|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Am I just massively more cynical than everyone else here? Do people really think the courts work this way? Do we really think the various state, district and finally the Supreme Courts have ruled the way they have on same-sex marriage strictly based on Constitutional and scientific arguments?
And that they'll just do the same with polygamy if the right evidence and legal arguments get made?
Malachi Silverclaw wrote:
Pretty much. That's why, despite all the celebration over marriage, the work isn't done.
That said, many, but not most, states have their own laws and some cities and other localities have their own protections, though some conservative states are passing laws to override such local protections - so much for "local government knows best".
I'm amused that we jumped from "The Drow should be extinct" to "The Duergar can't possibly survive against them."
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Or to bring it back to the topic "gay marriages" are just "happy marriages" and I don't see any reason anyone would be opposed to those.
Thymus Vulgaris wrote:
I try not to. Given a long enough time and sufficient usage in that sense, that'll be correct usage though.OTOH, I strictly use "gay" to mean happy and am constantly confused by why people are upset about happy marriages. :)
For other linguistic things that'll get me shunned: I can't wait until the possessive "it's" takes over and becomes correct usage. In nearly every other word, the "'s" can be either a contraction of "is" or a possessive. "It" being an exception makes no sense.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Well damn. You want to tell my parents they're not really married?
Seriously, it's a social and a community thing. Marriage has certainly changed over the millenia, but it's by no means just a religious thing.
And again as a practical matter, that satisfies nobody. The bigots will be unhappy because gays will still be getting married as there are plenty of churches that will marry them. Atheists will be upset because now they can't get married without going through a church. I guess the libertarians will be happy because they get government out of something, though since civil unions take on all the roles of marriage, nothing actually changes there.
That and you'd have pedantic jerks telling people that "Technically, you're not really married".
The weirdest outfall of all of this is hearing conservative republicans rail against judicial power and talk about overturning Marbury v. Madison (something I think might be a good idea; the power of judicial review ought to be more spelled out and a proper petition process in place) and lawmakers such as in Utah want to take their ball and go home, taking government out of the marriage game altogether. Which I also agree with. It's a personal and religious ceremony. The government has NO business saying who can and can't get married. Who enters into a civil union, on the other hand...
1) Marriage doesn't have to be a religious ceremony. Or frankly a ceremony at all. The civil union approach satisfies nobody. The bigots fought against civil unions for gays, so they wouldn't be happy. They also wouldn't be happy since some churches would happily marry gays. And plenty of non-religious people want to get married, so they wouldn't be happy with their marriages changed to civil unions. Marriage is a social & cultural thing, not just a religious one.
2) Of course conservatives are quite fine with Marbury v. Madison when the court rules in their favor - Heller, anyone? More than that, Marbury v. Madison seems to be implicit in the constitutional system. The details of judicial review could be spelled out more clearly, but that would take an amendment and we've had 200+ years to do so. Someone has to decide what happens when a defendant argues they shouldn't be punished because of conflicting laws. The judicial system is the obvious place for that to happen and the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the judicial system.
Lord Snow wrote:
There's truth in that, but it's a problem we're going to have to deal with. Infinite population growth isn't possible. (Even colonizing doesn't really help, unless you're just exploiting the colonies to keep the motherland prosperous.)
OTOH, it's purely a social and political problem. Productivity is so incredibly high, by any historical standards, that even a smaller percentage of the population working could supply a larger retired populace. And productivity continues to grow with more automation and technology. It's a distribution problem, not a lack of workers problem. As is shown by high unemployment.
Lord Snow wrote:
Movies are fine.
Listening to/watching instructional videos or speeches or things like that is painful. I almost always would rather have text, since I process it so much faster than the audio.
I suspect the difference is that there's usually more going on in the movie - all the visual input, along with the dialog or whatever keeps me from getting bored. Also, it might not be longer than it takes to read, if the book has a decent amount of descriptive test along with spoken dialog.
Bennybeck Wabbittracks wrote:
Just because someone does not agree with a lifestyle does not mean that they are bigots.
Just because someone doesn't like black people doesn't mean they're racist.
Nice one with the "lifestyle", by the way. Standard, but nicely done.
What is the "homosexual lifestyle", by the way? Seems pretty varied in my experience.
As I said earlier in this thread, I'd rather this lead into more protections for LGBT people than to more different types of marriage. Employment discrimination. Housing discrimination. Still legal in many states. And make sure the T part of that is included.
Marriage is a good step, but it doesn't mean discrimination is over.
Lord Snow wrote:
Pretty much this. It's not really that it's more complicated legally, though that will affect things.It's that the law doesn't work that way, even if it should. This decision or the decisions and laws that originally changed state policies on gay marriage don't set up a slope where poly marriage is the next step. That's been a standard attack on marriage equality from the beginning.
If poly marriage is going to happen, it's going to happen because there's a constituency that both demands it, has the legal clout and resources to push lawmakers and courts in that direction and, more importantly, is able to change broad public opinion in it's favor. The courts will follow public opinion. Just like they did with same sex marriage.
Grey Lensman wrote:
Just to add to the Scalia bashing:"Humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so"
No young earth creationist overtones in that.
I'd file that under "obvious joke".
Lou Diamond wrote:
Churches will not be forced to marry anyone they don't want to marry. Gay or straight. Will not happen. Hasn't happened in past ruling. Won't happen with this one. Not a thing to worry about.The 1st amendment doesn't enter the legal question here. It does not apply to states banning same sex marriage. It's not a religious freedom question, since the states don't have the right to impose religion on their citizens.
I assume, based on your legal/Constitution argument here, that you also think Loving vs Virginia was wrongly decided? That Court had no business overriding state laws against interracial marriage?
Are you really seeing demands for trigger warnings over trivial stuff that frequently? Other than as obvious jokes, anyway.
As I said earlier, I tend to see them for what you suggest as legitimate uses and not for the petty stuff. Which may be why I approve of them and you think they're a problem.
Zelda Marie Lupescu wrote:
But even with a Con of 10, one ration of Rum won't make you pass out. And once every other month would give you plenty of time to recover.
In fact, if I read the rum rules and the ability score damage rules correctly, no amount of rum will make you pass out. You're conscious until your Con reaches 0, then you're dead. Which makes the "Heave" drinking game, if played as written, kill every player but one.
Grey Lensman wrote:
Not sure whether it was Scalia or Alito who said something along the lines of 'Innocence is not, in and of itself, justification to be released from prison', but I don't expect anything decent out of anyone who can say that. Proof of innocence alone is enough reason to open the cell right away and hold anyone who objects in contempt of court.
It was Scalia and it was actually worse, since it was a death penalty case.
But there's no logic in tying that to marriage equality.
And if there was any logic, it existed since Loving vs Virginia forced interracial marriage on the states.
This decision changes nothing and establishes no fundamental principle, other than adding another category to those who can be married.
And that use of "trigger warning" is silly.
And frankly I don't see it used for anything that trivial very often. Most often I see it used for things like rape or child abuse, things that are not at all petty. And not just the simple words either, but more detailed recountings or descriptions.
I can't really argue with their logic. Hell, I can't even find their logic.
But seriously, if there was a precedent set there, which there isn't, it would have been set in Loving vs Virginia, not now. A decision that, btw, was equally decried as judicial overreach and an assault on state's rights and real Americans in its day.
And mechanically it works just fine. The flavor is the problem.Gets worse if you're the type of player who doesn't just think about the PCs. All the other pirates are supposedly getting the ration too. They play drinking games with it. Why does anyone survive?
lets just have it all be Sci-Fantasy and be done with this pointless segregation equality for all!!!
Because I like different subgenres. I don't have a problem mixing on occasion, but I don't want everything to be giant piles of kitchen sinks.
Data. Evidence.Cooler since when. Over what time period. In what location.
Even if your source is lousy and biased, at least it's a starting point.
Like this: The globally averaged temperature over land and ocean surfaces for 2014 was the highest among all years since record keeping began in 1880.
You keep saying this as though it's self evident and you keep refusing to back it up. It's true that there were certainly changes to prior climates without human influence. That proves the climate can change without human influence. It does not prove that humans can't change the climate. You offer no evidence. No support. You just keep repeating it.
Again, do you dispute the greenhouse effect? On what grounds?
Most of the emails that supposedly show fake didn't directly relate to it being human caused, but to warming trends happening at all.
Of course, but we're discussing what the law should be.
It's certainly fine to argue that the law shouldn't protect LGBTQs, though I think it's not a moral position to take.
I'm much less happy with the idea that we should have laws but individuals should be free to ignore them if they claim a religious conviction. That's fine for matters of actual religious practice, to an extent - Native American Church having an exemption from drug laws for peyote, for example or churches being allowed wine for Mass during prohibition. Less so for things that directly affect non-members of the religion at hand.
It ties directly to Justice Kennedy's opinion in the SC decision:
No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
It's that same dignity that is lost when any bigoted idiot can refuse you service protected by the law. It's the same dignity that was lost when black people had to go the back door, if they were served at all.
Generic Villain wrote:
It's interesting, but you shouldn't rely too heavily on their stated reasoning and logic. Actual motivations are often different and even more interesting.That's all I'm saying.
If you only pay attention to the stated reasons, you may be misled about future actions and about appropriate tactics to take. "You can't reason a man out of a position he didn't reason himself into."
1) Can we please not use the "cram down people's throats" metaphor in a discussion of gay rights. It has unfortunate connotations. It's been brought up in the past.
2) People are forced to act against their conscience in the course of their jobs all the time, particularly when their conscience compels them to discriminate against others. We have public accommodation laws for precisely this reason. To step away from the racism analogies for the moment, someone who believes for religious reasons that pre-marital sex is a sin may consider it against his conscience to rent a room or a house to an unmarried couple, even a straight one. If that's the case, he shouldn't go into the hotel or landlord business.
I agree it's horrific. But there's clear precedent for denying medication on religious grounds.Now there's a distinction between denying a particular medication because you don't approve of it on religious grounds and refusing to serve a particular customer on such grounds, but it's not clear that the legal distinction is that firm.
I'm with Yuugasa. It's b*@&!%*@. There may be fear out there now, but it's not fear that's driving their opposition. The opposition started long before there were any worries about bakers or florists having to violate their conscience. Or even focused on gay marriage at all.Was that the motivation when they were passing state constitutional amendments banning civil unions? Or supported any of the other prejudice over the decades?
Even fighting gay marriage was a fall back position from worse discrimination. Because they were losing. They fought legalizing homosexual activity at all. They fought civil unions. They fought gay marriage. Now they're fighting to let florists and bakers discriminate.
Gay marriage wasn't some principled religious freedom stance, it was just latest hill to die on. For the organizers and the majority of supporters it's not about "the fear that they have of the LGBT movement moving to destroy the freedom of religion and the freedom of speech." That's nonsense. It's an excuse. It's a tactic. Some are trying to drum that fear up in followers who are starting to question, but it's not the heart of the matter. And it's not effective. We know that because the opposition to any gay rights has been unrelenting. And we know it's not working because opposition to gay marriage today is less than opposition to civil unions was a decade or so ago.
Sure, there's fear. There's a section of Christians that loves the fear. They want to be persecuted and think they're against the rest of ungodly society. There's a whole thing about the War on Christmas. It's the same thing. But giving in to them isn't going to change that. It'll just be something else that's the new persecution.
Do you think the law and the courts should be in the business of determining what a faith's genuine tenets are?
There were plenty of Christian groups in the days of slavery and Jim Crow that used the Bible and their faith to justify their bigotry. There still are some.
Generic Villain wrote:
There's value in it, but it's also worth remembering that their stated reasons may not be their real reasons.Which is where I think Haladir gets it right with "gay sex is icky". The vast majority of the rest of what you listed is what they say because they know that "gay sex is icky" isn't a good enough argument to persuade anyone.
Joynt Jezebel wrote:
It cost a lot of money, but like most such things, didn't lead to the drastic economic consequences that were threatened at the time.
And I agree. I'd want a lot more evidence than vague memories of years old short newspaper blurbs to accept that the science had been wrong.
Scott Betts wrote:
I own a Prius. It's the biggest car I've ever owned. :)
Never had a problem with carrying passengers, even some fairly large people. It fits a surprising amount of cargo too, if you drop the back seats.
Someone really doesn't understand how science works. You don't do all the science first, then stop research and only then let "practical scientists" (Whatever they are, since they're apparently not doing science) at the results to try to do something with them.
That would be stupid. You do some research, publish it, other scientists, both practical and theoretical read it and try to duplicate it to test it and build on it theoretically and at the same time, make use of it in practical ways.
It's not like biologists stopped doing any more basic research on plants and animals before letting anyone make use of what they'd already learned.
In the case of climate science, theoretical researchers would continue to refine our understanding of the climate and also study the results of anything the "practical scientists" did to try to fix the problems.
And of course, there is a strong theoretical foundation for climate change that makes verifiable predictions: The greenhouse effect is well known and studied.
The problem is that planetary climate is fiendishly complex, full of feedback loops and chaotic elements and thus while general predictions are pretty straightforward, nailing down specific details is really hard.
Simon Legrande wrote:
Now that suggestion will get you shunned. :)
I'm not really surprised people don't like Lovecraft. The prose is painful fairly often and the racism and prejudice are hard to get past. He's an idea man and a seriously screwed up one. I love it, but it's easy to see why people wouldn't. It's really easy to make fun of his ... squamous prose style.
Masked Maiden wrote:
Just saw the news about the courts decision. Very happy about this. :) Now, hopefully this signifies a watershed, and won't be blown away once Bush 3 comes into power.
It won't be. Not in the near term and not without a significant reversal of trends of public opinion. Supreme Court decisions can't be easily changed politically and aren't lightly reversed even by later Courts.
Nothing's 100% set in stone, but this is basically as close as it gets.
Better than I was expecting too. I thought they'd punt and only rule on states having to recognize out of state marriages and we'd have to wait another couple years for another case to get a full ruling. Pleasantly surprised. :)
Now on to employment discrimination.
It's not a helpful way to discuss this. If you want to make a point, make your case and use links to provide data to back up your argument. I could research and try to debunk each of those dozen links, but it would take a lot of effort and time, since I'd have to figure out where their errors were coming from and hunt down counter-evidence for everything. A dozen times over.
I'm not going to put that much effort into countering something that takes no effort at all.
Andrew Turner wrote:
Well...at this point arguing whether or not climate change is occurring is a little like arguing whether or not water is wet. Is the change solely the result of human activity? Partially? Is it wholly natural (cyclic)? I suppose this is still largely unproved (the ultimate cause), but to logically and reasonably argue that it's simply not happening at all...hmmm.
Even arguing it's not largely due to human activity is pretty sketchy at this point. Not solely, since there are certainly other factors, though the cycles go in both directions.
Again we're adding large amounts of greenhouse gasses to the atmosphere. They are known to cause warming on a planetary level. Those gasses causing the observed warming makes sense.
Beyond psychological reasons there's a lot of money behind it and it's become embedded in the political debate, especially here in the US. Going back to earlier environmental movements, strongly opposed by some business interests because they stood to lose money from various regulations - from more controls on pollutants to protecting wilderness from logging and so many other things.
Groups owning substantial fossil fuel reserves or making money from the fossil fuel industries don't want to lose that revenue, so they work both openly and behind the scenes to sway public opinion against the science.
Think of the tobacco companies publicly denying the link between smoking and cancer long after it was proven. And, as was revealed in later lawsuits, long after they knew it to be true internally.