevant is not the case. Otherwise, why not simply have basketball instead of male and female basketball? Why not simply have a unisex bathroom instead of male and female restrooms? Obviously there is much validity to consigning some things to gender. The fact that there are people who say they are homosexual or heterosexual is evidence that gender means very much. Pretending that it is of no consequence doesn't seem to be the answer
I wonder why, if marriage has been pre-defined for millennia, the need to have it be a marriage when it is evident that it is not?
Marriage Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Wouldn't a civil union be a win/win situation for all?
quote:
If a person who doesn't agree with your view is a bigot on those pretenses*, then what does that make you?
If a pick pocket ineptly steals my wallet, but I manage to snatch it out of his hand before he gets away does that make me a thief?
You presuppose here that your view is in line with some sort of cosmic justice, which inexorably presupposes some sort of absolute standard, in which you are now appealing to me to follow innately. But in a relative universe, words like "bigot" are invariably meaningless since everything would come down to mere opinion. One man's bigot is another man's ally. Indeed you calling someone a bigot could very easily pass as bigotry itself.
Now, please don't misunderstand me. If you want to refer to as people who disagree with homosexual marriage as bigots, do so till your heart's content. It's your Constitutional right. However, I couldn't help pointing out the irony of irony itself, especially after you got through with your diatribe on someone else's irony.
My view is that self-determination takes precedent over the definition of a word.
So if I'm self-determined to open fire on a group of school children, I get to also butcher language itself, which is the very foundation of laws in the first place? Interesting.
We the definitions of the United States, in order to form a more stable dictionary . just doesn't have the same ring to it.
To play a game of semantics by assuming that words and their meanings are themselves meaningless is itself meaningless and irrational. Human beings reason through means of concepts and definitions. Consequently that is also how laws are formed.
I think it could be reasonably said that changing the definition of the word changes what a marriage was supposed to be in the first place. Remember, the concept precedes the definition, not the other way around. Marriage was first a union conjoined with procreation, as a way to regulate, from a social perspective, the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation.
I mean, otherwise you have to ask why human beings would choose to get married at all.
I assume that your dangling modifier is meant to apply to my reasoning. Is this intended to be a slight or a statement of fact? I can be thick at times. Either way, what do you find to be disingenuous about my reasoning?
I'm just jousting here. I was more challenging your rationale than I was the position itself. To add, I don't think you are being disingenuous at all. I believe your sincerity on the matter. And for what it's worth, in many ways I am sympathetic to the gay marriage plight. But to be honest, I am not totally sold out on it yet for the simple fact that allowing that which was disallowed opens you up to asking the very same question for something else that has always been viewed as morally taboo.
There is something about that that I can't seem to deny, the emotive argument be damned.

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 396 by lyx2no, posted 06-09-2008 8:05 PM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 399 by lyx2no, posted 06-10-2008 12:04 AM Hyroglyphx has replied
 Message 403 by FliesOnly, posted 06-10-2008 7:12 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 399 of 448 (470206)
06-10-2008 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2008 9:33 PM


You're Reinvention those Roundy Things
While both are fruit, you are mixing apples and oranges. Go for it, but it’s way OT.
Why couldn't [it] reasonably be said that age is also extraneous?I mean, who is to say as long as there is no Grand Arbiter? It simply comes down to the opinion of one against another, does it not? And so there is a crux where they vie for the majority opinion -- hence, a democratic vote, which is what should be done here in my opinion.
Americans have the right to form contracts with each other. The Government, as the GA, has an interest in regulating these contracts. These regulations include “Age of Consent” and “Clean Hands”. Your seventeen year old is covered by the first and your “hit” is covered by the second.
The Government, recognizing that they had no interest in the particulars of the contractual duties of the parties involved in the marriage contract exacted no requirements. The sex of either party became irrelevant.
If two men want to have a legally binding contract for reasons of property and of sentimental reasons of signifying their devotion to one another, I certainly not opposed to it.
You’re reinventing those roundy things.
But saying that a persons sex is totally irrelevant is not the case. Otherwise, why not simply have basketball instead of male and female basketball? Why not simply have a unisex bathroom instead of male and female restrooms? Obviously there is much validity to consigning some things to gender. The fact that there are people who say they are homosexual or heterosexual is evidence that gender means very much. Pretending that it is of no consequence doesn't seem to be the answer
It certainly matters to me . but I’m not a civil marriage contract.
I wonder why, if marriage has been pre-defined for millennia, the need to have it be a marriage when it is evident that it is not?
It is not evident to me.
Wouldn't a civil union be a win/win situation for all?
No.
quote:
If a person who doesn't agree with your view is a bigot on those pretenses*, then what does that make you?
If a pick pocket ineptly steals my wallet, but I manage to snatch it out of his hand before he gets away does that make me a thief?
You presuppose here that your view is in line with some sort of cosmic justice, which inexorably presupposes some sort of absolute standard, in which you are now appealing to me to follow innately. But in a relative universe, words like "bigot" are invariably meaningless since everything would come down to mere opinion. One man's bigot is another man's ally. Indeed you calling someone a bigot could very easily pass as bigotry itself.
Now, please don't misunderstand me. If you want to refer to as people who disagree with homosexual marriage as bigots, do so till your heart's content. It's your Constitutional right. However, I couldn't help pointing out the irony of irony itself, especially after you got through with your diatribe on someone else's irony.
This is almost to absurd to contemplate. So I won’t. But I will pull this bit out again:
If a pick pocket ineptly steals my wallet, but I manage to snatch it out of his hand before he gets away does that make me a thief?
As you use the phrase “ . what a marriage was supposed to be in the first place.” I’m betting you’re not quite the relative moralist you’re making yourself out to be.
My view is that self-determination takes precedent over the definition of a word.
So if I'm self-determined to open fire on a group of school children, I get to also butcher language itself, which is the very foundation of laws in the first place? Interesting.
Are you under the impression that I’d not notice the violation of the self-determination of the school children? Recognizing self-determination is my bag, man. It’s how I roll, dude.
To play a game of semantics by assuming that words and their meanings are themselves meaningless is itself meaningless and irrational. Human beings reason through means of concepts and definitions. Consequently that is also how laws are formed.
The point of Reductio ad absurdum is not to make your own arguments ridiculous. Idiom isn’t peculiar. How many people are confused when they see a television commercial in which the product is touted as marriage of sophistication to convenience. Do you think we should all run out and pass a law that say that “sophistication” and “convenience” must be of opposite genders if they are to be married? No one will be confused but a minor change to a legal definition. Quite frankly, give it any name you want: It will be called marriage well before the honeymoon is over.
I mean, otherwise you have to ask why human beings would choose to get married at all.
How about because if I’m a bank I’m more likely to give a loan when I’ve got two people on the hook for it?
How about if I’m a ____________ I”m more likely to ____________when I’ve got two people on the hook for it?
Fill in the blanks.
I am not totally sold out on it yet for the simple fact that allowing that which was disallowed opens you up to asking the very same question for something else that has always been viewed as morally taboo.
That does suck, doesn’t it. I’m the worst prude I know. But my prudish prudence isn’t universal. One size does not fit all.

Kindly
There is a spider by the water pipe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 9:33 PM Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-10-2008 1:16 AM lyx2no has replied

Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 400 of 448 (470214)
06-10-2008 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 399 by lyx2no
06-10-2008 12:04 AM


Re: You're Reinvention those Roundy Things
Americans have the right to form contracts with each other. The Government, as the GA, has an interest in regulating these contracts. These regulations include “Age of Consent” and “Clean Hands”. Your seventeen year old is covered by the first and your “hit” is covered by the second.
Predictably, you ended up emasculating your argument with your own qualifiers. The Defense of Marriage Act is one of those instances where the government regulates those contracts, and you thus invalidate your own justification which all the more strengthens my assertion.
Again, I ask why you should allow homosexuality on the basis of want while denying others that right. You mention that marrying someone under age is not legal, and therefore it is the qualifier. But neither is gay marriage legal, and yet it doesn't prevent you from trying to find some reason to exonerate it from legality.
The Government, recognizing that they had no interest in the particulars of the contractual duties of the parties involved in the marriage contract exacted no requirements. The sex of either party became irrelevant.
They have much interest in the particulars, as age of consent, polygamy, incest, etc are all particular. Why then would this be any different, especially when marriage has been predefined as being between a man and a woman, specifically?
You’re reinventing those roundy things.
What? Squares?
It is not evident to me.
Obviously it is or you wouldn't be here arguing against that which you claim isn't evident.
quote:
Wouldn't a civil union be a win/win situation for all?
No.
Can I get a little more information on that?
In the meantime I will tell you why I personally believe it to be a win/win situation. Homosexuality is not a crime, and therefore, two consenting adults should be allowed to make lawful decisions without the interference of government intrusion. However, marriage is not something that members of the same sex can engage in
Since I find the argument for gays appreciable (that their sexual predilections shouldn't prohibit them from protection of the law) I see something very much like a marriage totally within reason. If homosexuals simply want the same rights as a marriage, the same devotions as a marriage, then civil unions would unanimously provide that for them.
Yet, it does not jeopardize the sanctity of the institution of marriage which many people esteem highly as the very foundation of civilization, which is attendant upon procreation -- the very reason why marriages were instituted.
Everybody wins this way. You really don't see that?
This is almost to absurd to contemplate. So I won’t.
Perhaps a closer introspection would lead you to the conclusion that it isn't absurd to contemplate, but absurd to defend against.
But I will pull this bit out again:
If a pick pocket ineptly steals my wallet, but I manage to snatch it out of his hand before he gets away does that make me a thief?
As you use the phrase “ . what a marriage was supposed to be in the first place.” I’m betting you’re not quite the relative moralist you’re making yourself out to be.
I'm not making myself out to be a relative moralist. Rather I am demonstrating the futility in trying to defend a moral stance from a relative vantage point, an outlook almost unanimously held by pro-gay marriage advocates. It leads to circular logic. I'm just trying to get that point across without being slandered.
There is a history here. A lot of people seemed to think that I was equivocating the act of homosexuality itself with forms of what is deemed as "sexual sin." What I was really trying to do was get people thinking about how they could justify this without jeopardizing something else while remaining in a relative moral outlook. I saw a thought of inconsistency, philosophically, and sought to expose the tenderness of that underbelly.
A couple of people understood where I was coming from. Others were infuriated by me, convinced that I was the devil incarnate. So in any case, out of deference I am treading lightly here. I don't want to piss too many people off with my controversy, which seems to follow me like a dark gray rain cloud.
Maybe I suffer from foot-in-mouth disease. Maybe I just don't care all that much about political correctness. I do care about genuinely hurting people's feelings though. I don't want that. I just want them to see where I'm coming from.
Anyway, I seriously digress now... Sorry about the crazy tangent.
Are you under the impression that I’d not notice the violation of the self-determination of the school children? Recognizing self-determination is my bag, man.
If this too were a qualifier, then things like polygamy, prostitution and incest would not be illegal, so long as everyone is in agreement with the terms. And yet they all are illegal. Its kind of like this woman who requested to be murdered. Seriously. This actually happened. She requested it. Yet the man was jailed for obliging her wishes.
Do you think we should all run out and pass a law that say that “sophistication” and “convenience” must be of opposite genders if they are to be married? No one will be confused but a minor change to a legal definition. Quite frankly, give it any name you want: It will be called marriage well before the honeymoon is over.
I don't see anything minor about it. That is almost a complete departure of what the word means. Remember, words convey meanings and concepts. That's why when someone tells you to go fuck yourself, you aren't going to take that as a term of endearment.
How about because if I’m a bank I’m more likely to give a loan when I’ve got two people on the hook for it?
You don't need to be married to have a cosigner.
That does suck, doesn’t it. I’m the worst prude I know. But my prudish prudence isn’t universal. One size does not fit all.
All I am saying is there are consequences to any action we make, regardless of the ultimate decision. And I honestly don't know what is more right or more wrong. That is just my honest opinion on the matter. I just think it could be avoided if we just allowed for civil unions. Everybody wins in the long run. That's cause for celebration, no?

“I know where I am and who I am. I'm on the brink of disillusionment, on the eve of bitter sweet. I'm perpetually one step away from either collapse or rebirth. I am exactly where I need to be. Either way I go towards rebirth, for a total collapse often brings a rebirth." -Andrew Jaramillo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by lyx2no, posted 06-10-2008 12:04 AM lyx2no has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Taz, posted 06-10-2008 1:35 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied
 Message 412 by lyx2no, posted 06-10-2008 11:08 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 401 of 448 (470218)
06-10-2008 1:35 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by Hyroglyphx
06-10-2008 1:16 AM


Re: You're Reinvention those Roundy Things
Nem writes:
Since I find the argument for gays appreciable (that their sexual predilections shouldn't prohibit them from protection of the law) I see something very much like a marriage totally within reason. If homosexuals simply want the same rights as a marriage, the same devotions as a marriage, then civil unions would unanimously provide that for them.
You and I both know this is simply crock. Almost every bill in every state that have tried to introduce "civil union" into the picture has been struck down. Every referandum that wants to put "civil union" into the picture has also been struck down by the majority.
Somehow, I suspect that you're resorting to this civil union thing just to have something to fall back on. Let's admit it, nem. I find it hard to believe that a person like you would actually in reality support a civil union or anything remotely resemble marriage for gay people. Come on, let's be honest for once.
All I am saying is there are consequences to any action we make, regardless of the ultimate decision. And I honestly don't know what is more right or more wrong. That is just my honest opinion on the matter. I just think it could be avoided if we just allowed for civil unions. Everybody wins in the long run. That's cause for celebration, no?
RAZD and Holmes tried to convince me of this same bullshit. I didn't budge then and I'm not going to budge now.
Here, watch this video again.
I'm not gay, so I can't say this will personally affect me. But since it sure seems like it's affecting a lot of people, I find it immoral that you could sit there in your christian chair wearing your moral superior christian hat and want to deny these people happiness, especially when it's obvious that the issue is very important to them.
Like I said before, legal arguments aren't always right no matter how valid they can be. Marriage was defined as union between a man and a woman of the same race in the 1600's before this country was even founded. You want to talk tradition, talk about that. Even in the 60's, over 70% of Americans still wanted marriage to be between a man and a woman of the same race. If you want to talk majority rule, talk about that.
The simple fact is this is a moral issue regarding human right. Considering the fact that even if tomorrow gay marriage is legalized everywhere, I find it hard to believe that your life would actually change at all over it. Why concern yourself so much with the sex lives of consenting adults?
Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-10-2008 1:16 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 402 of 448 (470238)
06-10-2008 7:11 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Fosdick
06-09-2008 10:46 AM


Hoot Mon responds to me:
quote:
In a democracy the majority always discriminates against the minority. Is that why you are so afraid to put it to a vote?
Yes. That's why we have the Constitution: To prevent the tyrrany of the majority.
Again, when Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the popualtion felt that interracial marriages should be outlawed and had voted to do just that.
Are you saying the SCOTUS was wrong to overturn the will of the people?
Have you forgotten that when the SCOTUS ruled in Brown v. Board of Education that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional, the Army had to be called out in order to escort children to school?
Was the SCOTUS wrong to overturn the will of the people? Was the President wrong to enforce this violation of majority opinion?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Fosdick, posted 06-09-2008 10:46 AM Fosdick has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 403 of 448 (470239)
06-10-2008 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 398 by Hyroglyphx
06-09-2008 9:33 PM


Re: Same-sex marriages
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
Myself and a third party may have a contractual agreement. I offer him services as a hitman in exchange for money. That obviously isn't legal because I am operating outside of the law in order to do it.
The utterly preposterous logical gymnastics you guys have to come up with to justify your homophobic bigotry is nothing short of amazing.
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
I wonder why, if marriage has been pre-defined for millennia, the need to have it be a marriage when it is evident that it is not?
Yeah...we keep seeing this sort crappola. If marriage was predefined (whatever the hell that means. How can something be "pre-defined"?) as being between one man and one women, why did the homophobic Republicans feel the need to come up with DOMA? Could it be because as it turns out...there was no such definition of marriage?
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
Wouldn't a civil union be a win/win situation for all?
Did you read any of the posts prior to joining our discussion? Any? At all? "Separate but equal"...need I say more?
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
But in a relative universe, words like "bigot" are invariably meaningless since everything would come down to mere opinion. One man's bigot is another man's ally. Indeed you calling someone a bigot could very easily pass as bigotry itself.
Gads...here we go again. Why are so many people here totally confused by the word "Bigot"? Look NJ, disagreeing with someone is not, in and of itself, bigotry. Intolerance is what makes you a bigot. You do not want homosexuals to have the same rights as you. You want laws passed and definitions written such that it becomes illegal for two members of the same sex to marry. THAT'S what makes you a bigot. Not that you disagree with us. But rather because you want to force others to abide by your personal standards.
Nemesis Juggernaut writes:
If you want to refer to as people who disagree with homosexual marriage as bigots, do so till your heart's content.
Disagreeing is NOT bigotry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 398 by Hyroglyphx, posted 06-09-2008 9:33 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 404 of 448 (470240)
06-10-2008 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 383 by Fosdick
06-09-2008 12:00 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
I'm willing to bet my sailboat against your bicycle that the framers of this country's Constitution had not even the slightest concern over protecting sexual-orientation rights when they framed it.
And I'm just as willing to bet my house against your shoes that the framers of this country's Constitution had not even the slightest concern over protecting interracial marriage when they framed it.
And yet, that's exactly what the Constitution wound up doing.
You seem to have forgotten about the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. Your homework is to look them up.
quote:
If you can proved that the framers of the Constitution had "gay marriage" in mind I'll sail my boat all the way around to Michigan and park it in the marina of your choice.
Surely you aren't arguing "originalism" as a valid method of Constitutional interpretation, are you? Have you forgotten what the Ninth and Tenth Amendments say?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by Fosdick, posted 06-09-2008 12:00 PM Fosdick has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 405 of 448 (470241)
06-10-2008 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 388 by Fosdick
06-09-2008 2:40 PM


Hoot Mon writes:
quote:
But no matter how you look at these arguments there is an implication that “same-sex marriage” and mixed-race marriage should be comparable in the context of a legal contract.
Indeed. Since the conclusion of the investigation into racial segregation was the much larger attitude that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional, it is now your responsibility to explain why that fundamental principle is not to be applied with regard to sexual orientation.
quote:
What about the plight of heterosexual married people who feel their institution is threatened by the gay-power movement
How, precisely, is this "plight" manifested? What, precisely, is the "threat"? How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?
Be specific.
quote:
which claims to be the successor of the black-power movement?
Since when? The gay-rights movement has always been supportive of the racial-rights movement, but the feeling has never been mutual.
quote:
Mr. and Mrs. Smith out in Iowa are very confused about such power movements
So justice is to be delayed because there are some people too scared to realize that there is nothing to be afraid of?
Justice delayed is justice denied. Gay people got married in Massachusetts and the world did not end. That's why the attempts to amend the state Constitution to enshrine discrimination has steadily declined: People realized that there was nothing to fear. Their lives did not change.
What, precisely, is the "plight" of Mr. and Mrs. Bigot? How does this "threat" manifest? How does the neighbor's marriage affect you?
Be specific.
quote:
especially when they are told that any heterosexual-power movement would be a highly bigoted affair.
(*chuckle*)
When we see the people claiming that the destruction of New Orleans was because of Mardi Gras rather than Southern Decadance), then we might have some legitimacy to the claim about the "plight" of the heterosexual.

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 388 by Fosdick, posted 06-09-2008 2:40 PM Fosdick has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024