Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

11/11/2009 01:57:20 AM · #2851

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But unless youâ��re prepared to call more than half the country bigots ...

Those who vote(d) are far less than half the country ...

...and effectively bigots by definition: it's literally practicing intolerance against a minority on an issue that shouldn't even concern them. Suppose Maine voted to ban Protestants to preserve their "traditional" definition of Christianity and restrict the immoral practices of competing faiths? That would be unconstitutional, and so is this. Voters have no more legitimate authority over which adults are allowed to love each other than Nevada has over the official language of Paraguay.

Mousie

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/12/2009 11:48:35 AM · #2852

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But unless youâ��re prepared to call more than half the country bigots ...

Those who vote(d) are far less than half the country ...

Either way, I'm prepared.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

11/12/2009 12:04:54 PM · #2853

Originally posted by scalvert:

... Voters have no more legitimate authority over which adults are allowed to love each other than Nevada has over the official language of Paraguay.

I doubt Nevada is voting on the language of Paraguay (nor did Maine vote on allowing/disallowing love), however, if an item is on the ballot then voters do have the right to voice their opinion (yes or no vote). In the end if that decision is legally contested, then so be it...take it to the courts and rehash it once again.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/12/2009 12:52:27 PM · #2854

Originally posted by glad2badad:

nor did Maine vote on allowing/disallowing love...

By voting to refuse official recognition of the relationship, that's EXACTLY what they did. When challenged, such laws have been ruled unconstitutional (as in Connecticut). California actually voted to amend its constitution to allow such discrimination, essentially declaring that everyone has an equal right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness... EXCEPT YOU PEOPLE! These votes are directly analogous to the infamous Jim Crow laws.

Message edited by author 2009-11-12 12:54:33.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/12/2009 01:54:04 PM · #2855

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by scalvert:
... Voters have no more legitimate authority over which adults are allowed to love each other than Nevada has over the official language of Paraguay.

I doubt Nevada is voting on the language of Paraguay (nor did Maine vote on allowing/disallowing love), however, if an item is on the ballot then voters do have the right to voice their opinion (yes or no vote). In the end if that decision is legally contested, then so be it...take it to the courts and rehash it once again.

But why not at least educate people (politicians included) that hey maybe you should think about the issue a little more from a legal standpoint instead of wasting everyone's time having a bill passed only to have it struck down because it was blatantly unconstitutional. To put it in DPC perspective, it would be like ignoring the challenge rules and getting DQed because you entered whatever you felt was right regardless of what the rules said. It doesn't matter if one person does it or 99%. This isn't rocket science. We have rules in place. Lets actually use them. Personal rules (a la Bible, Koran, Dr. Phil, whatever) need not apply.

Message edited by author 2009-11-12 13:55:37.

11/12/2009 02:28:40 PM · #2856

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by scalvert:
... Voters have no more legitimate authority over which adults are allowed to love each other than Nevada has over the official language of Paraguay.

I doubt Nevada is voting on the language of Paraguay (nor did Maine vote on allowing/disallowing love), however, if an item is on the ballot then voters do have the right to voice their opinion (yes or no vote). In the end if that decision is legally contested, then so be it...take it to the courts and rehash it once again.

But why not at least educate people (politicians included) that hey maybe you should think about the issue a little more from a legal standpoint instead of wasting everyone's time having a bill passed only to have it struck down because it was blatantly unconstitutional. To put it in DPC perspective, it would be like ignoring the challenge rules and getting DQed because you entered whatever you felt was right regardless of what the rules said. It doesn't matter if one person does it or 99%. This isn't rocket science. We have rules in place. Lets actually use them. Personal rules (a la Bible, Koran, Dr. Phil, whatever) need not apply.

Well, this is being done, but it takes time. Still, if the SCOTUS finally rules that the DOMA is constitutional (a real possibility), then what? How does that change the debate? Those in favor of gay marriage will still complain the status quo is discriminatory and immmoral and those who are against will maintain their stance.

In all seriousness, I think you may be far underestimating the chances of a negative SCOTUS result when you employ terms like "blatantly unconstitutional". There is nothing "blatant" about this debate. It is complex and has strong arguments on both sides. Anybody who does not see the opposing argument as one to consider is wearing intellectual blinders.

11/12/2009 02:30:49 PM · #2857

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by scalvert:
... Voters have no more legitimate authority over which adults are allowed to love each other than Nevada has over the official language of Paraguay.

I doubt Nevada is voting on the language of Paraguay (nor did Maine vote on allowing/disallowing love), however, if an item is on the ballot then voters do have the right to voice their opinion (yes or no vote). In the end if that decision is legally contested, then so be it...take it to the courts and rehash it once again.

But why not at least educate people (politicians included) that hey maybe you should think about the issue a little more from a legal standpoint instead of wasting everyone's time having a bill passed only to have it struck down because it was blatantly unconstitutional. To put it in DPC perspective, it would be like ignoring the challenge rules and getting DQed because you entered whatever you felt was right regardless of what the rules said. It doesn't matter if one person does it or 99%. This isn't rocket science. We have rules in place. Lets actually use them. Personal rules (a la Bible, Koran, Dr. Phil, whatever) need not apply.

Well, this is being done, but it takes time. Still, if the SCOTUS finally rules that the DOMA is constitutional (a real possibility), then what? How does that change the debate? Those in favor of gay marriage will still complain the status quo is discriminatory and immmoral and those who are against will maintain their stance.

In all seriousness, I think you may be far underestimating the chances of a negative SCOTUS result when you employ terms like "blatantly unconstitutional". There is nothing "blatant" about this debate. It is complex and has strong arguments on both sides. Anybody who does not see the opposing argument as one to consider is wearing intellectual blinders.

I have personally never seen a STRONG argument from the anti-side. Ever.

11/12/2009 02:37:08 PM · #2858

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

if the SCOTUS finally rules that the DOMA is constitutional (a real possibility), then what?

Been there, done that.

"In 1890, Louisiana passed a law requiring separate accommodations for colored and white passengers on railroads. Louisiana law distinguished between "white," "black" and "colored" (that is, people of mixed white and black ancestry). The law already specified that blacks could not ride with white people, but colored people could ride with whites prior to 1890. A group of concerned black, colored and white citizens in New Orleans formed an association dedicated to rescinding the law. The group persuaded Homer Plessy, who was only one-eighth "Negro" and of fair complexion, to test it.

In 1892, Plessy purchased a first-class ticket from New Orleans on the East Louisiana Railway. Once he had boarded the train, he informed the train conductor of his racial lineage and took a seat in the whites-only car. He was directed to leave that car and sit instead in the "coloreds only" car. Plessy refused and was immediately arrested. The Citizens Committee of New Orleans fought the case all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States. They lost in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), in which the Court ruled that "separate but equal" facilities were constitutional. The finding contributed to 58 more years of legalized discrimination against black and colored people in the United States."

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/12/2009 03:09:06 PM · #2859

I see it's a set of blinders for the last two contestants...

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

11/12/2009 03:15:14 PM · #2860

Jason what Is the compelling argument against gay marrage?And what legal footing does it hold? I'm all ears.

11/12/2009 03:26:57 PM · #2861

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I see it's a set of blinders for the last two contestants...

Seriously, this is your response? Pretend that specific examples equate to ignoring the issue? The parallels between racial discrimination and sexual discrimination couldn't be more direct, and history is repeating itself. I'm sure proponents of segregation in the late 1800's didn't think they were practicing bigotry either.

11/12/2009 03:34:27 PM · #2862

Originally posted by yanko:

Jason what Is the compelling argument against gay marrage?And what legal footing does it hold? I'm all ears.

I'm all ears as well good Dr., and always have been. I'd LOVE to hear an actual, compelling, strong argument against gay marriage.

Something with a little more substance than personally emotional but ultimately toothless arguments like "it's always been this way" or "it's against god" or "it's not natural".

Something with a little less fabrication than "it'll ruin families" or "soon there won't be any heterosexuals left" or "They'll force churches to marry gays!".

Come on, sir, step up and give me something that can stand up to even the smallest bit of logic and reason.

11/12/2009 03:38:57 PM · #2863

Originally posted by yanko:

Jason what Is the compelling argument against gay marrage?And what legal footing does it hold? I'm all ears.

I will present one, although I am not interested in going back and forth on it. That has been done ad nauseum. I do not expect you to agree with it either, only to judge the rationality behind the argument.

1) Civil marriage has been a contract in our country and in western civilization between man and woman in the utter majority for centuries (in our country's case) and millenia (in western civ's case).
2) A society does have the right to arbitrarily define legal contracts and conventions.
3) Current opinion in society does not favor a redefinition of civil marriage. Evidence for this is the 0 for 31 record when the possibility of redefinition has come up before popular vote.
4) This does potentially cause harm to a small population of people in the society. However, the magnitude of that harm, when considered in the scope of society, may not rise to the level where the courts have the duty to overturn the people's arbitrary definition. Consider the prohibition of felons voting. Real harm is done to a group (felons) by prohibiting a right we view as absolutely fundamental to our society. The benefit to society is negligible. It doesn't act as a deterrent to commit crime and it is highly unlikely we would have worse leaders if felons could suddenly vote. Yet the prohibition stands as a discrimination woven into the very fabric of our constitution. I bring this up to point out that just because harm can be shown to a group does not automatically compell us to rectify the situation. It is not, in itself, sufficent cause. The magnitude of harm may also be counterbalanced by the magnitude of harm done to the religious sects of society who consider such a redefinition to be offensive. While the absolute harm done to such a religious individual is smaller than that done to the person denied marriage, the total harm to society may be comparable given the far greater numbers who fall into the first category than the second.

Ok, that's it. Again, you do not have to agree, but at least see it as an argument that doesn't depend on ranting and raving. My guess is the argument that will eventually be given before the SCOTUS will not be too far from some portion of what is above.

11/12/2009 03:46:30 PM · #2864

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
Jason what Is the compelling argument against gay marrage?And what legal footing does it hold? I'm all ears.

I will present one, although I am not interested in going back and forth on it. That has been done ad nauseum. I do not expect you to agree with it either, only to judge the rationality behind the argument.

1) Civil marriage has been a contract in our country and in western civilization between man and woman in the utter majority for centuries (in our country's case) and millenia (in western civ's case).
2) A society does have the right to arbitrarily define legal contracts and conventions.
3) Current opinion in society does not favor a redefinition of civil marriage. Evidence for this is the 0 for 31 record when the possibility of redefinition has come up before popular vote.
4) This does potentially cause harm to a small population of people in the society. However, the magnitude of that harm, when considered in the scope of society, may not rise to the level where the courts have the duty to overturn the people's arbitrary definition. Consider the prohibition of felons voting. Real harm is done to a group (felons) by prohibiting a right we view as absolutely fundamental to our society. The benefit to society is negligible. It doesn't act as a deterrent to commit crime and it is highly unlikely we would have worse leaders if felons could suddenly vote. Yet the prohibition stands as a discrimination woven into the very fabric of our constitution. I bring this up to point out that just because harm can be shown to a group does not automatically compell us to rectify the situation. It is not, in itself, sufficent cause. The magnitude of harm may also be counterbalanced by the magnitude of harm done to the religious sects of society who consider such a redefinition to be offensive. While the absolute harm done to such a religious individual is smaller than that done to the person denied marriage, the total harm to society may be comparable given the far greater numbers who fall into the first category than the second.

Ok, that's it. Again, you do not have to agree, but at least see it as an argument that doesn't depend on ranting and raving. My guess is the argument that will eventually be given before the SCOTUS will not be too far from some portion of what is above.

Ok, now I'm utterly convinced that you are an alien on this planet trying very hard to understand humanity, but just not quite getting there :D I was only sort of considering the idea before, but now I'm sure. I won't go back and forth (although I could) since you don't want it, but wow. Just wow.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

11/12/2009 03:54:17 PM · #2865

There would be no need for back and forth if you paid attention to facts the first time.

#1 is false. Look it up. "While it is a relatively new practice that same-sex couples are being granted the same form of legal marital recognition as commonly used by mixed-sexed couples, recent publicity and debate over the past decade gives an impression that civil marriage for lesbian and gay couples is novel and untested. There is a long history of recorded same-sex relationships around the world. It is believed that same-sex unions were celebrated in Ancient Greece and Rome, some regions of China, such as Fujian, and at certain times in ancient European history. A law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) issued in AD 342 prohibited same-sex marriage in ancient Rome, but the exact intent of the law and its relation to social practice is unclear, as only a few examples of same-sex marriage in that culture exist."

#2 is true, but also subject to abuse. "Many states enacted miscegenation laws which were first introduced in the late seventeenth century in the slave-holding colonies of Virginia (1691) and Maryland (1692) and lasted until 1967 (until it was overturned via Loving v. Virginia). Many of these states restricted several minorities from marrying whites."

#3 is false. Arizona voters defeated a bill to define marriage as between a man and a woman in 2006. A second attempt passed in 2008, but the first result kills your pretense of a perfect record.

#4 is a shameful attempt to justify such discrimination by equating gays with criminals (who relinquish certain rights, and are therefore not considered equal citizens to begin with).

You have a penchant for only seeing what you want to see, but it doesn't hold up to actual scrutiny.

EDIT- typo city

Message edited by author 2009-11-12 15:57:40.

Louis

Nikon D800

11/12/2009 04:01:40 PM · #2866

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I'd LOVE to hear an actual, compelling, strong argument against gay marriage.

Here are several, from my FaceBook notes of last year, in turn from another forum I participate in:

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

11/12/2009 04:04:42 PM · #2867

K10's reply was stronger. :) I think he just thinks I'm irrational. Shannon at least presented a rational counterargument (which implies,at least, the logical order of my case).

Anyway, I knew it was a fruitless exercise and I only spent ten or fifteen minutes on it. I'm sure it could be tightened up. Like I said, we'll see how it plays out for real. I do find it relevant that the DOMA has withstood all challenges for thirteen years (2004 and 2005 being the main challenegs). Our system is set up so you do not need political influence or popular opinion to challenge a law. You only need time (and money). The SCOTUS is populated by intelligent people and if there are no rational, strong arguments to be had against gay marriage, you need not worry.

11/12/2009 04:10:14 PM · #2868

That was priceless, Louis. Almost as funny as Jason being shown that the foundations of his argument are invalid somehow affirms the logic of it. At least he's an optimist. ;-)

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/12/2009 04:11:25 PM · #2869

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

No, you have it backwards. I think you're TOO rational. At least when you argue/debate. I mean, there's a reason that debate has rules and all that, but you tend to take it to extremes that make me scratch my head. When I see you argue/discuss things on this website, I picture you standing over your child, lying deathly ill in a hospital, and using debate tactics to determine whether to pull the plug. Maybe it's a defense mechanism for you for online interactions, but man, you're one robotic, 'don't step out of the debate rules', emotionless sumbeetch. You even approached the news of your daughter's face all over Australia as if you were a computer, instead of human. I admit I have no idea what you were like in the privacy and comfort of your own home, so maybe you get it all out there, but on here? Ouch. It's like trying to make a Roomba understand WHY it shouldn't vacuum up the ashes that were spilled from the urn. It's programmed to vacuum one way, and by god, that's how it'll vacuum :D

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/12/2009 04:14:21 PM · #2870

Originally posted by scalvert:

That was priceless, Louis. Almost as funny as Jason being shown that the foundations of his argument are invalid somehow affirms the logic of it. At least he's an optimist. ;-)

The odd thing is, I was about to post that exact same list when I noticed Louis had done so :-)

R.

11/12/2009 04:23:25 PM · #2871

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

The odd thing is, I was about to post that exact same list when I noticed Louis had done so :-)

I never heard that list before, but it sure does expose the "logic" of opposing gay marriage for the baseless paranoia it really is.

11/12/2009 04:31:04 PM · #2872

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

I picture you standing over your child, lying deathly ill in a hospital, and using debate tactics to determine whether to pull the plug.

Dude. I literally had an instance where I had to tell a mother we could do nothing for her 23 week premature baby because his foot was 38mm in length versus over 40 (studies indicate the chances of survival with a foot <40mm are very, very low). I offered her the chance to hold her baby in her arms while he died and then I promptly went out of the room and cried my eyes out. Do you think I didn't wish everything in the world that I could save that baby? But I couldn't and rationality was the only path to making the right decision.

Don't you think Rant is a little TOO full of emotion? And as far as the Australia thing went, there was no way I was going to make a public outburst on the very open world wide web for the childcare company to find and use against me. That would have been stupid.

Message edited by author 2009-11-12 16:34:34.