PDA

View Full Version : Today I Am Proud To Be A New Yorker


PRobb
June 25th, 2011, 04:33 PM
Our famously dysfunctional state government did the right thing and legalized gay marriage.

Fulcrum
June 25th, 2011, 04:49 PM
Very pleased that the NY State Legislature did the right thing.. as pleased as when the CT legislature did it.

Now it's up to Gov Cuomo to do the right thing too.

Johnny
June 25th, 2011, 04:50 PM
Now give them the right to carry a firearm!

CloseToTheEdge
June 25th, 2011, 06:54 PM
Civil rights are a good thing. Gun rights are not.

weedywet
June 25th, 2011, 09:16 PM
Now watch the states' rights loonies all start to push for a constitutional amendment banning it.

Meanwhile, it's a very good day for human rights

Johnny
June 25th, 2011, 09:23 PM
Not me. Let the people of New York decide what they will and won't allow, and let each State do the same.

ivmike
June 25th, 2011, 09:44 PM
Human rights should never be decided through referenda.

Congratulations New York, on moving into the 21st Century!

PRobb
June 25th, 2011, 11:54 PM
Not me. Let the people of New York decide what they will and won't allow, and let each State do the same.

That I disagree with. Politically it's a very strong statement that it was passed by a legislature. But to me this should be a matter for the courts. This is America. Civil rights are not something that can be granted or taken away at the whim of the majority. Civil rights come with citizenship.

Interracial marriage is not legal because states approved it. It is legal because the Supreme Court said the laws banning it were unconstitutional.

weedywet
June 25th, 2011, 11:59 PM
Not me. Let the people of New York decide what they will and won't allow, and let each State do the same.

So for example, in a hospital, only a family member or spouse might have certain rights, or your health insurance might only cover said spouse if you are legally married... So if you are married by NY State, which you say should decide for itself, then Arizona or Texas should also be allowed to decide for itself to not recognise your marriage and refuse you that hospital visitation or insurance coverage? Really?

What if Arizona decides to not recognize interracial marriage?
That a state rights issue too?

NathanRocks88
June 26th, 2011, 12:43 AM
All this hubbub about rights? what about the lefts!?!


The micromanagement of bureaucracy is so inept at cataloging human behavior. Why do they even bother? Free will is much more than a red tape paperwork filing job.

Aardvark
June 26th, 2011, 02:48 AM
The micromanagement of bureaucracy is so inept at cataloging human behavior. Why do they even bother?

I have no clue what you are saying here.

Perhaps a coherent thought and sentence is in order.:Confused:


Cheers,
ConfusedVArk




.

NathanRocks88
June 26th, 2011, 03:54 AM
Sorry Aardy, my half-cocked statment had a little to do with this

Human rights should never be decided through referenda.




Now that you've got me thinking. Aww fuck, I lost it.

My point is that people and culture are far too diverse and obscenely fickle to be successfully understood by the government, and the government's overwhelming impulse to "define" absolutely everything.

In the gov't attempt to define an aspect of culture aren't they in some essence limiting it's potential for growth?

IMHO, the governments role should stay in the office where it belongs and not in anyones bedroom.

All of this extends beyond the "gay marriage" debate. Which should have never been a debate in the first place. Since the "Separation of Church and State" is still in some sort of effect (At least I hope it is)

It's a crying shame that in such a diverse country as the USA it only took one religion with the most financial backing to put a wrench in the already slow turning gears of the political system.

and then of course 4 committes to "define" what a "wrench" is. a private party investigation to locate this "wrench" and assess what impact it is having on the gears. another committee to allocate funds for the removal and replacement of these gears and so on and so forth.

I'm surprised some of our politicians don't stare at the sky with their mouth open while it rains.

weedywet
June 26th, 2011, 03:11 PM
If marriage were only about who fucks whom then government wouldn't have to be involved.
But it's become about insurance and inheritance and proxy rights and all sorts of financial and contractual connections.

THOSE things need to be regulated by government so that greedy private enterprise can't discriminate unfairly

PRobb
June 26th, 2011, 04:50 PM
Now give them the right to carry a firearm!
So now they can love each other, but what's really important is that they can shoot each other.
How Christian.

Johnny
June 26th, 2011, 10:06 PM
Who said they would shoot each other? Not me. Defending your family is very Biblical, but since when did you care about that?

But my point is the irony of your State inventing "rights" while tramping on the ones protected by the Constitution.

At the same time, I believe the Constitution gives y'all as much right to sanction homosexuality as it gives (gave, now) ours the right to outlaw it.

PRobb
June 26th, 2011, 11:11 PM
Once again we e that that the conservative definition of freedom is "freedom to do only what I approve of"

otek
June 26th, 2011, 11:20 PM
Defending your family is very Biblical

Not meaning to derail the thread...

But the rate of civilian firearms per capita is almost three times higher in the States than in Sweden. The rate of gun homicides is almost 8 times higher. That of accidental gun deaths, five or six times higher.

Maybe we are simply a less Biblical folk.


otek

radiationroom
June 27th, 2011, 12:14 AM
Pennsylvania could easily be next on legalizing same-sex marriage. :Thumbsup:

But what is really exciting is what is happening in Vermont with the push for single-payer health insurance!!! :Thumbsup: :Thumbsup: :vuvu: :vuvu:

radiationroom
June 27th, 2011, 12:16 AM
Once again we e that that the conservative definition of freedom is "freedom to do only what I approve of"

Both a person's freedom and equality is directly proportional to the amount of money in their bank account.

Johnny
June 27th, 2011, 02:39 AM
Once again we e that that the conservative definition of freedom is "freedom to do only what I approve of"
Really? Because twice now I've said your State was free to pass whatever laws it wants to.

Johnny
June 27th, 2011, 02:45 AM
Not meaning to derail the thread...

But the rate of civilian firearms per capita is almost three times higher in the States than in Sweden. The rate of gun homicides is almost 8 times higher. That of accidental gun deaths, five or six times higher.

Maybe we are simply a less Biblical folk.


otek

Or maybe we are, but that issue doesn't have much to do with the Second Amendment.

PRobb
June 27th, 2011, 03:01 AM
Or maybe we are, but that issue doesn't have much to do with the Second Amendment.

Neither does the idea that being equal in the eyes of the law is something that is supposed to come with citizenship in this country.

otek
June 27th, 2011, 03:30 AM
that issue doesn't have much to do with the Second Amendment.

Yet the second amendment is almost always used in support for those who want to further liberalize gun laws, which in turn always leads to exactly that issue.

I realize there are fundamental discrepancies between American and Swedish law, culture, history and societal state that makes this discussion very complicated, perhaps even renders it meaningless from anything but a strictly hypothetical standpoint.

Many Americans would most likely balk at the fact that Swedish law does not permit me to use deadly force against an intruder in my own home. The flipside to that coin is that the chances of my encountering an armed intruder here, are virtually astronomical by comparison.



otek

PRobb
June 27th, 2011, 04:04 AM
Yet the second amendment is almost always used in support for those who want to further liberalize gun laws, which in turn always leads to exactly that issue.

I realize there are fundamental discrepancies between American and Swedish law, culture, history and societal state that makes this discussion very complicated, perhaps even renders it meaningless from anything but a strictly hypothetical standpoint.

Many Americans would most likely balk at the fact that Swedish law does not permit me to use deadly force against an intruder in my own home. The flipside to that coin is that the chances of my encountering an armed intruder here, are virtually astronomical by comparison.



otek
OK- but what this highlights is the lack of a direct, coherent argument against gay marriage.
We have misdirection, we have straw men rolling down slippery slopes, but a direct, coherent argument?
I still haven't seen it.

TheNetStudio
June 27th, 2011, 04:10 AM
Many Americans would most likely balk at the fact that Swedish law does not permit me to use deadly force against an intruder in my own home. The flipside to that coin is that the chances of my encountering an armed intruder here, are virtually astronomical by comparison.
otek

Sweden sounds like a great place - I'm not trying to be flip in any way. But if someone broke into my house and threatened my family in any way, I would not hesitate to take anything I could get my hands on and neutralize the threat.

That may make me ugly and unrefined, but there is nothing I would not do to protect my family from harm. I think our laws in that regard are quite good.

weedywet
June 27th, 2011, 04:22 AM
Really? Because twice now I've said your State was free to pass whatever laws it wants to.

And twice I've said that the idea that your state should be 'free' to pass laws against interracial marriage is totally fucked up

It's about time the U.S. became one country and got rid of the antiquated idea of states anyway. It's just one more place the reactionary hide behind a bizarre reading of the constitution when it suits them, and only then.

moaus
June 27th, 2011, 05:48 AM
you guys are SO dumb!

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20070804203507/uncyclopedia/images/9/9b/Right_To_Bear_Arms.jpg

Aardvark
June 27th, 2011, 06:14 AM
...Defending your family is very Biblical.

And so is your daughter having to marry her rapist.


DEUTERONOMY 22:28
28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;
29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.



You don't really want to play that game do you? I can go all day with Bible quotes that leave the jaw dropping.

Not sure what the Flying Spaghetti Monster says on the subject but I bet there is nothing about getting fifty shekels of silver from the guy who pops your daughter's cherry be it consensual or not.



Cheers,
Aardvark








.

Johnny
June 27th, 2011, 07:21 AM
You won't embarrass me with anything in the Bible. My jaw doesn't drop. YMM(and most likely will)V.

Aardvark
June 27th, 2011, 08:53 AM
You won't embarrass me with anything in the Bible. My jaw doesn't drop. YMM(and most likely will)V.

Had no illusions in that department... more of a note to those who have not really bothered to read it or give it much critical thought.

My point is more that one man's Holy book is just as important as any other man's... even if it is sky fairy nonsense.


Just keep that shit separate from government.


YMMV2.:Wink:




Cheers,
Aardvark



.

Goes211
June 27th, 2011, 09:21 AM
I bet there is nothing about getting fifty shekels of silver from the guy who pops your daughter's cherry be it consensual or not.



Well, hang on. How much is a shekel these days?















I'm sorry, bad taste.
Carry on.
:grin:

J.G.
June 27th, 2011, 10:00 AM
YAY for NY!

Yay for humans BEing.

: J

Wide-O
June 27th, 2011, 10:53 AM
Well, hang on. How much is a shekel these days?

About 4 foreskins. :icon_eek:

YAY for NY!

Yay for humans BEing.

: J

This. I appreciate the political discussion, but I'm just glad NY did it. :beer:

G. Hoffman
June 27th, 2011, 11:03 AM
:Thumbsup: :vuvu: :beer: :Thumbsup: :vuvu: :beer: :Thumbsup: :vuvu: :beer: :Thumbsup: :vuvu: :beer: :Thumbsup: :vuvu: :beer: :Thumbsup: :vuvu: :beer:

dwoz
June 27th, 2011, 01:51 PM
To my way of thinking, a governmental agency denying same-sex marriage is a lot like a governmental agency denying same-sex drivers licenses, or denying same-sex notarization of documents.

Marriage in the State and marriage in the Church are two different, distinct things. The state recognizes marriage because it involves the highest expression of legal duty...power of attorney, fiduciary duty, AND immunity from testifying against each other. Thus, just as the state manages a list of those competent to practice law or medicine, the state manages a list of those competent to stand in legal stead for another person.

Not allowing this is like not allowing a GLBT person to have a drivers license, but rather give them a "road use permit."

Whether the church decides to recognize it or not, is completely irrelevant.

otek
June 27th, 2011, 05:07 PM
there is nothing I would not do to protect my family from harm. I think our laws in that regard are quite good.

I don't wish to further derail this thread by keeping this tangent going in absurdum, but I don't think Swedish people feel any different about their families. We obviously have a right, by law, to defend ourselves - Swedish law says, however, that the use of force has to be deemed proportional to the threat. When you sanction the use of lethal force, people will use it more indiscriminately. As is evident by the statistics. And lethal violence escalates.

I heard related statistics yesterday. Swedish police fire less than 100 rounds per year in the line of duty, all told - among almost 20,000 law enforcement officers on active duty. One obvious reason for this is the very strict rules of engagement (the only police force I know of that fires their weapons more seldom would be the Norwegian, which is unarmed under regular circumstances).

Personally, I think it's bizarre that just because a person unlawfully enters your home, you should have the right to execute him on the spot. Surely, in the vast majority of cases, there must be less severe ways of dealing with the problem?



otek

Goes211
June 27th, 2011, 05:20 PM
Personally, I think it's bizarre that just because a person unlawfully enters your home, you should have the right to execute him on the spot. Surely, in the vast majority of cases, there must be less severe ways of dealing with the problem?

otek

Hold it right there, Mr. Viking Sir.
Jes' fill in this puppy and we'll get back to you.

http://www.seisdeagosto.com/indica/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/visa-waiver.gif

Certainly in your case I can see problems with "moral turpitude".
:grin:
Also, for all questions there ought to be a box with "wait, it's more complex than that."
Remember when we had to fill these in?
Made you feel real welcome.

Legend has it Malice's dad once filled in C. as "Yes", then added in very small print "but I didn't enjoy it."
He spent an interesting few hours in the hands of JFK officials.

Knastratt
June 27th, 2011, 05:23 PM
Civil rights are not something that can be granted or taken away at the whim of the majority. Civil rights come with citizenship.

Patriot act?

dnafe
June 27th, 2011, 08:37 PM
It's about time the U.S. became one country and got rid of the antiquated idea of states anyway. It's just one more place the reactionary hide behind a bizarre reading of the constitution when it suits them, and only then.

So when do we do the same with countries?

PRobb
June 27th, 2011, 08:49 PM
Again-What this highlights is the lack of a direct, coherent argument against gay marriage.
We have misdirection and diversion, we have straw men rolling down slippery slopes, but a direct, coherent argument?
I still haven't seen it.

Wide-O
June 27th, 2011, 09:27 PM
I still haven't seen it.

So you assume there is one? Personally, I don't think there is.

otek
June 27th, 2011, 10:53 PM
So you assume there is one? Personally, I don't think there is.

I can't come up with one either. My posts about gun laws were not intended as misdirection. The topic simply came up, early on.


otek

PRobb
June 27th, 2011, 11:04 PM
So you assume there is one? Personally, I don't think there is.

Until shown otherwise, I have to assume there isn't.

Johnny
June 27th, 2011, 11:47 PM
Again-What this highlights is the lack of a direct, coherent argument against gay marriage.
We have misdirection and diversion, we have straw men rolling down slippery slopes, but a direct, coherent argument?
I still haven't seen it.
I haven't seen one for it. I see equivocation and emotional appeal.

The problem is that there is not an agreed upon definition of the term "marriage." Either side's argument depends on the assumption of their definition by the other side. My direct argument is simple: It's an impossibility. But you'd have to accept a definition of the marriage covenant which you do not. Likewise, I have to accept a definition that it's simply a civil contract between any two people who think they're "in love" and then your argument is simple as well.

What this highlights is that the conflict is not over sexuality at all, but is a clash of worldviews just finding expression in this one area.

dwoz
June 28th, 2011, 12:27 AM
Marriage in the view of the civil STATE is quite easily and unequivocally defined.

Saying it isn't is just misdirection.

It is a certain bundle of rights, and responsibilities. It is the highest level of contractual duty. In most jurisdictions, a spouse is by definition a joint owner of all property, has power of attorney, had fiduciary, agency, and simple contract duty to the spouse, and as well can be held civilly liable for the actions of the spouse.

come to think of it, if I ever have to go through this thing again, I'll form an LLC with my spouse instead of a marriage!

Aardvark
June 28th, 2011, 12:38 AM
I haven't seen one for it.

But have you looked for one and if so where?

Let's be honest here... the Evangelicals as well as most mainstream "Christian" faiths are well disposed against it to start with.

The problem is that there is not an agreed upon definition of the term "marriage."

Asking religious groups to agree upon any definition is impossible for the most part as the majority of Christian faiths cannot even agree on whether or not to view the Bible as a literal document or more of a guiding document to be taken for the values represented as opposed to a factual truth.

So much for that.

Leave religion OUT of the equation and let the state grant folks the right to marry as per the laws of man and not the laws of whatever religion is opposing it.

Call it a legal union and let various religions call their unions spiritual if that suits them but arguing nomenclature is just specious crap.

As long as governments do not legislate that religious groups must offer this type of union who cares... except those folks who are small-minded bigots and feel they must force their God's "word" on the rest of us.


Cheers,
Aardvark



.

PRobb
June 28th, 2011, 12:38 AM
I haven't seen one for it. I see equivocation and emotional appeal.
The argument for is very simple: Equality before the law. That is a basic principle of the American legal system. And why I think it is a more proper issue for the courts than the legislatures.
Again- interracial marriage was not legalized by legislatures.

The problem is that there is not an agreed upon definition of the term "marriage." Either side's argument depends on the assumption of their definition by the other side. My direct argument is simple: It's an impossibility. But you'd have to accept a definition of the marriage covenant which you do not. Likewise, I have to accept a definition that it's simply a civil contract between any two people who think they're "in love" and then your argument is simple as well.

So it shouldn't be legal because you disapprove.
If you want to join a church that does not allow gays, you have that right.
If you don't want to allow gays into your home, you have that right.
But there is an enormous difference between "I find this offensive and won't allow it in my house" and "I find this offensive and won't allow it in YOUR house".

What this highlights is that the conflict is not over sexuality at all, but is a clash of worldviews just finding expression in this one area.
What it highlights is a basic definition of freedom.
Does it extend to acts your faith disapproves of?
In Iran, no.
In America, yes.

Aardvark
June 28th, 2011, 01:02 AM
...come to think of it, if I ever have to go through this thing again, I'll form an LLC with my spouse...

LLC... Lots less Children?


:lol:



Cheers,
Aardvark



.

TheNetStudio
June 28th, 2011, 01:07 AM
I don't wish to further derail this thread by keeping this tangent going in absurdum, but I don't think Swedish people feel any different about their families.


I don't think I intimated that. I certainly did not mean to, nor would I ever believe such an absurdity.

I only expressed what I would do. Not that it is right or better. Only what I would (and have) done when I perceived possible danger or threat to my family.


We obviously have a right, by law, to defend ourselves - Swedish law says, however, that the use of force has to be deemed proportional to the threat.


And that is why I am unrefined... I won't wait to ask - if I walk into a situation where I perceive possible imminent harm. I will defend based solely on what I perceive, and will sort out the consequences later. Let's be clear - DEFEND. I have no desire for unprovoked aggression.

It's not an issue of who loves their children more. It's absurd to think that can be defined by borders. We all are human beings regardless of lines on a map. I simply am not willing to stop and ask questions when danger is present, I could not live with any harm I allowed to happen. It's just me. And frankly, I can live with that.

Wide-O
June 28th, 2011, 02:18 AM
In Iran, no.
In America, yes.

Don't knock Iran! At least there you can be married for 24 hours (http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/tmpmrig.htm)

:vuvu:

dwoz
June 28th, 2011, 02:26 AM
I think the point Otek is making is that in, say, Texas, you can shoot a burglar in the back as he's running out the front door holding a TV...or, even worse, wing the poor blighter as he's squeezing out the NEIGHBOR'S window with nobody home.

Summary judgment and extrajudicial execution for stealing a TV.

And yes, of course we can parse that and wonder if the guy is going to drop the TV and pull a knife and rape my wife. We can parse that all day. In the end, he got offed for lifting a TV.

TheNetStudio
June 28th, 2011, 02:58 AM
I think the point Otek is making is that in, say, Texas, you can shoot a burglar in the back as he's running out the front door holding a TV...or, even worse, wing the poor blighter as he's squeezing out the NEIGHBOR'S window with nobody home.

Summary judgment and extrajudicial execution for stealing a TV.

And yes, of course we can parse that and wonder if the guy is going to drop the TV and pull a knife and rape my wife. We can parse that all day. In the end, he got offed for lifting a TV.

I'm not sure that most situations are so cut and dry... At least it's never been for me...

All I am saying is that if I wake up and find someone in my house, I am not going to ask if he just wants the silverware or if he plans to kill us all. Or if he just planned to steal the silverware but THEN decided to kill us all. Or visa-versa.

Since I am not The Amazing Kreskin, I will assume the worst. And neutralize the threat. My response might not actually be commensurate with the threat. But I just don't know... So I err on the side of caution.

Now, if he is already halfway out the back window with my TV - That I can leave to Law Enforcement.

We can go over a million scenarios - and I don't want to hijack this thread, so... My apologies for getting off track here...

PRobb
June 28th, 2011, 03:24 AM
But have you looked for one and if so where?

Let's be honest here... the Evangelicals as well as most mainstream "Christian" faiths are well disposed against it to start with.


But it's not a reasonable case.
"It's in the Bible."
First off, the Bible is not the law.
And all kindsa stuff is in the Bible. But eating pork is legal.
Who gets to say which bits are safe to ignore and which need to become law?

The other argument is "defending traditional marriage". That one makes no sense at all. Who is attacking traditional marriage?

Aardy- Gay marriage has been legal in Canada for 6 years. Can you tell us the damage that has been done to traditional marriage?
Come on- Aardy is not the only Canuck here. Anybody want to help out?
No?

Keks
June 28th, 2011, 07:24 AM
My direct argument is simple: It's an impossibility.

Then I just don't get the problem.
If it is impossible it just won't happen.
If marriage without entering into matrimony in the eyes of god is not a marriage at all, too, what I suspect to be the case from your POV,
what is the point in arguing against some weak temporal contractual concept that some misguided souls errantly call "marriage"?
It is quarreling about semantics.

All the best,
the keks

otek
June 28th, 2011, 10:03 AM
All I am saying is that if I wake up and find someone in my house, I am not going to ask if he just wants the silverware or if he plans to kill us all. Or if he just planned to steal the silverware but THEN decided to kill us all. Or visa-versa.

This is where we must not see eye to eye.

Statistics would clearly indicate that it is far more likely to be about your silverware than your lives.

Brandishing a gun in his direction, however, may be just the ticket to swing those statistics the other way. It's all about the escalation of force.

Before deciding to take a life, I would want to make DAMN sure that my own was in danger.


otek

weedywet
June 28th, 2011, 10:07 AM
And I'm with the O.

Oddly I don't find myself thinking I need to be prepared to kill someone. It's not part of my world.
That kind of thinking leads to men strutting about with siz-shooters strapped on all the time.

It's time to grow up and stop playing cowboy.

J.G.
June 28th, 2011, 10:38 AM
Why ever kill---when you can wing?

; J

Goes211
June 28th, 2011, 10:50 AM
This is where we must not see eye to eye.

Statistics would clearly indicate that it is far more likely to be about your silverware than your lives.

Brandishing a gun in his direction, however, may be just the ticket to swing those statistics the other way. It's all about the escalation of force.

Before deciding to take a life, I would want to make DAMN sure that my own was in danger.

otek

...not to mention the statistics also show clearly that just owning the cowboy-toys vastly increases the chances of death by accident for owners, their offspring, and those around them.

"It's not the guns, it's the people."
Yeah, sure, right.

Wide-O
June 28th, 2011, 10:58 AM
Come on- Aardy is not the only Canuck here. Anybody want to help out?
No?

Well, I'm not Aardy, but I can talk about The Netherlands (2001) and Belgium (2003).

First of all: there is not such a thing as "gay marriage" (legally). The existing laws were changed to include people of the same sex. I hope that settles the semantics?

To be honest, the first such marriage here sucked the life right out of my own marriage. I knew it was over, there and then.
Finished. Worthless. :headpalm:





KIDDING! :lol:



It's all pretty non-spectacular. Equal rights were granted to consenting adults (so no, you can not marry a baby giraffe). They have exactly the same rights and duties as hetero couples, which, for them, makes a big big difference in inheritance situations etc. Prohibition was an abomination, which now has been rectified.

We now see the first couples divorcing as well. They're almost like normal people!

In both countries, one of the partners can be from a country that does not allow "gay marriage". Since 2006, they can also legally adopt children FWIW. (Belgium)

A good friend of mine has been married to his friend for several years. Again, nothing spectacular. All the stuff that goes on in "hetero" marriages goes on on "homo" marriages.

There are currently problems in The Netherlands with civil servants who refuse to perform the marriage based on religious arguments.

Equal rights, that is my "pro" argument.

dnafe
June 28th, 2011, 12:26 PM
Come on- Aardy is not the only Canuck here. Anybody want to help out?
No?

No effect on traditional marriages to date...we're still miserable

:icon_eek:

:lol:

But now we have a BC Supreme Court case deciding whether Polygamy should be considered a legal marriage.

No doubt soon they'll be ruling on whether marrying a minor (with the parent's consent) should be considered a legal marriage.

zoff
June 28th, 2011, 01:25 PM
Oh shit, :headpalm: I just got your user name when I saw it on the pic!
I've been seeing it for several years now and never got it :lol:

http://thewombforums.com/images/goes-pick.gif

Goes211
June 28th, 2011, 02:14 PM
Oh shit, :headpalm: I just got your user name when I saw it on the pic!
I've been seeing it for several years now and never got it :lol:


Well, it's one louder, innit?

PRobb
June 28th, 2011, 05:00 PM
It's all pretty non-spectacular. Equal rights were granted to consenting adults (so no, you can not marry a baby giraffe). They have exactly the same rights and duties as hetero couples, which, for them, makes a big big difference in inheritance situations etc. Prohibition was an abomination, which now has been rectified.

We now see the first couples divorcing as well. They're almost like normal people!
Yup. That's going to be the experience everywhere.
The Chicken Littles will run around screaming about societal collapse and anarchy and yada yada yada.
Then the weddings will start. And the sky won't fall. Society will not collapse. Nothing will happen!
And in a surprisingly short time it will just be the new normal.


Equal rights, that is my "pro" argument.
Seems like a pretty self evident truth to me.

John Eppstein
July 2nd, 2011, 06:45 AM
I haven't seen one for it. I see equivocation and emotional appeal.

The problem is that there is not an agreed upon definition of the term "marriage." Either side's argument depends on the assumption of their definition by the other side. My direct argument is simple: It's an impossibility. But you'd have to accept a definition of the marriage covenant which you do not. Likewise, I have to accept a definition that it's simply a civil contract between any two people who think they're "in love" and then your argument is simple as well.

What this highlights is that the conflict is not over sexuality at all, but is a clash of worldviews just finding expression in this one area.
When you come right down to it it's a question of separation of church and state.

The anti-gay marriage crowd seeks to impose the morality of their particular religious tradition on the entire population by governmental decree. This runs contrary to the principle of separation of church and state and hence is unconstitutional in the USA.

These people also want to enforce a monopoly on their definition of "marriage" which is different from the definition of marriage under civil law.

Johnny
July 2nd, 2011, 05:53 PM
All legislation is imposed morality. And the sky's blue too.

weedywet
July 2nd, 2011, 06:17 PM
Zoning that mandates residential districts remain noncommercial is legislation based on rationality. Not morality.

And in any event. Morality isn't automatically based on religion.

Johnny
July 2nd, 2011, 06:28 PM
It's based on a moral principal of not disturbing the peace of people in their homes, which is being a good neighbor, and of doing unto others, etc. The "ought" is "People ought not be disturbed when at home."

Doesn't matter where one gets his morality, he still is imposing it when passing laws.

John Eppstein
July 2nd, 2011, 06:56 PM
All legislation is imposed morality. And the sky's blue too.

No, legislation is imposed CONTROL, not morality. It may or may not have anything to do with what's right or wrong. There are many laws which are not moral. Laws against gay marriage are a prime example.

Zoning that mandates residential districts remain noncommercial is legislation based on rationality. Not morality.

And in any event. Morality isn't automatically based on religion.

And religion is generally not based on morality, although it usually claims to be. Religion is generally based on control. That's one thing I learned from my father, who was, among other things, a scholar and historian of comparative religions.

It's based on a moral principal of not disturbing the peace of people in their homes, which is being a good neighbor, and of doing unto others, etc. The "ought" is "People ought not be disturbed when at home."

Doesn't matter where one gets his morality, he still is imposing it when passing laws.

That's not morality, either. How is it "moral" for somebody to move into an apartment over a bar and impose his will on the business by making noise complaints? Or for a newcomer to a neighborhood to impose his will on people already living there?

It's all a matter of special interests and control. We have a lot of that in San Francisco now, and it's ruining the city.

Morality is not harming other people and not taking what isn't yours. Morality is not gratuitously imposing your will on other people to make them conform to your notion of how to live. And it certainly isn't invading a pre-existing community and imposing your will on everyone else.

The fact is here in SF the zoning codes and noise ordinances are primarily a tool of the extremely powerful real estate developers lobby who pretty much control City Hall. It's all about putting money in their pockets and has resulted in the destruction of the art and music communities in the interest of putting up more and more condo developments. Morality has nothing to do with it.

Johnny
July 2nd, 2011, 07:21 PM
You're arguing that my examples can involve an immorality. Which underscores that every law has a moral precept behind it.

You're also arguing that imposing your will on someone else is...wrong. Should the guy who wants to do that obey you?

It is not a question of whether to impose morality, it's a question of which. Or whose.

John Eppstein
July 2nd, 2011, 07:47 PM
oops, double post.

John Eppstein
July 2nd, 2011, 07:57 PM
You're arguing that my examples can involve an immorality. Which underscores that every law has a moral precept behind it.

You totally missed my point. Which is that many laws have NOTHING AT ALL to do with morality and everything to do with lining the pockets of special interest groups. Often at the expense of society at large. For example Prop 13 which has destroyed the economic base of the state government, caused the Cal school system to drop from #1 to #48, and caused a perpetual budget crisis, all for the benefit of a special interest group of property owners. Thank you Ronnie Ray-gun!

Hardly ANY legislation is passed for moral reasons these days - it's all special interest groups and the highest bidder. That's why the health care initiative was derailed and turned into a sop to the insurance lobby. That's why we're having such great difficulty getting proper controls on piracy.

You're also arguing that imposing your will on someone else is...wrong. Should the guy who wants to do that obey you?

It is not a question of whether to impose morality, it's a question of which. Or whose.

I'm not gonna run my post count up by arguing this with you at great length.

All I'm going to say is this:

Like most people with your peculiar religious bent you confuse morality and control. That's fairly normal, not only for those of your faith but those of many others, as the priest class of society has been imposing control for their own purposes since at least the days of Babylon and Ur in Mesopotamia.

But that's not morality.

Morality is what's encapsulated in the Golden Rule: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You.

So to get back to the topic, gay marriage, let's turn the problem on its head and take a good look - Imagine a society in which homosexulity is the norm and heterosexulity is tolerated for reasons of procreation only. Would you, as a heterosexual, want the gays to ban straight marriage?

No, you would not. So don't do it to them.

That's morality.

Your controlling "Christian" dogma is not.

"I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

To paraphrase:

"I may not agree with how you live but I will defend to the death your right to live the way you want to."

That's morality.

TheNetStudio
July 2nd, 2011, 07:58 PM
It is not a question of whether to impose morality, it's a question of which. Or whose.

Indeed, I am always amused how those that call others intolerant are quite often as intolerant as the subjects of their accusations, those that decry the real or perceived impositions of the morality of others are as determined to impose their own morality, and those that call others small minded are often as limited by their own preconceived notions - and unwilling to consider opposing views as equally valid.

For all it's faults... And there are many... That is what makes the US such an amazing place. That the courts place the values of free expression of ideas above almost everything else - Let the marketplace of ideas decide - even if opposing opinions are uncomfortable, and/or offensive.

I love that.

Edit: BTW - I did not use the word ALL. I do not believe ALL people are like this - It just strikes me how often I observe that dichotomy.

Johnny
July 2nd, 2011, 11:14 PM
Right. If everyone is just upfront about it then we can have the real discussion.


John, if you don't want to use "morality" you're still left with the same problem: all laws control somebody, so the question is still not whether to control, but rather who controls whom.

TheNetStudio
July 2nd, 2011, 11:47 PM
Right. If everyone is just upfront about it then we can have the real discussion.

Ahhh, but for some people it's so much easier to just generalize and demonize your opponent, call them names, or create an absurd caricature of their ideas. Or better yet, the tried and true standard Internet response to opposing ideas: create a clever pejorative morph of the word. Although I must admit I do enjoy some of the more creative ones.

For some people ad hominem attacks are so much easier than trying to understand and consider opposing ideas - which might cause one to rethink their position.

Present company excluded, of course.

John Eppstein
July 3rd, 2011, 01:32 AM
Right. If everyone is just upfront about it then we can have the real discussion.


John, if you don't want to use "morality" you're still left with the same problem: all laws control somebody, so the question is still not whether to control, but rather who controls whom.

Johnny, quite the contrary. I DO want to use "morality". I just don't confuse it with gratuitous control.

Sometimes control is not gratuitous and is moral. Other times it is not. Applying the Golden Rule is a good start at figuring out which is which.

Organized religion has used gratuitous control in the guise of morality as a primary tool for millennia. Frequently the rationalization for a "moral" stricture has nothing at all to do with the real reasons for it. A few of examples:

Jewish dietary laws, specifially the one singling pork out as "unclean". Nothing at all to do with sanitation or disease - the real reason was that pork was a major feast food on pagan holidays. The Jewish priests did not want their youth carousing with the pagans on feast days and getting converted to paganism.

Why Catholic priests can't marry - strictly to do with increasing the wealth of the Church. If priests could not marry they could not have legitimate children. Only legitimate children could inherit, so the Church would be the recipient of whatever wealth the priests had amassed.

Judeo Christian prohibitions of homosexulity and Catholic anti-birth control come from the same place, which is discouraging sexual activity that is unlikely to result in the production of children, thereby increasing the numbers of the given group relative to other, competing groups.

Nothing moral about any of this crap - at the core it all boils down to politics.

And politics ain't moral. Not by a long shot. Politics is about the group you belong to getting over on everyone else. Or to be more precise, politics is about those who control the group you belong to getting over on everyone else - including low ranking members of their own group.

Morality is about treating others with fairness and respect, as one would wish to be treated one's self.

Johnny
July 3rd, 2011, 03:19 AM
Now you're just giving your opinion of other people's moral code. I'm just saying that every law enforces one. That you find past examples offensive and/or oppressive doesn't speak to my point: "Imposed morality" is a cop out because everyone does it.

John Eppstein
July 3rd, 2011, 06:27 AM
Now you're just giving your opinion of other people's moral code. I'm just saying that every law enforces one. That you find past examples offensive and/or oppressive doesn't speak to my point: "Imposed morality" is a cop out because everyone does it.

For the last time, no.

I'm simply pointing out the difference between true, human-to-human morality and control freaks using phony "morality" as a cloak to disguise their agenda.

You simple don't understand the difference because you've bought into such a belief system so heavily that you can't see the question without bias. You're blind to the truth. You'd just as well try to look at the back of your own head.

Saying "everyone does it" is a prime example of the psychological phenomenon called "transference" which, for example, causes the thief to believe that "everyone steals".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference

The fact is that not everyone does it.

I don't expect you to understand. But that's OK - you have the right to live your life as you want to as long as it doesn't directly impinge on my (or others) rights.

Which I might add, laws against gay marriage certainly do (others, not me.)

PRobb
July 3rd, 2011, 05:44 PM
John and Johnny- the mistake you're both making is wanting to see the world in black and white.
There are cases where reality matches the control argument and there are cases where reality matches the reality argument.

And a lot more that feature a convoluted mixture of the two.

John Eppstein
July 3rd, 2011, 09:46 PM
John and Johnny- the mistake you're both making is wanting to see the world in black and white.
There are cases where reality matches the control argument and there are cases where reality matches the reality argument.

And a lot more that feature a convoluted mixture of the two.

I thought I said that already.

Maybe I wasn't making myself clear......

Johnny
July 6th, 2011, 12:13 AM
The only point I'm trying rather unsuccessfully to communicate is black and white: All legislation controls somebody. And that control can be traced back to a moral principle.

And then along with that, somebody isn't going to like it. So John, you're going to call me blind because of my belief, etc., but all the while you are evaluating those beliefs based on your own.

That's not "transference," it's honesty, and I won't insult you with a link to a definition. The only reason I bring it up at all is that once everyone lays their cards on the table then you can really discuss/debate the issue. But until then everyone's looking for an easy way to "win." "You can't impose your morality on me!" and everyone applauds. I simply think that if everyone's willing to own up to what's really going on then we could discuss things like this without ad hominem or condescension.

PRobb
July 6th, 2011, 01:36 AM
But until then everyone's looking for an easy way to "win." "You can't impose your morality on me!" and everyone applauds. I simply think that if everyone's willing to own up to what's really going on then we could discuss things like this without ad hominem or condescension.
Nobody is trying to impose their morality on you.
If you don't want gay friends, you don't want gays in your home, you want to belong to a church that doesn't recognize gay couples or allow gay members, nobody is stopping you. Nobody is questioning your right to live by your morality. You have every right to say "I find this immoral and don't want to allow it in my house". Nobody wants to deny you that. You have that right.

Problem is, the anti gay argument is "I find this immoral and don't want to allow in ANYONE'S house". And that is a very, very different story. That is imposing morality. You most certainly do not have that right.

Johnny
July 6th, 2011, 02:16 AM
The moral principle being imposed is in your words "equality under the law." You're defining that a particular way. Homosexuals are as free under the law to marry as heterosexuals, they just don't want to. What they are wanting, instead, is to call their relationships the same thing as married ones. And you're arguing that as morally right.

That is being imposed, because if it were not, there would be no need for a law. There would be nothing to change.

Johnny
July 6th, 2011, 02:21 AM
By the way, homosexual people are and have always been welcome both in my home and my Church.

John Eppstein
July 6th, 2011, 03:47 AM
The moral principle being imposed is in your words "equality under the law." You're defining that a particular way. Homosexuals are as free under the law to marry as heterosexuals, they just don't want to. What they are wanting, instead, is to call their relationships the same thing as married ones. And you're arguing that as morally right.

That is being imposed, because if it were not, there would be no need for a law. There would be nothing to change.

Are you really that dense or what? (exasperated gesture)

Homosexuals are not allowed the right TO MARRY THE PERSON OF THEIR CHOICE under anti-gay marriage laws.

What's the point of being allowed to marry someone you don't want to marry?

That's like telling a vegan that they can eat any food they want as long as it isn't vegetables.

And many laws have nothing at all to do with morality. Many laws have to do with special interest groups feathering their own nests at the expense of society as a whole.

Claiming that all laws are about morality is ludicrous. As amply illustrated by every Republican administration since Nixon.

PRobb
July 6th, 2011, 04:06 AM
By the way, homosexual people are and have always been welcome both in my home and my Church.
So some of your best friends are gay.
What gives you the right to impose your morality on them?
Why don't they deserve the same rights you have?

Mesmer
July 6th, 2011, 06:00 AM
moral axis: good / evil.
ethical axis: correct / incorrect.
legal axis: legal / criminal.


Can someone honestly say passing a gay-marriage law is evil?

Johny,
at one point it was considered moral (anti-evil) and legal (not-criminal) to own people and dispose of them as you would cattle. There was no need to even consider the ethical implications (golden-rule) because it was "their" problem and the laws on the book were "good enough" (for me). Same thing with child labor, women's right to vote, etc...

-h.

PRobb
July 6th, 2011, 06:13 AM
Johny,
at one point it was considered moral (anti-evil) and legal (not-criminal) to own people and dispose of them as you would cattle. There was no need to even consider the ethical implications (golden-rule) because it was "their" problem and the laws on the book were "good enough" (for me). Same thing with child labor, women's right to vote, etc...

-h.
Slavery is also solidly supported in the Bible.
As is the subjugation of women.

Keks
July 6th, 2011, 09:33 AM
Guys, could we just leave out the vitriol in here?
That is plain unnecessary and counter-productive.

The only point I'm trying rather unsuccessfully to communicate is black and white: All legislation controls somebody. And that control can be traced back to a moral principle.


I am not convinced of that.
When a law overrides a restriction and does, in fact, allow more actions than it was the case before,
who is the somebody to be controlled?


And then along with that, somebody isn't going to like it. So John, you're going to call me blind because of my belief, etc., but all the while you are evaluating those beliefs based on your own.


Hmm, I don't think we want to go the route of a principal culture relativism.
So, sure, I don't approve of your POV because I think it is wrong to treat gay lovers other than straight lovers.
And, if want to bring kids and family into the equation,
then I'll have to add that I know gay couples with kids,
and I know a bunch of straight couples that are married without ever thinking of children.


The moral principle being imposed is in your words "equality under the law."


Yeppa.
That's the point.
Bad enough that it has to be imposed on anyone (as this thread proves.)
The acceptance of human plurality is in my eyes the most fundamental moral principle there is, if not even a pre-moral principle.
And in my eyes you will have a very hard time to argue against equality without coming across like a moron.
Especially if you are into charity and benevolence.
Impress me.
:Wink:

all the best,
the keks

Johnny
July 8th, 2011, 12:12 AM
Hey, keks, I answered you a couple days ago. Somehow it didn't post. Will repost again when I have more time.

PRobb
July 8th, 2011, 03:28 AM
The amazing thing about this is that as many times as I have had this debate I have yet to hear a direct, rational argument against gay marriage.

cozmicslop
July 8th, 2011, 03:33 AM
and still waiting...

Keks
July 8th, 2011, 10:15 AM
Hey, keks, I answered you a couple days ago. Somehow it didn't post. Will repost again when I have more time.

Thanks for your efforts.
:Thumbsup:

All the best,
the keks