My point was that, even if the claim in (1) and (2) are correct, they don't matter. They are talking about heterosexual relationships. Therefore they only really matter for homosexual relationships if they are denied, and are forced to go to heterosexual relationships.
Heterosexual couplings create more offspring than there are homes to raise them in. So I don't really see us running out of babies.
And while it feels right to be that a mother father household is best for raising kids, that's an oversimplistic assumption. It's not better if the father drinks and abuses the mother, it's not better if someone has a gambling problem. Granted, these things can happen to ANY kind of home, but who is to say that the benefits of a two parent multigendered home are SO MUCH better, that they are good enough to leave some kids in adoption agencies and fostercare rather than give them to loving two parent homosexual couples? Where is the proof that says THAT is a better arrangement? Where is the proof that homosexuals can't be good parents? Why aren't kids taken away from single parent homes?
No, marriage and child rearing have already changed and fractured far too much for that argument to hold water as a good argument for keeping kids away from homosexual marriages.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
I see you're right about the correlation. I was just wondering if you had poll results on people's opinions on SSM, state by state that could be compared.
Sorry I didn't look into this too thoroughly. I see that Wikipedia has a good overview (especially this bit), and this ABC page is useful (see especially the bottom).
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
My point was that, even if the claim in (1) and (2) are correct, they don't matter. They are talking about heterosexual relationships. Therefore they only really matter for homosexual relationships if they are denied, and are forced to go to heterosexual relationships.
I see what you mean about (1). I should qualify my agreement with (2). I only agreed with it to the extent that marriage is more stable than other reproductive family systems, so I was only considering monogamy, polygamy, communal living etc.
But that's not what I actually said, so the misunderstanding is completely my fault.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And while it feels right to be that a mother father household is best for raising kids, that's an oversimplistic assumption. It's not better if the father drinks and abuses the mother, it's not better if someone has a gambling problem. Granted, these things can happen to ANY kind of home, but who is to say that the benefits of a two parent multigendered home are SO MUCH better, that they are good enough to leave some kids in adoption agencies and fostercare rather than give them to loving two parent homosexual couples? Where is the proof that says THAT is a better arrangement? Where is the proof that homosexuals can't be good parents? Why aren't kids taken away from single parent homes?
By disagreeing with (4 - Gay couples are less successful as gender role models than heterosexual couples.) and the latter half of (5The ubiquity of households broken by divorce and the corruption of society's image of the family (i.e. the adoption of gay couples as positive role models) is harmful to all children in that society.), I think I express my belief that homosexual couples are usually just as good at parenting as heterosexual couples.
And OSC didn't make the claim that children would be better off in orphanages than in the homes of gay couples.
---
Cheeky KoM!
Does anyone else find it amusing that there is a context-sensitive banner at the bottom of the page advertising gay/lesbian wedding rings?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Specifically, OSC mentions that polygamy results in surplus males who don't do anything for the gene pool.
I find the phrase "surplus males" to be chillingly zoological.
There is no such thing as a "surplus male" in a human society. This arguement basically assumes that the worth of a human is equal only to his value as breeding stock. This is the language of eugenics, not of reasoned debate in a free society.
In fact, OCS's entire arguement distills to the idea that the only valuable member of society is the fertile. That is one tiny step away, IMO, from deciding that not only is fertility paramount to a person's worth, but doesn't it stand to reason that better breeding stock is more valuable to the human race than inferior? You know, all those with a genetic tendency to diabetes are putting a hell of a load on our health care system, not to mention all those other evolutionarily inferior people who are weakening the race.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that you said I should, but I won't defend OSC's choice of words here. Nor his premise, since I disagree with it.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
And people wonder why I'm so bitter and cynical towards society at large when who a person is becomes a target for opposition, oppression, and rejection.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
IS there a way to invest extra care or attention or regulation in the breeding population without inadvertently hurting or offending or dienfranchising the non-breeding population?
Just curious. Because it seems like that may be what OSC is trying, and failing, to do.
Posts: 1907 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are tax credits for people with children. That is something that is applicable to all families with dependants, yet closed to those who do not reproduce.
Though I think "having zero children" pretty obviously doesn't mean "gay" and gay doesn't mean "unable to have children." So equating the two is kind of ... hard to follow.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What are they being denied at the state level, other than the word "marriage?"
Equality.
I don't oppose gay marriage (by which I mean, CALLING it gay marriage), and I don't support it (again, the WORD, not the institution, which I am wholeheartedly in favor of).
When it comes down to whether or not to use the word "marriage," I usually just stay on the sidelines. I think the word has inseperable religious connotations, and it might be wrong to use it to describe something those relogious institutions are expressly against. I'd fight tooth and nail to make sure all the legal rights that are bestowed on straight couplings are also extended to gay couples, but I can neither support or oppose calling it "marriage."
When it comes down to it, the government can't give you equality.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in New Jersey, and I think that if we are going to call a civil marriage between two gay partners a "civil union", rather than a "marriage", then, in fairness, we should call ALL civil marriages "civil unions", and let "marriage" be a label given by the clergy.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm fine with "civil unions" because we already have "marriage" in any sense that is distinct from "civil unions". As I've said multiple times on this board, the "religious" arguement against "marriage" has already been lost. Gays have already been able to "marry" in certain churches for over 15 years. For someone to say that "isn't marriage" is flat out, unmitigated, religious bigotry. It's exactly the same as declaring any other religious ceremony invalid simply because you don't agree with it. It's like slyly commenting that all those Catholics aren't really "baptised" because, you know, they don't really do it right.
And the government has no practical authority to regulate speech. You can bet your rhinestone tiara that if Chris and I get a "civil union" we are going to tell people that we are "married". I can't make anyone else do that, but I feel confident in saying that with the sole exception of those who are making a political point, everyone else will call us "married" too. A few niggling preachers will do their best to maintain the distinction, but I bet that will become fewer and fewer as pointing out the distinction begins to more pronouncedly stink of the sanctimony it is increasingly perceived to be. It's a simple fact of linguistic evolution that the vast majority are going to choose to say "married" rather than "civilly unionized" in every-day speech.
quote:IS there a way to invest extra care or attention or regulation in the breeding population without inadvertently hurting or offending or dienfranchising the non-breeding population?
I don't know. Perhaps there is. However, I don't see the real value in such a strong desire to provide those things with the included intent of denying them to the homoseuxal population which is more precisely what is being attempted. I almost wrote "denying them to the non-breeding population", but that's not right. No one is really attempting to deny them to non-breeding hetersexual couples, only to homosexual couples, breeding or not. In my opinion, you have to first establish why this exclusion is necessary before I'll buy into the assertion that the arguements are actually attempts to "invest extra care or attention". As it stands, they've just been about exclusion and marginalization of the minority in the misguided name of "protecting" a majority that has heretofore shown little interest in "protecting" itself from anything except sharing a word.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, you can call it what you want but you're not married. A marriage is a legally recognized union, not merely religious in nature. A civil union is the same thing in effect, but it's not a marriage. Until the laws are changed, that's the deal. If homosexuals are content with civil unions and are just going to go around calling it marriage, then that's the end of it. But if they're not content, then they'll keep fighting for full marriage.
Here's my problem, and it surfaces in myriad ways. When someone declares that they have a right, and the courts decided that that persons claim is legitimate in spite of a majority's opposition to the *opinion* of that person and that judge, that is fascism. If the state decides to legalize gay marriage by enacting laws to that effect through the legislative process, then great. But when judges make that decision for the population and then order the legislation to make the laws (as has happened in one state so far), we have left the realm of democracy. And that is what I hate about so many of the activist groups out there, not just the homosexual ones. They are using the one unelected branch of the government to impose their will on the majority. If that's how you want to get things done, then shame on you, I say.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Here's my problem, and it surfaces in myriad ways. When someone declares that they have a right, and the courts decided that that persons claim is legitimate in spite of a majority's opposition to the *opinion* of that person and that judge, that is fascism.
How did this play out in terms of the Civil Rights movement, in your mind? *interested
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are using the one unelected branch of the government to impose their will on the majority.
If you replace "impose their will on" with "defend their rights from," I think you might stumble across another way of looking at the issue.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Well, you can call it what you want but you're not married.
That's your opinion, and you are welcome to it. Four of the definitions of "marriage" at dictionary.com disagree with your narrow view of the word, however. You can't stop the language no matter how much you'd like to.
Additionally, you're using a definition of "fascism" that you're not likely to find in any dictionary. You are, of course, free to do so, but don't expect many people to understand you or agree with you.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Here's my problem, and it surfaces in myriad ways. When someone declares that they have a right, and the courts decided that that persons claim is legitimate in spite of a majority's opposition to the *opinion* of that person and that judge, that is fascism.
How did this play out in terms of the Civil Rights movement, in your mind? *interested
I'm actually kinda undecided on the civil rights movement. Some days I think, "Nobody is above the law." and "The right place for good men is in jail, going to jail had to be the right course of action." and the next week I think, "Thats just crazy, of course they were justified in breaking a bad law, we were wrong to put them in jail."
I guess its the age old debate of "Is America a pure democracy lead by the people, or is America really a society where the intellectual elite step in when they must, and for the most part, power is with the people."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why does it have to be the "intellectual elite" that steps in, in your view? Why not simply "good people" or "a moral minority" or something?
You seem to have taken the phrase "intellectual elite" from a near-meaningless group label to a de-facto meaningless buzzword in this context.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
BB: We're a constitutional democratic republic.
That means we set out our standards before hand (the constitution) and then we make the laws. If our laws don't meet our standards, Judges make sure they do.
Sometimes they're right, sometimes they're wrong and sometimes they're a little of both.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Karl: I don't think the framers of the constitution ever meant for the common people to be able to rule, in fact I am quite certain they set things up so that "sensible men" could stop the tyranny of the majority. But I have a kinda weird belief that Americans should live for now and bullocks to what the framers intended, if we have a better way of doing it now we ought to do it that way its not like anybody pretends they or their constitution was a perfect document.
I don't believe in "good people" stepping in and even less in a "moral minority" its just too ugly if one minority group gets to step on the others.
Call it my religious upbringing but your standard member of the church has no say in how it should be run. Sustaining the prophet appears democratic but really if you object all that happens is you are asked privately why you so do. Its in the hands of of God's chosen or "intellectual elite" as to who is in charge. Though I do remember when JS was murdered and they basically had a town meeting to decide whether to follow BY or SR, I still am not sure about the doctrinal basis for that.
I just feel the average person understands what is important to them, and they should be allowed to operate within that hemisphere. But when it comes to awareness of all that is important the average American is woefully ignorant and always has been, perhaps always will be.
If I must tolerate one group intervening in what *I* want, I'd rather it be the intellectual elite then any other group that I can devise.
Pix: See again I think the constitution is a good thing, and there a pluses that it is so hard to amend. But I've heard so much debate about the obscurity of say the 2nd amendment that I think the people need to decide what the amendment SHOULD mean. The only argument I hear for keeping things as they are is, "The founding fathers intended..." Why should they get to lay out so much new doctrine and radical change and then down the road we can do no better? There are people just as smart as those men, and more so, I really think the constitution is due for some radical revision. You could probably call SCOTUS the "intellectual elite" just as you could call The Senate and The Presidents Cabinet the same thing.
I mean politically the constitution has been amazing. But economically and in regards to the civil rights its woefully vague and hard to use.
Probably should have said this at the beginning but I really don't have all my opinions in political science nailed out, thats why its my major I suppose.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Here's my problem, and it surfaces in myriad ways. When someone declares that they have a right, and the courts decided that that persons claim is legitimate in spite of a majority's opposition to the *opinion* of that person and that judge, that is fascism.
Unfortunately our judicial system is far from "fascist".
A fascist judge does not base his decisions on the Law, but bases it on what the political leaders tell him to.
A fascist would not wait for some person to proclaim their right, but would make proclamations on their own.
A fascist judge would have a strong enforcement arm at their disposal. Our judicial system must rely on those in the executive branch to enforce any of their decisions.
I can think of two times in history where this came into play.
Brown vs Board of Education-when the decision was made desegragating the schools, many feared that the decision would be totally ignored by the country. Only the decision of the Federal Executive branch managed to enforce this ruling.
The theft of the property of Native American's in Georgia was deemed entirely unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. They ordered the President to cease and desist all attempts at removing the native population.
President Andrew Jackson ignored the court, and set his troops to march the peaceful Indians along the death march that became known as the Trail of Tears.
Now that, my friend, is fascism.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan: Not to mention Jackson's response "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it."
It stinks of the same logic as people who say, "The president wants to send my boy to Iraq, lets see HIM spend some time in the trenches!"
It just makes no sense to me at all, we might as well have soldiers say, "They want me to die for my country, well then let me be in charge of the country for awhile!"
But do you agree that the court systems CAN be abused, and policy that is not in the publics best interests implemented?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, revisit Dred Scott for a look at the harm a court can do when it acts to protect someone's rights.
I believe that judicial review of law and government constitutionality is absolutely essential. I don't think, however, that people fully appreciate the possibility of tyrany it creates nor the extraordinary nature of the judicial review remedy.
Justices are: 1) not elected, 2) appointed during their "good behavior" (essentially life), 3) capable of overriding any politically accountable body, and 4) unreviewable absent 2/3 of congress and 3/4 the state legislatures or 3/4 the state legislatures and a constitutional convention.
The purpose of the court's judicial review is to balance conflicting rights of different people. Dred Scott upheld the property rights of the slaveholder over the rights of the slave - in this case by denying that the slave had ANY rights at all.
One of the rights that needs to be balanced is the right to certain forms of input into the government: to vote for Representatives, Senators, and (indirectly) Presidents with certain powers and to have input into the constitutionally guaranteed state republican forms of government.
Every exercise of judicial review to strike down a statute or other act of those elected officials requires the court to subjegate this right to another. Sometimes this is a good thing. We subjegate the right to free speech to the right of an individual to not have harmful lies spread about him (i.e., we legally sanction libel). There have been many cases where the decision to subjegate the right of input into government to an individual's particular right. That's fine.
But I want people to think about it as limiting rights. I want people to consider it extraordinary when it's done. And I really, really want people (some already do this well) to separate their desired policy outcome from how they determine whether judicial review should be invoked.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I agree the decision in Dredd Scott really damaged the rights of the slaves. On the other hand the court really just represented the people of its time. Do you think an elected group from that time period would have given the slaves any better answer?
When someone argues how the voters should have ultimate power over everything, remember how many problems the courts have solved that scared legislators were afraid to tackle. Unpopular decisions are inevitable. If a judge is more worried about his popularity than about the constitution, which will he support?
I disagree that a constitutional amendment is the only thing that can change a Judicial mandate. Usually it is a simple change in the wording of the law that will determine if it is constitutional or not. Yet even those small changes seem to be too much for our legislators.
An example has been some of the abortion laws. SCOTUS has given guidelines on what it would approve--mainly the safety and privacy of the mother foremost. Yet the laws that are overturned by SCOTUS often leave out, not the delicate matter of privacy, but the obvious matter of the mother's safety.
All that said, let me go further to point out that I am in favor of a better way of overseeing judges. If we could make impeachment and discipline easier to accomplish, but with little or no association with court decisions, I would be welcome to that. I don't like the idea of senile judges sexually harrasing interns and getting away with it. I also don't like the idea that Judges get kicked of the bench because they put famous people in jail.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you think an elected group from that time period would have given the slaves any better answer?
Better? Yes. It wasn't a very good answer, but it was a better one. The very fact that the court was striking down laws and, in doing so, worsened the plight of slaves demonstrates that.
quote:When someone argues how the voters should have ultimate power over everything, remember how many problems the courts have solved that scared legislators were afraid to tackle.
Which is why I am in favor of judicial review. I just want people - judges especially - to appreciate the enormity of what this means. ANd what it means is that 9 unelected officials with life terms can override the will of a supermajority.
quote:I disagree that a constitutional amendment is the only thing that can change a Judicial mandate. Usually it is a simple change in the wording of the law that will determine if it is constitutional or not. Yet even those small changes seem to be too much for our legislators.
What you describe is not changing the mandate, it's conceding to it.
quote:An example has been some of the abortion laws. SCOTUS has given guidelines on what it would approve--mainly the safety and privacy of the mother foremost. Yet the laws that are overturned by SCOTUS often leave out, not the delicate matter of privacy, but the obvious matter of the mother's safety.
This is only true about the late-term abortion bans. Further, abortion is one of the few areas where the court will not read constitutional limitations into the law in order to uphold the law.
There is no way to ban pre-viability abortions in the U.S. right now, and the only way to change this is a new SCOTUS decision or a constitutional amendment.
quote:All that said, let me go further to point out that I am in favor of a better way of overseeing judges.
The change I seek is attitudinal more than procedural or structural. I want us to view judicial review almost as we view use of violence - something that requires extraordinary justification and is indicative that the system has gone terribly awry.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Here's my problem, and it surfaces in myriad ways. When someone declares that they have a right, and the courts decided that that persons claim is legitimate in spite of a majority's opposition to the *opinion* of that person and that judge, that is fascism.
How did this play out in terms of the Civil Rights movement, in your mind? *interested
I'm actually kinda undecided on the civil rights movement. Some days I think...
Thanks for the explanation.
Just curious -- are you coming out as Reshpeckobiggle, or did you find the question also worth answering? (*honest question, was simply wondering, and thanks regardless)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: And the government has no practical authority to regulate speech. You can bet your rhinestone tiara that if Chris and I get a "civil union" we are going to tell people that we are "married". I can't make anyone else do that, but I feel confident in saying that with the sole exception of those who are making a political point, everyone else will call us "married" too. A few niggling preachers will do their best to maintain the distinction, but I bet that will become fewer and fewer as pointing out the distinction begins to more pronouncedly stink of the sanctimony it is increasingly perceived to be. It's a simple fact of linguistic evolution that the vast majority are going to choose to say "married" rather than "civilly unionized" in every-day speech.\
I feel the exact same way. What they call it holds little importance, in my eyes, as a name is a name is a name. A rose is, after all, still a rose even if I called it "Bob."
All I'd be interested in are the benefits bestowed by the government, and even then, only the essential ones, such as hospital visitation rights. I don't think anyone can say they'd be proud of themselves if they got to make sure a gay couple couldn't spend their last moments with each other.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just curious -- are you coming out as Reshpeckobiggle, or did you find the question also worth answering? (*honest question, was simply wondering, and thanks regardless)
Bump, because I'd also like an answer to this question.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm slowly working my through more of the thread. These "gems" caught my eye:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: This is all I have to add about the argument, "SSM now, legal bestiality later." Slippery slopes are often logical fallacies, but even a casual study of history, especially when it comes to law, shows that a decision with a goal in mind, OFTEN has unforeseen consequences.
Animals do not have legal rights and are not recognized by the law to be valid for entering into contracts. Human US citizens, however, do have the ability to enter into contractual obligations.
Unless you're equating gays to animals?
Also, slippery slope arguments can't be seen as prevalent. Stopping gay marriage on the grounds that it may cause "immoral" conduct later in life is just too open. I could, conversely, try to ban practicing Mormonism on the grounds that it could one day lead to eugenics and the mass eradication of homosexuals. History has shown Christians to do both, after all.
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Forbidding SSM, however, DOES force homosexuals to not be legally married.
Only to members of the same sex.
Oh, GOD. Please, tell me he didn't just us this bullshit phrase.
Dear God in Heaven, if I hear this one more time, violence WILL ensue. *twitch* I only wish I still had a post I made where I dealt with someone who brought up this wonderful argument. It was so beautiful... not only did I answer him word for word, I completely shoved him off his High Horse.
Anyways, this argument is about as valid as my saying you're allowed to say whatever you want, as long as it's from a pre-picked list of one thousand phrases. You're free to say whatever you want, of course! Just from within that list.
quote:I only wish I still had a post I made where I dealt with someone who brought up this wonderful argument. It was so beautiful... not only did I answer him word for word, I completely shoved his pompous ass off his High Horse.
Talking about how well you could refute another's position while calling names and using profanity isn't very convincing.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I only wish I still had a post I made where I dealt with someone who brought up this wonderful argument. It was so beautiful... not only did I answer him word for word, I completely shoved his pompous ass off his High Horse.
Talking about how well you could refute another's position while calling names and using profanity isn't very convincing.
Point taken. I edited a bit. However, expressing my frustration through profanity doesn't affect the main point behind my argument. I was more talking to myself than anyone else there, but I just wish I could remember what I'd said so I could use it here, as the situation fits.
I'm sorry for getting riled up, but seeing as how much this topic means to me and having gone through my own personal hell for the last five years because of people acting like mr_porteiro_head, it becomes clearer why I react strongly. It's because of people who have holier-than-thou complexes like that that I'm as bitter and cynical towards religion as I am.
Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry for getting riled up, but seeing as how much this topic means to me and having gone through my own personal hell for the last five years because of people acting like mr_porteiro_head, it becomes clearer why I react strongly. It's because of people who have holier-than-thou complexes like that that I'm as bitter and cynical towards religion as I am.
Hitoshi, I know this is from a stranger and rather out of left field (if I have the metaphor correct), but you might be finding youself in somewhat of a quagmire of multiple layers of misinterpretation. For what it's worth, m_p_h is often take to be saying something he isn't. He is an engineer and almost completely literal in comunication (that is, like me, he says things and means something very precisely, but he is more likely than most -- for whatever reason -- to be taken at other than face value).
The way this works out can be quite unexpected. Telperion and KarlEd are probably two of our most engaging and thoughtful out gay posters at Hatrack, and m_p_h is a very dear friend of both of them. This goes both ways, and it is a relaitonship not lightly earned in either direction between any of these men.
Of course, this does not mean that anyone else must be friends with any given person. I just wanted to give you a little bit of contex tthat might not yet be available in your readings.
(Welcome to Hatrack. <--- Edited to add: whoops! For some reason, I thought you were new. My apologies. Well, welcome anyway.)
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry for getting riled up, but seeing as how much this topic means to me and having gone through my own personal hell for the last five years because of people acting like mr_porteiro_head, it becomes clearer why I react strongly. It's because of people who have holier-than-thou complexes like that that I'm as bitter and cynical towards religion as I am.
Hitoshi, I know this is from a stranger and rather out of left field (if I have the metaphor correct), but you might be finding youself in somewhat of a quagmire of multiple layers of misinterpretation. For what it's worth, m_p_h is often take to be saying something he isn't. He is an engineer and almost completely literal in comunication (that is, like me, he says things and means something very precisely, but he is more likely than most -- for whatever reason -- to be taken at other than face value).
The way this works out can be quite unexpected. Telperion and KarlEd are probably two of our most engaging and thoughtful out gay posters at Hatrack, and m_p_h is a very dear friend of both of them. This goes both ways, and it is a relaitonship not lightly earned in either direction between any of these men.
Of course, this does not mean that anyone else must be friends with any given person. I just wanted to give you a little bit of contex tthat might not yet be available in your readings.
(Welcome to Hatrack. <--- Edited to add: whoops! For some reason, I thought you were new. My apologies. Well, welcome anyway.)
Then I'm glad m_p_h gets along well with KarlEd, and I apologize for misinterpreting him.
I've just seen logic like that used so often to be snide and contemptuous towards gays that it's become a major soft spot with me. I can't even describe how many times people have used statements like that hatefully towards me in the name of this religion or that.
m_p_h, if I've misunderstood you, then I do apologize. I don't want to misconstrue anyone.
I guess I'm just not used to Hatrackian debates. It seems there's an underlying sense of respect here, and sadly, that's so foreign to me that I react much more strongly then I should. *sighs* Two days and I've already made myself look and sound like an asshole. Terrific. Posts: 208 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then I'm glad m_p_h gets along well with KarlEd, and I apologize for misinterpreting him.
I've just seen logic like that used so often to be snide and contemptuous towards gays that it's become a major soft spot with me. I can't even describe how many times people have used statements like that hatefully towards me in the name of this religion or that.
I can certainly understand the reaction, then.
quote:m_p_h, if I've misunderstood you, then I do apologize. I don't want to misconstrue anyone.
(this was Well Done)
quote:I guess I'm just not used to Hatrackian debates. It seems there's an underlying sense of respect here, and sadly, that's so foreign to me that I react much more strongly then I should. *sighs* Two days and I've already made myself look and sound like an asshole. Terrific.
*gently
I think it will be okay. You seem quite authentic, and friends can deal with authentic emotions. It would be posturing that is hard to maintain a friendship through. [not necessarily this]
So, Hitoshi, you've been around for over a year? Have I just had my head in the sand, or have I been away while you've been posting? Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
CT, at least 50 of his 72 posts are from the past month. I think what we have here is a Former Lurker. Welcome to full-fledged posting status, Hitoshi.
Don't worry. Lots of us make strong impressions when we first start to post. I know I came in with both guns blazing. Just take a deep breath, relax a little, and get used to the ambiance.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Here's my problem, and it surfaces in myriad ways. When someone declares that they have a right, and the courts decided that that persons claim is legitimate in spite of a majority's opposition to the *opinion* of that person and that judge, that is fascism.
How did this play out in terms of the Civil Rights movement, in your mind? *interested
I'm actually kinda undecided on the civil rights movement. Some days I think...
Thanks for the explanation.
Just curious -- are you coming out as Reshpeckobiggle, or did you find the question also worth answering? (*honest question, was simply wondering, and thanks regardless)
Erm... at the risk of exposing my idiocy, I do not understand what you are asking, could you rephrase? TIA!
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
There are parallels between homosexual marriage today and the civil rights movement of the 60's. But there is a major difference that I will address at the end of this. I would also like to say that I never expressed my opinion about the rightness or wrongness of homosexual marriage. I expressed my belief that using an unelected and unaccountable branch of government to impose a right that is recognized by a small minority onto the remaining majority of a population is fascist. If homosexuals want to legalize gay marriage, maybe they should use the constitutionally explicit right to free speech to convince the rest of us that this is a law that should be passed by the elected legislature, rather than invoking some fabricatedrights that the framers of the constitution surrepititiously included in the text, only to be discovered by our more enlightened judges of today. Simliar to the "right to privacy" that allows a woman to kill her unborn child. That was what Madison meant when he said soldiers are not to be quartered in private homes, you know.
I say this because smart and honest people are on both sides of this issue. Same goes for abortion and intelligent design. Segregation laws, abolishment, womens sufferage; not so much. Those are examples of where judicial action was right and effective.
posted
You could have said "is not!" and stomped your foot and sounded more mature.
Seriously, what is considered irresponsible judicial activism by one group is very easily considered an absolutely necessary defense of Constitutional rights by another group. The latter group isn't seeking, by and large, to "impose their will;" they're seeking to defend themselves from the majority. That the majority also feels under attack -- or at least counter-attacked -- is the root of this confusion.
quote:I say this because smart and honest people are on both sides of this issue. Same goes for abortion and intelligent design. Segregation laws, abolishment, womens sufferage; not so much. Those are examples of where judicial action was right and effective.
You keep throwing around accusations of "fascism," but based on this quote I wonder how well you understand what fascism is. After all, basing the rightness of any judicial decision on the intelligence and honesty of the people negatively affected by that decision is almost textbook fascism.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: There are parallels between homosexual marriage today and the civil rights movement of the 60's. But there is a major difference that I will address at the end of this. ....Segregation laws, abolishment, womens sufferage; not so much. Those are examples of where judicial action was right and effective.
So, what is the major difference? *interested
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
<--- Edited to add: whoops! For some reason, I thought you were new. My apologies. Well, welcome anyway.)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Welcome to full-fledged posting status, Hitoshi. 
