Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

01/26/2010 06:54:58 PM · #4376

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
BTW, just for the record, in no way shape or form am I trying to make the argument that gay marriage is going to lead to more sex with horses.

Then why mention such an irrelevant issue in this thread other than for inflammatory value?

BTW: In the past couple of years, since gay marriage has been legalized in a few places, the overall incidence of violent crime has dropped sharply nationwide. Not that there's any cause/effect relationship you understand ...

No, the point of bringing something like this up is to say from a Liberty point of view the two should be treated as equals. If we argue one is ok because it does no harm and all the humans involved are consenting, then we should argue the same for the other. But we obviously think differently. The reaction here was sharp and someone intelligent like Jon Stewart (who I do think is a really smart guy) feels that gay marriage is not something one should make fun of, but sex with horses is open game. So at the end of the day, it may be possible to make an argument that allows for one, but not for the other, but the argument from Liberty is NOT it. That's why it's worth mentioning. I saw Liberty arguments being used a ways above and I heard Jon Stewart support one activity but ridicule the other.

That's all. Nothing devious. I don't think people are gonna have a gay marriage and then we need to lock the sheep up. I just like pointing out inconsistencies in arguments and it's easiest to point it out when the two items in question are very far apart in acceptance. Sex with horses is a slam dunk. Who in a polite conversation is going to say, "hey, just between you and me, I think the South Carolina guy is getting a raw deal."

01/26/2010 06:57:39 PM · #4377

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
LOL. Quite predictable. Your responses only bolster my argument.

It should be predictable already. You've raced around your circular arguments about five dozens times already. Can we all just agree that there is a line and move forward? What you fail to grasp or conveniently ignore is in this society we draw lines based on the Constitution, which none of your arguments are founded on.

1) A lot of what I'm talking about concerns morality and not legality. That argument doesn't care about the constitution because few people would argue that the constitution is the source for our morality.
2) I will drop it (with you at least), if I hear you say that if the SCOTUS upholds a ban on gay marriage that this means the constitution does not support gay marriage. It's no fair saying, "dude, it's all about the constitution and then if/when the ruling doesn't go your way say, well, they got it wrong." I'll respect your position if I hear you say that. I've already said the opposite if you are worried about me putting my money where my mouth is.

If the SCOTUS gets it wrong, which is certainly possible, I would expect my reasoning to be more than to say "they screwed up". Nobody is claiming these judges are infallible or corruptible.

Message edited by author 2010-01-26 18:58:39.

01/26/2010 07:10:37 PM · #4378

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
LOL. Quite predictable. Your responses only bolster my argument.

It should be predictable already. You've raced around your circular arguments about five dozens times already. Can we all just agree that there is a line and move forward? What you fail to grasp or conveniently ignore is in this society we draw lines based on the Constitution, which none of your arguments are founded on.

1) A lot of what I'm talking about concerns morality and not legality. That argument doesn't care about the constitution because few people would argue that the constitution is the source for our morality.
2) I will drop it (with you at least), if I hear you say that if the SCOTUS upholds a ban on gay marriage that this means the constitution does not support gay marriage. It's no fair saying, "dude, it's all about the constitution and then if/when the ruling doesn't go your way say, well, they got it wrong." I'll respect your position if I hear you say that. I've already said the opposite if you are worried about me putting my money where my mouth is.

If the SCOTUS gets it wrong, which is certainly possible, I would expect my reasoning to be more than to say "they screwed up". Nobody is claiming these judges are infallible or corruptible.

Well, then why should I listen to you about the constitution? Are you claiming to be some authority on the subject or just claiming to have an opinion about it? Wake up and smell the coffee. EVERYBODY has an opinion about it and lots of them think the constitution doesn't support gay marriage. Someone against gay marriage could write the exact thing you wrote at the top and mean it. What's your response then Chachi? It devolves into a "is not" and "is to" argument which wastes all our time.

01/26/2010 07:16:16 PM · #4379

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

No, the point of bringing something like this up is to say from a Liberty point of view the two should be treated as equals.

The liberty point of view holds that all people should be treated equally. Horses are irrelevant to that position.

01/26/2010 07:39:38 PM · #4380

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No, the point of bringing something like this up is to say from a Liberty point of view the two should be treated as equals.

The liberty point of view holds that all people should be treated equally. Horses are irrelevant to that position.

??? The argument from Liberty says that a person should be free to do anything that does not cause harm to another individual.

01/26/2010 08:13:09 PM · #4381

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
LOL. Quite predictable. Your responses only bolster my argument.

It should be predictable already. You've raced around your circular arguments about five dozens times already. Can we all just agree that there is a line and move forward? What you fail to grasp or conveniently ignore is in this society we draw lines based on the Constitution, which none of your arguments are founded on.

1) A lot of what I'm talking about concerns morality and not legality. That argument doesn't care about the constitution because few people would argue that the constitution is the source for our morality.
2) I will drop it (with you at least), if I hear you say that if the SCOTUS upholds a ban on gay marriage that this means the constitution does not support gay marriage. It's no fair saying, "dude, it's all about the constitution and then if/when the ruling doesn't go your way say, well, they got it wrong." I'll respect your position if I hear you say that. I've already said the opposite if you are worried about me putting my money where my mouth is.

If the SCOTUS gets it wrong, which is certainly possible, I would expect my reasoning to be more than to say "they screwed up". Nobody is claiming these judges are infallible or corruptible.

Well, then why should I listen to you about the constitution? Are you claiming to be some authority on the subject or just claiming to have an opinion about it? Wake up and smell the coffee. EVERYBODY has an opinion about it and lots of them think the constitution doesn't support gay marriage. Someone against gay marriage could write the exact thing you wrote at the top and mean it. What's your response then Chachi? It devolves into a "is not" and "is to" argument which wastes all our time.

I make no authoritive claims. I'm aware that everyone has an opinion. Even judges render "opinons". That's not the point. The point is if I disagree with a ruling my reasoning for doing so would be based on an interpretation of the Constitution. If I'm wrong then I would expect someone to point out where I erred in my interpretation of the Constitution. So my response to someone who says they are against gay marriage on Constitutional grounds would be to sit and listen to that argument. However, I suspect that most, if not all, are like you and have no such argument to make.

Message edited by author 2010-01-26 20:14:58.

01/26/2010 08:16:58 PM · #4382

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
No, the point of bringing something like this up is to say from a Liberty point of view the two should be treated as equals.

The liberty point of view holds that all people should be treated equally. Horses are irrelevant to that position.

??? The argument from Liberty says that a person should be free to do anything that does not cause harm to another individual.

I think the point is bringing up horses is a red herring, it's deflecting and all of the other things you've accused atheists of doing a short while back you seemed to have mastered.

Message edited by author 2010-01-26 20:27:41.

01/26/2010 09:59:06 PM · #4383

Originally posted by yanko:

I'm guessing that whatever argument the SCOTUS used if they supported the ban would be good enough for me.

Do you catch the irony in saying that the SCOTUS would have an incorrect interpretation of the constitution when the SCOTUS is the instrument the constitution itself has set up to interpret the constitution? According to the constitution the SCOTUS makes correct interpretations by definition (as much as we may disagree).

Message edited by author 2010-01-26 21:59:17.

01/26/2010 10:26:50 PM · #4384

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm guessing that whatever argument the SCOTUS used if they supported the ban would be good enough for me.

Whatever justifies the hate and discrimination. Awesome.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Do you catch the irony in saying that the SCOTUS would have an incorrect interpretation of the constitution when the SCOTUS is the instrument the constitution itself has set up to interpret the constitution? According to the constitution the SCOTUS makes correct interpretations by definition (as much as we may disagree).

Ahem... Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson... not that you would argue those given the above. :-/

01/26/2010 11:07:18 PM · #4385

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm guessing that whatever argument the SCOTUS used if they supported the ban would be good enough for me.

Whatever justifies the hate and discrimination. Awesome.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you catch the irony in saying that the SCOTUS would have an incorrect interpretation of the constitution when the SCOTUS is the instrument the constitution itself has set up to interpret the constitution? According to the constitution the SCOTUS makes correct interpretations by definition (as much as we may disagree).

Ahem... Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson... not that you would argue those given the above. :-/

Well, you are going to have to talk to Richard about those. He's the one looking to the constitution. I certainly think the constitution is not the ultimate authority on morality (although it does wind up being the authority on legality) and certainly while Dred Scott was in effect it was the law of the land.

It's just a silly argument to say that someone against gay marriage is wrong because the constitution doesn't support such discrimination but then one breath later say that if the supreme court were to rule differently it would be, in fact, wrong. The argument is the logical equivalent of "I think the constitution supports gay marraige." which is fine, but is no better or worse than "I think the constitution does not support gay marriage." In the end, there are only nine opinions that matter and that will declare the law of the land (until the law is changed or overturned by a future nine opinions).

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

01/26/2010 11:13:56 PM · #4386

The sad reality relating to constitutional changes is that those that tend to render the decisions are often times of an older conservative generation, replete with all of their preconceived notions as to what is right for society.

Sadly, constitutional law is akin to laws dealing with problems within the I.T environment, namely they are often behind the times.

A quick review of the slow progression of various minorities should provide ample evidence as to the snail pace of progress when dealing equality.

Ray

01/26/2010 11:32:48 PM · #4387

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm guessing that whatever argument the SCOTUS used if they supported the ban would be good enough for me.

Whatever justifies the hate and discrimination. Awesome.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Do you catch the irony in saying that the SCOTUS would have an incorrect interpretation of the constitution when the SCOTUS is the instrument the constitution itself has set up to interpret the constitution? According to the constitution the SCOTUS makes correct interpretations by definition (as much as we may disagree).

Ahem... Dred Scott, Plessy v Ferguson... not that you would argue those given the above. :-/

Well, you are going to have to talk to Richard about those. He's the one looking to the constitution. I certainly think the constitution is not the ultimate authority on morality (although it does wind up being the authority on legality) and certainly while Dred Scott was in effect it was the law of the land.

It's just a silly argument to say that someone against gay marriage is wrong because the constitution doesn't support such discrimination but then one breath later say that if the supreme court were to rule differently it would be, in fact, wrong. The argument is the logical equivalent of "I think the constitution supports gay marraige." which is fine, but is no better or worse than "I think the constitution does not support gay marriage." In the end, there are only nine opinions that matter and that will declare the law of the land (until the law is changed or overturned by a future nine opinions).

No he's talking to the right person. Please go back and re-read what I wrote because clearly you're are not getting it. If you would only stop and consider just the words I write and not insert new words that don't share the same meaning as the ones I chose you would might get my point. For example, stop inserting SCOTUS where I say Constitution. The two are not the same.

01/26/2010 11:35:49 PM · #4388

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I certainly think the constitution is not the ultimate authority on morality

Nobody cares what you (or I) think is the ultimate authority on morality. That's the point of the current legal battle in California. The idea that one group can impose its morality on another was essentially shot down by Lawrence vs. Texas.

Message edited by author 2010-01-26 23:37:41.

01/26/2010 11:45:15 PM · #4389

Originally posted by yanko:

I understand the two are not the same, but the one (SCOTUS) was set up by the other (the Constitution) to interpret the one (the Constitution) in the event unforseen rulings were needed. And while I give you every right to disagree with the SCOTUS' interpretation of things (I do on a number of fronts), I'm just saying it's not a very convincing argument to just say, "I disagree" or "the constitution really means this". Because the first is irrelevant to legal discourse and the second means nothing unless you claim to be an authority (which you correctly and humbly did not).

If Scalia stumbled onto this site and gave his opinion of why the constitution is fine with banning gay marriage, would you suddenly be convinced? I doubt it. How much less should I be convinced by you just telling me what the constitution really says?

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

01/27/2010 12:03:01 AM · #4390

Like I said, if I disagree with a ruling I would try to offer up a Constitutional argument as to why. I get the distinct impression that you feel the Constitution cannot be comprehended by anybody other than the nine justices. When you engage in religious debates do you have your pasture on speed dial to answer every question posed to you before you respond? Or do you feel you have a strong enough grasp of the material to offer up an intelligent reply without having to repeatedly appeal to your authority?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/27/2010 12:14:41 AM · #4391

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The argument is the logical equivalent of "I think the constitution supports gay marraige."

No, it's not the same argument -- the argument is that the Constitution requires equal application of the law to all citizens, and the ban on gay marriage violates that principle. Heck the current SCOTUS even thinks the Constitution treats an "artificial" person (i.e. corporations) equally (BTW, overturning a SCOTUS precedent/decision rendered just 6 years ago built on 100 years of case law!) -- you're now going to argue that gay people are less deserving of equal treatment than Exxon/Mobil?

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

01/27/2010 12:19:26 AM · #4392

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Whatever the court rules regarding abortion, slavery, minority rights, etc., there will always be some who agree and some who disagree. Even within the court rulings, there are minority opinions and majority opinions (like the views posted here, they're ALL opinions). Their opinions are supposed to be based upon the "absolute standards" of the Constitution, but like any textual model applied to a continually changing society (ahem), it's subject to radically different interpretations and personal bias. If this were not true, then people wouldn't get all uptight over the opinions of a prospective judge.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

it's not a very convincing argument to just say, "the constitution really means this".

Shall we assume it's equally unconvincing when someone says "the Word of God really means this?" Gee... that could wipe out the entire foundation of your absolute morality argument.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

01/27/2010 12:23:31 AM · #4393

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

... the one (SCOTUS) was set up by the other (the Constitution) to interpret the one (the Constitution) in the event unforseen rulings were needed.

Actually, the Constitution doesn't speak directly to that function of the Court at all ... the power to review legislation for constitutionality was claimed for itself by the court {in an interpretation of the Constitution) as part of deciding the case of Marbury v. Madison in 1803.

01/27/2010 12:50:52 AM · #4394

Thanks for the info Paul. I do find that stuff interesting. The Daily Show did have a funny bit where the guy with the british accent, when Jon made the comment that gay marriages were not legal while corporate mergers were, made the mock retort, "It's AT&T, not A, T, and, Steve." Made me chuckle.

We don't need to beat this to death. Obviously we all know the SCOTUS is going to have the last work and obviously we all know we are entitled to agree or disagree with whatever they decide. I guess I shy away from arguing cases for or against as far as the constitution goes because I don't have expertise. It's like two lay people arguing the finer details of string theory (oh wait, we do that all the time. Doh!) Also, I am usually (but not always) more interested in the morality of a situation rather than the legality.

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/27/2010 04:24:44 AM · #4395

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

LOL. Quite predictable. Your responses only bolster my argument. How could I even dare make such an association? Sex with horses is on THAT side of the line while gay marriage (or homosexual sex) is on THIS side of the line. All responses admit that a line exists...somewhere.

1) The two consenting adult argument is a red herring unless you are worried about the horse's rights. Am I all good to masturbate? That only has one consenting adult. The guy wasn't trying to marry the horse (as far as I know), he just wanted to have sex with it. What's the harm?
2) My question to Paul is why is the gate locked at the top? Why is the line there? No reason? And why do we find that sex with animals is at the bottom of a slope? It harms nobody so why do we perceive a slope at all?

I think that the responses to DrAchoo have been a bit misguided on this question.

It is an interesting exercise to ask in isolation "why do we prohibit beastiality?". I agree with DrAchoo that "lack of consent" is not really a proper answer.

The origins of any prohibition are most likely natural revulsion to people in general and moral outrage in more conservative times. However, the internet proves that there is an attraction for some people - so why do we prohibit it now?

There are a couple of reasons. The moral reason is linked to animal protection, and the practical reason is that no lawmaker is likely to stand up for the rights of beastialists and overturn a prohibition for two reasons: (1) it is too shameful a cause, and (2) there are few injustices caused by such a prohibition, as it is very low priority for the police, hard to prove and thus rarely enforced.

It is also interesting to analyse why this is a huge red herring and deeply objectionable in the gay wedding argument.

(A) Gay marriage is the creation of marital legal rights between two people of the same sex.

(B) Beastiality is a sexual relationship between a man and an animal - in which the animal does not have and is incapable of exercising the legal rights associated with marriage.

There is no overlap: they are totally different things. Accordingly, raising this as a comparator to gay marriage is nothing more than an attempt to confuse the argument, to tar homosexual relations with the negativity associated with beastiality, or turn it into an argument against gay relationships (and thus an argument for their prohibition or perhaps even the elimination of gay people).

The argument is therefore deeply objectionable in the context of this thread.

Message edited by author 2010-01-27 04:33:38.

Leica 35mm f/1.4 Summilux M Aspherical MF - Black

01/27/2010 10:53:01 AM · #4396

Originally posted by Matthew:

There is no overlap: they are totally different things. Accordingly, raising this as a comparator to gay marriage is nothing more than an attempt to confuse the argument, to tar homosexual relations with the negativity associated with beastiality, or turn it into an argument against gay relationships (and thus an argument for their prohibition or perhaps even the elimination of gay people).

No no no. You almost had it Matthew, but then you do some tarring yourself with my apparent intentions. My intention was to show there are actions which cause no harm to individuals which the vast majority of people view as beyond the pale. I am not associating the two, I am drawing a stark contast between the two. My point is this "line of proper behavior" exists for everybody. I'm also not arguing that you, or anybody else on the thread need to logically put homosexuality on the same side of the line as bestiality, but rather arguing that the line is arbitrarily placed by society. IF society wants to place that "line of right behavior" so that gay marriage is on the "wrong" side, then they can. If they want to place it so it is on the side of acceptable behavior they can as well. My point is we cannot merely place it on the acceptable side of the line through the Argument from Liberty because if we did, ALL actions that "do no harm" should be accepted, and as you saw here people are not prepared to accept bestiality. That's all I'm saying, the only association between the two are they both apparently "do no harm". Other than that, there is no association.

Does that clear it up a bit as far as my motives?

scarbrd

Leica M10

01/27/2010 11:43:12 AM · #4397

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Matthew:
There is no overlap: they are totally different things. Accordingly, raising this as a comparator to gay marriage is nothing more than an attempt to confuse the argument, to tar homosexual relations with the negativity associated with beastiality, or turn it into an argument against gay relationships (and thus an argument for their prohibition or perhaps even the elimination of gay people).

No no no. You almost had it Matthew, but then you do some tarring yourself with my apparent intentions. My intention was to show there are actions which cause no harm to individuals which the vast majority of people view as beyond the pale. I am not associating the two, I am drawing a stark contast between the two. My point is this "line of proper behavior" exists for everybody. I'm also not arguing that you, or anybody else on the thread need to logically put homosexuality on the same side of the line as bestiality, but rather arguing that the line is arbitrarily placed by society. IF society wants to place that "line of right behavior" so that gay marriage is on the "wrong" side, then they can. If they want to place it so it is on the side of acceptable behavior they can as well. My point is we cannot merely place it on the acceptable side of the line through the Argument from Liberty because if we did, ALL actions that "do no harm" should be accepted, and as you saw here people are not prepared to accept bestiality. That's all I'm saying, the only association between the two are they both apparently "do no harm". Other than that, there is no association.

Does that clear it up a bit as far as my motives?

Sure, but by raising the argument, your claim appears to be, if there is indeed a line, then where we draw it has more to do with the acceptable constructs of the community in which the line resides. Do I have that part right?

What I think some of us are saying, is there is no line to draw here. In the context of human rights, some are indeed unalienable. We in the US have stated those to be Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. And you don't get to draw lines in the sand where these cease to exist, except for those actions that prevent these for another. And the assumed audience for this is among humans. Your beastiality case does not apply.

01/27/2010 11:49:44 AM · #4398

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Matthew:
There is no overlap: they are totally different things. Accordingly, raising this as a comparator to gay marriage is nothing more than an attempt to confuse the argument, to tar homosexual relations with the negativity associated with beastiality, or turn it into an argument against gay relationships (and thus an argument for their prohibition or perhaps even the elimination of gay people).

No no no. You almost had it Matthew, but then you do some tarring yourself with my apparent intentions. My intention was to show there are actions which cause no harm to individuals which the vast majority of people view as beyond the pale. I am not associating the two, I am drawing a stark contast between the two. My point is this "line of proper behavior" exists for everybody. I'm also not arguing that you, or anybody else on the thread need to logically put homosexuality on the same side of the line as bestiality, but rather arguing that the line is arbitrarily placed by society. IF society wants to place that "line of right behavior" so that gay marriage is on the "wrong" side, then they can. If they want to place it so it is on the side of acceptable behavior they can as well. My point is we cannot merely place it on the acceptable side of the line through the Argument from Liberty because if we did, ALL actions that "do no harm" should be accepted, and as you saw here people are not prepared to accept bestiality. That's all I'm saying, the only association between the two are they both apparently "do no harm". Other than that, there is no association.

Does that clear it up a bit as far as my motives?

Sure, but by raising the argument, your claim appears to be, if there is indeed a line, then where we draw it has more to do with the acceptable constructs of the community in which the line resides. Do I have that part right?

What I think some of us are saying, is there is no line to draw here. In the context of human rights, some are indeed unalienable. We in the US have stated those to be Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. And you don't get to draw lines in the sand where these cease to exist, except for those actions that prevent these for another. And the assumed audience for this is among humans. Your beastiality case does not apply.

Ya, you are close enough David (not perfect though. :)). I DO think bestiality does apply because it does involve at least ONE human. Why does only having one human make it suddenly not apply as far as Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness? I don't get that line of thinking.

Matthew