|
I believe the theft would go down because the price would go down. The majority of the high cost is because of prohibition (at least, that is my understanding).
This isn't the '70s. Coke is cheaper now than when I was arrested, and it was cheap then. Meth is cheap. Heroin is cheaper than it was ten years ago. Weed is dirt cheap for the Mexican stuff, and the boutique stuff isn't marketed to people without money. The most expensive stuff, per "dose", right now are pharmaceutical drugs ($5 for a Xanax, for instance), and they're legal but controlled.
Trust me, and I know from deeply personal experience, the drug trade defies government logic when it comes to pricing. The cost of a gallon of milk is a few dollars more that it was when I went to prison, but a gram of cocaine costs exactly the same (so it is, in effect, cheaper, considering inflation). All legalizing drugs will do is save us money on enforcement, and add some tax revenue. Property crime wouldn't change much, but violent crimes would dip a bit, as quite a bit of the violence involved with drugs has to do with enforcing their own rules. If you can't call a cop when you're ripped off, you tend to take things into your own hands.
Prohibition doesn't cause high prices in drugs (the costs have steadily decreased as government enforcement has increased), it causes a high cost to society. We are the "home of the free", yet we have the highest rate of incarceration in the free world (and higher than much of the not so free world), half of which is drug enforcement arrests.
I believe the theft would go down because the price would go down. The majority of the high cost is because of prohibition (at least, that is my understanding).This isn't the '70s. Coke is cheaper now than when I was arrested, and it was cheap then. Meth is cheap. Heroin is cheaper than it was ten years ago. Weed is dirt cheap for the Mexican stuff, and the boutique stuff isn't marketed to people without money. The most expensive stuff, per "dose", right now are pharmaceutical drugs ($5 for a Xanax, for instance), and they're legal but controlled.
Trust me, and I know from deeply personal experience, the drug trade defies government logic when it comes to pricing. The cost of a gallon of milk is a few dollars more that it was when I went to prison, but a gram of cocaine costs exactly the same (so it is, in effect, cheaper, considering inflation). All legalizing drugs will do is save us money on enforcement, and add some tax revenue. Property crime wouldn't change much, but violent crimes would dip a bit, as quite a bit of the violence involved with drugs has to do with enforcing their own rules. If you can't call a cop when you're ripped off, you tend to take things into your own hands.
Prohibition doesn't cause high prices in drugs (the costs have steadily decreased as government enforcement has increased), it causes a high cost to society. We are the "home of the free", yet we have the highest rate of incarceration in the free world (and higher than much of the not so free world), half of which is drug enforcement arrests.
I admit that makes no sense to me, as economic theory would imply that people engaging in illegal activity would demand financial incentive to do so. But I will defer to your experience and concede this point. In any case, I agree that we incarcerate far too many people in this country, largely because of drug prohibition.
I would like to shift gears for a moment and return to your earlier statements about rights. In fact, I have a question, if you don't mind. I won't blame you for not answering, it is sort of ugly, but it seems to me that by your logic infanticide should be acceptable. That is, an infant clearly cannot protect itself (it lacks the "might"), and so has no right to survivial. Likewise, society lacks an effective way to differentiate a smothered infant from a victim of SIDs, so it is exceedingly unlikely the parent will ever be caught.
So, do you have any problems with someone getting away with infanticide? If so, why?
That's mostly accurate. Also, I'm not necessarily against having laws which protect against discrimination based on sexual preference. As I mentioned above, there are laws that treat parenthood as a class even though procreation is a liberty. Some civil liberties are more important than others, and sometimes the only way to protect the behavior is to protect the person. I just chafe at the idea that there can be a category of protectable person which is derived from a person's behavior or self-identification.
As you say, we protect parenthood as a class, but that doesn't mean procreative activity doesn't have it limits as far as liberties are concerned. Can't we protect people with alternative sexual preferences, but not condone certain behaviors. For example, if a pedophile doesn't act out his desire, should we not protect his rights? But if he breaks the law, then all bets are off, and he loses those rights. I see the weakness of my own argument here, but bring it up in theory.
I see your point, but I still feel there must be some way of protecting a class of people based on sexual preference and still curb degenerate behavior. To just protect the behavior still doesn't seem to be "strong" enough to deal with what I feel is a deep level of injustice against homosexuals.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As you say, we protect parenthood as a class, but that doesn't mean procreative activity doesn't have it limits as far as liberties are concerned. Can't we protect people with alternative sexual preferences, but not condone certain behaviors. For example, if a pedophile doesn't act out his desire, should we not protect his rights? But if he breaks the law, then all bets are off, and he loses those rights. I see the weakness of my own argument here, but bring it up in theory.
We treat parenthood as a class to a limited extent to protect the liberty to procreate. But it's still the behavior of procreation we are protecting.
I see your point, but I still feel there must be some way of protecting a class of people based on sexual preference and still curb degenerate behavior. To just protect the behavior still doesn't seem to be "strong" enough to deal with what I feel is a deep level of injustice against homosexuality.
I think to protect the behavior, you almost certainly have to protect the person engaging in the behavior to a limited extent. But that's the appropriate way to frame the issue - we need to protect a behavior which is part of our civil liberties, not a class of person.
I think to protect the behavior, you almost certainly have to protect the person engaging in the behavior to a limited extent. But that's the appropriate way to frame the issue - we need to protect a behavior which is part of our civil liberties, not a class of person.
However, how does that protect one's right to be married, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sexual behavior? Or is that a separate issue?
|
|
I would like to shift gears for a moment and return to your earlier statements about rights. In fact, I have a question, if you don't mind. I won't blame you for not answering, it is sort of ugly, but it seems to me that by your logic infanticide should be acceptable. That is, an infant clearly cannot protect itself (it lacks the "might"), and so has no right to survivial. Likewise, society lacks an effective way to differentiate a smothered infant from a victim of SIDs, so it is exceedingly unlikely the parent will ever be caught.
So, do you have any problems with someone getting away with infanticide? If so, why?
"Acceptable" isn't the word I'd use. What is "acceptable" or "not acceptable" to a society are how we derive our laws, for the most part.
No, I do not find infanticide "acceptable". I would punish the murderer to the extent the law allows. While it is true the infant has no "right" to life (no one does), I personally find taking advantage of people who have no choices reprehensible.
I have no problem living under certain societal assumptions. Murder is bad for stability, we need enforceable rules to make things run smoothly.
But, this word "rights" is bandied about like some Holy Grail. Jeremy is correct in my opinion, that people should do whatever they want, as long as they do not interfere with another person's ability to do the same. I don't think ANYONE has a "right" to anything that must be forcibly taken from someone else first. And, yes, taxation is theft by force. Don't pay your taxes and see what happens. Unless you're on someone's short list for a cabinet position, you're going to jail or paying a heavy fine.
Again, my point is, you only have the "right" to do what society will allow. You can scream until you're blue in the face, but the reality is, unless you can convince enough people you have a "right", you don't. Period.
I think you're confused by my insistence that "rights" do not exist, at least in the way people think they do. I am not an anarchist. In fact, most of the "anarchists" I've met have no idea what that really means. But that's another topic all together.
"It isn't a right, it's a privilege."
"It's a left."
"It's a privilege."
"It's a left! Turn left you @#%ing idiot!"
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
However, how does that protect one's right to be married, which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with sexual behavior? Or is that a separate issue?
The problem is that marriage is something of a sexist cultural institution that has long been at the root of our civilization. It's an amalgamation of religious beliefs, cultural norms, and legal rights. It's pedantic (and possibly bigotted), but as houstonderek said above, everyone does have the right to get married. But, marriage has all sorts of limits on it, some sensible (minimum age requirements) and some which may be questionable (gender requirements and limitations as to the number of partners in the marriage). There is no "right" to marriage; marriage is set up specifically to protect and encourage a cultural tradition which our society has deemed worth protecting and encouraging. Extending marriage means changing that cultural tradition, and that's why the idea sparks such controversy.
So, for me, I look to the rights granted by marriage and ask if they should be extended. The rights tend to relate to property ownership, powers of attorney (your spouse can make certain decisions on your behalf), custody, etc. Almost all of these rights can be granted by contract or other arrangement, so I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be extended to any two people that wish to enter into such a relationship. Furthermore, I think it's important to protect any children who are part of such a relationship in order to protect them and everyone's liberty to procreate, and as a result that legal framework should be accessible for all persons.
But, I think the basic concept of marriage is a cultural concept, and that the definition of marriage should not change until the culture (acting through its legislature) changes to accept and allow new types of marriages to exist.
In the meantime, I'd rather have the rights granted through a Civil Union that is marriage in all but name, and make sure that it automatically incorporates any changes to marital law. I would prefer if this were done through the legislature, because I feel that's the appropriate venue for such a change (and, because I think this extension requires us to question what should and should not be a part of the rights granted in every marriage). Making it a civil rights issue is an attempt to bypass that process and conversation by using the judiciary instead of the legislature, and I don't believe that is the right way to make such a fundamental change to a cultural institution.
Edit: I think divorce is actually a pretty good analogy. For a long time there wasn't a "right" to a divorce - you had to prove some type of abuse or adultry to obtain a divorce. This obviously resulted in a lot of injustice, particularly towards women. But, as the idea of this injustice spread, people began to become comfortable with the idea that divorce should be available despite the strong cultural forces to the contrary. Having divorce be more easily obtaintable undoubtably did damage to the cultural institution of marriage, but the painful reality and injustices caused by the prior system were too great to be ignored. As far as I know though, the changes to divorce law sprung from that cultural change; they were not derived from a woman's civil rights.
Actually I think that was me (though derek might have said it as well).
You know, I find this marriage stuff kind of strange. I would say when I was in high school and probably a little bit in college, I remember hearing about how bad marriage was. That is was system all about owning other people and oppression. It seems strange that now people are really eager to get into it.
EDIT: Just was watching some Larry King (extremely rare for me), and they had some people on talking about the California decision (including Sulu!). A black pastor said something about the idea that if we are willing to change the definition, then why stop with sex, why not change the number as well if the reason is all about who you love and have a life with. The lesbian woman totally failed to answer his point, she said, "Me and my partner just want to get married to each other. We don't want to marry a third person." Which was totally irrelevant to the guy's point.
I think that it is the one issue that most same-sex marriage proponents avoid. There is no greater logical reason to limit the number to only two people than limiting the sex, and I believe many same sex proponents believe the numbern't should be an issue either. They are just afraid of admitting that they think limiting it to two people is stupid because they feel that they will lose some of their supporters.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Actually I think that was me (though derek might have said it as well).
You're right, it was you. Sorry for the misattribution. I should've realized it was you when the term bigot was used. ;-) <-- the very tongue in cheek smiley face.
Just was watching some Larry King (extremely rare for me), and they had some people on talking about the California decision (including Sulu!). A black pastor said something about the idea that if we are willing to change the definition, then why stop with sex, why not change the number as well if the reason is all about who you love and have a life with. The lesbian woman totally failed to answer his point, she said, "Me and my partner just want to get married to each other. We don't want to marry a third person." Which was totally irrelevant to the guy's point.
I think that it is the one issue that most same-sex marriage proponents avoid. There is no greater logical reason to limit the number to only two people than limiting the sex, and I believe many same sex proponents believe the numbern't should be an issue either. They are just afraid of admitting that they think limiting it to two people is stupid because they feel that they will lose some of their supporters.
I agree. I think some arguments can be made against extending the concept to multiple people, but I think they are very weak if the starting presumption is that marriage is a right.
|
|
I should probably stay out of this thread too, but...
Let's see if I can phrase this as more of a question than an argument, because I'd like to get an answer more than I'd like to try and make a point.
It seems to me that the basic argument set forth is: a gay person does not choose to be gay, and that therefore their ability to exercise and enjoy their sexual preference should be protected.
The problem with that formulation for me is that there are a lot of traits that meet these criteria. I realize it's probably offensive to say it, but addicts and pedophiles could make the same argument. No one chooses to be (and no one wants to be) a drug addict or a pedophile. But, some people are prone to addiction and some people's sexual predilictions run towards minors (or animals, or corpses, or siblings, or any other number of objects of affection which society routinely condemns). Obviously, there is an element of mutual consent raised in the case of the pedophile, but if the exercise of a sexual preference is a right, shouldn't the pedophile have some rights relating to that exercise? Those who exercise their sexual preference for minors can have many of their rights restricted as a result, even after they have been in jail for the non-consensual nature of their contact (e.g., being required to register, not allowed to live near schools, etc.) Even if there are strong reasons to restrict such people's sexual contact with minors, shouldn't the amount of that restriction be as limited as possible to allow them to exercise their sexual preference?
What makes homosexuality different from any other sexual preference or from any other non-sexual preference?
Thing is, we’re not talking about homosexual sex, we’re talking about the right (or privilege) of homosexuals to be married. The right (or privilege) for two consenting adults to be married. That’s not the same as sexual preference, and equating the argument with the legality of having sex with children or animals or corpses seems a pretty large leap of logic.
I really cannot see why two consenting adults cannot be married. It really does seem like nothing more than prejudice. I don’t see that it’s very far removed from restricting people being married based on race, religion or intelligence.
|
|
But that's not the case for necrophilia, bestiality, or incest.Or polygamy.
There are all sorts of consensual relationships a person can enter into that aren't a threat to anyone.
Agreed. And for the record, I think all of those things should be legal given informed consent (except perhaps bestiality; how does an animal "give consent?").
Or a corpse for that matter.
Actually I think a big reason that some of these things are still illegal is that no one wants to be remembered by history as the guy who legalised necrophilia ...
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Thing is, we’re not talking about homosexual sex, we’re talking about the right (or privilege) of homosexuals to be married. The right (or privilege) for two consenting adults to be married. That’s not the same as sexual preference, and equating the argument with the legality of having sex with children or animals or corpses seems a pretty large leap of logic.
Please reread the post to which you are responding, because clearly we were not discussing the same topic. I made no arguments concerning marriage in that post, though I have since then, and they can be read, and responded to, above. None of my thoughts concerning marriage reference the concepts in your post.
I really cannot see why two consenting adults cannot be married. It really does seem like nothing more than prejudice. I don’t see that it’s very far removed from restricting people being married based on race, religion or intelligence.
See above.
I really cannot see why two consenting adults cannot be married. It really does seem like nothing more than prejudice. I don’t see that it’s very far removed from restricting people being married based on race, religion or intelligence.
I'd say it's not removed at all, and we used to have laws against interracial marriage. A Supreme Court decision struck those down too. Yet the world did not end, democracy did not expire, and fire did not rain from the skies.
Thirty years later if someone tells you they're in favor of a law against interracial marriage, you dismiss them as a hopeless bigot and hope they fail to vote, which is as it should be.
|
|
If sexual preference grants a right to sexual behavior and a right to be free from prejudice based on sexual preference, the pedophile's rights need to be considered and weighed against the right of the victim and society, and, as in the case of free speech, we should try to protect both rights to the greatest extent possible.I now have respect for Sebastian. (It was bound to happen... Sometime. I mean Hades already froze over.)
I'm not saying Pedophilia is acceptable. But I am appalled that a child falsely accusing an adult of pedophilia can ruin the adult's life forever - especially if the adult was a teacher.
The difference is homosexuality occurs between consenting adults of age. Pedophilia victimizes those who don't have the capacity to understand sexual choices.
I really cannot see why two consenting adults cannot be married. It really does seem like nothing more than prejudice. I don’t see that it’s very far removed from restricting people being married based on race, religion or intelligence.I'd say it's not removed at all, and we used to have laws against interracial marriage. A Supreme Court decision struck those down too. Yet the world did not end, democracy did not expire, and fire did not rain from the skies.
Thirty years later if someone tells you they're in favor of a law against interracial marriage, you dismiss them as a hopeless bigot and hope they fail to vote, which is as it should be.
I ask this out of total ignorance, because I honestly do not know the answer:
Was the decision to allow interracial marriage (a)premised on the belief that marriage was a right or (b)on the recognition that children could be born to a mixed race couple and that for the benefit of the children interracial marriage should be allowed or (c) a combination or (d) some other reason or (e) all of the above.
|
|
Please reread the post to which you are responding, because clearly we were not discussing the same topic. I made no arguments concerning marriage in that post, though I have since then, and they can be read, and responded to, above. None of my thoughts concerning marriage reference the concepts in your post.
Dammit! I did re-read your post … my mistake. You’re perfectly correct in saying that you didn’t mention gay marriage at all in the post I quoted. Gay marriage has been a prominent subject in this thread since post 2, and was being hotly debated just above and below your post. Trust me to choose the one post to reply to that actually didn’t mention gay marriage. Apologies.
However, it still seems that the topic at hand was gay marriage, whereas the point you were making was in regards to gay sex. Different things as I said (although I'm not suggesting they can't both be debated, or that one is not related to the other). You then went on to talk about gay marriage, posts that I clearly didn’t read before shooting off my mouth. Fair call, sorry again.
I have no idea, but my guess would be (d). Probably a realisation that the law was completely bigoted and based on nothing more than racism, more than any belief about marriage being a right.
But I could be wrong (it happens sometimes).
I just gave the opinion a quick read through and I believe you are right here, it was almost entirely based on racial issues. I found it interesting that the law that was overturned was the most restrictive to whites. Non-whites could inter-marry without any issue, but whites were forbidden to marry non-whites. If they did, both spouses were punished equally and the marriage nullified (this how the state claimed it was ok by the equal protection clause).
Though it was stated that:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.
But it went on to say:
To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
So even then it went back to race. Also this seems to leave the door open for a "supportable" basis to deny this "freedom". (which might be different than a right, where is derek?)
I ask this out of total ignorance, because I honestly do not know the answer:
Was the decision to allow interracial marriage (a)premised on the belief that marriage was a right or (b)on the recognition that children could be born to a mixed race couple and that for the benefit of the children interracial marriage should be allowed or (c) a combination or (d) some other reason or (e) all of the above.
That's a fair question. The case in question is Loving v. Virginia (Yes, that really is the name. It's perfect.)
VA's anti-miscegenation law violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. If you'd like the full text, it's here.
From the decision:
These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
So to answer the questions:
a) Yes.b) Procreation doesn't enter into it. After all, we let sterile people marry (in churches even!) and do not require procreation of fertile couples if they do not so choose. Neither the word 'procreation' nor the word 'fertility' appears in the opinion.
c) No combination. Just civil rights.
So even then it went back to race. Also this seems to leave the door open for a "supportable" basis to deny this "freedom". (which might be different than a right, where is derek?)
But the burden is obviously on the state to produce one, as it should be.
So even then it went back to race. Also this seems to leave the door open for a "supportable" basis to deny this "freedom". (which might be different than a right, where is derek?)But the burden is obviously on the state to produce one, as it should be.
Not so obviously actually. I've looked a couple of other cases dealing with same sex marriage. Evidently the Supreme Court has already made a decision 5 years after the Loving case, with a case called Baker v. Nelson, that the issue of same-sex marriage is not a US Constitutional issue. Now certainly that might be overturned, but only by the Supreme Court, which is why the fights are happening the states, because individual state constitutions could (and in some cases evidently do) give more protections than the US constitution does.
In the state of New York for example in 2006 in the case HERNANDEZ v. ROBLES, the state court said that restricting marriage to opposite sex partners did not violate the state's equal protection clause because there could be rational reasons to do so. And it was not necessary for the state to defend them or prove them, only that they be rational. The defendents would have to prove that the only reasons to not allow same sex marriage was based on irrational reasons (as in the Loving case), which the court decided they did not do.
In the state of New York for example in 2006 in the case HERNANDEZ v. ROBLES, the state court said that restricting marriage to opposite sex partners did not violate the state's equal protection clause because there could be rational reasons to do so. And it was not necessary for the state to defend them or prove them, only that they be rational.
But that still requires that those reasons be provided. Otherwise how can they be adjudged rational or even to exist? I don't think any court in the land is going to accept "no reason" as an argument.
Also as a general principle of justice, where but with the state would the burden exist to justify restricting the actions of its people?
|
I like to ressurect semi-dead threads! :)
Is it a right to:
Get food stamps for food, but still spend your real money on "toys"? (DVD's, CD's, etc.)
Considering 'Foodstamps' are a restriction on your right to an equal share of the benifits and obligations of citizenship - inevitablly open to abuse by commercial traders who consider DVDs 'food' instead of having you go out and buy your sack of vegetables from a 'farmers market'.
[quote=]But that still requires that those reasons be provided. Otherwise how can they be adjudged rational or even to exist? I don't think any court in the land is going to accept "no reason" as an argument.
Also as a general principle of justice, where but with the state would the burden exist to justify restricting the actions of its people?
I don't think the New York court was looking at it that way. Instead I think they were looking at from the perspective of why should the state give special benefits to different sexed couples, not why to deny special benefits to same sexed couples. In fact they said should the legislature choose to adopt same sexed marriages, those would not be against the constitution (state or national) either because the issue is not a constitutional one.
The court also recognized some possible rational reasons why the legislature could choose to only give different sexed couples benefits and they said there could possibly others. I'll try outline one here.
People have sex and this sex does not always take place in a commited relationship. In the case of different sexed couples this can lead to a consequence that is impossible for a same sexed couple, a child. In order to entice mixed sexed couples to then create a stable environment for a child special benefits are given to them in the form of marriage benefits. Same sexed couples don't need the same type of benefits to entice them to create a stable environment because they can't "accidentally" create a child.
Of course not all mixed sexed couples have children, but the steps needed to prove that they don't intend to have children or incapable of having children would require an unreasonable intrusion into their privacy. *IMO* this would be similar to proving that someone was actually homosexual (by witnessing their sexual acts) in order to say they could have a same sex marriage.
I hope when gay marriage is allowed, they have provisions to find out who the "top" is during the inevitable divorces. Why should straight men be the only ones screwed in divorce proceedings?
=D, seriously though it will based on who supports who the most, financially. The reason why men tend to get screwed is (a) they tend to earn more than their wives and (b) there is a prejudice that women make better nurturers (thus usually get custody of the kids and thus the child support).
b) Procreation doesn't enter into it. After all, we let sterile people marry (in churches even!) and do not require procreation of fertile couples if they do not so choose. Neither the word 'procreation' nor the word 'fertility' appears in the opinion.
Unless things have changed, and I didn't get the memo (quite possible), Procreation does enter into any discussion of marriage.
While procreation isn't required, one of the provisions of a marriage license is a blood test to ensure procreation viability. Again, this is if I didn't miss the memo.
While procreation may not have entered into the decision, I'm pretty sure that if it could be proven that interracial couples couldn't produce offspring it would have.
While procreation isn't required, one of the provisions of a marriage license is a blood test to ensure procreation viability. Again, this is if I didn't miss the memo.
Apparently you did miss the memo. Most states don't require one anymore. And they were mainly to test for STDs, not to ensure procreation viability.
|
I hate these arguments.
Marriage is about two people. The fact that it's legislated at all is sickening. Government has gotten involved in marriage to a large degree over the last... forever. I didn't make it that way. Ultimately, that government legislation has gotten in the way of people just living their lives the way they wish, and for no good reason. (A good reason would be protecting other people, but that's not the case here.)
If I want to marry my partner, what compelling reason does the government have to stop me? Why should they be allowed to stop me? If my church wants to perform the ceremony (which they would), what compelling reason does the government have for stopping them? Why is this a governmental issue at all?
Of course, no one is stopping us from having a ceremony, but the fact is that the government grants certain privileges to people in heterosexual marriages that it would not grant to us. What compelling reasons does the government have to grant privileges to those marriages but withhold them from mine? (Ex. preferential tax status, child custody, immigration rights, spousal benefits for unemployement insurance and social security, etc.)
Lastly, why is it that if I want that same recognition, I should be expected to answer questions about how we treat pedophiles, necrophiliacs, and who-knows-what-else? I would agree that those are difficult questions, but my particular position is not a difficult one.
If I want to marry my partner, what compelling reason does the government have to stop me?Why should they be allowed to stop me?
Why is this a governmental issue at all?
1. None whatsoever.
2. They shouldn't.3. I have absolutely no idea.
Unfortunately, there are those that are hell-bent on telling you how to live *your* life. Some might even make noise about the "good of society," but the truth is they don't approve of your lifestyle, and they are ignorant enough to think they're justified in forcing their ideas on others.
The only encouragement I can offer is that demographic data show that eventually you will be treated fairly; it is only a matter of time.
Marriage is about two people. The fact that it's legislated at all is sickening. Government has gotten involved in marriage to a large degree over the last... forever. I didn't make it that way. Ultimately, that government legislation has gotten in the way of people just living their lives the way they wish, and for no good reason. (A good reason would be protecting other people, but that's not the case here.)
Actually, there's good reason government is involved. And it's to legally protect the rights that marriage confers against attempt to infringe on them.
But I will agree that the state has no compelling reason to limit marriage to heterosexuals. I would even say that the state has a compelling reason to extend the same rights to homosexuals - equal protection of the law being a fairly important principle - because it is involved in marriage at all.
Apparently you did miss the memo. Most states don't require one anymore. And they were mainly to test for STDs, not to ensure procreation viability.
While procreation isn't required, one of the provisions of a marriage license is a blood test to ensure procreation viability. Again, this is if I didn't miss the memo.
I can believe I missed the memo. I have a psychological/ethical aversion to marriage in general.
Are you sure it was primarily for STD's though? I'm not so certain.
Are you sure it was primarily for STD's though? I'm not so certain.
I am. But some states also checked for TB, rubella, and sickle-cell. Mostly it was STDs.
I am. But some states also checked for TB, rubella, and sickle-cell. Mostly it was STDs.
Are you sure it was primarily for STD's though? I'm not so certain.
I'll defer.
But it does get me wondering why the state/government would care if a married couple shared diseases with each other?
Marriage is about two people.
That is a possibly bigoted thing to say. Why only two people? Polygamy has been around for a long time, definitely longer than same-sex marriage. Why not just say that marriage is about consenting adults?
The fact that it's legislated at all is sickening. Government has gotten involved in marriage to a large degree over the last... forever. I didn't make it that way. Ultimately, that government legislation has gotten in the way of people just living their lives the way they wish, and for no good reason. (A good reason would be protecting other people, but that's not the case here.)
So why should homosexuals then be interesting in further involvement with such a flawed system? Why not move to make no marriage recognized with special benefits? That certainly seems like the more logical choice from this viewpoint.
If I want to marry my partner, what compelling reason does the government have to stop me? Why should they be allowed to stop me? If my church wants to perform the ceremony (which they would), what compelling reason does the government have for stopping them? Why is this a governmental issue at all?
Agreed. If people want to have whatever kind of relationship that they want within the privacy of their lives, as long as everyone is a consenting adult, why should the government give a damn. So no stopping people from living with anyone they want. By the way, are there any laws currently enforced that do not let people live with other consenting adults?
Of course, no one is stopping us from having a ceremony, but the fact is that the government grants certain privileges to people in heterosexual marriages that it would not grant to us. What compelling reasons does the government have to grant privileges to those marriages but withhold them from mine? (Ex. preferential tax status, child custody, immigration rights, spousal benefits for unemployement insurance and social security, etc.)
Wait! What? I thought government involvement in marriage was a horrible thing? Now you are saying you think it should be expanded?
But I think you are asking the wrong question here. Why should homosexuals be given special benefits over say just two guys living together? Why is two homosexuals' relationship deserving of special recognition and just two roommates are not? And before you say that the roommates should get them, why is it in the state's interest to give them special benefits. Sure it benefits the individuals but does it benefit the state to give bonuses for these relationships?
|
|
Marriage is about two people.That is a possibly bigoted thing to say. Why only two people? Polygamy has been around for a long time, definitely longer than same-sex marriage. Why not just say that marriage is about consenting adults?
Touche. My marriage is about two people, which is why I chose my words as I did, but I can see that it came across as a limiting statement, and it was not meant to be.
So why should homosexuals then be interesting in further involvement with such a flawed system? Why not move to make no marriage recognized with special benefits? That certainly seems like the more logical choice from this viewpoint.
It's a conundrum. There are privileges associated with marriage. Whether or not that should be the case is a valid debate. As long as those privileges are part of marriage, though, they should be provided equitably.
Agreed. If people want to have whatever kind of relationship that they want within the privacy of their lives, as long as everyone is a consenting adult, why should the government give a damn. So no stopping people from living with anyone they want. By the way, are there any laws currently enforced that do not let people live with other consenting adults?
Nope. But some of those relationships get special privileges, while those privileges are withheld from others.
Wait! What? I thought government involvement in marriage was a horrible thing? Now you are saying you think it should be expanded?
See above.
But I think you are asking the wrong question here. Why should homosexuals be given special benefits over say just two guys living together? Why is two homosexuals' relationship deserving of special recognition and just two roommates are not? And before you say that the roommates should get them, why is it in the state's interest to give them special benefits. Sure it benefits the individuals but does it benefit the state to give bonuses for these relationships?
Let me turn that question around. Why should a heterosexual couple couple be given benefits over two people who live together? If you feel that they should, then the question becomes "why heterosexual couples and not same-sex couples?"
But that is beside my point. Ultimately, the question is a deeply personal one. To confine the issue to intellectual questions and hypotheticals ignores the fact that this is my life we are talking about.
Let me turn that question around. Why should a heterosexual couple couple be given benefits over two people who live together? If you feel that they should, then the question becomes "why heterosexual couples and not same-sex couples?"
I summarized a possible rational reason (as defined by the court) given by a court in New York above. I'll post it again for you here.
The court also recognized some possible rational reasons why the legislature could choose to only give different sexed couples benefits and they said there could possibly others. I'll try outline one here.
People have sex and this sex does not always take place in a commited relationship. In the case of different sexed couples this can lead to a consequence that is impossible for a same sexed couple, a child. In order to entice mixed sexed couples to then create a stable environment for a child special benefits are given to them in the form of marriage benefits. Same sexed couples don't need the same type of benefits to entice them to create a stable environment because they can't "accidentally" create a child.
Of course not all mixed sexed couples have children, but the steps needed to prove that they don't intend to have children or incapable of having children would require an unreasonable intrusion into their privacy. *IMO* this would be similar to proving that someone was actually homosexual (by witnessing their sexual acts) in order to say they could have a same sex marriage.
But that is beside my point. Ultimately, the question is a deeply personal one. To confine the issue to intellectual questions and hypotheticals ignores the fact that this is my life we are talking about.
Which is certainly why I would understand why you would pursue legal means to obtain benefits. But just because the issue is personal to you does not mean that the status quo should be changed. Laws can be written based on "feelings" but they really should be overturned by the courts because of "feelings" only if they violate some constitutional issue (which the Supreme Court has indicated previously not recognizing same-sex marriages did not).
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Ack. Don't have much time to participate in this thread this morning, but wanted to just respond to a thing or two.
Nope. But some of those relationships get special privileges, while those privileges are withheld from others.
This is where we take the detour into the darker relationships a person can have. If the government cannot distinguish between hetero relationships and homosexual relationships, it also cannot distinguish between hetero relationships and polygamous relationships and, arguable, hetero relationships and bestial relationships. Or, for that matter, why should people get privileges for being married when people who do not choose to get married can't get the same privileges.
This is why I see the issue not as a matter of rights, but as a matter of expanding the class of persons who can obtain the privileges granted by marriage to allow for homosexual relationships because, as with hetero marriages, we want to acknowledge and protect them (and their children). I think the government should be allowed to favor certain unions, should encourage people to get married, and should provide incentives to do so. I'm not adverse to having more relationships included, but I think the appropriate way to frame the issue is as extending the privileges to a new class of relationships, not creating a right to a relationship which then means marriage has to adjust to allow for such relationships. Granting a right to have whatever relationship a person deems most fulfilling for them is a very dangrous route, and implies additional rights for a whole range of people as I mentioned above. Extending marriage to grant privileges to a new set of relationships allows the government to continue sanctioning certain types of unions, which, on the whole, strikes me as a good thing.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Dammit! I did re-read your post … my mistake. You’re perfectly correct in saying that you didn’t mention gay marriage at all in the post I quoted. Gay marriage has been a prominent subject in this thread since post 2, and was being hotly debated just above and below your post. Trust me to choose the one post to reply to that actually didn’t mention gay marriage. Apologies.However, it still seems that the topic at hand was gay marriage, whereas the point you were making was in regards to gay sex. Different things as I said (although I'm not suggesting they can't both be debated, or that one is not related to the other). You then went on to talk about gay marriage, posts that I clearly didn’t read before shooting off my mouth. Fair call, sorry again.
No worries, I managed to dredge up some of the more polarizing elements of the debate, and it really shouldn't be a surprise that that's what people are focused on. Sorry if I was being a bastard in my response, I was trying to be polite, but was a little frustrated when I responded.
Sorry if I was being a bastard in my response....
Aaaahhhhhh! Say it isn't so!
Sorry if I was being a bastard in my response, I was trying to be polite, but was a little frustrated when I responded.
I can't believe this is happening!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
Interesting. I never said anything about courts, but both pres man and Sebastian responded to my posts by saying "the courts shouldn't do that."
The fact of the matter is, people who believe they are being treated unjustly are going to pursue justice through whatever means are available to them. When there is a real injustice (as I believe there is in this case) there is a moral imperative to do so. Waiting to build a consensus is not really an option.
A popular theme on these threads has been, "granting civil protections to same-sex couples is a good idea, but we need to define what types of relationships we protect, and what types we should not, otherwise there is a slippery slope, etc". Fair enough, but the current state of affairs is that no one in government is doing that. That leads me to believe that people holding that view are not making themselves heard. Policy is being made by gay marriage supporters, who, by virtue of the difficult task they face, have to stay very focused on their issue, and gay marriage opponents, who want to stop the whole process in its tracks. As long as that is the case, the discussion you would like to see is not going to occur.
If you feel like I have described you, then do something about it and change the nature of the dialogue that is occurring right now.
|
|
Check out this article from Russia. I loved this quote from "an American citizen of Russian origin."
North-American states are considered to be a source of perversion in the world. World media regularly report about gay pride parades, which homosexuals organize seeking more and more rights. The struggle reached its peak when the gay marriage issue came up. Sexual minorities have many adversaries here. It may be news to many people, but the so-called Puritans are rather strong in the USA. They mostly represent Christian groups who stand strongly against any forms of bestial activities, including homosexual activities. It is their invincible belief that sexual minorities corrupt the society, destroy traditional family values and mislead young people.
The emphasis is mine. I thought the article was supposed to support gay marriage until I read that quote. Now I'm not so sure.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The fact of the matter is, people who believe they are being treated unjustly are going to pursue justice through whatever means are available to them. When there is a real injustice (as I believe there is in this case) there is a moral imperative to do so. Waiting to build a consensus is not really an option.
I doubt I can fully appreciate your position, but at the same time, I would say that progress is being made at a remarkable pace and the discussion is happening. Marriage has been a mostly unquestioned institution, it has been used through most of human history as a political tool, distribution of property rights, and a method to control women. In many parts of the world, this is still its primary function. As the idea of a romantic/love-based relationship has become the norm in the US, the institution has changed dramatically, and this debate is largely a product of those changes.
Sometimes change happens slower than we would like, but I do believe it is happening. If the change occurs due to a consensus being built (which again, I think is happening) it will be a longer lasting and more stable change. If the change is viewed as imposed by the government (and, in particular, the non-democratically elected judiciary), the change is only going to be as strong as the particular judges serving at any particular time.
I would draw the distinction between no-fault divorce and abortion. Both ideas were gaining social acceptance and consensus in their time. No-fault divorce was a product of legislative action and consensus building. Abortion rights were a product of judicial action. Though many people are unhappy with the ease of access of divorce, a large enough group of people have been convinced of the injustices inherent in the fault-based divorce system that we are not in any real danger of going back to a system of fault-based divorce. In addition, the only way to go back to such a system is through the legislature.
In contrast, people unhappy with abortion rights have not been convinced and view the government as acting outside the democratic process. Because these people can't go through the legislative process, they are forced to go through the judical process, and abortion rights remain relatively fragile to this day.
If you feel like I have described you, then do something about it and change the nature of the dialogue that is occurring right now.
That is what I have been trying to do in this thread. I'm sorry I have not been more successful.
|
|
Check out this article from Russia. I loved this quote from "an American citizen of Russian origin."North-American states are considered to be a source of perversion in the world. World media regularly report about gay pride parades, which homosexuals organize seeking more and more rights. The struggle reached its peak when the gay marriage issue came up. Sexual minorities have many adversaries here. It may be news to many people, but the so-called Puritans are rather strong in the USA. They mostly represent Christian groups who stand strongly against any forms of bestial activities, including homosexual activities. It is their invincible belief that sexual minorities corrupt the society, destroy traditional family values and mislead young people.The emphasis is mine. I thought the article was supposed to support gay marriage until I read that quote. Now I'm not so sure.
Like I said int he other thread, we may have a ways to go here in America, but, with the exception of a handful of other countries, we're a sight better than a lot of the alternatives...