Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

04/14/2009 05:05:56 PM · #2126

Originally posted by escapetooz:

Are you serious with this argument? Yea I mean why stop there? Screw all those handicap parking spots, they could go to us "normal" people. And ramp and elevator regulations? I mean come on, the REST of us can take the stairs. Too bad for them. I like stairs. Stairs have worked for us for years. Why go all EXTREME just for a few people?

It's called progress. And it only seems extreme to people who oppose it.

And with this chromosome thing? What if a person was raised a girl her WHOLE life and then found out she had a Y chromosome? Should she not be allowed to marry the man she loves? Should her dreams be dashed because of a chromosome? Gender is not that simple. And no one is going around testing YOUR chromosomes in order for you to get married. That is an EXTREME violation of personal rights.

So it gets to the core of it. Gender has NOTHING to do with 2 consenting adults loving each other and wanting to enter into a legal contract. Churches can keep them out if they like, but legally it makes no sense.

And you never answered the transsexual portion of the question. I mean so... if a man has a sex change, he still has the chromosomes of a man, but as a vagina, by your definition he can marry a woman? Physically it would be a lesbian relationship. So they can get married even though they both have a vag and can't make children? Doesn't that go against the heart of the Christian arguement?

ETA: And there you have it. "No one has the right to get married but ME and people LIKE ME." And f*ck everyone else!

Two responses:

The Practical/Legal response: There is a strong precedent for limitation on accomodation. To accomodate every whim is to invite chaos. You mention the Americans with Disabilities Act, but clearly there are limitations to its legal reach. An example is when a blind person sued American Airlines and Southwest because their websites were not compatible with his computer's voice technology. The case was dismissed. This isn't an example of a crazy person coming up with some weird disability (those exist, but probably don't prove much) but a legitimate request that was turned down as being an unreasonable burden when he could simply pick up the phone and call the airline. Bottom line: there is a precedent for limitations of "equality".

The moral response: This was discussed at length early on, but your argument is the Argument from Liberty (keyword to denote this in your post is "consenting"). The flaw in this argument is that for a vast, vast majority of people there is a line which they would consider crossing to be "wrong" even if everybody is "consenting". Where that line lies differs from person to person, but it exists. The argument, however, falls apart if it exists at all. We're simply back to arguing where that line ought to be.

Do note neither of my replies automatically indicate gay marriage should be wrong, but they do counter the argument that they should automatically be right. As I said, we're back to simply arguing what should be right/legal and what should be wrong/illegal (depending on which argument you are having, the moral or legal one).

04/14/2009 05:17:48 PM · #2127

Originally posted by Mousie:

Originally posted by escapetooz:
It's like that article posted in that other thread about how atheists have to pussy-foot around everything.

And never get elected to any office of significance, anyway!

Or do business with, etc, etc. Polls have regularly shown that many think that atheists are the least trusted demographic. The reason for that is a belief that atheists have no morals or their morals are questionable at best since they don't believe in a god. That of course is a very ignorant view. It basically means humanity would be savages if there wasn't a god, or a specific god according to some, holding up a giant moral compass for all to see and follow (figuratively of course). That view is a very pessimistic one of humanity. The optimistic view would be to not believe in any of that stuff and give humanity the full credit for its accomplishments and of course its failures but that's not a virtue many religious people are able to accept from these untrustworthy atheists. Not much you can do about that except to continue to try and educate people through your actions and in threads like this. The last thing you want to do is continue to enable such beliefs by pussy-footing around when you have an opinion. If religious people don't do it why should you? Not that you do in particular, but you in general.

04/14/2009 05:34:01 PM · #2128

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
You are missing that the "acceptance of their situation as "right"" does not equate to Right. Under Universalism whole societies can be deemed Wrong because there is a standard of universal measure. Of course it does not make sense to you as you pose it because you are looking through Relative glasses.

Alrighty then... are women's suffrage, abolition and racial equality Right? They weren't considered so 200 years ago, largely based upon religious moral outcry. All three are generally accepted as Right now, but you're saying that's only through Relative glasses, so by extension all three could be Wrong under a universal standard. So how do we know which is the universal standard? Now here's the kicker: is gay marriage Right, and how do you know? If you use religious doctrine as a universal standard, then women's suffrage, abolition and racial equality belong in the same category as gay marriage. The spotlight is yours, Doc.

Moral Universalism would hold that there is a real truth for the two questions: Is homosexuality proper? and is it right to debase (or change) the covenant of marriage? The religious text I hold as the authority for morality has steadily considered the answers to be "no" and "no". Some things do appear to change over time. The Universalist position would be that at any time you can judge one group to be more correct than the other. So while the people's interpretations change, the reality of what is right and wrong does not. Your question of "how do we know which is which?" is a good one. Sometimes it's hard. Sometimes it's easy. I would consider the homosexuality question as to be fairly easy while the marriage question to be more difficult.

I'm guessing that's going to be seen as a wishy-washy answer and in respects it is. Shannon has some good points. But before you consider him your friend let me ask how this advances the conversation at all? If my position of Moral Universalism comes crashing down upon me, how does that make Gay Marriage right? We now fall back to Moral Relativism under which I am allowed generally any opinion I want. In fact, on a societal level, we would generally go with majority thinking and Gay marriage would still likely be considered "wrong" (at least for now). So Shannon's goal is perhaps more to destroy my Universalism rather than to advance the cause of Gay Marriage.

04/14/2009 05:36:58 PM · #2129

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The flaw in this argument is that for a vast, vast majority of people there is a line which they would consider crossing to be "wrong" even if everybody is "consenting".

When I think of a vast, vast majority i think of numbers like 99.999999999%. Since somewhere around ten percent of the country is gay, and another healthy chunk don't seem to care who is gay or straight, I see no great majority. Prop 8 was skillfully managed and it went for failing narrowly to passing narrowly. And next election it looks like it will be reversed. Narrowly.

04/14/2009 05:39:12 PM · #2130

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The flaw in this argument is that for a vast, vast majority of people there is a line which they would consider crossing to be "wrong" even if everybody is "consenting".

When I think of a vast, vast majority i think of numbers like 99.999999999%. Since somewhere around ten percent of the country is gay, and another healthy chunk don't seem to care who is gay or straight, I see no great majority. Prop 8 was skillfully managed and it went for failing narrowly to passing narrowly. And next election it looks like it will be reversed. Narrowly.

But I wasn't talking necessarily about the "gay" line. When I say vast majority it will be considering such outlandish things as my "brothers in love" example where two gay brothers want to marry. Or some crazy guy who wants to marry his dog or his VW Beetle. A line is going to exist on this issue in specific and liberty between "consenting adults" in general. Where that line is, is often up for debate.

04/14/2009 05:49:08 PM · #2131

Before 1967 when the supreme court made anti-miscegenation laws illegal many people felt that
Moral Universalism would hold that there is a real truth for the two questions: Is ~~homosexuality~~miscegenation proper? and is it right to debase (or change) the covenant of marriage? The religious text I hold as the authority for morality has steadily considered the answers to be "no" and "no". Some things do appear to change over time. The Universalist position would be that at any time you can judge one ~~group~~ race to be ~~more correct than~~ superior to the other. So while the people's interpretations change, the reality of what is right and wrong does not. Your question of "how do we know which is which?" is a good one. Sometimes it's hard. Sometimes it's easy. I would consider the ~~homosexuality~~ discrimination question as to be fairly easy while the ~~homosexual marriage~~ Inter racial marriage question to be more difficult.

Loving v. Virginia, pissed a lot of people off, and we rarely hear edited statements like the one above any more.

04/14/2009 05:51:45 PM · #2132

I do want to clear some stuff up about Universalism.

First, Universalism does not need to be simple. It can be quite complex. Take slavery for example. There are many types of slavery and ways go to about having slaves. It's possible some are morally justified while others are not. Universalism can accomodate this. It may be that other moral precepts are what really come into play when we talk about slavery rather that the idea of slavery itself. The spectrum from chattel slavery to indentured servants to modern contracts which limit the freedoms of the worker is varied and Universalism can take this into account.

Second, Universalism does not mean that principles cannot exist which are fluid and dynamic. I suppose Universalism and Relativism can coexist as long as they do not speak to the same moral situations. This would make for a complicated world, but it could be logically feasible.

Message edited by author 2009-04-14 18:13:01.

04/14/2009 05:53:24 PM · #2133

BTW Brennan, the 10% quote on gay people in our country is pretty well an extreme. The best figures we have are closer to 2%. Just trying to get our facts straight. The 10% came primarily from Kinsey and his work has been shown to be methodologically flawed on a number of levels.

04/14/2009 05:55:45 PM · #2134

We covered interracial marriage in this thread a few times I think.

04/14/2009 05:57:51 PM · #2135

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

When I say vast majority it will be considering such outlandish things as my "brothers in love" example where two gay brothers want to marry. Or some crazy guy who wants to marry his dog or his VW Beetle. A line is going to exist on this issue in specific and liberty between "consenting adults" in general. Where that line is, is often up for debate.

It is a classic debating technique to argue that if we cross one line, then we must allow all things, and if two men marry we must allow a man to marry a nine year old boy or his pet rabbit, is a canard. As a debating tactic it sometimes works, and it was drummed into the voters leading up to the prop 8 vote, but logically it is the sign of the debater with a weak hand. We must hold this line or all will be chaos. It was the defense of those who opposed segregation, it was the mantra of the Know nothing party to fight the rise of Irish Catholics, But if that is the best argument against something, then your case is usually lost.

04/14/2009 06:12:12 PM · #2136

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When I say vast majority it will be considering such outlandish things as my "brothers in love" example where two gay brothers want to marry. Or some crazy guy who wants to marry his dog or his VW Beetle. A line is going to exist on this issue in specific and liberty between "consenting adults" in general. Where that line is, is often up for debate.

It is a classic debating technique to argue that if we cross one line, then we must allow all things, and if two men marry we must allow a man to marry a nine year old boy or his pet rabbit, is a canard. As a debating tactic it sometimes works, and it was drummed into the voters leading up to the prop 8 vote, but logically it is the sign of the debater with a weak hand. We must hold this line or all will be chaos. It was the defense of those who opposed segregation, it was the mantra of the Know nothing party to fight the rise of Irish Catholics, But if that is the best argument against something, then your case is usually lost.

I think you misunderstand me. I don't use it as an argument against Gay Marriage. I use it to reject the Argument of Liberty. Many times in this thread (more in the beginning) people will say "If two consenting adults want it, then it should be allowed." as the basis for their argument. My point is that the vast majority of people would consider there to be reasonable limits to Liberty. We cannot do just whatever we want even if it hurts nobody. Some allow more, some allow less, but nearly everybody has a limit. If your only support for Gay Marriage is the Argument of Liberty then you ARE required to allow everything two consenting adults can come up with.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

04/14/2009 06:12:52 PM · #2137

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

when a blind person sued... that was turned down as being an unreasonable burden when he could simply pick up the phone and call the airline.

How is a request to marry someone you love an unreasonable burden on the state, and what legal alternative would that person have?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The flaw in this argument is that for a vast, vast majority of people there is a line which they would consider crossing to be "wrong" even if everybody is "consenting". Where that line lies differs from person to person, but it exists.

Now you're arguing from a position of Moral Relativity?

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That very same text clearly encourages the subjugation of women, slave ownership and racial/cultural inequality (albeit to varying degrees), yet takes no stance on gay marriage. Furthermore, the church considered marriage itself to be a private matter for 1500 years after those texts were penned. If the standards are universal and/or absolute, why is it now a given that women should have the right to vote and owning slaves is a major moral no-no?

04/14/2009 06:14:28 PM · #2138

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Its a tough number to nail down, and living outside San Francisco may skew my notions of how common it is. The 1.73% that some more conservative polls cite is about half that of the numbers counted in countries that do not allow legal bars to homosexuals (such as France or Scandinavia), though of course it can be dangerous to be openly gay anywhere. Gay bashing is probably more common in San Francisco than in Des Moines. Any activity that is only semi legal, and may cost you your job and friends, or a beating if you admit to it, is tough to count. But I'll cop to the 10% figure being poorly based, and most likely high.

04/14/2009 06:18:53 PM · #2139

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
When I say vast majority it will be considering such outlandish things as my "brothers in love" example where two gay brothers want to marry. Or some crazy guy who wants to marry his dog or his VW Beetle. A line is going to exist on this issue in specific and liberty between "consenting adults" in general. Where that line is, is often up for debate.

It is a classic debating technique to argue that if we cross one line, then we must allow all things, and if two men marry we must allow a man to marry a nine year old boy or his pet rabbit, is a canard. As a debating tactic it sometimes works, and it was drummed into the voters leading up to the prop 8 vote, but logically it is the sign of the debater with a weak hand. We must hold this line or all will be chaos. It was the defense of those who opposed segregation, it was the mantra of the Know nothing party to fight the rise of Irish Catholics, But if that is the best argument against something, then your case is usually lost.

I think you misunderstand me. I don't use it as an argument against Gay Marriage. I use it to reject the Argument of Liberty. Many times in this thread (more in the beginning) people will say "If two consenting adults want it, then it should be allowed." as the basis for their argument. My point is that the vast majority of people would consider there to be reasonable limits to Liberty. We cannot do just whatever we want even if it hurts nobody. Some allow more, some allow less, but nearly everybody has a limit. If your only support for Gay Marriage is the Argument of Liberty then you ARE required to allow everything two consenting adults can come up with.

Why don't we test this? There are free polls you can setup for this and just link to it. I can already tell you what my answer is going to be and it's not going to fit your theory. ;)

04/14/2009 06:19:21 PM · #2140

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
when a blind person sued... that was turned down as being an unreasonable burden when he could simply pick up the phone and call the airline.

How is a request to marry someone you love an unreasonable burden on the state, and what legal alternative would that person have?

Domestic partnership. This was gone over lots and lots and lots earlier. Yes, I'm willing to do completely away with civil "marriage" and replace it with civil union and allow society and government to do whatever they want with it.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Shannon:

Now you're arguing from a position of Moral Relativity?

If my opponent is coming from a Relative position, I'm happy to take on their view if it benefits my case. :) But this isn't a Relative argument necessarily. It could be evidence that everybody considers the theoretical idea of a limit to liberty to be a universal truth (although they don't agree WHERE that limit should stand).

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Shannon:

Before we proceed you are going to have to show me the vote thing in Scripture. I really have no idea where it is mentioned at all but you keep bringing it up. I mentioned slavery in a post above, perhaps while you were typing.

04/14/2009 06:20:22 PM · #2141

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If your only support for Gay Marriage is the Argument of Liberty then you ARE required to allow everything two consenting adults can come up with.

Thomas Jefferson summed up his notion of the argument of liberty as "Your right to swing you arm ends at the point where my nose begins". Now if some stranger sticks his nose into my bedroom and gets his nose bloodied by the activity in there, I feel he stuck his nose where it didn't belong, and he feels I should not swing anywhere he can stick his nose.

04/14/2009 06:27:07 PM · #2142

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If your only support for Gay Marriage is the Argument of Liberty then you ARE required to allow everything two consenting adults can come up with.

Thomas Jefferson summed up his notion of the argument of liberty as "Your right to swing you arm ends at the point where my nose begins". Now if some stranger sticks his nose into my bedroom and gets his nose bloodied by the activity in there, I feel he stuck his nose where it didn't belong, and he feels I should not swing anywhere he can stick his nose.

Yes, usually the caveat "as long as it harms nobody." is added as a reasonable limit. But even with this there are likely other limits. I found very few takers for the Brothers in Love extreme example. Not many thought they should have the right to marry.

I don't want to have the argument all over again though. It's exhausting. Set your preferences to 200 per page and just do some searching for "liberty" or "brothers in love". It's fairly early in the thread.

Message edited by author 2009-04-14 18:28:04.

04/14/2009 06:34:15 PM · #2143

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I found very few takers for the Brothers in Love extreme example. Not many thought they should have the right to marry.

You are talking about incest taboos. Add that to gay marriage and , no surprise.

Are you allowed to defend your home? Yes. Can you hurt an intruder? Yes. If they attack you, can you kill them? Probably. Can you disable them, tie them up, cut them into small pieces and eat them? No.

Stack enough straw on the camel to break its back and tada! Camels can't carry straw!

04/14/2009 06:37:10 PM · #2144

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I found very few takers for the Brothers in Love extreme example. Not many thought they should have the right to marry.

You are talking about incest taboos. Add that to gay marriage and , no surprise.

Are you allowed to defend your home? Yes. Can you hurt an intruder? Yes. If they attack you, can you kill them? Probably. Can you disable them, tie them up, cut them into small pieces and eat them? No.

Stack enough straw on the camel to break its back and tada! Camels can't carry straw!

Which shows the logical fallacy of relying exclusively on the Argument from Liberty. :)

04/14/2009 06:41:23 PM · #2145

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Much like so called Universalists who change their limits constantly over time (ex. slavery, interacial marriages, women's role in society, etc, etc, etc). I forgot who pointed it out earlier but it would seem most everyone is a Relativist.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/14/2009 07:02:43 PM · #2146

Originally posted by yanko:

You sound like Admiral Stockdale barking random comments from the sidelines in the 1992 Vice Presidential debate. :P

GRIDLOCK!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/14/2009 07:08:32 PM · #2147

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The question is one of equal treatment under the law of people of equal standing. Yes, the law imposes restrictions on certain activities, such as requiring people to reach a certain age before thay can enter into a contract or drive a car. But your argument about brothers is completely irrelevant to the current issue, because (in the US) no siblings are allowed to marry, whether brothers, sisters, or brother and sister. The question is whether the law is allowed to discriminate in conferring the conditions (and government benfits) between any two consenting, competent, unmarried and unrelated adults, solely on the basis of their gender. There is no legal or logical argument against treating them equally (as the courts have been declaring one after the other), only a religious one, and the US Constitution does not allow the law to be based on any particular religion's precepts, particularly when they conflict with issues of equality.

We know as a rule girls mature faster than boys. Would you be in favor of a law granting girls the vote at age sixteen, while requiring boys to wait until age 21? Or, given the patriarchial nature of most Christian churches, the opposite?

BTW: You mentioned about whether we should "debase" or change the nature of marriage ... but as Shannon pointed out, the Christian Church appropriated this heretofore secular function about 500 years ago -- isn't it time to restore marriage to its fundamental roots as a secular contract conceived for the purpose of keeping track of who owns what property?

Message edited by author 2009-04-14 19:13:42.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/14/2009 07:13:12 PM · #2148

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, usually the caveat "as long as it harms nobody." is added as a reasonable limit. But even with this there are likely other limits. I found very few takers for the Brothers in Love extreme example. Not many thought they should have the right to marry.

The question is one of equal treatment under the law of people of equal standing. Yes, the law imposes restrictions on certain activities, such as requiring people to reach a certain age before thay can enter into a contract or drive a car. But your argument about brothers is completely irrelevant to the current issue, because (in the US) no siblings are allowed to marry, whether brothers, sisters, or brother and sister. The question is whether the law is allowed to discriminate in conferring the conditions (and government benfits) between any two consenting, competent, unmarried and unrelated adults, solely on the basis of their gender. There is no legal or logical argument against treating them equally (as the courts have been declaring one after the other), only a religious one, and the US Constitution does not allow the law to be based on any particular religion's precepts, particularly when they conflict with issues of equality.

THAT is a completely different argument and I agree the Brothers in Love has nothing to do with it.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/14/2009 07:15:18 PM · #2149

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Yes, usually the caveat "as long as it harms nobody." is added as a reasonable limit. But even with this there are likely other limits. I found very few takers for the Brothers in Love extreme example. Not many thought they should have the right to marry.

The question is one of equal treatment under the law of people of equal standing. Yes, the law imposes restrictions on certain activities, such as requiring people to reach a certain age before thay can enter into a contract or drive a car. But your argument about brothers is completely irrelevant to the current issue, because (in the US) no siblings are allowed to marry, whether brothers, sisters, or brother and sister. The question is whether the law is allowed to discriminate in conferring the conditions (and government benfits) between any two consenting, competent, unmarried and unrelated adults, solely on the basis of their gender. There is no legal or logical argument against treating them equally (as the courts have been declaring one after the other), only a religious one, and the US Constitution does not allow the law to be based on any particular religion's precepts, particularly when they conflict with issues of equality.

THAT is a completely different argument and I agree the Brothers in Love has nothing to do with it.

Well, that's the argument which is before the courts, legislators, and electorate ... it seems to me all the rest of this is just a smokescreen shielding a desire for theocracy ...