| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're also quick to eat babies and violate puppies.
Of course, it's been my experience that, in general, liberals are MUCH quicker to enter "Attack Mode".
Well that goes without saying. Of course since you said it, I guess it goes with saying as well.
I also think it goes with Worcestershire sauce, but I'm guess at that point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Look, there was a lot of heat in this thread. What Aretas found crystal clear to him was not to me. When people would attack his arguments, he would take that upon as them attacking him.
And yes houstonderek, and a couple others (who blamed religion for example) were rude and probably unfair. I know for certain I didn't help much with my snarkiness. However, as the reasons got more ridiculous I really couldn't help myself.
I was trying to assess the situation, I probably should've been less biased and asked houstonderek to back off as well. Eh, sorry.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question:(Some marriages do not produce children)
Yes, but that is the exception rather than the rule. The state recognizes marriage because marriage in general procreates and provides the most stable and nurturing environment for children. But by the facts of nature, no homosexual act can do this.
Second, sterile heterosexual marriages still affirm the connection to childbearing because...
(sorry, don't feel like tracking down the whole post to quote it all above, but I think I remember enough to keep these words on target)--
Actually, I still think your arguments that I responded to best show the reasons to restrict marriage benefits to couples with children, only. You're right that we don't know in advance who's going to have children or not, and we don't know which couples might be sterile.... which is why none of them get any benefits at all until the first child is born. Maybe we relax this slightly, and give provisional benefits as soon as the woman in the couple becomes pregnant, for the duration of the pregnancy (benefits cancelled after covering any necessary medical treatment for her if she miscarries or the child is still-born; benefits obviously convert to full family status if the pregnancy results in live issue).
I did read all your arguments on this one, and if marriage and marriage benefits are all about the family-- we don't want to encourage couples to show that marriages without children are okay and equally as valid as marriages with children. I don't think the arguments about heterosexual marriages without children still are sufficiently related to the overall cause and intent behind allowing marriages with benefits as a civil status, for encouraging and supporting families.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Finn K: Actually, it is more that it must have a "reasonable" ... reason, than "rational". It is not unreasonable for someone like Aretas to believe that human history shows that mixed-sex couples are the best way to set up marriages/unions. Due to the convergence in similar styles across wide areas and wide groups of people with very different social and (un-)religious mores.
Hmmm.... I think you're right. One can have completely rational reasons for believing something, and yet the belief will still not be reasonable to society at large (and/or the courts). So, "Reasonable" is the word I shall use for what I meant going forward.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not just that though I'm not sure that homosexuals are considered a "suspect class" that is required for "strict scrutiny" via the courts. Race, national origin, legal resident status and religion. I'm sure that there is extra scrutiny involved when it comes to discrimination cases but as it stands they are not in any of those categories. I think lumping them into the race aspect of suspect class is a reach at best and they should create another category altogether.
Race, national origin, legal resident status, and religion draw special scrutiny, along with sex (so far, biological but not identity-- whether we agree with that narrow definition or not is another matter) while other ways of classifying people do not draw the same level of scrutiny. Yes, you're correct about that. However, "equal treatment before law" and "equal protection under the law" (both Constitutional mandates) both require that we do not discriminate against people based on who they are... means, so far as I can tell from various court cases and legal writings (taking a poli. sci. class on Constitutional Gov't and Rights, that's looking more like a pre-law class right now-- it's my source of knowledge for a lot of the arguments I've been raising on this thread so far), although other forms of discrimination don't get the special scrutiny those explicitly "protected" categories do, you still can't single out minority groups by any arbitrary classification and discriminate against them, without proving that the very thing you're classifying them by does present a clear and present justification for why you must exclude them from some right, responsibility, privilege, duty, etc... For instance, no shutting people out of a public establishment because they belong to the wrong political party. Can't think of any other examples immediately (it's late, okay? :) ), but they are out there.
Now, what this does mean is that-- since "homosexuality" is, at this time, not a special automatically protected category, then-- If you believe that the secular, non-religious (reasons of history, etc) justifications Aretas provided are entirely reasonable and valid for supporting a civil law, and there is no other evidence to counter them as not raising sufficient public interest against acting on those justifications, then yes, you could justify banning "gay marriage" and it might be legitimately acceptable to the Courts. If, however, as most of us here seem to believe, that Aretas's non-religious justifications are not supported by the evidence and are therefore not reasonable-- you're still singling out homosexuals by a defining characteristic that is part of who they are (and/or part of private activity that the Government does not have a legitimate interest in interfering with) and still denying them equal treatment under the law-- which is still discrimination and still supposed to be illegal.
Short version of basic principles:
Group is special, Constitutionally-protected category: automatic, prima facie case over-turning any discrimination against them.
Minority group, defined by shared characteristic (singled out for who they are): still cannot legally discriminate against them on that basis, unless you can prove that society has clear and legitimate need to do so (usually defined as greater harm to society that cannot be prevented any other way than by discriminating against target group) that is greater than any possible harm visited upon target group (I think that's the way the lawyerese translates-- it's a little rough, but hopefully you get the idea).
I don't think society has sufficient justification for banning gay marriage that meets the requirements for over-riding a minority group's rights (if homosexuality were one of the special categories, there wouldn't even be a question on this).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, 70% of one typically Democratic demographic, one that voted for Obama by well over 90%, did vote for Prop 8. As did 49% of Asians, 53% of Latinos and 50% of whites. 63% of a state that went for a Democrat in the presidential election voted for Prop 8.
Actually, I thought it was a bit less than 60% of the total votes... even if your figure is correct though-- that's, 63% of the people who got off their asses and voted in that election voted in favor of Prop. 8. Less than half of California's eligible citizen population bothered to register and vote in that election.
[justifiable political outrage and snarkiness]
Which is one of the things that really disgusts me about American politics right now-- whatever I think of the various political parties, not one f***ing Senator or Representative really has a mandate from his/her district, and not one of the last 5 Presidents has truly had a mandate from the people, because not one of them actually collected even 50% of the eligible citizens' votes in any election in the last 30 years... because too many of the American sheep could not be bothered to get off their lazy asses and vote!
Y'know, in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan (since the recent wars and changes of management)-- going out and getting registered to vote, and actually going out and voting on election day-- really could get you killed! And they still have nearly 100% voter turn-out (or at least, they did a few years ago, last time I checked the figures).... who the f*** are we to tell other people about "democracy" when we collectively don't care enough about our rights to actually exercise them? [/justifiable political outrage and snarkiness]
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(stuff)
Hey, some of us like watching two women kissing each other. More seriously, if I don't want to watch two men making out with each other, I look away. Not that big a deal. Same thing ya do when a heterosexual couple is making out right in front of you and you don't feel like being an involuntary voyeur. :)
If any of 'em are taking it a little far, a little snark ("Get a room!") is appropriate. :D
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
EDIT: And if you think Comrade Goblin's communist overthrow is likely to support same-sex couples, I think you'd be even more disappointed.
I, Comrade Anklebiter, take no responsibility for the bureaucratic, anti-worker Stalinist regimes on the planet today. I also promise that when the revolutionary Trotskyist vanguard Commonwealth Party of Galt (M-L) leads the proletariat and all of the oppressed to power, homosexuals will be allowed to get married...if that's what they desire. (???) We'll also separate church and state, set up free, quality health care for all, set up communal laundries and eateries and then have an orgy!!
Vive le Galt!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
cunning moongoose: the comparison to slavery is very apt here, but it is "brute force" - the example is far greater than needed to just prove the point. and the point is a basic one - we (the human race, and the western civilization even more so) got to a point where considerations as cold as utility are unneeded. There were periods of time in history when reterded, or even just weak babies were put to death on account of them taking too much effort to leave alive. Surely no one will suggest applying such methods now?
claiming that we will "further weaken ourselves" by allowing gay marrige is absurd. I guess that we, as a society, would function better with some people feeling guilty and alienited because of their nature? a person is a part of the country or state she is a citizen of, regardless of their sexual inclination. I believe that the happiness and feeling of belonging we can grant to the gay community by allowing marrige (as if it was our right to disallow it in the first place) will be a far greater help to our so called "weakend civilization" than forcing gays to hide their nature and breed some more babies.
no part of the argument that aretas used makes much sense - not the assumptions its based on, nor the methods used to derive conclusions from these arguments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
cunning moongoose: the comparison to slavery is very apt here, but it is "brute force" - the example is far greater than needed to just prove the point.
Is it? I don't think so. Sometimes, you have to show exactly how a certain kind of rhetoric already have been used in the past in order to get people to recognise it for what it.
The theory social usefulness is the scale for justice, from Plato foward, is at the root of a lot of atrocities. I don't think you can never put too much emphasis on this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what? I should have never posted this thread. This has gotten way too hot.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what? I should have never posted this thread. This has gotten way too hot.
Listen, I did not accuse Aretas of racism, all I pointed out is the fact his rhetoric was used and abused in that way before and the theory of justice underlying his claims is a very dangerous one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You know what? I should have never posted this thread. This has gotten way too hot.Listen, I did not accuse Aretas of racism, all I pointed out is the fact his rhetoric was used and abused in that way before and the theory of justice underlying his claims is a very dangerous one.
I wasn't calling out anyone in particular over any particular statement. I was calling out the general tone of the debate.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know what? I should have never posted this thread. This has gotten way too hot.
Hee hee!
#1) In the beginning, I thought I'd write you a note about this, but decided not to in order that you would learn for yourself; and
#2) This is what is going to happen every time you start a thread on this topic or any related topic.
Which is fine. I'm always available to yell out ridiculous nonesense in support of gay rights.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Without getting into who's right or who's wrong on this issue, there has been a lot more insulting/abusive behavior directed towards Aretas than there has been coming from him.
I typically go out of my way to be civil, because that's just good form when you're talking about something over which there can be reasonable disagreement. There are a lot of things on which I have opinions and talk about where I think that other opinions are potentially valid as well. Those discussions merit civility.
This is not one of those discussions.
The right to marry is a human right that deserves protection, including for homosexual couples. That's no longer up for debate, as far as I'm concerned. There are no other valid opinions. You either support gay marriage, or you are wrong. The debate ended a long, long time ago. Were this issue over interracial marriage, I'd be taking the same position.
So, yes. Aretas has been made to suffer our combined disgust. That's intentional. He is advocating stripping a marginalized group of people of their human rights. I will never stoop to civil discussion with people like that.
|
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure that those of Aretas-esque mentality will be overjoyed to know that the money from their purchases here (heck, even not just purchases - website traffic boosts page rankings etc) will help fund the champagne on wedding parties of Paizo's non-heterosexual employees (yep, there are quite a few of them). It will be the ultimate in poetic justice.
Just make sure you let me know when that happens folks, I'll be ready to cover myself in peanut butter and roll around in all my commie liberal pinko glory.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, now.
No need to go out of your way to drive off potential Paizobucks. Although I like some of your imagery. Peanut butter, yum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No kidding Doodle, way back in the Homosexuality in Golarion thread, JJ himself says "There are openly characters in Golarian, if you don't like it feel free to vote with your dollars and take your business elsewhere."
I won't say Paizo is going out of their way to drive people off, but there are apparently some things they put above sales.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In that case, everybody should know that I heard that 3% of all Paizo's profits are donated to the cause of turning America gay. Along with baby carrots and Clive Owen.
I removed a bunch of posts. I think this thread is done.