The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
In which we prattle about Teh Gays and Their Marriages [SPLIT]
ryuprecht
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
electricitylikesme wrote: »Basically, you're trying to build a case to be outraged against his opinions without really thinking about them.
My insidious scheme unraveled.
Melodrama notwithstanding, at what point do different ideas become unpopular or unsuitable enough that they'd be creating a nation within a nation? And at what point would that become decisively detrimental to a society?ryuprecht wrote:Some ideas are shitty. Some ideas are great. Some ideas are neither shitty or great, and a free society can usually tell the difference, given enough time and open debate.
And how free can a society actually be? But I know what you mean, there are varying levels of freedom and not always by the same measure. For instance, politically, Americans are freer than citizens of most every other nation. On the other hand, the Dutch allow same-sex marriages and so, depending on your interpretation, that's at least one way that they're more progressive as a society.
Ah, but does that mean we are less free? The social morals against homosexuality are a choice made by the majority of people in the country. That they can make that choice, and unmake it when the tide turns still means they are free. I assume some population of the Dutch (likely small, I'll grant you), don't feel free that they have a government that supports what has traditionally not been an approved lifestyle in Western Society.
But I will admit that that is just an academic argument.
ryuprecht on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
Aha, but then you have to ask yourself if the majority are actually looking out for their personal freedoms or simply protecting tradition. And if you're going to assume that some population of heterosexual Dutch feel limited just because homosexuals are allowed to marry, imagine the population of homosexual Americans who feel limited because they're not even afforded that right to begin with.
And is protecting traditions not a freedom allowed to the public?
There's probably some eventuality where homosexual marriage will come to pass in the US, but until a majority agree, you do greater harm to the freedom of those people who don't want it by forcing it upon them than you do by subjecting a few to what is essentially a formal document outlining the importance of a relationship that they already accept.
First off, look up the benefits of marriage in the US. it's a nice, long list. And even with legal planning, homosexuals can get only a fraction of these benefits. So by denying homosexuals the right to marriage, you're actually not treating them equally in the eyes of the law in many ways.
And second, I don't see why we should be tolerant of intolerance. If your religion says "gays are icky", that's fine, and you can choose not to associate with them. But the whole fucking purpose of separation of church and state is so that we don't make legal decisions on the mores of one religion!
That's assuming it's religion that decides this. Even in secular societies that allow for a wider range of sexual options, marriage can still be limited, because it's a social construct as well as a religious one. Now, just because a subset of the population feels that their rights are violated because they can't get married doesn't mean that the nation isn't free. Homosexuals (or heterosexuals who want to join the argument) are free to come up with a compelling enough reason to convince a majority of the rest of the nation that their plight is worth reversing a historical and cultural norm. So far, that has not happened in the US as a whole, but it has happened in other nations and even in subsets of the US. That they have failed to convince others is not by itself an indictment on their freedoms, but rather a reflection on a) the weakness of their argument or b) a reflection that the societal constructs against homosexual marriage are stronger than their arguments.
In this case, there are benefits to marriage, but marriage isn't a right, per se. There are many privileges I would like that I cannot have, and it's not a denial of my rights so much as just who I am and what circumstances I find myself in.
Finally, homosexuality is not just against the mores of "one" religion. Four of the five major religions have negative viewpoints on homosexual acts, and the fifth (Buddhism) looks down upon individual sexual gratification (which can apply to all kinds of sexuality) as well as specifically against transgenderism (which is a major part of homosexual culture).
See above.
And what part of separation of church and state DON'T you understand?
It's pretty great, you guys
Today: "Wow grandpa, you played in clouds of DDT as a kid! Are you a retard?"
In the future: "Wow grandpa, you used cell phones without knowing about radiation risks! Are you a retard?"
Not sure what you are talking about here. I'm afraid you're stretching on this one, attributing to me an argument I did not make. I'm not personally against gay marriage at all, I'm arguing that for this society, it has failed to be a compelling argument. Sounds like you are making a straw man argument here. Party foul.
Same here.
I understand it quite well. The concept was never meant to eradicate all forms of religiosity from our society. To make that argument would be, well, dumb. The US is a religious nation, that's a fact. It was founded by religious men and women, it's doctrine is quite Judeo-Christian in nature, and it's been only recently that any serious push to secularism was ever made. For goodness sakes, there are still some Blue Laws on the books, prayer is used to begin each session of Congress, you put your hand on the Bible to take an oath, etc, etc.
"The selectmen, on finding children ignorant, may take them away from their parents, and put them into better hands, at the expense of their parents."
Couple that with the statistic that 10% of American high school students can't find the United States on an unmarked map.
I think that's called the tyranny of the majority.
If you do, then your entire argument for opposing gay marriage collapses, since they are the same argument - disallowing a type of marriage because they don't conform to some societal ideal. If, on the other hand, you don't agree - your logic will be consistant, at the cost of showing the forum exactly what you are.
They might see what you really are.
Better watch out there, buddy.
I find "no minister shall keep a school" interesting. Even wacky puritans didn't want their kids being taught the everyday stuff by the religious!
Wow, this sounds like you are taking it personal. It is possible to make an argument on logical terms without actually subscribing to the underlying outcome. It's like saying "the 1st Amendment protects the KKK, so if you agree with the 1st Amendment you are a racist." C'mon, you can think past that.
Society by nature creates constraints upon its members. Do I personally agree with anti-miscgenation laws? Nope. But I fail to see how that collapses my argument in any way, shape or form. I stated that groups are free to petition society for changes as they see fit. Marriage, as much as you may like to pretend, is not a basic human right. Recognition by the state that you love someone or choose to partner with them is not a basic human right. Expression. Speech. Worship. Life. These are basic human rights (thought not an exhaustive list).
Let's look at a country like Japan. They are a free nation. They are also a proudly homogenized society. If they choose to have their government advocate, support, and or evangelize personal unions that further that homogenization, why couldn't they? I have no stake in whether Japan stays perfectly Japanese, but as long as they don't kill, jail or torture people who aren't Japanese, that's their right. It's not slavery, it's not murder, it's not deprivation of property ownership or voting rights, or speech, or thought or any other basic human right, it's marriage.
Coming closer to home, why can't I drive in the HCV lane on my way to work? Some asshole in a Prius can, why not me? Because the state has a vested interest in promoting alternate fuel vehicles, and as much as I may wish that I could have full use of all 4 lanes on highway 99 between the hours of 6-10am and 3-7pm, I can't. That sucks. And although you may think it's petty, there is a physical place in a public location that is restricted to me based on the type of car I drive.
That's the logical argument -- not the emotional one.
Emotionally, there are three gay couples I know that would love to marry, and can't. I feel for them. Put it up for a vote, I'll vote with them. But although it may go against me this time, I'm glad we don't get ruled by emotions more often. The next time it will be something important to me.
Wait. I hope people see me for who I am. I don't like being fake or trying to subscribe to the topic of the day. Maybe I should add the following disclaimers to my posts:
I support the Constitution.
I have been known to go to church on occasion.
I'm conservative, but don't like the Republican Party much anymore.
I don't believe in human-caused global warming.
I believe in the right to own a gun.
I believe that Sega made the best game hardware.
I enjoy beer, but not cheap beer.
I eat sushi as often as possible.
I eat pasta whenever sushi is not available.
I've been to the Gilroy Garlic Festival 15 out of the last 20 years.
And some may be just, others may be unjust. Just because society creates some restriction does not inherently justify it.
Now answer the question actually posited - is it intrinsically wrong to say that two people should not be allowed to marry, based on race, especially considering that our government is tasked with treating all its citizens equal under the law, regardless of who they are?
Again, our government is tasked with treating all its citizens equally, regardless of who they may be. The simple fact that a heterosexual couple receives benefits that are denied to a homosexual couple violates this CORE PRECEPT of our government.
And that has been the source of a lot of problems for Japan, both domestically and internationally.
That pesky issue of not creating second class citizens?
Spoken like a heterosexual white male. I mean, as long as they're not killing or jailing them, it's okay that we have a class of second class citizens, who are defined as such because of their sexual orientation, and denied full protection under the law because of that, right?
Yes, because there's no difference between a restriction applied equally to all people based on their choice and one applied unequally based on who they are. None at all.[/sarcasm]
And if you're going to say sexual orientation is a choice, I have to ask - when did you choose to like girls?
It's not a logical argument. Not by any stretch.
So, have you told them your "logic"? I'd love to see their reaction.
Sounds like we are way off track here. Society makes good choices and bad. But the difference here is that these rules are made by the society itself, either through social constructs like shame or shared beliefs, or through their representation in Government. That's FREEDOM. Isn't that how this whole discussion started?
It is intrinsically wrong for the government to deny things without just cause that it grants to others. When you talk of marriage, you have to define what business the government has in marriage in the first place. I think you are ignoring that.
You can stretch this argument in a number of ways to test its validity. If marriage has no societal value that the government wants to promote, outside of the "benefits" people enjoy by being married (I assume you mean taxes, insurance, etc ), then why can't you marry your uncle? If marriage is divorced from all except these things that you feel are denied from people, then you should be free to marry who you want.
But you see, that's not the case. Marriage has a specific history and a specific benefit that society (and through it the government) wishes to promote. It doesn't happen in every marriage (I'm speaking of procreation) but in enough to make it worthwhile to society to define the parameters of marriage towards that end.
There are a lot of things the government denies others. I cannot receive farm subsidies even if I make a vegetable garden for profit in my home. I cannot bid for contracts fairly against minority owned businesses. I cannot do business with the government if I chose to adhere to a strict religion in my business dealings. All of these things are deemed important by the government and society as a whole to a degree justifying discrimination against me.
So? I never said it was the right policy, only that they are free to make choices, good and bad.
So don't live there. Many places are like that. Try taking a Bible into Saudi Arabia. Kiss someone in public in India. Society can create rules that work for them. That's why I have no interest in visiting many places.
And which "protection under the law" are you speaking of?
To be honest, I don't know if it's a choice. I don't know of how to even argue that it is or isn't. But marriage is a choice. That a homosexual is disinclined to marry the opposite sex does not negate that it's still a choice.
Yes, I've had discussions with all of them. They disagree with me. I suppose since I'm straight and they are not, their opinion means more on this than mine? By that logic, I can't have an important opinion on Title IX because I'm not a woman, nor on Affirmative Action because I'm not a minority, nor on anything age-related because I'm not a senior citizen.
Oh yeah, the government discriminates against me because of my age all the time, even though I didn't choose to be the age I am.
No, that's democracy.
If it's a small population clinging to tradition, what relevance should it have to your overall argument for majority rule? You didn't bother mentioning the arguably larger minority of homosexuals in the US whose rights are being curtailed beyond having their traditions infringed upon and so it seems hypocritical for you to raise the question of a hypothetical Dutch minority opposed to same sex marriages. You understand then why this would seem to speak more to your personal views regarding homosexuality than an actual appeal to populist politics.
Touche. I need to be more careful of my semantics.
I see your point, Glyph, and it's a good one. I didn't intend it to look like it does.
My point was that within that society (Dutch), there are those that feel they aren't free, even though their society on the surface seems to allow a greater degree of freedom for homosexuals by allowing them legal marriage rights. I think I made a poor attempt at insinuating that their minority and our minority feel alike, even though they are on opposite sides of the marriage argument. Stated plainly (or at least what I hope is plain): there are circumstances where some may feel like they are not free, but it is just not the case when viewed from the point of society at large.
So...uh...yeah, I think Americans are biased against socialism.
People have been getting married for much longer than they've been voting, and many groups of people have been deprived of property rights in the past.
Why isn't marriage a basic human right? It was certainly considered as basic when homosexuality was illegal and had to be hidden.
What criteria are you using for deciding that it's not?
But more significantly, I think class consciousness has never been strong in America. Partly this is because Americans have had it good economically, possessing on average a greater level of material wealth than Europe through the 20th century. When Americans have not had it good, its been understood as a race rather than class issue. The same entrenched poverty that brought revolutionary ferment in Europe, in America brought black solidarity and resistance instead. Finally, the culture of individualism/'the American way' has probably been an obstacle to class consciousness- though I'm not sure if this is a separate factor or just a product of prosperity.
Don't forget the subliminal messages corporations pack into advertisements encouraging Americans to support free trade and private property.
Well, marriage is a social construct ostensibly for the purposes of aiding and corraling our reproduction and related urges within the framework of a society.
But what the fuckall does [gay] marriage have to do with socialism? Equal protection and whatnot is an interesting subject in its own merit, but really this tangent is distracting from the discussion of socialism and alternatives as economic systems.
I cannot imagine in any way how allowing gay marriage infringes on the rights of those who do not agree with it. They are not being forced to marry someone of their same sex. They aren't being told "YOUR WAY OF LIVE IS SICK AND WRONG." Absolutely fuck-all is being done to them.
Please see the previous posts on whether marriage is a basic human right. I don't think anybody has argued that slavery is in the same realm.
I would say "No, no it doesn't."
Being free to determine laws and social mores should not *EVER* give the majority the impression that it is ok to prevent people from acting as they will, such that they do not harm others. Gay marriage harms no one, is only performed by those who choose to perform it, and as such, should not be specifically outlawed.
Beyond that, "marriage" itself doesn't really constitute an action that a person could be said to engage in in the same way as voting or ownership.
What does it mean to own something? It's means it's yours, and you control what happens to it, and how it's used.
What does it mean to vote? It means you formally declare your opinion on a matter in such a way as to influence government.
Now, what does it mean to be married? Specifically, what actions can a married person perform that a non-married person can't? Married people can choose to be with each other, but so can non-married people. They can choose to fuck each other, but so can non-married people. They can choose to live with each other, to share their possessions, to love each other, and so on, but so can non-married people. "Marriage" is not an action that can conceivably be said to be "rightfully" granted to people, because it's not even really an action so much as a state of mind.
Except, of course, in the way certain laws apply to you. If the government said, suddenly, "Marriage? What's that? We don't recognize marriage any more," then suddenly the idea of a "right" to marriage would become completely nonsensical; there would no longer be anything for the government, or for other people, to deny you. The same couldn't be said if the government suddenly decided to not recognize property rights - the concept of ownership would still hold meaning. The idea of someone coming along and wresting your property from you in defiance of your property rights would still make sense.
What gets bandied about as the "basic human right to marriage" is really just a proxy debate for the equality of all people under the law, which does make sense, at least in the situation in which we have laws and government. It's a debate about how the laws should be applied to people, and arguing about a right to have all people treated identically at least holds meaning.
Because really, the "right to marriage" currently exists for everyone. If I want to marry my guy pal, or my mom, or my dog, that's not a problem. We just say, "Hey, we're married now, and we love each other," and bam - we're married. The government doesn't recognize our union as something that warrants special application of the law, but that only means we don't have a "legal marriage", which is something different. It's not like people weren't asserting marriage of some form or another long before government stepped in and started legislating it.
Marriage in a legal sense is just a special set of laws designed to give you perks for pledging your devotion to someone else, and claiming that everyone has a Basic Human Right to have a government write up a special set of laws to treat them differently from other people is just all kinds of stupid. If this wasn't the case, then a government that failed to legally recognize any sort of marriage would be guilty of a gross violation of basic human rights, and that's fairly absurd.
tl;dr: Marriage isn't a right, but equality under the law arguably is.
and every time you try this, I can't help but feel you're trying to obscure the core point of the argument.
The Banning of gay marriage is discrimination, plain and simple.
Perhaps I should ask you then what makes marriage a privilege if not a right? And why it is right that homosexuals not be allowed to partake in this privilege?
Not speaking to marriage particularly, but this is a poor generalization. Is there ever any harm resulting from someone jaywalking when there aren't any cars for a mile in either direction? No, but this doesn't mean the government shouldn't be free to ban it, anyway. Because a law that says "No jaywalking unless you're really sure it's safe" is a horrible law, and banning jaywalking that can result in harm is justifiable. Sometimes we have to ban harmless behaviors in order to also eliminate demonstrably harmful behaviors.
There's also the collective action problem. If I throw a single sheet of paper on the side of the road, that's not going to hurt anything. No harm can come from it. If half a million people do it, well, now we have a problem.
Basically, the "everything that doesn't directly harm anyone should be legal" argument is nice in theory, but is too simplistic to be practical.
Tax Benefits
* Filing joint income tax returns with the IRS and state taxing authorities.
* Creating a "family partnership" under federal tax laws, which allows you to divide business income among family members.
Estate Planning Benefits
* Inheriting a share of your spouse's estate.
* Receiving an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse.
* Creating life estate trusts that are restricted to married couples, including QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts, and marital deduction trusts.
* Obtaining priority if a conservator needs to be appointed for your spouse -- that is, someone to make financial and/or medical decisions on your spouse’s behalf.
Government Benefits
* Receiving Social Security, Medicare, and disability benefits for spouses.
* Receiving veterans' and military benefits for spouses, such as those for education, medical care, or special loans.
* Receiving public assistance benefits.
Employment Benefits
* Obtaining insurance benefits through a spouse's employer.
* Taking family leave to care for your spouse during an illness.
* Receiving wages, workers' compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse.
* Taking bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relatives dies.
Medical Benefits
* Visiting your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility.
* Making medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.
Death Benefits
* Consenting to after-death examinations and procedures.
* Making burial or other final arrangements.
Family Benefits
* Filing for stepparent or joint adoption.
* Applying for joint foster care rights.
* Receiving equitable division of property if you divorce.
* Receiving spousal or child support, child custody, and visitation if you divorce.
Housing Benefits
* Living in neighborhoods zoned for "families only."
* Automatically renewing leases signed by your spouse.
Consumer Benefits
* Receiving family rates for health, homeowners', auto, and other types of insurance.
* Receiving tuition discounts and permission to use school facilities.
* Other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.
Other Legal Benefits and Protections
* Suing a third person for wrongful death of your spouse and loss of consortium (loss of intimacy).
* Suing a third person for offenses that interfere with the success of your marriage, such as alienation of affection and criminal conversation (these laws are available in only a few states).
* Claiming the marital communications privilege, which means a court can’t force you to disclose the contents of confidential communications between you and your spouse during your marriage.
* Receiving crime victims' recovery benefits if your spouse is the victim of a crime.
* Obtaining immigration and residency benefits for noncitizen spouse.
* Visiting rights in jails and other places where visitors are restricted to immediate family.
All of these are based on the recognition of the legal system of the unique personal relationship between two people. That relationship objectively exists, as as such demands the recognition of the government, in the same way that free thought, speech and ownership exist. The philosophical basis for the recognition for this relationship is as valid as any other right, such as the rights of parents regarding children or children regarding their parents.
Well, I could just paste in what ElJeffe wrote, but that would be a waste of bandwidth.
Bottom line is, homosexuals can marry. They can marry someone of the same sex if they like. They can marry someone of the opposite sex if they like. Society has deemed (currently and historically -- through government) there should be legal acknowlegement for opposite sex unions of a non-familial nature. No right is denied to them. There is no right to government acknowlegement of your permanent sexual relationship.
I'm not sure if that was supposed to counter my point, or if you were just posting the information for public consumption.
SO, slavery was okay when the majority of white folks wanted black people to be considered property, and not human beings (as upheld by the dread scott case)?
The fact of the matter is, those folks who don't want gay marriage are ENTIRELY unaffected by gay marriage. Should they really be able to claim that they are expressing their "freedom" by limiting the freedoms of others?
That's bullshit, and you know it.
Is this just for reference?
I don't think anyone has argued that there's no difference, just that the differences are not "rights".
Also, many of these things can be accomplished through other legal means.