quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that part of the problem I have with the "let's all be nice and civil to each other" (even though I know it is important) is the failure to recognize that, as polite as one is about it, denying someone civil rights because you don't think their life is as good as yours is not nice and not civil and not polite. It is offensive no matter how it is sugar-coated with good intentions and "hate the sin, not the sinner" rhetoric.
It is very human, however, to rationalize such behavior and to truly, deeply believe it that way. Maybe it's easier for me to understand because I've shifted from a strong anti-gay stance to a strong pro-gay stance, but I can assure you that I didn't change my mind because people told me I was a bad person filled with hatred and bigotry.
In fact, the most likely reason that I held that stance, the reason I held a lot of stances that I later flip flopped on, it because my parents did. And they were the strongest influence in my life before I went to college. But whatever the reason, I had a great bit of rationalization going on that was internally consistent. I don't see how that made me a mean, uncivil, and impolite person. If anything, I was nicer, more civil, and more polite back then. The older I get, the more hardened and cynical I become.
Christine, you may have been (though I think you are pretty nice, now) but your position wasn't.
Scott, perhaps not. But that is not the point I was addressing.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Certainly the people subjected to this treatment won't think it's nice, civil, or polite.
But that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not laws should be passed or struck down. "
No, but its also a little ridiculous to expect people to be nice and civil and polite when what they are talking about is the mean, uncivil, impolite policy that you are saying should remain in place.
posted
Not really. Just insist on some recognition that there isn't a nice way to hold an offensive opinion.
A bus driver can say "please" when telling someone they have to go to the back of the bus that doesn't make it okay or require you to be polite about going.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, but its also a little ridiculous to expect people to be nice and civil and polite when what they are talking about is the mean, uncivil, impolite policy that you are saying should remain in place.
On the contrary-- this is a requirement for civilization. Learning to speak civilly to people who are diametrically opposed to your own viewpoints is one hallmark of adulthood. The society that embraces civil discourse is therefore more free because the citizens are ensured that other citizens are not going to suddenly grab weapons and kill them-- no matter how much they might disagree.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:In any case, as Card himself is not here to tell any of us whether or not we have correctly understood his arguments, I find this entire conversation to be difficult at best, pointless at worst.
I am allowed, though, to point to the nonambiguous statements of an author and know that he meant what he said and argue based on this point, especially given the lack of a retraction and the fact that this year he amped it up and even became part of this nation's most prominent anti-SSM organization.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, but its also a little ridiculous to expect people to be nice and civil and polite when what they are talking about is the mean, uncivil, impolite policy that you are saying should remain in place.
On the contrary-- this is a requirement for civilization. Learning to speak civilly to people who are diametrically opposed to your own viewpoints is one hallmark of adulthood. The society that embraces civil discourse is therefore more free because the citizens are ensured that other citizens are not going to suddenly grab weapons and kill them-- no matter how much they might disagree.
Scott, free for whom? You are missing the point that the viewpoints themselves are not equal in civility. Sugar-coating with polite words does not make denying rights to gays civil. It is neither just nor kind, so demanding civility from supporters of SSM is, perhaps unwitting, hypocrisy.
If you (general you) want more civility in the words of advocates for gay rights, you (general you) might stop insisting on uncivil actions against gay people.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sugar-coating with polite words does not make denying rights to gays civil. It is neither just nor kind, so demanding civility from supporters of SSM is, perhaps unwitting, hypocrisy.
If you (general you) want more civility in the words of advocates for gay rights, you (general you) might stop insisting on uncivil actions against gay people.
Addressing the subject at hand: opponents of SSM do not recognize that same sex marriage is a civil right. It's useless to stomp your feet on the ground and shout, "It is, it is!"
On a more general note:
I'm alarmed that you feel this way about dialog. Or maybe you just feel this way about this select subject. (I don't know why that would be the case)
More than rights are being taken away from the unborn. Would it be right of those who oppose abortion to start being uncivil in discussions here on Hatrack? How far are you willing to apply your ideas about justified incivility?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, you are not reading what I am writing.
I am not suggesting that advocates of gay rights become less civil. I have noted that civility is important. I have agreed that trying to understand the other point of view is important.
What I am suggesting is that opponents of gay rights who complain about the incivility of advocates of gay rights need to look at their own behaviour. No matter how polite their words, their action in opposing equal rights (since you object to "civil rights") is not polite. It is not kind, or nice, or friendly, or understanding, or just. It may be, for some, considered a religious necessity or a bulwark against reproductive chaos, but that does not make it kind, or nice, or friendly, or just.
Recognition of that is important.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
But again, as Scott pointed out, they aren't opposing equal rights. They don't consider the right to a same sex marriage to be a right at all, for anyone.
What’s the civil way to express that viewpoint?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you (general you) want more civility in the words of advocates for gay rights, you (general you) might stop insisting on uncivil actions against gay people.
I do not agree that holding an opinion is equal to taking an action.
I do not agree that withholding cookies from a toddler who is having a tantrum is unkind.
This has nothing to do with homosexuals.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
My understanding of kmbboots's argument is not that she's saying that she or anyone on the pro-SSM side of the argument should be uncivil - it's that anti-SSM proponents should not complain about what they consider uncivil actions since, from the POV of pro-SSM people, the anti-SSM side is, in and of itself, uncivil.
So. "I'm not going to do A because I recognize it's bad. But you shouldn't complain too much about people doing A, since you're doing A yourself."
I agree with this position.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, if you aren't equating homosexuals wanting to marry with toddlers wanting cookies, what is the relevance of that statement? Why would you post it in this discussion?
True. If one never takes action on their opinion they are not engaging in unkind acts.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you aren't equating homosexuals wanting to marry with toddlers wanting cookies, what is the relevance of that statement? Why would you post it in this discussion?
Because you are hinting that in some cases, it's excusable to be uncivil.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the abortion analogy is apt. It's difficult to maintain civility, but people should try. Otherwise, the sides will simply become increasingly polarized.
In other words, be uncivil all you like, but I think it's more likely to hurt your cause than help it.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:if you aren't equating homosexuals wanting to marry with toddlers wanting cookies, what is the relevance of that statement? Why would you post it in this discussion?
Because you are hinting that in some cases, it's excusable to be uncivil.
No. I'm not. If I thought that, I would say it rather than hint at it.
Again. I am not suggesting that supporters of gay rights should be less civil; I am saying that people who oppose gay rights are more uncivil, no matter how polite they are about it, than they think they are.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: My understanding of kmbboots's argument is not that she's saying that she or anyone on the pro-SSM side of the argument should be uncivil - it's that anti-SSM proponents should not complain about what they consider uncivil actions since, from the POV of pro-SSM people, the anti-SSM side is, in and of itself, uncivil.
So. "I'm not going to do A because I recognize it's bad. But you shouldn't complain too much about people doing A, since you're doing A yourself."
I agree with this position.
Jhai, I believe that both you and kate are begging the question. The SSM debate is fundamentally not about whether gay people should be denied civil rights it is about whether people should have the right to marry a person of their choosing regardless of gender. The primary question IS whether this should be a civil right or not. Your argument basically boils down to you don't think you need to be civil if you are right.
The funny thing is, that your stance is the radical one. To the best of my knowledge, prior to the last two decades, civilization that have sanctioned same sex marriage are at best highly exceptional even among civilizations like ancient Greece where same sex relationships were not only accepted but praised. I don't think that constitutes a reason why our society should not sanction SSM, but certainly it ought to make it clear that this isn't a long recognized legal right.
You are the ones proposing that we grant a new right in our society. It is your burden to pursuade opponents that this right is just and just shouting 'it is a right' repeatedly is begging the question.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: My understanding of kmbboots's argument is not that she's saying that she or anyone on the pro-SSM side of the argument should be uncivil - it's that anti-SSM proponents should not complain about what they consider uncivil actions since, from the POV of pro-SSM people, the anti-SSM side is, in and of itself, uncivil.
So. "I'm not going to do A because I recognize it's bad. But you shouldn't complain too much about people doing A, since you're doing A yourself."
I agree with this position.
Jhai, I believe that both you and kate are begging the question. The SSM debate is fundamentally not about whether gay people should be denied civil rights it is about whether people should have the right to marry a person of their choosing regardless of gender. The primary question IS whether this should be a civil right or not. Your argument basically boils down to you don't think you need to be civil if you are right.
Where? Where! have I written that anyone should stop being civil? MY argument is the opposite of that. I am saying that even if we are all wrong and opponents of SSM are right - because God says so or civilization will fall if we allow gay marriage or whatever - they are still being unkind and unjust and not nice.
Perhaps religious dictates and saving families as you (general you) think they should be trumps being kind and just and nice. I get that. Just don't pretend that you (general you) are being kind and just and nice.
quote:
The funny thing is, that your stance is the radical one. To the best of my knowledge, prior to the last two decades, civilization that have sanctioned same sex marriage are at best highly exceptional even among civilizations like ancient Greece where same sex relationships were not only accepted but praised. I don't think that constitutes a reason why our society should not sanction SSM, but certainly it ought to make it clear that this isn't a long recognized legal right.
You are the ones proposing that we grant a new right in our society. It is your burden to pursuade opponents that this right is just and just shouting 'it is a right' repeatedly is begging the question.
Marriage isn't a new right. Just like voting wasn't a new right when we allowed women to vote. Now, most places, it is a legal protection that some people have access to and others do not. "This is how it has always been" is not a good enough argument nor is it a true argument. Marriage has been many things - and still is - before it became what it is here and now.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Your argument basically boils down to you don't think you need to be civil if you are right. "
No, kate's argument boils down to "If you treat people meanly, don't be surprised if they treat you meanly in response. This does not mean that anyone should be mean to other people."
Look, I get that some people don't think this is about equal rights (they are wrong, but whatever), but to believe that you are not being mean to gay people while arguing against letting gays have access to civil marriage is frankly inexcusable for any halfway-intelligent person.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, did you actually read what I wrote? My argument (i.e. my interpretation of Kate's argument) boils down to exactly what I wrote, no more, no less: "I'm not going to do A because I recognize it's bad. But you shouldn't complain too much about people doing A, since you're doing A yourself." How is that equivalent to "you don't think you need to be civil if you are right"? If you would like, I can put these two statements into propositional logic and prove that they are not the same, nor even close to it.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Where? Where! have I written that anyone should stop being civil? MY argument is the opposite of that. I am saying that even if we are all wrong and opponents of SSM are right - because God says so or civilization will fall if we allow gay marriage or whatever - they are still being unkind and unjust and not nice
How? That is the argument. Is it just or is it unjust? And kind and nice are pretty strongly linked with what is just. I suppose people might consider it kind and nice if I give people more than they justly deserve but is it unkind and not nice if I don't. Couldn't one fairly consider it not nice if people demand to receive more than they justly deserve?
If it is just to prohibit same sex marriage, is it then unkind and not nice to oppose legalization? Seriously, explain your argument. You are still begging the real question. Does justice demand that people should be allowed to legally marry any person of their choosing regardless of gender.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, can you explain to me how denying SSM is just?
I can give you plenty of reasons that it isn't.
Added: Really. In decades of arguing for gay rights, I have heard lots of arguments about religion and protecting families and saving children from existing in homes without both genders. I have never heard someone argue that it is fair.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by twinky: I think the abortion analogy is apt. It's difficult to maintain civility, but people should try. Otherwise, the sides will simply become increasingly polarized.
In other words, be uncivil all you like, but I think it's more likely to hurt your cause than help it.
Is this true though? In both the abortion and gay marriage cases, while it is true that both sides are polarized I have to wonder if it is actually true that being civil would actually help.
Looking at the social trends and the projections of places like 538, it seems that same-sex marriage is all but inevitable although it may take a long time. The abortion fight is partly won, although vigilance is very required. And all this is with the current set of very uncivil tactics. In other words, it seems like the uncivil tactics are actually working and of benefit!
So is it actually true that if everyone sat down and starting being more polite that the cause of same-sex marriage and pro-choice would actually be advanced? Or rather, is it the case that less noise and uncivility might actually mean less attention to the two causes and more antipathy toward changing the status quo?
It is an interesting question and I don't think the answer is as obvious as assumed by some of the preceding posts.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmboots, I'm not arguing that denying same sex marriage is just so no I'm not going to explain it to you.
You are proposing that something be made a legal right that is not currently a legal right -- you therefore have the burden of pursuading people that this change is just. This is the big underlying question in the debate. You can't just pretend it doesn't exist and everyone agrees. They clearly don't.
The SSM debate isn't a debate between people who all agree that people have an inherent right to marry who ever the choose without restriction. It isn't a debate between people who think its OK to deny this right and people who don't. Its a debate about whether or not this should be a right.
This the question. If the answer were obvious, there wouldn't be a debate. This is what I keep saying about trying to understand where the other side is coming from.
Opponents of SSM (at least the ones I know) are not people who think its gays should be treated unkindly and unjustly. They aren't people who think its OK to discriminate against people because they are gay. They are people who think that the current system in which people are allowed to marry only people of the opposite sex is just. If you want that to change, you have to address the question not just keeping repeating that you are right and they are wrong.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You are proposing that something be made a legal right that is not currently a legal right -- you therefore have the burden of pursuading people that this change is just. "
Alternatively, people holding something for themselves that they won't let others have access to have the burden of showing that the status quo is just.
Currently existing is not a good argument for alternative view points to have the burden of proof. Its a COMMON argument, but its not good.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Opponents of SSM (at least the ones I know) are not people who think its gays should be treated unkindly and unjustly. They aren't people who think its OK to discriminate against people because they are gay. "
Opponents of SSM are, nevertheless, people who DO treat gays unkindly and unjustly.
Also, the proposition "It is not ok to discriminate against people who are gay," and "It is just to deny same sex marriage while maintaining the status quo of legal marriage," are contradictory.
To discriminate means to make a distinction in favor of one group over another. It is illogical to claim that the status quo of marriage is not discriminatory... people who maintain it is not aren't paying attention to what civil marriage in the United States is.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "You are proposing that something be made a legal right that is not currently a legal right -- you therefore have the burden of pursuading people that this change is just. "
Alternatively, people holding something for themselves that they won't let others have access to have the burden of showing that the status quo is just.
Currently existing is not a good argument for alternative view points to have the burden of proof. Its a COMMON argument, but its not good.
Perhaps valid in a philosophy class but impractical when we are discussing the law. A system which required those who opposed changes to the law to prove the status quo was fair would virtually unworkable.
I have in my a possession a bar of excellent chocolate. It is legally mine and I intend to eat it. Current law says that only people who pay the fair market price or recieve it as a gift have the right to good chocolate. If you believe that this system is unjust and that all people deserve to eat good chocolate whether or not they can pay the fair market price or have generous friends, then you have the responsibility of persuading people that the law should be changed. Telling me that I'm unkind, and unjust and not nice because I'm going to eat and enjoy my chocolate while I oppose changes to the law that would allow everyone to eat and enjoy this chocolate, is begging the question.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Opponents of SSM are, nevertheless, people who DO treat gays unkindly and unjustly.
You are still begging the question. I don't care how many times you rephrase it. The debate exists because opponents of SSM disagree with that this is a fact. They don't believe it is unjust deny people the right to marry some on of the same gender.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Opponents of SSM are, nevertheless, people who DO treat gays unkindly and unjustly.
You are still begging the question. I don't care how many times you rephrase it. The debate exists because opponents of SSM disagree with that this is a fact. They don't believe it is unjust deny people the right to marry some on of the same gender.
The Rabbit, I could with just as much sense, argue that calling someone a stupid bigot is kind and civil because I believe that.
Not, mind you, that I am doing that here and now.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You are still begging the question. I don't care how many times you rephrase it. The debate exists because opponents of SSM disagree with that this is a fact."
Actually, I'm not sure that's the argument they are making. Most "good" arguments I've seen against equitable marriage (not that I've seen any actual good argument) don't deny that they are being unkind and unjust to gays, rather, those arguments assert, usually, necessity or similar. Necessity, beneficial for society, etc. are not the same as "kind and just."
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As for the chocolate argument. Capitalism is not supposed to be fair; our legal system is supposed to be.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You are only being kind towards people if the people you are acting towards agree that you are being kind. That's implicit in the definition of kind. Since you cannot find more than a small handful of gays who think the anti-equitable marriage stance is kind, the only way for an anti to believe s/he is being kind is by being delusional or deliberately blind.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kate, You seem to believe that straight people have the right to marry any person of their choosing. Neither gay people nor straight people have the legal right to marry some one who is already married to someone else, or someone under a set age, or someone who is a close relative or someone who does not consent or someone of the same gender.
It is entirely possible to see these laws as applying equally to everyone and not specifically to straight or gay people. Historically, the legal contract of marriage has been about property rights and responsibilities not about love or sexual attraction. Even today I can think of many reasons people might want to marry someone to whom they were not particularly sexually attracted, although these are the exceptions not the rule. For example, two men who wanted to get married to save on medical insurance wouldn't be allowed to but a man and a woman would be allowed to marry even if this was their only reason. Two divorced women who chose to live together to share child care and financial responsibilities, would not be allowed to marry but if they were a man and a women they could.
Personally, I see no reason why the fact that two people whose relationship is sexual should receive legal rights that are different from two people whose relationship is non-sexual.
In my opinion, the legal status of marriage has already been made archaic by modern attitudes toward love, sex, marriage, property, inheritance and women in general. It is no longer adequate for dealing with the complexities of family relations and property ownership in our modern society and needs to be overhauled. But I think the claims that the law discriminates against gay people are inaccurate.
It might be accurate to say the laws give an unfair advantage to people with more traditional property and familial arrangements. Even families like mine with two career professionals are at a disadvantage under currently law.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: As for the chocolate argument. Capitalism is not supposed to be fair; our legal system is supposed to be.
The chocolate analogy is awful. Rabbit can't be so morally blind as to not know that.
It costs to make chocolate. That's why it's fair to pay for it. Marriage "costs" the state some too, but gay people are already paying the same taxes, and getting none of the benefits.
So a better chocolate analogy (as if the harm caused by not having a few onces of chocolate is comaprable to the harm of not having a legal marraige) is that gay people are like people with severe peanut allergies who are forced to buy chocolate, but only in the form of chocolate peanut butter cups. And that's fine for most people, who really like chocolate peanut butter cups, but it's not going to work for people with allergies. Their choices are to not eat the chocolate they want and paid for, or to eat it with peanut butter, and be miserable.
It's obvious to anyone with a heart that that's not a just situation.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Kate, You seem to believe that straight people have the right to marry any person of their choosing. Neither gay people nor straight people have the legal right to marry some one who is already married to someone else, or someone under a set age, or someone who is a close relative or someone who does not consent or someone of the same gender.
What have written that makes you think that is what I believe? Is is because I keep insisting that I am married to Viggo Mortenson? How do you think that "same gender" fits with under age or already legally committed to someone else.
As for the roomates who want to save on insurance. If they are opposite gender roomates, they can get married if they choose. They may also be committing insurance fraud, but they can get married.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
" But I think the claims that the law discriminates against gay people are inaccurate. "
You think wrongly. Either you do not know the law, or you do not know what discriminate means, or you are lying. I choose to believe you simply are uninformed.
The word discriminate means to give preference to one position or group over another.
Marriage in the united states as a legal institution allows people to marry a consenting person of their choosing, unless they choose a person of the same sex, or a close family member. This is giving preference to people who choose to form a pair-bond with someone of the opposite sex. The laws in most places where same sex couples may not marry outlining what marriage is in the united states have been written explicitly in response to people desiring to marry someone of the same sex. DOMA was passed in response to people desiring to marry a consenting person of the same sex, not of close familial relations.
This is a textbook example of discrimination.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So the law discriminates on a group that is defined solely by their desires?
So do laws that require people to get a drivers license to use the public road ways discriminate against the group of people who don't want to get drivers licenses?
Do tax laws discriminate against the group of people who don't want to pay taxes?
Do laws against steeling descriminate against the group of people who want to take stuff that doesn't belong to them?
Do laws against murder discriminate against people who want to kill somebody?
I have a hard time buying off that a law is discriminatory because it disadvantages people who desire something other than the law.
Laws against steeling and killing were made only in response to people who wanted to steel and kill. By your definition these are all textbook examples of discrimination.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the roomates who want to save on insurance. If they are opposite gender roomates, they can get married if they choose. They may also be committing insurance fraud, but they can get married.
Do laws consider a marriage fraudulent if the two people aren't having sex? First time I've heard it. I'm fairly confident that as long as the marriage is legal, you aren't committing insurance fraud.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, so would a law that allowed white people to sit in front of the bus or go stay at certain hotels wouldn't be discriminatory because it only disadvantaged people who desired something other than the law?
I'm really not sure where you are going with that.
Again, you are not reading what I wrote. No. Laws do not consider a marriage fraudulent if two people aren't having sex. Like I wrote, "they can get married".
I don't know what insurance companies require, hence "may" be committing insurance fraud.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What have written that makes you think that is what I believe? Is is because I keep insisting that I am married to Viggo Mortenson? How do you think that "same gender" fits with under age or already legally committed to someone else
No. Marriage to people who are teenagers, first cousins and even polygamy (marriage to someone who is already married) have been legal for much of human history. In fact, in many cultures one has been able to legal marry a woman without her consent. I'm still searching for examples of civilizations where same sex marriage has been legal.
Look I'm not trying to be obtuse. I'm obviously not making my point clear. If you want to persuade people that SSM is just, then you have to provide arguments to support that because it isn't obvious. This is a very new idea and reflect changes in our societies attitudes about what marriage is and what marriage should be. I'm not saying that those changes are wrong, in fact I think many of them are good. I'm saying that they need to be clearly articulated and saying "arguments like "how does same gender fit with X, Y and Z" don't cut the mustard.
Rights are a really a rather strange concept. We tend to think of them as something that is true and that exists whether or not we recognize it. But then how do we recognize them? How do we decide whether or not something is a right and exactly how that right is defined? And societally the answer to that question has thus far always been through by consensus. If you can persuade enough people that something is a right -- it becomes a right.
The things is, at least from a legal perspective, it has proven much easier to create new rights than to decide old ones weren't really rights. So maybe we should think really hard about the future consequences before we start enshrining new things as legal rights.
Which is why I'm asking, build the argument. Why is SSM the just thing to do? Why should people have the right to marry someone of the same gender? Use your best logic, your best heart render stories, your best persuasive ability and explain why people should consider this a right. Don't just keep repeating that its obvious. If it is really and truly as obvious as you claim, you should be able to support the argument really easily.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The Rabbit, so would a law that allowed white people to sit in front of the bus or go stay at certain hotels wouldn't be discriminatory because it only disadvantaged people who desired something other than the law?
No. That creates different rules for different people based on their ancestry, not their desires. If a gene were identified as causing homosexuality and people who had that gene were prohibited from marrying, that would be discriminatory. But a law that prohibits everyone from marrying someone of the same gender is not explicitly discriminatory. It applies the same to gay people and straight people. It has discriminatory effects because gay people are far more likely to want to marry someone of the same sex.
quote:I'm really not sure where you are going with that.
I'm trying to point that we don't generally consider a law that impacts differently on people with different desires or behaviors to be disciminatory. Should we consider laws against murder discriminatory because black males are more likely to commit a murder that white females? No. If the law creates different rules for black males and white females who have the same desires and behaviors, then it is discriminatory.
quote:Again, you are not reading what I wrote. No. Laws do not consider a marriage fraudulent if two people aren't having sex. Like I wrote, "they can get married".
No, I don't know what insurance companies require, hence "may" be committing insurance fraud.
I read what your wrote but I'm afraid I don't understand your point in writing it. I was giving an example illustrating that the current laws apply equal to a straights and gays. If a pair of straight men wanted the legal benefits of marriage, the law would apply equally to them as it does to a gay pair of men who might want the legal benefits of marriage. The law is not explicitly discriminatory against gays since it would apply to any pair of many who wanted to marry and not only to a pair of men who wanted to marry because they were sexually attracted.
Let me give you another example. My husband and I have for most of our married life payed higher taxes because we were married. Some of our friends who have been together for nearly as long and who often represent themselves as a married couple, have never gotten married legally because of the financial disadvantages. My husband and I could do that as well but we don't want to (mostly for religious reasons). Do you think that the tax law discriminates against people of my religion?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit, gay people are not asking for the right to marry their cousins (which is actually allowed in many states) or underage people.
I think you may be hedging around getting rid of marriage rights altogether and I can sort of see that. Right now, though, straight people have the right to marry and start families with a consenting person and gay people do not have that right. That is not just. Keeping people from having the legal protection of a family is not kind.
We don't allow children to get married because they can't consent. We don't allow siblings to get married because of problems with reproduction and consent. And that may indeed not be just (see how I admitted that?) but there is a good reason for it. It is kind because letting children be raped is unkind.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the chocolate argument. Capitalism is not supposed to be fair; our legal system is supposed to be.
Capitalism is legal under our system. If its not fair, then how can we justify a legal system which defines and defends property rights determined by unfair capitalist market forces.
On second thought, lets not go there. I really not in the mood for a another fight with the libertarian crows. I've been called a monster enough on hatrack lately.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So do laws that require people to get a drivers license to use the public road ways discriminate against the group of people who don't want to get drivers licenses?"
Yes.
"Do tax laws discriminate against the group of people who don't want to pay taxes?"
Yes.
"Do laws against steeling descriminate against the group of people who want to take stuff that doesn't belong to them?"
Yes.
"Do laws against murder discriminate against people who want to kill somebody? "
Yes.
"I have a hard time buying off that a law is discriminatory because it disadvantages people who desire something other than the law."
As I said above, either you don't understand the law, or you don't understand the word "discriminate." Clearly, the failure in your understanding is over what the word "discriminate," means.
Discrimination in the law is not always wrong. But it is up to the state to justify any discrimination.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I am not such a big fan of unfettered capitalism myself. Theoretically, people are supposed to have the same opportunity to make the money to buy the chocolate.
Yeah. Not so much.
And, just saying, calling people crows is not so civil and I have never called you a monster. Nor would I.
posted
" If you want to persuade people that SSM is just, then you have to provide arguments to support that because it isn't obvious."
What definition of "just" are you using that would say that current marriage laws in most states are just?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
