| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/06/2012 02:44:19 PM · #251 |
"Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
It's getting hard to be someone but it all works out.
It doesn't matter much to me." |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 02:51:19 PM · #252 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
I was asking about my questions and simply mentioned you could replace homosexuals with African Americans, knowing that the US where you live, had laws against miscegenation.
CS |
Finding analogies is difficult because there are ways in which things fit, but others in which it doesn't.
Comparing the issue to civil rights draws ties with discrimination against minorities.
Comparing the issue to polygamy draws ties with the idea there are cultural limits imposed upon activities like marriage.
People who support gay marriage will gravitate to the civil rights analogy. People against will gravitate to the polygamy analogy.
Ask your three questions about polygamists. There really aren't any more satisfying answered on that front either. Sometimes this leads to people putting on a brave face and declaring they are for polygamy as well, but there is no cultural swell to do so and nobody really minds that there isn't.
(This has been gone over in that 30,000 post thread. The point is that when people bust out analogies that make it seem plainly obvious what the answer is they fail to understand the opposition doesn't think the analogy fits (and that's why the answer isn't as plainly obvious as thought). It's what makes the issue divisive. The two sides talk past each other. One group says it's about discrimination. The other group says it's about cultural and traditional norms. |
I'm not following this. What do laws against inter-racial marriage have to do with polygamy?
I think CS is saying laws against inter-racial marriage are more akin to laws against gay marriage. but I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 02:57:10 PM · #253 |
Originally posted by CJinCA:
I think CS is saying laws against inter-racial marriage are more akin to laws against gay marriage. but I could be wrong. |
You could be, but you're not. Exactly the point I was trying to make. The slippery slope fallacy is classic in these debates with regards to polygamy. If someone wants to read a law professors take on the issue, read away.
CS
Message edited by author 2012-06-06 14:59:39. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 03:06:07 PM · #254 |
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
Originally posted by CJinCA:
I think CS is saying laws against inter-racial marriage are more akin to laws against gay marriage. but I could be wrong. |
You could be, but you're not. Exactly the point I was trying to make. The slippery slope fallacy is classic in these debates with regards to polygamy. If someone wants to read a law professors take on the issue, read away.
CS |
Ok, duly noted. I'm not, however, making a slippery slope argument. I'm not making an argument at all. I'm try to reveal to metadebate and show why the two sides don't understand each other. Change it up slightly. One side thinks it's like interracial marriage (once forbidden, now accepted) the other thinks it's like polygamy (once accepted (although probably not in our country's immediate culture), now forbidden). The analogies still preach to the choir while talking past the congregation. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 03:12:49 PM · #255 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
(This has been gone over in that 30,000 post thread. The point is that when people bust out analogies that make it seem plainly obvious what the answer is they fail to understand the opposition doesn't think the analogy fits (and that's why the answer isn't as plainly obvious as thought). It's what makes the issue divisive. The two sides talk past each other. One group says it's about discrimination. The other group says it's about cultural and traditional norms. |
Yes, i'd totally agree with this (although i've sometimes fought against it) and it's why i find so much of it so frustrating but there really isn't anything i can do about it once it gets down to a certain point.
The way is see it, is that it often boils down to what homosexuality is. The term 'lifestyle' tends to come up a lot from one side of the argument. 'Homosexuality is a lifestyle= it is not ingrained in us, we are not born with it. It is, essentially, a choice.' If that is your belief then it is going to be very hard to equate discrimination of homosexuals as being equal to the discrimination of race or gender. There is a slightly unsavoury feeling that sometimes people think that if homosexuality is a choice then people should snap out of it as they are only bringing that discrimination onto themselves. From that point of view it is probably more easy to equate homosexuality with being over weight or something and i think some people do.
Now, i don't believe my own, or anyone else's, sexuality is a 'lifestyle' and i don't believe it is something that is learned or is a choice. I believe that it is something we are born with, something that is ingrained and a part of our identity. So, with that belief, it is very easy for me to equate the discrimination against LGBT people with that of racial discrimination.
Its a bit of a stalemate really on that regards so i tend to just give up and agree to disagree. For me, it doesn't actually matter if anything is ingrained or by choice to be honest.
Message edited by author 2012-06-06 15:14:01. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 03:13:53 PM · #256 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Change it up slightly. One side thinks it's like interracial marriage (once forbidden, now accepted) the other thinks it's like polygamy (once accepted (although probably not in our country's immediate culture), now forbidden). The analogies still preach to the choir while talking past the congregation. |
Not really -- in this case, one side thinks it's OK to discriminate against similarly-situated persons and the other side doesn't.
Conflating the issues of marriage equality and polygamy is wrong, unless you can cite any reference by the proponents of marriage equality demanding the right to marry more than one person at a time. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 03:38:47 PM · #257 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Not really -- in this case, one side thinks it's OK to discriminate against similarly-situated persons and the other side doesn't. |
I don't quite get what your are saying. What do you mean by similarly-situated? |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 03:40:38 PM · #258 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Its a bit of a stalemate really on that regards so i tend to just give up and agree to disagree. For me, it doesn't actually matter if anything is ingrained or by choice to be honest. |
And to make it worse, the best studies say it's partially genetic but not completely (which doesn't make it a choice, but rather environmental). So both sides are right AND wrong. Then you have, who was it, Nixon's daughter or someone say something like she chose to be a lesbian and now everybody is up in arms.
It's really, like you said, a stalemate. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 03:45:27 PM · #259 |
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
The slippery slope fallacy is classic in these debates with regards to polygamy. |
Polygamy is not a matter of discrimination. It does not single out a group for exclusion from something otherwise perfectly acceptable, but applies to everyone regardless of age, ethnicity or sexual orientation. If the law said everyone could have multiple wives except Spaniards or brunettes, THEN you'd have an analogous comparison. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 03:47:33 PM · #260 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
the best studies say it's partially genetic but not completely (which doesn't make it a choice, but rather environmental). |
The best studies? |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 03:48:24 PM · #261 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
The slippery slope fallacy is classic in these debates with regards to polygamy. |
Polygamy is not a matter of discrimination. It does not single out a group for exclusion from something otherwise perfectly acceptable, but applies to everyone regardless of age, ethnicity or sexual orientation. If the law said everyone could have multiple wives except Spaniards or brunettes, THEN you'd have an analogous comparison. |
One can say you cannot "marry" someone of your own sex whether you are hetero or gay. You can't do it for love. You can't do it so they can get a green card. You can't do it for any reason and it doesn't matter who you are.
OR you could argue the other way and say only one particular religious group in our country wants to be polygamous. Mormons. You are now discriminating against them as a group. They view marriage in a certain way and you are saying that way isn't valid. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 03:49:03 PM · #262 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
the best studies say it's partially genetic but not completely (which doesn't make it a choice, but rather environmental). |
The best studies? |
Yes. Versus the worst studies. :) I'm talking about twin studies which are the best method of trying to quantify the genetic component of a characteristic. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 04:02:46 PM · #263 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One can say you cannot "marry" someone of your own sex whether you are hetero or gay. You can't do it for love. You can't do it so they can get a green card. You can't do it for any reason and it doesn't matter who you are. |
Wrong. From your link on the current case: "The court also noted Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), where she rejected Texas's argument that the Homosexual Conduct Law, outlawing same-sex conduct, did not discriminate based on sexual orientation because it would also be violated by same-sex conduct involving straight men or straight women. Finding that the law targeted "conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual," Justice O'Connor concluded that it was "targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class."
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OR you could argue the other way and say only one particular religious group in our country wants to be polygamous. Mormons. You are now discriminating against them as a group. They view marriage in a certain way and you are saying that way isn't valid. |
Wrong again. Mormons are not a protected minority, but one religion among thousands, and the Supreme Court ruled that the law prohibiting bigamy did not restrict free exercise of religion.
Message edited by author 2012-06-06 16:06:11. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 04:03:18 PM · #264 |
Originally posted by rooum:
I believe that it is something we are born with, something that is ingrained and a part of our identity. So, with that belief, it is very easy for me to equate the discrimination against LGBT people with that of racial discrimination. |
Here in lies the legal issue of if it is allowable to discriminate against homosexuals. It is not legal to discriminate against an inborn trait, while it is legal to discriminate against a behavior. You can't bar based on skin type, but you can based on footwear.
If homosexuality is a choice, then it is a behavior. That is the belief of certain religious people. So it is grouped with polygamy. They see it as a "life-style" choice.
If sexual orientation is something you are born with, then it is an inborn trait. This is the belief of proponents of gay marriage, so banning gay marriage is grouped with racism. They see bans as discriminating against a group who had no choice of their inclusion in that group.
Society as a whole is moving towards seeing homosexuality as a normal inborn variant on genetic outcome, away from being a sexual perversion, indulged in by choice. When genetic studies return some solid evidence one way or another ( and most of the science has been coming down on the determinist side), then the law will be easy to make, but right now it is in a state of flux. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 04:05:38 PM · #265 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm talking about twin studies which are the best method of trying to quantify the genetic component of a characteristic. |
By your little flipping game, this also means that homosexuality is partially environmental, but not completely (and not a choice either way). |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 04:08:13 PM · #266 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Not really -- in this case, one side thinks it's OK to discriminate against similarly-situated persons and the other side doesn't. |
I don't quite get what your are saying. What do you mean by similarly-situated? |
Don't be naive ... I mean any two competent, unrelated, unmarried adult citizens who wish to marry each other.
It's not even a matter of sexual practices at all -- it's simple gender discrimination, something already ruled unconstitutional.
Imagine three (single, competent, etc.) people, John, Joan, and Amy. John asks the marriage license bureau "Can I marry Joan?" and is told "Sure." Then Amy asks if she can marry Joan and is told she cannot, the sole reason being that she is a woman. That seems to me simple discrimination based on gender. What kind (if any) sexual practices might be engaged in was never an issue in the first case -- AFAIK "having relations" is not a state-mandated requirement for issuance of a license -- why should they be of any more concern (to the state) than in the first case?
In case you forget you history of western civilization, the record is replete with instances of marriages of political expediency, monetary gain, or a variety of other reasons unrelated to romantic love or procreation. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 04:15:07 PM · #267 |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 04:28:26 PM · #268 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm talking about twin studies which are the best method of trying to quantify the genetic component of a characteristic. |
By your little flipping game, this also means that homosexuality is partially environmental, but not completely (and not a choice either way). |
I don't disagree with this at all, except I would say that there are probably cases where it WAS a choice. The study wouldn't rule that possibility out. I don't think that's common though.
I've always said I think it's a genetic predisposition which requires an environmental trigger. That makes the most sense to me. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 04:32:28 PM · #269 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Not really -- in this case, one side thinks it's OK to discriminate against similarly-situated persons and the other side doesn't. |
I don't quite get what your are saying. What do you mean by similarly-situated? |
Don't be naive ... I mean any two competent, unrelated, unmarried adult citizens who wish to marry each other.
It's not even a matter of sexual practices at all -- it's simple gender discrimination, something already ruled unconstitutional.
Imagine three (single, competent, etc.) people, John, Joan, and Amy. John asks the marriage license bureau "Can I marry Joan?" and is told "Sure." Then Amy asks if she can marry Joan and is told she cannot, the sole reason being that she is a woman. That seems to me simple discrimination based on gender. What kind (if any) sexual practices might be engaged in was never an issue in the first case -- AFAIK "having relations" is not a state-mandated requirement for issuance of a license -- why should they be of any more concern (to the state) than in the first case?
In case you forget you history of western civilization, the record is replete with instances of marriages of political expediency, monetary gain, or a variety of other reasons unrelated to romantic love or procreation. |
I understand your argument, although I don't think your gender discrimination holds because, as far as I know, no court that has ever ruled on this issue in specific has mentioned such an argument. Am I missing something? |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 04:35:15 PM · #270 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've always said I think it's a genetic predisposition which requires an environmental trigger. |
That damn Judy Garland!! *raises fist at air* |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 04:40:30 PM · #271 |
Originally posted by rooum:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've always said I think it's a genetic predisposition which requires an environmental trigger. |
That damn Judy Garland!! *raises fist at air* |
LOL. |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 05:52:21 PM · #272 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Am I missing something? |
IMO the lawyers who have argued these cases have missed something ... ;-)
Opera companies and orchestras hold their auditions with the applicant behind a screen, so that identity or appearance play no role in the judges' evaluation. Applicants for legal (not "sanctified") marriage should only have to meet a standard set of requirements:
[x] Currently unmarried
[x] Adult/emancipated
[x] Mentally competent
[x] Unrelated to co-applicant
[n/a] Gender |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 05:58:44 PM · #273 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[x] Unrelated to co-applicant |
Given that the only reason to not allow intra-family marriage is the risks of genetic deformity, why limit who non breeding couples can marry? If two brothers want to marry, why stop them? |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 06:02:25 PM · #274 |
Originally posted by chazoe:
Originally posted by cosmicassassin:
I don't understand what about homosexuality is so reprehensible.
Why are people intolerant towards homosexuals?
Why do members of society want to stop homosexuals from marrying?
How would allowing homosexuals to marry affect any facet of your life?
Remember it wasn't long ago homosexuals could have been replaced with African Americans in your country. I see this as being no different.
CS |
You say "your country" as if racism never existed outside of the US. Please tell us how that is. |
You might want to read that again, take into consideration that he is from Canada where same sex marriage has been legal for many years and then, you might understand where he is coming from.
His primary point is the issue of that of same sex marriage and his comparison is what prevailed regarding African Americans in the USA.
Not quite the same spin is it?
Ray |
|
|
|
06/06/2012 06:24:48 PM · #275 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
[x] Unrelated to co-applicant |
Given that the only reason to not allow intra-family marriage is the risks of genetic deformity, why limit who non breeding couples can marry? If two brothers want to marry, why stop them? |
LOL. That was definitely covered in the 30,000 post thread. It caused an uproar and bad feelings and poison. Let's not go there again. ;)
Paul seems to have a future as a federal lawyer. :) I actually think his argument makes some sense. OTOH, I think the court has previously said there are times when the genders are treated differently and it is within the state's interests to do so. Public nudity laws come to mind which would allow a man to walk about the beach without a shirt but not a woman. I think most people here would actually say there isn't much compelling reason for the state to regulate public nudity, but yet they specifically ruled on this in the 90s. Anyway, I guess it would be an example where applying Paul's "gender rule" wouldn't actually give you the same answer the courts do. Sure, nobody can walk around naked, but only women can't walk around with their chest exposed. (actually here in egalitarian Eugene it's legal, but I've only come across it once. Almost caused a fender bender.)
But this is getting way down a rabbit hole...
Message edited by author 2012-06-06 18:27:21. |
|
