[undotwa]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
undotwa--


There's nothing inherently wrong about change. Interracial and interfaith marriages ranged between unknown to very marginalized for a long time. We're better off having changed to accept them, I think. Similarly, the notion of love marriages, as opposed to arranged marriages et al as being generally acceptable is fairly new as well, and that's had a very profound impact -- but again, probably for the better.

The concept of love marriages is not new. Though it is right to say that arranged marriages were much more frequent in the olden days, especially amongst the upper classes than today.

No, I think that actually has a lot more to do with a deemphasis on having children at all. Given modern industry, women's lib, health care, better forms of contraception, a good economy, etc. there's not so much need or desire to have a lot of kids. Plus of course, immigration can make up a lot for falling birth rates, and as it's central to the American culture (we're mostly basically immigrants or descendents of immigrants) it's not a big deal for us at least; don't much see why it would be for others.

Yes, all these factor into the equation. I still think, the government is not giving enough support to families. Right wing politicians complain that we are not having enough children, but they oppose any form of welfare. So many people want children, but can't, because they simply can't (at least they feel) afford it.

Nothing prevents same sex couples from raising children. In fact, they frequently do, although those children presently usually aren't biologically descended from one or both members of the couple.*

Gender and sexual orientation don't seem to me to be particularly significant issues with regards to suitable environments for childrearing. I'd be more concerned with other factors regarding suitability, since there are and always have been very shitty parents that had children biologically. I don't see you advocating taking children out of the custody of biological parents that are merely sub-optimal. So why advocate essentially the same thing here? Base it on something better.

I disagree; I'm really not wanting to discuss this though.

Yeah, and the will of the people was also in favor of segregated schools, and treating women essentially as chattel, until comparatively recently. The people often do stupid things. This is why we set up guarantees of rights that don't depend on popularity. From the Barnette case:

With the will of people so set against gay marriages, I can't see how any court decision would possibly hold. Politicians who appoint the supreme court judges, survive because of popularity.

I didn't say you do. I said you could if you wanted to.

The implication was surely there; I found it offensive.

I'm saying that they should not make their decision based upon gender or sexual orientation, just as they should not based upon race, religion, etc.

It's kind of like, I dunno, bidding out contracts. You want to build a building, you publish the requirements, and people make anonymous bids. You can base your decision on the bids that are made -- generally taking the lowest one. You can't base your decision on other information, such as the identity of each bidder. You are blind to that. This can result in awarding contracts to people you personally don't like, and not awarding them to your best friend.

So when I'm saying that certain factors must not be considered, I'm saying that the agency must not consider them. They must ignore it, and treat couples that might differ as to that factor identically since as far as they are allowed to notice, they are identical.

The agency should make the decision on what they think is the best environment to raise a child. They can consider so many different things. Gay couples do tend to be more promiscuous, and this is a serious concern to the agencies. Also, tha it is doubtful that it is a natural and suitable environment for children to grow up in, is a serious concern. You cannot deny that this is a hotly debated issue. It would be wise considering the circumstances for an adoption agency to deny access, till sociologists have some kind of agreement on the matter.

Because I think that it's a fairly basic civil rights issue. People are guaranteed equal treatment. I'm willing to accept to some degree that there may at times be good reasons to deny it. But some forms of discrimination may require especially strong reasons in order to be acceptable.

Generally, laws regarding marriage discriminate on the basis of gender: the parties can't be of the same gender. This is not technically discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but it is intended to be, and it amounts to such, so it is also an orientation discrimination.

I have yet to see a rational, much less strong reason (for I think this issue demands a rather strong one) to justify this.

There have been laws regarding marriage that discriminated on other bases that have been overturned or otherwise fell by the wayside for the same reason. Interfaith marriages weren't always legal. But since there's no good reason for that, that ban couldn't stand. Ditto for interracial marriages (and n.b. that that ban in practice operated very similarly to the ban on same sex marriages). Go back far enough, or to the right cultures, and you'll see bans on intercaste marriages.

So I don't want the government to stop discriminating in order to prop up same sex marriages or encourage them. I don't want to encourage them. Rather, I don't want the government to practice discrimination as a rule, and this is a form of discrimination. I merely like to see people being able to act freely -- if this means same sex marriages, then so be it. But if people, given the choice, generally don't enter into such marriages, that's fine too. I only care about the option.

You are right in saying that unless there are no valid reasons, we should not ban gay marriage. Thank God there are though.

Hm? I thought that rational thought involved searching inquiry and subjecting hypotheses to tests in order to determine their truth, falsity, or lack of truth, or falsity.

Whereas faith involves taking things on faith and not testing them at all. Just blithely assuming that they must be a certain way.

AFAICT faith is entirely incompatable with rationalism. This doesn't prevent a rational person from making assumptions and conducting inquiry accepting of those assumptions, but it does make them suspect.

So I think that what you said is nonsense.

What I said is not entirely nonsense.

Faith is not blind; at least mine isn't. Assumptions are made but only because of induction . Faith is a realisation that because the world must have a beginning and an end (it is only logical), that therefore it must have an origin which exists outside of time. To me, the leap of faith is not accepting that there is God; but rather who and what is God. Though considering that we are limited in scope and mind, I cannot see how rationalism is actually fit to comprehend the divine. our minds are only designed to work with our world which we toil.

Well, since government cannot regulate based upon faith, we can disregard the first set of reasons. The second set of reasons may be valid, but so far they don't seem to be very convincing, especially if we subject opposite sex marriages to similar scrutiny in order to keep things fair.

You're arguments aren't convincing to me either; such is life.

And to be honest, I find this dangerous at a minimum given the examples from history of even fairly minor entanglements between government and religion. It's never worked out well for anyone, and odds are I, and many others, would end up on the business end if it were tried again.

'why' was a typo, it was meant to be 'which'. I don't advocate a 'father knows best government', rather a government which protects the integrity and dignity of institutions which are vital to the survival of the human race.

That's because there is no golden age, nor will there ever be. Problems might change, but there will always be problems. These might not be all that evident to someone at a remove from them; the grass is always greener on the other side, after all. But they're there whether they're noticed or not.

I don't believe there will be a golden age; but does mean I should not be idealistic? We live in an imperfect world, which is improvable.

I wouldn't fault him. We're all only human. Intellectually recognizing ideals doesn't mean that it's easy to accept them on an emotional level, or to actually adhere to them.

That ideal then, must surely be flawed.

Well, 'the good of humanity' is amazingly ambigious. But you sound like a utilitarian. While I espouse that in certain areas (e.g. I'm a strong utilitarian with regards to copyright, which is my professional specialty) I think it has its dangers elsewhere. It's a very ends justify means sort of thing, and I find that very uncomfortable.

I did not mean that in a utilitarian manner. Though to some extent, I am utilitarian. Things should always be done with the good of society in mind. Causing pain though as a means, never results in good. Goodness cannot be found through Hell.

[cpt kangarooski]

undotwa--

With the will of people so set against gay marriages, I can't see how any court decision would possibly hold. Politicians who appoint the supreme court judges, survive because of popularity.

Nevertheless, it'll have to. After all, all of the measures voted on just recently were direct attacks on equal rights. It is deeply shameful that people would be willing to turn their backs on such a principle. I don't think that this hysteria will last, though.

The implication was surely there; I found it offensive.

The earlier statement was

I don't know why. While I'd like you to accept them, I don't care if you do not. You can hate them as much as anything, and it won't really bother me, so long as you don't get in the way. This is rather like how I'm prepared to put up with the Klan and let them march and speak and whatever so long as they aren't actually doing anything significant, like killing people. They don't have to like desegregation, but as long as they don't stop it, it's not a big deal.

As you can see, I'm comparing my indifference at a pair of extremes. You thought I wanted to make you accept them. I said you can do the exact opposite of accepting them, and it still matters not. You're reading too much into that.

That all said, I think that you are acting in a grossly irrational and discriminatory manner. Whether this is due to hatred, or fear, or mere distaste, or whatever, I don't know, and I don't really care. But I don't like it, and I really don't like the effects.

The agency should make the decision on what they think is the best environment to raise a child. They can consider so many different things.

Sure. But not every single thing.

Gay couples do tend to be more promiscuous, and this is a serious concern to the agencies.

Are you saying that promiscuity is caused by being homosexual? Remember, correlations don't equal causes. I would say that if this is a concern, they should look towards promiscuity directly.

Also, tha it is doubtful that it is a natural and suitable environment for children to grow up in, is a serious concern. You cannot deny that this is a hotly debated issue.

I cannot deny either that the topic of whether the Earth is flat or round is still hotly contested. Have you ever had it out with one of those Flat Earth jerks? Arguing over something doesn't validate all (or sometimes any of) the positions in an argument, or transform trivial issues into critical ones. Whatever doubt exists here has no solid basis. It's just prejudice.

It would be wise considering the circumstances for an adoption agency to deny access, till sociologists have some kind of agreement on the matter.

I refuse to accept delay. No one ever got equal rights through inaction -- there is always one more delay, always more caution, always some method for bigots to stay bigoted. Women had to fight, blacks had to fight, etc. The gay rights movement in the US (and possibly elsewhere) essentially began in the 60's and 70's, and is generally regarded as having started with the Stonewall Riot. If they hadn't literally started fighting the police, who were arresting them en masse, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion today, because it wouldn't even be on our radar.

Faith is a realisation that because the world must have a beginning and an end (it is only logical)

Lots of things are logical. Aristotle thought that men had more teeth than women. And he was so convinced that this made sense that he never actually checked, because back then having a good rationale made up for a complete lack of evidence.

So I'd caution you as to assuming that there must be a beginning and an end just because it makes sense to you. The universe does a lot of weird crap.

'why' was a typo, it was meant to be 'which'. I don't advocate a 'father knows best government', rather a government which protects the integrity and dignity of institutions which are vital to the survival of the human race.

If they're that important and dignified, then they can stand on their own. They don't need propping up. And to prop them up would in fact be harmful to those institutions that expressly want to get rid of the other institutions, and label them as heretical, etc. The best thing government can do is to avoid and ignore the whole shebang.

That ideal then, must surely be flawed.

Piffle. Just strange and uncomfortable. Einstein had a similar reaction to some aspects of quantum mechanics and devoted considerable time and energy into trying to prop up his personal beliefs rather than approach them critically. He wasted a lot of time that way, in much the same way that Isaac Newton wasted a lot of his life on alchemy.

Sometimes our ideals, or the nature of reality, is different in its details than we had imagined, or that we're comfortable with. That doesn't invalidate them. No one ever said that it all had to be easily sensible to the ordinary mind.

Goodness cannot be found through Hell.

I disagree.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Nevertheless, it'll have to. After all, all of the measures voted on just recently were direct attacks on equal rights. It is deeply shameful that people would be willing to turn their backs on such a principle. I don't think that this hysteria will last, though.

For all those religions which endorse polygamy, should not we then allow polygamy?

I don't interpret the concept of 'equal rights' the same way as you do. To me, equal rights does not guarentee that every single 'lifestyle choice' will be acknowledged within law. Defining marriage as between a man and a woman discriminates against no man, or no woman. Every man and every woman have the same right, to marry a member of the opposite sex.

Sure. But not every single thing.

Whatever they think necessary.

Are you saying that promiscuity is caused by being homosexual? Remember, correlations don't equal causes. I would say that if this is a concern, they should look towards promiscuity directly.

Agencies should look at your socio-economic background, which includes whether the environment is fit for raising a child. I do think, to some extent, that promiscuity is a characteristic of many homosexuals (which is why AIDS is so high amongst homosexuals). I would not though go as as far to say homosexuality is a cause of promiscuity.

The agency also has to judge whether the relationship is stable enough.

I cannot deny either that the topic of whether the Earth is flat or round is still hotly contested. Have you ever had it out with one of those Flat Earth jerks? Arguing over something doesn't validate all (or sometimes any of) the positions in an argument, or transform trivial issues into critical ones. Whatever doubt exists here has no solid basis. It's just prejudice.

That was a low, low comment. Your pride does nothing to help you. You can't just dismiss arguments, reduce it all to prejudice, declare them 'invalid' and hope then they'll go away. You sir, have lost my respect.

You are correct in saying simply arguing does not validate your opinion. The same can be said about your arguments. The status quo should be respected till sufficient reason has been given to reject it; I await that reason.

I refuse to accept delay. No one ever got equal rights through inaction -- there is always one more delay, always more caution, always some method for bigots to stay bigoted. Women had to fight, blacks had to fight, etc. The gay rights movement in the US (and possibly elsewhere) essentially began in the 60's and 70's, and is generally regarded as having started with the Stonewall Riot. If they hadn't literally started fighting the police, who were arresting them en masse, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion today, because it wouldn't even be on our radar.

We don't live in that world no more.

Lots of things are logical. Aristotle thought that men had more teeth than women. And he was so convinced that this made sense that he never actually checked, because back then having a good rationale made up for a complete lack of evidence.

So I'd caution you as to assuming that there must be a beginning and an end just because it makes sense to you. The universe does a lot of weird crap.

Our senses are all we have; if cannot rely on our senses, what can we rely on?

If they're that important and dignified, then they can stand on their own. They don't need propping up. And to prop them up would in fact be harmful to those institutions that expressly want to get rid of the other institutions, and label them as heretical, etc. The best thing government can do is to avoid and ignore the whole shebang.

Civilizations can and have been destroyed. We are not invincible. It is precisely that these institutions are important and dignified that they do need propping up. No man is an island; we all rely on society for our needs as do families.

Piffle. Just strange and uncomfortable. Einstein had a similar reaction to some aspects of quantum mechanics and devoted considerable time and energy into trying to prop up his personal beliefs rather than approach them critically. He wasted a lot of time that way, in much the same way that Isaac Newton wasted a lot of his life on alchemy.

Sometimes our ideals, or the nature of reality, is different in its details than we had imagined, or that we're comfortable with. That doesn't invalidate them. No one ever said that it all had to be easily sensible to the ordinary mind.

As far as I remember, he advocated banning euthenasia. That directly contadicts his ideal. I cannot see how your analogy fits, or even your reply.

I disagree. [/B]

heh.

[cpt kangarooski]

undotwa--

For all those religions which endorse polygamy, should not we then allow polygamy?

I don't believe religion enters into it. We don't prohibit marriage to people who don't have religions that have traditions of marriage.

Marriage is a fundamental human right all by itself.

So if you want to deny marriage to people based on their marital status, you need a sufficiently good reason for treating some people (who are already married) differently from others (who are single).

The best reason I've ever heard was one based upon administrative convenience, basically; that it would be annoying to rewrite laws to take multiple spouses into account: laws regarding consent to marriage, inheritance, duties owed to children, dissolution, etc. And that we would deny people their right to do this because it'd be a pain in the ass to accomodate it.

I don't find that very convincing, but at least it makes a modicum of sense, unlike pretty much every other argument against it that I've ever heard.

I suspect that you're suddenly jumping to polyspousal marriages because you're trying to invoke it as part of a parade of horrors that would arise if we were willing to rationally consider challenges to our long-standing prejudices.

It doesn't horrify me, however, because as I've said, I ultimately view marriage as being a union between consenting persons. All other restrictions are artificial, imposed on top of that. Since I don't think that restrictions on human rights are good per se, I'd only be willing to tolerate them if there is some sufficiently compelling reason for them, all things considered. Of course I realize that this might result in changes -- but they'd be reforms that sweep away nonsensical impairments on liberty, so it's all good.

I don't interpret the concept of 'equal rights' the same way as you do. To me, equal rights does not guarentee that every single 'lifestyle choice' will be acknowledged within law.

Nor does it to me. Rather, it guarantees that all people will be treated equally and impartially by the government without the corrosive effect of prejudice, save in the instances where some difference between people is sufficiently important for a sufficiently important purpose that we might take note of it.

E.g. if the state is interviewing candidates for a teaching position, whether the candidates are rich or poor is not important, and there is no purpose for caring about that. Therefore they should be treated as equals in that regard, with no concern as to their respective degrees of wealth. OTOH, their own education is of supreme importance, and so attention should be paid to whether one has a doctorate and the other is an elementary school dropout.

With regards to marriage, I don't see what the sufficiently important reason is for treating people differently based upon their genders or orientation. And remember, since it is frequently brought up erroneously, child rearing is not relevant to marriage; they're seperate things, neither dependant upon the other. (And anyway, I don't see a sufficiently important reason with regards to child rearing either)

Defining marriage as between a man and a woman discriminates against no man, or no woman. Every man and every woman have the same right, to marry a member of the opposite sex.

The problem is that we can make a trivial change in your statement, and expose it -- more -- for what it is.

What you said can be rephrased as such, without changing the meaning, I think you'll agree:

Defining marriage as between persons of opposite gender discriminates against no individual of opposite gender from the other. Every person has the same right to marry a person of the opposite gender.

Now let's make our trivial change:

Defining marriage as between persons of the same race discriminates against no individual of the same race as the other. Every person has the same right to marry a person of the same race.

And this is not a new statement:

Instead, [Virginia, which wants to preserve a ban on interracial marriage] argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.

...

There can be no question but that Virginia's miscegenation statutes rest solely upon distinctions drawn according to race. The statutes proscribe generally accepted conduct if engaged in by members of different races. Over the years, this Court has consistently repudiated '(d)istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry' as being 'odious to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.' At the very least, the Equal Protection Clause demands that racial classifications, especially suspect in criminal statutes, be subjected to the 'most rigid scrutiny,' and, if they are ever to be upheld, they must be shown to be necessary to the accomplishment of some permissible state objective, independent of the racial discrimination which it was the object of the Fourteenth Amendment to eliminate. Indeed, two members of this Court have already stated that they 'cannot conceive of a valid legislative purpose ... which makes the color of a person's skin the test of whether his conduct is a criminal offense.'

There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy. We have consistently denied the constitutionality of measures which restrict the rights of citizens on account of race. There can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.

...

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Your argument is the same argument -- only applied to a different minority group -- as was Virginia's in Loving. It was a loser argument then, and it is a loser argument now.

If you're going to make the argument, you need to make it based upon there being a compelling reason. Not equal application, for there is no equal application in truth.

Agencies should look at your socio-economic background, which includes whether the environment is fit for raising a child.

The agency also has to judge whether the relationship is stable enough.

That's fine. But it doesn't preclude there from being a fit, stable same sex relationship, does it?

You sir, have lost my respect.

. <-- That's the world's smallest accordion. It plays for you.

The status quo should be respected till sufficient reason has been given to reject it; I await that reason.

Unfortunately, you have this backwards. The status quo should never be respected merely because it is the status quo. Rather, it is what must constantly be shown to have continuing value.

Nevertheless, there is a good reason, though if you're deliberately blind to it, you won't see it: people should be treated equally. They're not being treated equally. That's it.

We don't live in that world no more.

We don't live in the world where the police could arrest homosexuals for the crime of their existence, parade them away, and stick them in jail? No? Well guess why.

Our senses are all we have; if cannot rely on our senses, what can we rely on?

Common sense is not a form of sensory perception. Don't get cute and confuse the two.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by KarlG:
Gay marriage will happen in the U. S. A few fundamentalists, who are over reacting, aren't going to be able to stop it in the long run.

A few?