Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Silknor » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:29 am UTC

No argument there on either point. Their lack of intent doesn't change that it's a bad law now nor the effect it has. But when it comes to interpreting the 14th amendment, it's not unreasonable to think intent matters more there. Which is of course the problem with relying on it in the attempt to get gay marriage legalized state-wide or nationally.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:49 am UTC

bradherbig wrote:According to the law (which is the purpose of a judge), there was no reason to overturn Prop. 8.
Uh... what?
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby guenther » Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:48 am UTC

Nordic Einar wrote:To reject the bigotry rife within the Yes for Prop. 8! movement and supporters is to reject reality; this is about oppression, and you dismissing that snidely doesn't make it less true.

A political movement might be rife with bigotry because bigotry helps get out the vote. That was true on both sides of the Prop. 8 fight. In fact, I don't see much difference between selling fear based upon the evil gay agenda and selling fear based on the hateful fundie oppressors. In both cases it shows a lack of capacity to see it from the other side's perspective. And in both cases is shows a clear priority of putting political agenda above all else.

RandomString wrote:A little more seriously though, I think the key point is that States cannot restrict rights just "because". Despite what you might say about the law itself not being discriminatory in itself, the law unambiguously targets a minority. It doesn't matter how a law is written if it still targets a minority. For instance, Arizona's recent immigration status laws don't actually target a minority in their writing, but in effect they would (the racial profiling thing). Just as maybe the writing of Prop 8. isn't discriminatory (not pointing out one group, per say), but it in effect it is. The presence or absence of the law does not affect heterosexual people in any way. That is, in a legal way. The presence or absence of the law does affect homosexual people. Thus the law is discriminatory. And preemptively: if you suggest then that marriage is not the default, and it has been GRANTED to heterosexual couples. my previous argument still works, just in reverse.

You are conflating "has a disparate effect on" with "is targeting". The AZ law isn't targeting Hispanics even though they would bear the brunt of the burden. TSA's name profiling doesn't target people with the same names as terrorists even though their extra hassle is unfair. Higher taxes on the wealthy aren't targeting whites even though most of the dollars flow from white men's pockets. And I think the argument is weak to say Prop 8 is targeting homosexuals even though they are the ones that suffer. If you want to make a case about the measurable effect, then don't use words that describe intent.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Silknor » Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:57 am UTC

I think it's certainly possible that laws like SB 1070 and Prop 8 aren't targeting any specific group even if they have a disparate impact on that group. You could create a case for either (and some have) out of no antipathy for any particular group. But I'm not convinced, especially in the Prop 8 case, that this is actually the case. It's hard to deny that said intent exists for at least a minority of the supporters of each law. There will almost always be some who support a law, good or bad, for bad reasons.

Because the intent of those who passed it vary widely, it's hard to determine what the intent of a law is. There's no real right answer that I can see.

I think one way to distinguish between the TSA/Taxes examples and the Az/Prop 8 examples is if there's an inherent relationship between the goals of the legislation and the negative effect on some small group. The TSA program does just as well if no one not on the no fly list has a name resembling a suspect. Taxes do just as good a job of redistributing wealth from rich to poor and raising revenue if the very rich are all white, half white, or completely non-white. This contrasts with Prop 8 certainly (the Az bill is less clear) because the way in which it tries to promote its goals (the idea of traditional marriage, stable environment for children, religious values, whatever) cannot be decoupled from the effect it has on gays who want to marry.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby guenther » Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:11 am UTC

Silknor wrote:I think it's certainly possible that laws like SB 1070 and Prop 8 aren't targeting any specific group even if they have a disparate impact on that group. You could create a case for either (and some have) out of no antipathy for any particular group. But I'm not convinced, especially in the Prop 8 case, that this is actually the case. It's hard to deny that said intent exists for at least a minority of the supporters of each law. There will almost always be some who support a law, good or bad, for bad reasons.

Because the intent of those who passed it vary widely, it's hard to determine what the intent of a law is. There's no real right answer that I can see.

I agree. That's why I like the legal argument that doesn't rely on intent. That equal protection applies when a minority group is restricted purely because of the moral opinion of the majority. If we want restrictive laws, we need to establish real harm that would be prevented.

Silknor wrote:I think one way to distinguish between the TSA/Taxes examples and the Az/Prop 8 examples is if there's an inherent relationship between the goals of the legislation and the negative effect on some small group. The TSA program does just as well if no one not on the no fly list has a name resembling a suspect. Taxes do just as good a job of redistributing wealth from rich to poor and raising revenue if the very rich are all white, half white, or completely non-white. This contrasts with Prop 8 certainly (the Az bill is less clear) because the way in which it tries to promote its goals (the idea of traditional marriage, stable environment for children, religious values, whatever) cannot be decoupled from the effect it has on gays who want to marry.

Well, I could have rephrased the tax example as anti-rich instead of anti-white. Then you get a similar picture. But all of them are to demonstrate that if we conflate results and intent, then we get a very unhelpful picture.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:13 am UTC

guenther wrote:I think the argument is weak to say Prop 8 is targeting homosexuals

A constitutional amendment that solely says that marriage is between one man and one woman does not target gay individuals because it does not mention them.

A law that solely says only white people can vote does not target other races because it does not mention them.

These two statements are logically identical, and this is what you are saying. Intent isn't really relevant, but if you want to talk about intent I encourage you to look up the yes on 8 propaganda, which was far more anti-gay than anything that's been legally on the books since Lawrence.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:17 am UTC

guenther wrote:A political movement might be rife with bigotry because bigotry helps get out the vote. That was true on both sides of the Prop. 8 fight. In fact, I don't see much difference between selling fear based upon the evil gay agenda and selling fear based on the hateful fundie oppressors. In both cases it shows a lack of capacity to see it from the other side's perspective. And in both cases is shows a clear priority of putting political agenda above all else.


Here's the difference:
http://www.derailingfordummies.com/#asbad
Relevant text under the spoiler:
Spoiler:
Definitely one of the last tactics you should bring out if you're finding that the Marginalised Person™ is simply relentless and you are running out of options.

This one is an outright insult. By now they have probably ripped all your prejudices apart and harshly criticised both your attitudes and the Privileged® system you reside within. You are probably taking it very personally because it's shaking the foundations of your beliefs and making you confront aspects of your own behaviour and nature that you would rather not.

That's when you say to them: you are just as bad as the people who oppress you!

Because they're angry about the treatment they undergo and because they are aggressive and persistent in wanting to see change happen, you can target this behaviour (remembering that it is unseemly for Marginalised People™ – they're supposed to set an example at all times by being humble and long-suffering) by suggesting it puts them on a par with the people and system that stigmatise, ostracise and target them every second of every day of their lives. This also suggests that reacting to such discrimination is totally unreasonable and out of proportion (they should just take their knocks!) and that has the benefit of indicating your ignorance to just how pervasive and constant this discrimination truly is.

This one is important if you really want to demonstrate what a scumbag you are so do be careful to whip it out at precisely the right moment. Used correctly and it can be something of a slamdunk!


Homophobes use lies and fear to marginalize a subsection of the population and to enshrine their theocratic ideology in secular law. (It IS all rooted in a twisted version of Christianity; find me someone who isn't a politician and opposes gay marriage whose ultimate reasoning ISN'T religious and I'll reconsider the claim.) Those who support homosexual rights base their arguments on the Constitution and our nation's increasingly nominal love of freedom and equality. There is a rather large difference, and to ignore that is to be oblivious, idiotic, or an asshole.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby guenther » Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:03 am UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:A constitutional amendment that solely says that marriage is between one man and one woman does not target gay individuals because it does not mention them.

A law that solely says only white people can vote does not target other races because it does not mention them.

These two statements are logically identical, and this is what you are saying. Intent isn't really relevant, but if you want to talk about intent I encourage you to look up the yes on 8 propaganda, which was far more anti-gay than anything that's been legally on the books since Lawrence.

They're not logically identical. The racial law explicitly treats whites different than blacks. The marriage law treats homosexuals and heterosexuals the same. DADT treats homosexuals differently.

Here's the point I'm getting at. One could say that anti-pirating laws target people that pirate movies/music. But it's really about targeting the behavior of pirating. We can regard homosexuality as an identity, but when people attack it, we should remember that they may not use the same lens and might be targeting the behavior. If that's the case, charges of oppression and hate are less convincing. That's why racial issues are difference since we can't really interpret them as being about behavior.

And political propaganda is not a good way to look at intent since it's designed get votes not to provide clarity. It will distort the image where useful, and bigotry, hate, and intolerance are useful.

Princess Marzipan wrote:There is a rather large difference, and to ignore that is to be oblivious, idiotic, or an asshole.

Got it. I'm a scumbag and I get to pick if I'm oblivious, idiotic, or an asshole. I think I'll discuss with people that don't go straight to name calling. Thanks.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Kulantan » Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:10 am UTC

guenther wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:There is a rather large difference, and to ignore that is to be oblivious, idiotic, or an asshole.

Got it. I'm a scumbag and I get to pick if I'm oblivious, idiotic, or an asshole. I think I'll discuss with people that don't go straight to name calling. Thanks.

Heh, nice evade.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

Nordic Einar
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Nordic Einar » Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:12 am UTC

guenther wrote:Here's the point I'm getting at. One could say that anti-pirating laws target people that pirate movies/music. But it's really about targeting the behavior of pirating. We can regard homosexuality as an identity, but when people attack it, we should remember that they may not use the same lens and might be targeting the behavior. If that's the case, charges of oppression and hate are less convincing. That's why racial issues are difference since we can't really interpret them as being about behavior.


I don't hate gays. I love gays! I just hate when they have buttsex, or date men, or kiss in public, or admit to being gay. But that doesn't make me homophobic; and when I pass laws that specifically target gays, it isn't oppression! Because I'm not targeting them for being gay, I'm targeting them for BEING gay. It's a subtle distinction, but key. If you never act on being a homosexual, then our laws aren't oppressing you!

Yeah, people say things along the lines of "I don't hate black people, I hate ghetto culture" too. And it's... almost universally a rationalization for just regular 'ol hating black people. That shit right there? It hurts your credibility a lot, and it isn't going to fucking fly.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:13 am UTC

guenther wrote:The marriage law treats homosexuals and heterosexuals the same.

Heterosexuals can have a long-term relationship recognized by the government with all the benefits that brings, most of which are not financial and many of which are in fact social.
Homosexuals cannot, and in fact get it codified that their relationships are inferior.

What about that says treating them the same to you?
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Malice » Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:27 am UTC

No, no, see, it's okay to outlaw behavior (even if that behavior is tied explicitly to a minority identity). Like stealing! And you don't need any sort of compelling reason to outlaw it, either--just so long as a large group of people find it icky. Like--well, not like stealing, that's actually harmful to others. Darn. Maybe Guenther can think of an example.
Image

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Aug 09, 2010 9:21 am UTC

Kulantan wrote:
guenther wrote:
Princess Marzipan wrote:There is a rather large difference, and to ignore that is to be oblivious, idiotic, or an asshole.

Got it. I'm a scumbag and I get to pick if I'm oblivious, idiotic, or an asshole. I think I'll discuss with people that don't go straight to name calling. Thanks.

Heh, nice evade.
Nice assist!

guenther, I never said you were a scumbag. The site Kulantan and I linked is written with the assumption that the person engaging in a given "derailing tactic" is doing so completely willingly and fully aware of what it is they're doing. That assumption is made for the purposes of entertainment and readability for people who have seen such "tactics" used in just about every discussion they've had about $issue. That assumption also serves to indicate to you, who unwittingly engaged in As Bad As They Are what the person reading your post tends to think.

Derailing for Dummies employs a vitriolic narrative voice to make its points, and you conflated the site's tone with my own. Go read what's under the spoilered text but before the sentence you quoted - there's a nice little argument there that you completely ignored in favor of insinuating that I'm calling you names. (Hence, Kulantan has pointed out that you've also engaged in You've Lost Your Temper So I Don't Have To Listen To You Anymore.) Here's the thing: if you made your post fully aware of its implications of your privilege and in an attempt to derail discussion and defeat the opposing argument without addressing the issue directly...then yes, you're a god damn scumbag like the website says. I don't actually think you were aware of all of that, though, which is why I brought those implications to your attention, and then made, y'know, an actual argument afterward. And I did give you three choices as to what you'd have to be to make your post: oblivious, idiotic, OR an asshole. Not all three, not any two, just one. And you ARE oblivious, and that's NOT name-calling - it's the application of an entirely appropriate adjective, because you're oblivious to the chasm that separates those who argue for Prop 8 and those who argue against.

guenther wrote:Here's the point I'm getting at. One could say that anti-pirating laws target people that pirate movies/music. But it's really about targeting the behavior of pirating. We can regard homosexuality as an identity, but when people attack it, we should remember that they may not use the same lens and might be targeting the behavior. If that's the case, charges of oppression and hate are less convincing. That's why racial issues are difference since we can't really interpret them as being about behavior.
No one has ever said that pirating should be illegal because it's bad and wrong. Rather, people argue against pirating from the premise that it's a violation of existing copyright laws. Those who argue through the "lens" of targeting only homosexual behavior have no such foundation. There is no foundational concept aside from "my religion says this is wrong." And since we're a country who ostensibly considers religious edicts irrelevant to government, people making the claim that they're only targeting the behavior should thus be given zero weight in the discussion, and so we remain with attacks solely against identity.

Also, that whole being homosexual vs acting on being homosexual thing is a meaningless distinction, and I hope you don't intend to argue otherwise, because I'm not sure I have the energy the prove the point.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:36 pm UTC

An interesting thing: some experts are now saying it may not be possible for Walker to not cancel the stay since the defendants it was issued in favor of have requested it be lifted, and some are even saying that it will not be possible to appeal since the State of California will not appeal it and there is precedent that third parties do not have legal standing to appeal decisions striking down initiatives.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
Griffin
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sun Apr 08, 2007 7:46 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Griffin » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:31 pm UTC

Silknor, you keep phrasing things like "Everyone has a right to (blank) of the opposite sex"

You can't do that under equal protection. You can't split things up that way, because that means that your giving different privileges to people based on the group they belong to, which is EXACTLY what the 14th amendment says you can't due. (In this case, those groups are men and women, who end up with differing privileges).

Consent laws do not clearly violate this, both because there's a preponderance of evidence that age is not considered to define a different class of citizen, and even more so because it is a privilige that can be specified without resorting to classifying citizens one way or another for the law to take effect. It is possible to declare it illegal for anyone to have sex with someone until they are older than the age of consent.
It could be argued, maybe one day it even will be, but in that case things like age limits for voting and getting into offices would probably fall by the wayside first on much more solid grounds.

Incestous marriage should be legal under the amendment for obvious reasons - those who say otherwise are letting bias cloud their judgements. I wouldn't be surprised if it became legal in the forseeable future on those grounds - but I also wouldn't be terribly surprised if they managed to garner enough support to carve out a constitutional exception for this one either, if it ever does so. It really does squick people out.

Honestly, polyamorous marriage probably has the least ground to stand on here, despite my support of it. It will probably have to find another way into legality, and maybe it never will - Ultimately, it may rest on a movement to make the privileges of marriage based more on the actual contractual existence rather than the social recognition, which would generally require the goverment to stop caring about treating married couples as a special class.
Bdthemag: "I don't always GM, but when I do I prefer to put my player's in situations that include pain and torture. Stay creative my friends."

Bayobeasts - the Pokemon: Orthoclase project.

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby guenther » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:38 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Heterosexuals can have a long-term relationship recognized by the government with all the benefits that brings, most of which are not financial and many of which are in fact social.
Homosexuals cannot, and in fact get it codified that their relationships are inferior.

What about that says treating them the same to you?

That's just creative framing. The racist law uses the color of someone's skin as a legal criteria for measuring legality. The anti-gay marriage law does not use sexual preference as a criteria in the same way that DADT does. Anyone straight or gay marrying someone of the same sex would be in violation. Of course there's a disparate impact, but I already said that.

Nordic Einar wrote:That shit right there? It hurts your credibility a lot, and it isn't going to fucking fly.

You know what hurts my credibility here? Arguing that the pro-Prop. 8 people aren't hateful. And do you know what hurts my credibility and causes outrage? Presenting a case that someone's own team might be guilty of some bad things on par with the other team. People take their moral superiority very seriously and it touches nerves to challenge this.


@Princess Marzipan: My post to you was an evade. My real issue wasn't hurt feelings over what I felt was an inappropriate tone. I get that a lot on here and I can deal with it just fine. What really bothered me, and what I didn't want to get into at the time, is that you called my religion a twisted version of Christianity. In my church I am surrounded by people that would vote yes on an equivalent of Prop. 8 given the chance. I am personally friends with and worship with people that believe homosexuality is a sin and that that way of life should be culturally impeded. But how they express their beliefs towards homosexuals isn't nearly as ugly as you have been to these people whom I consider part of my religious family.

You don't just take a position that these people are wrong, but that they are morally inferior. Their way of life that they regard as just as much of an identity as homosexuality is morally wrong. When people use fear tactics to paint these people as hateful and oppressive, I do consider it equivalent to tactics to paint homosexuality as evil. It's expressing an ugly intolerance out of ignorance across a political divide. I get that one side is trying to lay down restrictions on the other side, and in that regard it's asymmetric. But that doesn't justify the ugly intolerance which I regard as always equally wrong.

At this point, I'm guessing that you will have a harder time giving me the benefit of the doubt that I'm simply being oblivious, which means I must be idiotic or an asshole. I'm not sure if you think I'm derailing or not, so I'll leave it up to you to decide if I'm a scumbag damned by God.

Princess Marzipan wrote:Also, that whole being homosexual vs acting on being homosexual thing is a meaningless distinction, and I hope you don't intend to argue otherwise, because I'm not sure I have the energy the prove the point.

I do intend to argue otherwise. It's not a meaningless distinction, but politically it's useful to treat it as such because it justifies uglier behavior. It's like saying that people behind anti-smoking campaigns are being oppressive to smokers rather than culturally impeding the behavior of smoking. This is a more accurate way to view it, but politically it's unpopular to see it that way because it makes painting them as hateful oppressors harder.

And I get that the body of evidence for harm exists for smoking but it doesn't for homosexuality. But you should understand that people will take the Bible as all the evidence they need and will promote anti-homosexuality in the same way. Some people do take an anti-homosexual stance that's not unlike the anti-black stance used to pass racist laws. And that should be cast as hateful and oppressive. But blurring the distinction isn't good in my opinion.

Malice wrote:No, no, see, it's okay to outlaw behavior (even if that behavior is tied explicitly to a minority identity). Like stealing! And you don't need any sort of compelling reason to outlaw it, either--just so long as a large group of people find it icky. Like--well, not like stealing, that's actually harmful to others. Darn. Maybe Guenther can think of an example.

Did I say it was OK to outlaw that behavior? In fact I agreed with Judge Walker's case that it was unconstitutional. I know I've crossed a line that makes it easy to just pile on top, but you are showing that you don't understand my position.

And if you want to challenge your ignorance about the other side, you will need to accept for the sake of argument an unpalatable perspective that homosexuality is bad like stealing or smoking. Just like the pro-Prop. 8 people need to take the perhaps unpalatable view that gay people may really just want the opportunity to create a healthy family rather than to promote a debauched lifestyle. You don't have to agree that homosexuality is harmful in any way, and they may not agree that homosexuality is not unhealthy, but we should be able to put on the other's shoes if we want to extend past our own ignorance. And I believe that's key in stopping hate and intolerance. And unpopular as this will make me here, I consider that more important than any particular political stance on the issue of gay marriage and gay rights.


To the thread at large: Allow me to take off my privilege blinders for an instant and try to honestly challenge what many consider to be my ignorance. My view is that terms like hate and oppression are based on ideology or political convenience rather than solid fact. But let me open my mind (I'm being honest) and please try to convince me otherwise.

What makes voting yes a likely act of hate? Or is it by definition hateful? And oppression is a severe and unjust use of authority to keep people down. Why is Prop. 8 about oppression but anti-smoking campaigns aren't? Is it the evidence of harm? Is it if people try to push their religious beliefs into policy they're oppressing? Help me understand.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Jesse » Mon Aug 09, 2010 2:46 pm UTC

guenther. Those people in your religious family that were called morally inferior. Homosexuals existing and having gay sex in no way harms other people. But your friend's beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, an inherently bad thing, that is harmful to other people. Notable gay people who have just as much right as any other to exist in society. So I really have no problem with considering them morally inferior within my humanist view of ethics.

guenther
Posts: 1840
Joined: Sat May 17, 2008 6:15 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby guenther » Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:11 pm UTC

Jesse wrote:guenther. Those people in your religious family that were called morally inferior. Homosexuals existing and having gay sex in no way harms other people. But your friend's beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, an inherently bad thing, that is harmful to other people. Notable gay people who have just as much right as any other to exist in society. So I really have no problem with considering them morally inferior within my humanist view of ethics.

Do you know what I believe causes harm? Advancing political causes by promoting that people on the other side are morally inferior. I believe it helps breed hatred, bigotry, and ugly intolerance. If people in my church do that, I can point to Biblical scripture and show them why they're wrong. But when you do it, there's little I can do to persuade you otherwise.
A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:31 pm UTC

Starting with the end:
guenther wrote:What makes voting yes a likely act of hate? Or is it by definition hateful? And oppression is a severe and unjust use of authority to keep people down. Why is Prop. 8 about oppression but anti-smoking campaigns aren't? Is it the evidence of harm? Is it if people try to push their religious beliefs into policy they're oppressing? Help me understand.
The people actually casting the votes are, I think, more often doing so out of ignorance than out of actual hate. All they hear is awful and wrong homosexuality is, and their firm belief in that makes it very unlikely that they'll want to be friends with a homosexual or that a homosexual will want to be friends with them. So they never really hear the other side except when that side is framed as Christianity-hating nutjobs. (Which the more reasonable of us aren't, as I'll explain below.)


And now from the beginning:
@Princess Marzipan: My post to you was an evade. My real issue wasn't hurt feelings over what I felt was an inappropriate tone. I get that a lot on here and I can deal with it just fine. What really bothered me, and what I didn't want to get into at the time, is that you called my religion a twisted version of Christianity. In my church I am surrounded by people that would vote yes on an equivalent of Prop. 8 given the chance. I am personally friends with and worship with people that believe homosexuality is a sin and that that way of life should be culturally impeded. But how they express their beliefs towards homosexuals isn't nearly as ugly as you have been to these people whom I consider part of my religious family.
If your religion thinks it's important to make sure homosexuals can't marry, then sorry, it IS a twisted version of Christianity. Christ died for your sins; also, don't be a dick - that's what true Christianity really boils down to. You say you have friends who think the homosexual way of life should be impeded because it's a sin. Guess what? You have hateful and/or ignorant friends. And you're saying that me calling them hateful and ignorant is WORSE than saying that someone's entire way of life is a sin and should be culturally impeded? I'm not judging them based on anything other than how they treat other people. If they weren't so hateful of homosexuals, I wouldn't be able to care less about their religion or anything else about them. Christianity may be part of their identity, but hating homosexuals isn't. They can stop that and still be true to their faith. (As an example of how ridiculous this is, should we respect extremist Muslims' treatment of of women? No, we should call it out for the hateful discrimination that it is. And just as such treatment of women is a twisted version of Islam, hating the gays is a twisted version of Christianity.

Now, with all of that said: you and all of your friends are perfectly free to believe that homosexuality is wrong and evil and to therefore not engage in it. They're even free to think homosexuals are sinners and tell everyone they think so. BUT WAIT didn't I just say the opposite? No. Everything in this paragraph you can all do without me giving two shits. Once you start actively "culturally impeding" homosexuals solely on the basis of who they like to fuck (remember, that's all this is!), you've crossed the line into being a dick.

And notice, I haven't once mentioned that I think you or your friends should be culturally impeded for your Christianity - stop comparing my criticism of these hateful beliefs to your hateful beliefs.

And I get that the body of evidence for harm exists for smoking but it doesn't for homosexuality. But you should understand that people will take the Bible as all the evidence they need and will promote anti-homosexuality in the same way. Some people do take an anti-homosexual stance that's not unlike the anti-black stance used to pass racist laws. And that should be cast as hateful and oppressive. But blurring the distinction isn't good in my opinion.
I DO understand that people will take the Bible as all the evidence they need. But the Bible isn't all the evidence I need, it's not all the evidence homosexuals need, it's not all the evidence anyone who isn't Christian needs, and most importantly, it's not all the evidence required to justify legislation against it in a secular society. People who take the Bible as all the evidence required and set out to legislate against homosexuality are doing nothing more than seeking to impose their personal religious beliefs upon society at large. I don't see anyone imposing anything on you, or on those people - the only imposition asked is that you, or those people, just fucking live and let live already.

And if you want to challenge your ignorance about the other side, you will need to accept for the sake of argument an unpalatable perspective that homosexuality is bad like stealing or smoking.
No, I don't. All I need to do is make the same challenge I've been making for several posts now: Find me ANYONE who thinks homosexuality is wrong, and who DOESN'T ultimately justify that belief through their religion. Until you can, any legislation against homosexuality is therefore rooted in religious beliefs which have no place anywhere in our government.

If people in my church do that, I can point to Biblical scripture and show them why they're wrong. But when you do it, there's little I can do to persuade you otherwise.
This may be true in some cases - for example, you'll never convince me that homosexuality is wrong, or that eating shellfish is wrong, or that disrespecting one's parents is wrong (dude, sometimes parents are dicks). But you can easily convince me that murder, theft, and rape are all wrong. You just can't use the Bible to do it. Just because someone lacks religion does not mean they lack morality.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Silknor » Mon Aug 09, 2010 3:45 pm UTC

Griffin wrote:Silknor, you keep phrasing things like "Everyone has a right to (blank) of the opposite sex"

You can't do that under equal protection. You can't split things up that way, because that means that your giving different privileges to people based on the group they belong to, which is EXACTLY what the 14th amendment says you can't due. (In this case, those groups are men and women, who end up with differing privileges).


There is the common-sense view of what "equal protection" means and what it actually means in the law (which is ever shifting and often vague and unpredictable).

The first problem with your statement is that you absolutely can give different privileges to different groups under equal protection. Now, depending on which group, the law in question will have to pass a test of varying scrutiny. In some cases (such as race), it has to pass strict scrutiny, in others the standards are lower (the lowest test being rational basis, which Judge Walker found it failed even though he said the law actually needed to pass an intermediate level of scrutiny).

It is simply not enough to say this law gives different privileges and so it violates equal protection, the other half of the argument has to be that it isn't a law that meets the applicable level of scrutiny in its pursuit of a legitimate or compelling government interest.

Sex discrimination in particular has a lower standard than discrimination against suspect classes, which makes it plausible that the Supreme Court could find laws like Prop 8 are not in violation of equal protection.

Examples of programs which give different privileges to people based on group membership would be affirmative action in public universities (though the form has been restricted, no quotas, no strict point based systems where you get bonus points for race), and single-sex public schools.

And again, while intent of the amendment is not determinative, it is a relevant factor which will provide some judges reason to rule that equal protection is not violated by opposite sex only marriage.

Consent laws do not clearly violate this, both because there's a preponderance of evidence that age is not considered to define a different class of citizen, and even more so because it is a privilige that can be specified without resorting to classifying citizens one way or another for the law to take effect. It is possible to declare it illegal for anyone to have sex with someone until they are older than the age of consent.
It could be argued, maybe one day it even will be, but in that case things like age limits for voting and getting into offices would probably fall by the wayside first on much more solid grounds.


This seems like nothing more than hand-waving that age shouldn't be counted because....there's no reason why. Also the office age limits are set by the Constitution, so you'd have an incredibly uphill battle arguing that the 14th amendment changed those without any mention of it in the debate.

Incestous marriage should be legal under the amendment for obvious reasons - those who say otherwise are letting bias cloud their judgements. I wouldn't be surprised if it became legal in the forseeable future on those grounds - but I also wouldn't be terribly surprised if they managed to garner enough support to carve out a constitutional exception for this one either, if it ever does so. It really does squick people out.


I'm not convinced it's obvious, but the legal case that they should be recognized certainly seems strong if the 14th amendment protects gay marriage. There are reasons that could be considered legitimate for preventing marriages of these sort, certainly at the moment I can't imagine any court ruling otherwise.

As an aside, for all the discussion about equal protection here, it may end up being the due process clause that is relevant if the case reaches SCOTUS.

Regarding the discussion guenther is having:
Homophobes use lies and fear to marginalize a subsection of the population and to enshrine their theocratic ideology in secular law. (It IS all rooted in a twisted version of Christianity; find me someone who isn't a politician and opposes gay marriage whose ultimate reasoning ISN'T religious and I'll reconsider the claim.)


This took all of about 15 seconds to find (opposing only gay marriage, not homosexuality): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

@Jesse: But the belief that homosexual actions are sin is in no way necessary for the belief that marriage should be restricted to opposite sex couples. Nor is that belief even necessarily homophobic (not that it isn't in some or possibly most cases of course!). For some that belief would be based on the view that *all* sex is sinful, and that the *only* allowable exception is sex for procreative purposes within the confines of a sanctioned marriage, which means no birth control (except for reasons I don't understand, rhythm), no premarital sex, no oral sex, etc. This view might end up saying gay sex is sinful, but not out of some deep seated hatred of gay people. This is basically the conservative Catholic view.

I also don't think it's a stretch to argue that going around proclaiming "our opponents are all bigots" is not the best strategy for accomplishing gay marriage.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby The Reaper » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:05 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:This took all of about 15 seconds to find (opposing only gay marriage, not homosexuality): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage. If the state must recognize a marriage of two men simply because they love one another, upon what basis cant it deny marital recognition to a group of two men and three women, for example, or a sterile brother and sister who claim to love each other? Homosexual activists protest that they only want all couples treated equally. But why is sexual love between two people more worthy of state sanction that love between three, or five? When the purpose of marriage is procreation, the answer is obvious. If sexual love becomes the primary purpose, the restriction of marriage to couples loses its logical basis, leading to marital chaos.

Oh nos! teh incests!
Due to the current overpopulation of a great deal of areas, and the unwillingness of large swaths of society to raise their own children, what's wrong with letting homosexuals get married and raise the extra ones?

Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason for the state to grant them the costly benefits of marriage, unless they serve some other state interest. The burden of proof, therefore, is on the advocates of gay marriage to show what state interest these marriages serve. Thus far, this burden has not been met.
RQ: proof that homosexual relationships do nothing / degrade the state interest of a propagating society. Societies don't need to be always expanding to become better. They could, for instance, work on their people skills rather than running around proliferating criminality all over the place and what have you.

edit: this guy really sounds like he took the protestant viewpoints to heart. "gays are evil and destroy society with their free love!"

edit: proof that they do serve societal interests.
Study reveals potential evolutionary role for same-sex attraction
http://www.physorg.com/news184507170.html

A bit about gay birds and their uses in bird societies
http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100709/ ... 0.344.html

less physically aggressive: Gay men vent aggression through verbals, not violence
http://www.physorg.com/news9280.html
(this is good for society because it lessens violent crimes caused by men)
Last edited by The Reaper on Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:21 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Silknor » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:16 pm UTC

Presumably the author would object to that both because:
1. It would be giving the benefits of marriage to gays that marry even if they don't do it to adopt children together.
2. He believes that such an environment is not ideal for children (I'm not sure if the author would believe that two gay adoptive parents are better or worse than a single parent or foster care with 2 opposite-sex parents).

On the second quote I'm not sure you understand what he's saying. He's claiming the only legitimate reason to allow marriage and give benefits for it is to encourage the raising of children (with the caveat that couples marrying who can't have kids are rare enough and it would be too costly to identify them and prevent them from getting married, so we'll let those who meet the fairly accurate test of one man-one woman through even if there's some false positives). He's not saying that gay marriages do anything bad (except that they cost some money to the state).

I didn't see anything about gays being evil. Or wanting to ban gay sex. Or even really any antipathy towards gays. Just a belief that if the state is going to spend money on marriages (through tax policy) that the state should get something in return, with the only something that matters being more kids.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Spambot5546 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:17 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:This took all of about 15 seconds to find (opposing only gay marriage, not homosexuality): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

This is another one of those "marriage is about proceation" articles, and it's lame. I mean, good on him for attempting to deal with the common counterarguments, but he really fails to answer them. Gay and lesbian couples can adopt or do in vitro (gay couples will need a surrogate, of course) so they're still capable of raising children. He tries to claim they can't effectively raise children by A) comparing having same-sex parents to growing up in a broken home (that's what Life Without Fathers seems to be about) and B) justifying it with "common wisdom" as if that meant anything.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:18 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:I didn't see anything about gays being evil. Or wanting to ban gay sex. Or even really any antipathy towards gays.
Wow, really?
That paper wrote:The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage.
It's the BIGGEST danger. So it's his most important point. And it relies on the assumption that there is inherent fecundity in homosexual love. This clearly shows he is homophobic- he could have made all of his arguments without ever stating the equivalent of "gay sex is icky", but then he did.

(So I guess I actually did forget that a lot of people are homophobic WITHOUT being Christian. My apologies, especially to guenther (but everything I stated about people who DO have a religious basis for their homophobia still holds), and I'll amend my challenge.)

And if you want to challenge your ignorance about the other side, you will need to accept for the sake of argument an unpalatable perspective that homosexuality is bad like stealing or smoking.
No, I don't. All I need to do is make the same challenge I've been making for several posts now: Find me ANYONE who thinks homosexuality is wrong, and who DOESN'T ultimately justify that belief through their religion. can make a legitimate secular case against homosexuality or gay marriage. Until you can, any legislation against homosexuality is therefore rooted in religious hateful beliefs which have no place anywhere in our government.


(I made a lot of edits to this after I posted; sorry if that screws up any replies.)
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Silknor » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:27 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:It's great that he was able to construct those arguments without mentioning the Bible, but then there's this gem:
The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage.
It's the BIGGEST danger. So it's his most important point. And it relies on the assumption that there is inherent fecundity in homosexual love. Nothing indicates he is Christian, but this clearly shows he is at least homophobic. (He could have made all of his arguments without ever stating the equivalent of "gay sex is icky.") Even so, every one of points is ultimately without merit.


What?! He's not being homophobic, you just don't know what fecundity means. It means capable of producing children (sometimes with the added implication of many). It's basically the same as fertility.

–noun
1.
the quality of being fecund; capacity, esp. in female animals, of producing young in great numbers.
2.
fruitfulness or fertility, as of the earth.
3.
the capacity of abundant production: fecundity of imagination.


I maintain the article posted meets your challenge. You may not agree with his values (eg. not putting any value on marriage as cementing a relationship, just as a means of producing and raising children), but that doesn't mean it isn't a legitimate case and so opposition to gay marriage doesn't have to rest on a bed of hate.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Spambot5546 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:28 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
That paper wrote:The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, regardless of its fecundity, is the sole criterion for marriage.
It's the BIGGEST danger. So it's his most important point. And it relies on the assumption that there is inherent fecundity in homosexual love. This clearly shows he is homophobic- he could have made all of his arguments without ever stating the equivalent of "gay sex is icky", but then he did.

I think you're thinking of a different word, because fecundity is the ability to reproduce. To reword that sentence without the 11th grade vocabulary word

That paper wrote:The biggest danger homosexual civil marriage presents is the enshrining into law the notion that sexual love, even if it cannot produce children, is the sole criterion for marriage.


But now i'm just nitpicking because that still demonstrates a great deal of homophobia because gays CAN raise children.
Last edited by Spambot5546 on Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:33 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:30 pm UTC

Oh.

Well fuck. My internal definition of that word was based on a faulty inference from a Magic: The Gathering card called Fecundity. There's like, a skeleton on it.

...

I'm gonna go remove my intestines with a spork in accordance with the tradition.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:34 pm UTC

y'all type too fast

Silknor wrote:This took all of about 15 seconds to find (opposing only gay marriage, not homosexuality): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts
I saw that a while back when it turned up on... I think /r/lgbt of all places.

What you have here is a religious person really reaching to try to pretend that his beliefs could exist outside a religious grounding. I mean the tagline on it says it all:
Homosexual relationships do nothing to serve the state interest of propagating society, so there is no reason to grant them the costly benefits of marriage.
First off, the first part is incorrect and that's the premise of the whole thing. Judge Walker found that the state interest in marriage is stability of relationships and the prosperity (and financial stability) that brings, allowing for specialization between partners (incidentally possibly a good pro-polygamy argument in the future but don't tell conservatives that) and such. But let's go ahead and assume that the interest of government in marriage is biological procreation since that's obviously what he means by "propagating society" given homosexual couples are perfectly capable of raising children and propagating the less offensive parts of society (like, not this guy) to them, so...

Second, there is therefore no reason to grant straight couples the costly benefits of marriage either. Not until they reproduce. They can get all those benefits - you know, special tax consideration, pooling finances, implied power of attorney, bereavement benefits, being next of kin... oh wait, all of those have nothing to do with reproduction and don't cost much if anything - after they reproduce. And if they at any point give the child up for adoption, they lose them. And once the kid is 18, so... the bereavement benefits probably aren't all that useful.

Like I said. What you have in that article is a religious person grasping at straws trying to make a case - badly - against marriage equality. It's like, dude... your bigotry is showing.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

Le1bn1z
Posts: 832
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Le1bn1z » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:38 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:
And if you want to challenge your ignorance about the other side, you will need to accept for the sake of argument an unpalatable perspective that homosexuality is bad like stealing or smoking.
No, I don't. All I need to do is make the same challenge I've been making for several posts now: Find me ANYONE who thinks homosexuality is wrong, and who DOESN'T ultimately justify that belief through their religion. can make a legitimate secular case against homosexuality or gay marriage. Until you can, any legislation against homosexuality is therefore rooted in religious hateful beliefs which have no place anywhere in our government.


(I made a lot of edits to this after I posted; sorry if that screws up any replies.)



Ummmmm.... the Soviet Union did and the People's Republic of China still does. Also, the fascist arguments against homosexuality in Germany (though not in Italy or Spain) were secular in nature, even though fascism might be deemed a pseudo-religion in its own right.

The arguments were similar to the religious ones.

Homosexuality was deemed "decadent" and therefore immoral; it was sexual passion detached from social duty and order, and therefore unfit for the new Socialist Man. The Socialist Man has a duty to perpetuate the People's Republic, which means having and contributing to the raising of Children, and keeping their sexual passions within the founds of socially normative behaviour. Giving in to wild flights of sexual fancy is a symbolic of subordinating one's social duties to one's own decadent pleasures.

The punishments for homosexuality in Communist countries has never been.... pretty.

Now, for some other secular arguments against them: Dr. Theodore Dalrymple, noted British Social Conservative, pyschiatrist and author is both an avowed atheist (My religion is Shakespeare, he writes in Our Culture, What's Left of It: the Mandarins and the Masses) is also an opponent not only of gay marriage, but of homosexuality outright. Like the Communists, he finds homosexuality to be a fundamentally anti-social behaviour. It is part and parcel of the wave of anti-social culture sweeping the west that detaches sexual desire from social duty. There are plenty like him among Canadian and American Conservatives (and even Liberals) both in politics and in the media.

I agree with neither of these arguments.

That's not to say that they don't exist, or that they don't play an important role in anti-homosexual attitudes. Most of those who voted in the last election voted against gay rights.

Hate to say it, but not that many people actually go to church regularily. There aren't actually enough fundies or even practising Christians to account for all of the opposition.

I'm strongly in favour of gay rights (and strongly think gays should abandon America for dead anyway, and join us in fabulous Canada) but it helps, when you fight for a cause, to know all of your foes.
Krong writes: Code: Select all
transubstantiate(Bread b) {
Person p = getJesusPersonInstance();
p.RenderProperties = b.RenderProperties;
free(b);
}

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:42 pm UTC

Yeah, I WAS wrong. That's why I reworded.

Those are all still hateful beliefs.

Edit: And my "foes" aren't people in other countries. They're the people in THIS country. And the anti-gay movement IS predominantly, though not entirely, rooted in Christianity. A stance of "get your religion out of my laws" is sufficient to counter such a motivation, and there doesn't exist a secular argument against it that can't be debunked successfully by a five year old. (That was hyperbole, yes.)
Last edited by Princess Marzipan on Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:48 pm UTC

Meh. Penny to the first person who can identify the organization most adamantly insistent that sex is only valid as part of social duty, you know, reproduction.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

User avatar
felltir
has a sniper scope and a trigger finger.
Posts: 2493
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2008 5:01 pm UTC
Location: Back in't home town. Never at home.
Contact:

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby felltir » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:50 pm UTC

netcrusher88 wrote:Meh. Penny to the first person who can identify the organization most adamantly insistent that sex is only valid as part of social duty, you know, reproduction.


CHURCH *claims penny*
Spoiler:
RoadieRich wrote:He's a super flexible furry martial artist from London. She is a Rabbit breeding mad scientist from Michigan. They fight crime!
The Great Hippo wrote:I THINK THE SOLAR SYSTEM MIGHT BE AN ATOM OF OXYGEN.


Blog

he/him/his

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Silknor » Mon Aug 09, 2010 4:53 pm UTC

Spambot5546 wrote:
Silknor wrote:This took all of about 15 seconds to find (opposing only gay marriage, not homosexuality): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1082190/posts

This is another one of those "marriage is about proceation" articles, and it's lame. I mean, good on him for attempting to deal with the common counterarguments, but he really fails to answer them. Gay and lesbian couples can adopt or do in vitro (gay couples will need a surrogate, of course) so they're still capable of raising children. He tries to claim they can't effectively raise children by A) comparing having same-sex parents to growing up in a broken home (that's what Life Without Fathers seems to be about) and B) justifying it with "common wisdom" as if that meant anything.


I think it's pretty well written given that standard that seems to prevail for writing against gay marriage. I don't know if it's the best case, or how many people without any hatred towards or bias against homosexuals would be convinced, but it's certainly not based on religion (which was the point).

Yes, gay and lesbian couples can have children. But that's not really the principle reason for gay marriage. And the author doesn't believe that the children would be raised as well. Now that's an empirical point and it's debatable, it's also probably not that easy to study. I don't think he's comparing it to a broken home as much as he's saying that children need parental role models of their own sex, which yes, is debatable, but it's not an entirely unreasonable belief.

@netcrusher: Why are we assuming he's religious? I didn't see anything indicating that besides the statistical fact that most people and most people who oppose gay marriage are.

Judge Walker has a legitimate point about the state interest in marriage. I agree with it. But I don't think that's necessarily the only view. It's not really a question of fact. And presumably some of these points could be accomplished through civil unions or other legal agreements for gay couples.

The author does address that gay couples can raise children, and I talked about that earlier in this post.

Second, there is therefore no reason to grant straight couples the costly benefits of marriage either. Not until they reproduce.

With the minor distinction that I think the author would say those benefits need to be given from the start of the marriage in order to fully encourage reproduction, I think he'd agree with you. In fact he might even agree with your whole point (but presumably sees no reason to make that case as it's neither necessary to his point here nor practical to think we'll reform the laws in the manner your describing).

Some of the benefits you mention aren't related to reproduction sure, and as he points out can easily be obtained through legal agreements by non-married couples, though it's not as convenient as marriage.

I don't see any religiousness or bigotry coming through in the article. Maybe I'm blind, if someone wants to point it out there great. But I can't accept the conclusion that not supporting marriage equality is equivalent to bigotry, even if most opponents of marriage equality can reasonably be described that way.

@PM:
I agree that the beliefs that Leibniz mentions are hateful against gays. I find it hard to imagine any non-hateful and non-religious argument against gay sex being legal or okay. Gay marriage is different though, I think you can find secular non-hateful arguments against it that don't argue against gay sex.

@Last two posts:
Yep, Catholic Church is a good example of this. But I'm not convinced that that idea (all sex is sin except that in marriage for procreation) was rooted in homophobia or hatred. It seems more likely given how all-encompassing it is that it's rooted in a renunciation of physical pleasure in order that one can pursue higher (read. spiritual) goals. At least this seems true for the original idea, regardless of how it's been applied and expanded.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

User avatar
netcrusher88
Posts: 2166
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 4:35 pm UTC
Location: Seattle

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby netcrusher88 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:05 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:Judge Walker has a legitimate point about the state interest in marriage. I agree with it. But I don't think that's necessarily the only view. It's not really a question of fact.

I do not understand how it is not a question of fact.
Fact: under current laws no state can deny a heterosexual couple a marriage license or revoke it for any reason. Specifically, (because it's relevant) infertility.
The claim is that marriage exists to encourage reproduction. The simple fact that there is no requirement of children, no method to externally dissolve a childless marriage or one where one partner is infertile, refutes that claim.
Marriage as written in law exists to recognize and encourage stable relationships, which (fact) have demonstrably positive social and fiscal impacts on society (whether the fiscal impacts offset the expenditure, well, that's not something I'm interested in arguing). Fact: homosexual couples represent the same benefit to society through the same methods, to claim otherwise is to depend on obsolete gender roles.
All that is required for marriage is one person with an M on their ID card and one with an F (fact: in states that recognize transgender individuals as the gender they identify as, they can be married as such). The claim that marriage has anything to do with reproduction or the ability to reproduce is patently false.

It is absolutely a question of fact.
Sexothermic
I have only ever made one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it. -Voltaire
They said we would never have a black president until Swine Flu. -Gears

PeterCai
Posts: 865
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:09 pm UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby PeterCai » Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:08 pm UTC

Le1bn1z wrote:
The punishments for homosexuality in Communist countries has never been.... pretty.


from wiki:

"Although there is no explicit law against homosexuality or same-sex acts between consenting adults, neither are there laws protecting gays from discrimination, nor are there any gay rights organizations in China. It is believed that the Chinese policy towards the gay issue remains the "Three nos": no approval, no disapproval, and no promotion"

"Sodomy was never explicitly criminalized in China. The Chinese Supreme Court ruled in 1957 that voluntary sodomy was not a criminal act [8]. Private sex in any form between two consenting adults does not violate laws. However, if someone under 18 is involved, the adult partner will be prosecuted. In a notable case in 2002, a man who had anal intercourse with a teenager was sentenced to three and a half years in prison."

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Silknor » Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:17 pm UTC

And I don't see how it can be anything but an opinion.

There is no right answer to the question: what are legitimate government aims. This is not something you can derive from objective principles. If you could, there would be any need for debates on political theory or political philosophy.

Now what you show is that there is a contradiction among these statements:
1. The only legitimate government interest in marriage is in promoting reproduction
2. There are no mitigating factors, such as cost or privacy, and so marriage in practice follows exactly what the legitimate government interests are.
3. The actual marriage laws are perfect and were written by people that agree with 1.

Obviously statements 2 and 3 are false and you showed that. The fact that the author has a view of what a legitimate interest is doesn't mean that the law agrees with him. You seem to be disagreeing with this. The author isn't saying that marriage conforms perfectly to what he thinks the only legitimate reason for it is. Nor does the fact that some of those who wrote the marriage laws disagree with the author of the article mean the author is wrong (it just means they have different opinions).

Most of your facts are just evidence as well of number 2. That the implementation of marriage may not conform with the ideal even if those who wrote the laws are pursing that ideal. Even if society thought that marriage is only for reproduction, you'd still have the situation you describe because it's unfeasible and would violate privacy rights to actually enforce a policy that non-fertile couples or those who don't want kids can't get married.

You're looking at a practical implementation of what society thinks marriage should be, noting (correctly) that it doesn't seem to line up with the author's views, and using that as proof that the author is wrong about what marriage is. Why can't the author just value different things from society?
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Princess Marzipan » Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:20 pm UTC

The author can value what he wants about society.

The point is, the arguments against gay marriage in this Prop 8 case involve arguments like "marriage is primarily a vessel for government to encourage procreation." All those points netcrusher raised CLEARLY disprove that, because if that WERE the primary purpose of marriage, there would be more restrictions on it than there are.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Spambot5546
Posts: 1466
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 7:34 pm UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Spambot5546 » Mon Aug 09, 2010 5:49 pm UTC

Silknor wrote:I think it's pretty well written given that standard that seems to prevail for writing against gay marriage. I don't know if it's the best case, or how many people without any hatred towards or bias against homosexuals would be convinced, but it's certainly not based on religion (which was the point).

I guess, yeah, it does technically meet the requirement, and i guess a better wording would be a "good" argument not based on religion, since the one this guy uses is only good by the standards of the website it's posted on*.
Silknor wrote:Yes, gay and lesbian couples can have children. But that's not really the principle reason for gay marriage.

It's not the principle reason for any marriage, that's what we've been trying to tell you! People get married because they want to get married. Girls have been allowed to do more than look pretty and get pregnant for the better part of a century so there's no reason to keep acting like that is the sole or even primary reason for marriage. If so then why recognize marriages between infertile persons? Even with the article's argument that testing is expensive surely known infertile people would be barred? Same with those past childbearing age. Clearly a post-menopausal woman can't get married, because she can't have children. Trans women don't have a functional uterus, can't let them get married**. Should the government disintegrate your marriage once you're past childbearing age and your children have left the house? Why not, if marriage is only for raising children?

Silknor wrote:And the author doesn't believe that the children would be raised as well. Now that's an empirical point and it's debatable, it's also probably not that easy to study. I don't think he's comparing it to a broken home as much as he's saying that children need parental role models of their own sex, which yes, is debatable, but it's not an entirely unreasonable belief.

It's debatable at best, and more to the point you are the one trying to deny someone rights, so the onus is on you to prove that homosexuals cannot effectively raise children. If you can't produce evidence to justify the idea, then the idea is not something we can use to stop people from marrying.



*If you're not familiar with Free Republic, it's a hyper-conservative forum where "fake conservatives" and liberals are banned as trolls. They still insist that President Obama is a Muslim and not an American citizen over there. Here's a link to someone who tracks some of their better examples of insanity for the purposes of comedy.

**Actually, you're probably okay with that one. I'm not, though.
"It is bitter – bitter", he answered,
"But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart."

User avatar
Jesse
Vocal Terrorist
Posts: 8635
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 6:33 pm UTC
Location: Basingstoke, England.
Contact:

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Jesse » Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:04 pm UTC

guenther wrote:
Jesse wrote:guenther. Those people in your religious family that were called morally inferior. Homosexuals existing and having gay sex in no way harms other people. But your friend's beliefs that homosexuality is a sin, an inherently bad thing, that is harmful to other people. Notable gay people who have just as much right as any other to exist in society. So I really have no problem with considering them morally inferior within my humanist view of ethics.

Do you know what I believe causes harm? Advancing political causes by promoting that people on the other side are morally inferior. I believe it helps breed hatred, bigotry, and ugly intolerance. If people in my church do that, I can point to Biblical scripture and show them why they're wrong. But when you do it, there's little I can do to persuade you otherwise.


That's cool, because I wasn't advancing a political cause right there, I was just explaining why I was fine with them being called morally inferior.

User avatar
Silknor
Posts: 842
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 1:21 am UTC

Re: Prop. 8 Federally Overturned

Postby Silknor » Mon Aug 09, 2010 6:17 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:The author can value what he wants about society.

The point is, the arguments against gay marriage in this Prop 8 case involve arguments like "marriage is primarily a vessel for government to encourage procreation." All those points netcrusher raised CLEARLY disprove that, because if that WERE the primary purpose of marriage, there would be more restrictions on it than there are.


Possibly. Or possibly even if it were the only reason, we still wouldn't have restrictions as draconian as netcrusher suggests. Seriously, that would require medical testing to make sure no one infertile gets married, lie detector tests to make sure people who don't want kids get married, tremendous expense and cost. I'm not saying society only views marriage as a way to have kids, I'm saying that if it did, then we still wouldn't see marriages be restricted as far as netcrusher suggests.

It's not the principle reason for any marriage, that's what we've been trying to tell you!

I personally don't disagree. I don't even think the author thinks that it's true. I do think he believes that it's the only real reason that government should (not does) recognize marriages. And I can't condemn him for that belief.

**Actually, you're probably okay with that one. I'm not, though.

Where did I anywhere suggest that I think restricting marriage to opposite sex couples is okay. Seriously, your turning my argument that the law/constitution isn't perfect (and thus we have to recognize that SCOTUS might not rule in favor of a right to gay marriage) into O.M.G. U HATE TEH TRANZ.

It's debatable at best, and more to the point you are the one trying to deny someone rights, so the onus is on you to prove that homosexuals cannot effectively raise children. If you can't produce evidence to justify the idea, then the idea is not something we can use to stop people from marrying.


Again, you clearly don't have a very good comprehension of what I'm saying. I'll make it very clear: I support gay marriage. I even like the idea of an Equal Protection clause that forbids states from restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples. But I'm not convinced that we have such a clause. That is regrettable, but wishing doesn't make it so.

You're doing an excellent job of conflating what the author said (and thus what I think is a reasonable, non-religious, non-hateful position even if I don't agree or don't know about most of the claims to fact in it) with what I believe. They aren't the same. Not even remotely.

Also what's with the ad-hom attack on the piece just because it happened to be posted (in one of probably multiple places) on a board where other people post stupid things?

@Jesse: The two really aren't separable in this context.
Nikc wrote:Silknor is the JJ Abrams of mafia modding


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DJGreen and 24 guests