Are gay rights, including gay marriage, evolving?

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

01/27/2010 12:22:28 PM · #4401

Originally posted by Matthew:

[. In the UK (as every law student knows) in the case of R v Brown (1993) the police encountered a group of men engaging enthusiastically in consensual S&M activity including maltreatment of the genitals, ritualistic beating and branding. They were successfully prosecuted for assaulting each other (and failed to have the judgment overturned in the highest courts). Their mutual consent was insufficient in the circumstances.

I will definitely have to read that case law as I am truly intrigued as to what led the police to the locale where these activities were taking place, under what guise they gained lawful entry, and who, (other than the police themselves) served as witnesses to the events.

Ray

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/27/2010 01:23:03 PM · #4402

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Does that clear it up a bit as far as my motives?

I understand your motives.

You are trying to argue that some prohibitions are arbitrary. You are using beastiality as an example of something that is arbitrarily prohibited.

I don't disagree with you - I imagine that it could be argued that the animal welfare argument should establish, say, a presumption of harm that could be rebutted (though I really wouldn't want to be on the jury for that one). The material reasons why beastiality is prohibited are the practical ones I outlined.

You maybe missed my point a bit, though. The arguments are often conflated (and have been on this thread): letting gay people marry is on the slippery slope to promoting beastiality. That is deeply objectionable - and I am afraid that by association your choice of comparator is therefore a bad one.

A better comparator might be S&M. In the UK (as every law student knows) in the case of R v Brown (1993) the police encountered a group of men engaging enthusiastically in consensual S&M activity including maltreatment of the genitals, ritualistic beating and branding. They were successfully prosecuted for assaulting each other (and failed to have the judgment overturned in the highest courts). Their mutual consent was insufficient in the circumstances.

By contrast, boxing and martial arts have been protected - in those cases consent is sufficient.

S&M and boxing fall either side of the finely drawn line. While argued in detail, the line is somewhat arbitrary and almost certainly influenced by social morality.

Reasonable reply Matthew, as always. I guess I hope that my protestations are enough to let people assume I am not trying to make that slippery slope argument, but I suppose the opportunity to demonize your opponent is just too sweet a temptation sometimes and I get blamed for it anyway. When making an argument it is the easiest to have obvious and stark examples. The point is clearest. It wouldn't do for me to try to contrast that line of acceptability with someone having gay sex with...a black man!!!! muahahaha! That wouldn't do at all. Really the whole conversation was spurred by Jon Stewart who seemed to be the one to draw the line, so I didn't really "choose" the example rather than just observing the example was to be found exhibited in an intelligent, funny liberal on TV.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

01/27/2010 02:19:37 PM · #4403

Originally posted by yanko:

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.

I think the liberty and "cause no harm" arguments are related in the context of the legal issues. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding is that the same-sex marriage cases that have been adjudicated in U.S. state courts so far have argued the same fundamental proposition, that groups of people similarly situated are to be treated equally under the law (equal treatment) unless the opposition can show a compelling state interest why the law should not be applied equally (the "harm" argument). As Matthew, yanko and others have pointed out, "similarly situated" or "comparing apples to apples" is a central concept. If you want to argue about bestiality with respect to these legal concepts, there would first have to exist a group for whom bestiality is legal, and another group for whom it is prohibited. But in any event, it doesn't have anything to do with the marriage issue.

A question to those opposing same-sex marriage: if you reject the "equal treatment under the law" and "cause no harm" standards, what standards do you propose instead, and why?

01/27/2010 04:22:07 PM · #4404

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by yanko:

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.

I think the liberty and "cause no harm" arguments are related in the context of the legal issues. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but my understanding is that the same-sex marriage cases that have been adjudicated in U.S. state courts so far have argued the same fundamental proposition, that groups of people similarly situated are to be treated equally under the law (equal treatment) unless the opposition can show a compelling state interest why the law should not be applied equally (the "harm" argument). As Matthew, yanko and others have pointed out, "similarly situated" or "comparing apples to apples" is a central concept. If you want to argue about bestiality with respect to these legal concepts, there would first have to exist a group for whom bestiality is legal, and another group for whom it is prohibited. But in any event, it doesn't have anything to do with the marriage issue.

A question to those opposing same-sex marriage: if you reject the "equal treatment under the law" and "cause no harm" standards, what standards do you propose instead, and why?

Thanks for the reply Judith. That actually is pretty well written and I see the position you take. I will tell you the conservative argument from a legal point of view could be that all groups ARE receiving "equal treatment under the law" because everybody has the ability to marry as it is currently defined. They would argue that what is being attempted here is a redefinition of a civil institution and that there is no need, in their eyes, to redefine the civil instution if the majority of the public doesn't want to do so.

But I do hear you that it is entirely possible that the disconnect here with the horse is that some people are talking about "legal liberty" while I'm talking about "moral liberty".

yanko

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

01/27/2010 04:43:34 PM · #4405

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But I do hear you that it is entirely possible that the disconnect here with the horse is that some people are talking about "legal liberty" while I'm talking about "moral liberty".

That's probably because this thread was about "gay rights" (i.e. legality). What probably happened was after your resounding defeat involving boxcars and the like in other threads you came here looking to recover, which hasn't turned out so well either. :P

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

01/27/2010 04:47:34 PM · #4406

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I will tell you the conservative argument from a legal point of view could be that all groups ARE receiving "equal treatment under the law" because everybody has the ability to marry as it is currently defined.

If Citizen A is allowed to marry Citzen B, but is prohibited from choosing instead to marry Citizen C ,merely because of Citizen C's gender, then it is ahould be obvious that Citizens B and C are being treated differently and unequally merely on the basis of gender. True political conservatives (like one of the lead attorneys seeking to overturn Prop. 8) should be all over this issue on the side of the freedom of the individual to marry the person of their choice.

Just in case I have to specify every single parameter, the above example assumes that all of the citizens mentioned in the above example are unmarried, consenting, competent human adults, and unencumbered by any other legal restriction on their right to marry except for the gender of their intended spouse.

01/27/2010 05:08:07 PM · #4407

Paul, I understand completely. There is no lack of understanding of the argument, just a disagreement on it. Again, the legal question is not nearly as interesting to me because I do not claim to have legal expertise and will leave it up to the courts to decide.

Oh, my bad Richard, and here's I've been thinking that in the last 4400 posts we've ranged far and wide talking about who knows what. But couldn't the "rights" question have been answered in one post? Ummm, it's evolved (ie. changed) to include fives states and not evolved in 45 other states and the federal laws. Bam! We could have been drinking beer a looooonnnggg time ago.

Message edited by author 2010-01-27 17:10:24.

01/27/2010 05:37:39 PM · #4408

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Yeah, beer! I know this great place in town. Very trendy, seems to have mostly guys though, but they all are really friendly, and this gay marriage topic comes up a lot!

yanko

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

01/27/2010 06:28:28 PM · #4409

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So does that mean you have moral expertise? Are you a doctor and a clergyman?

01/27/2010 06:32:48 PM · #4410

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I will tell you the conservative argument from a legal point of view could be that all groups ARE receiving "equal treatment under the law" because everybody has the ability to marry as it is currently defined.

If Citizen A is allowed to marry Citzen B, but is prohibited from choosing instead to marry Citizen C ,merely because of Citizen C's gender, then it is ahould be obvious that Citizens B and C are being treated differently and unequally merely on the basis of gender. True political conservatives (like one of the lead attorneys seeking to overturn Prop. 8) should be all over this issue on the side of the freedom of the individual to marry the person of their choice.

Just in case I have to specify every single parameter, the above example assumes that all of the citizens mentioned in the above example are unmarried, consenting, competent human adults, and unencumbered by any other legal restriction on their right to marry except for the gender of their intended spouse.

Citizen A is not prohibited from marrying Citizen C because the current definition of marriage does not include same-sex couples. As DrAchoo said, the issue for conservatives is not one of equal rights, but of redefining "marriage". The current definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and under that definition, no man or woman is prohibited from getting married. In other words, a man cannot marry a man, because that's outside the definition of the word "marriage".

Think in terms of baseball. Let's say that according to our current definition of baseball, we need "one person with a ball" and "one person with a bat" in order to play the game. Now, any person with a ball can play baseball with any person with a bat, and any person with a bat can play with another person who has a ball. No person is prohibited from playing baseball according to the rules and the definition. But... if a person with a ball wants to play baseball with another person who has a ball, that does not fit the definition and the game needs to be redefined in order for both people to play. After redefining the game, we no longer have baseball, but bocci ball. So, the two players are not prohibited from playing baseball because of who they are, but because the definition of the game doesn't fit what they want to play.

Message edited by author 2010-01-27 18:35:00.

yanko

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

01/27/2010 06:41:02 PM · #4411

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I will tell you the conservative argument from a legal point of view could be that all groups ARE receiving "equal treatment under the law" because everybody has the ability to marry as it is currently defined.

If Citizen A is allowed to marry Citzen B, but is prohibited from choosing instead to marry Citizen C ,merely because of Citizen C's gender, then it is ahould be obvious that Citizens B and C are being treated differently and unequally merely on the basis of gender. True political conservatives (like one of the lead attorneys seeking to overturn Prop. 8) should be all over this issue on the side of the freedom of the individual to marry the person of their choice.

Just in case I have to specify every single parameter, the above example assumes that all of the citizens mentioned in the above example are unmarried, consenting, competent human adults, and unencumbered by any other legal restriction on their right to marry except for the gender of their intended spouse.

Citizen A is not prohibited from marrying Citizen C because the current definition of marriage does not include same-sex couples. As DrAchoo said, the issue for conservatives is not one of equal rights, but of redefining "marriage". The current definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and under that definition, no man or woman is prohibited from getting married. In other words, a man cannot marry a man, because that's outside the definition of the word "marriage".

Think in terms of baseball. Let's say that according to our current definition of baseball, we need "one person with a ball" and "one person with a bat" in order to play the game. Now, any person with a ball can play baseball with any person with a bat, and any person with a bat can play with another person who has a ball. No person is prohibited from playing baseball according to the rules and the definition. But... if a person with a ball wants to play baseball with another person who has a ball, that does not fit the definition and the game needs to be redefined in order for both people to play. After redefining the game, we no longer have baseball, but bocci ball. So, the two players are not prohibited from playing baseball because of who they are, but because the definition of the game doesn't fit what they want to play.

It's odd that you would bring up baseball because baseball has changed so much over the years including who gets to bat and not bat.

01/27/2010 06:51:09 PM · #4412

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by yanko:

It's odd that you would bring up baseball because baseball has changed so much over the years including who gets to bat and not bat.

Yes, and every time the game changes, the rules are redefined. If the manager just stepped up to the plate with a bat everyone would wonder what the heck was going on. If the manager wants to bat too, that has to be written in to the rules.

Here's another analogy for you: Skiing and Snowboarding.
Person A wants to strap on a pair of Skis and go skiing down the slope. Anybody can go skiing as long as they have two skis. But then Person B comes along and just has one really big board and says, "I want to strap both of my feet to this one board and go skiing". Person A will reply, "well that's fine. You can share the slopes with me and do everything that I do, but that's not called skiing, that's called snowboarding"!

Here's another analogy for you: Skydiving and plummeting to your death.
Person A wants to jump out of a plane with a parachute and go skydiving. Anybody can go skydiving as long as they have a parachute. But the Person B comes along and says, "I want to jump out of the plane without a parachute!" Person A will reply, "well that's fine. You can jump out of the plane with me and do everything that I do, but that's not called skydiving, that's called plummeting to your death"!

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/27/2010 06:57:46 PM · #4413

Originally posted by yanko:

It's odd that you would bring up baseball because baseball has changed so much over the years including who gets to bat and not bat.

I should add that most people are not opposed to changing the game of baseball. In fact, sometimes it becomes necessary to change the game and many people support the changes. But, you need to redefine the rules. The rulebook needs to be updated to include the new changes. If the New York Yankees and the Boston Red Sox went out on a field and started throwing balls at each other randomly, nobody would call that baseball. Some conservative baseball fanatics might even get upset if you call that baseball.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

01/27/2010 06:59:07 PM · #4414

Originally posted by yanko:

I know this thread has gone down this road before, but in the legal sense, marriage is just a contractual relationship. Contract terms can be altered. And it's not clear to me what legal justification there might be for prohibiting members of a particular group from entering into a contractual relationship based solely on the gender of the parties.

Message edited by author 2010-01-27 19:00:46.

01/27/2010 06:59:09 PM · #4415

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Citizen A is not prohibited from marrying Citizen C because the current definition of marriage does not include same-sex couples. As DrAchoo said, the issue for conservatives is not one of equal rights, but of redefining "marriage". The current definition of marriage is a union between one man and one woman, and under that definition, no man or woman is prohibited from getting married. In other words, a man cannot marry a man, because that's outside the definition of the word "marriage".

Think in terms of baseball. Let's say that according to our current definition of baseball, we need "one person with a ball" and "one person with a bat" in order to play the game. Now, any person with a ball can play baseball with any person with a bat, and any person with a bat can play with another person who has a ball. No person is prohibited from playing baseball according to the rules and the definition. But... if a person with a ball wants to play baseball with another person who has a ball, that does not fit the definition and the game needs to be redefined in order for both people to play. After redefining the game, we no longer have baseball, but bocci ball. So, the two players are not prohibited from playing baseball because of who they are, but because the definition of the game doesn't fit what they want to play.

Originally posted by yanko:
It's odd that you would bring up baseball because baseball has changed so much over the years including who gets to bat and not bat.

Yes, and every time the game changes, the rules are redefined. If the manager just stepped up to the plate with a bat everyone would wonder what the heck was going on. If the manager wants to bat too, that has to be written in to the rules.

Here's another analogy for you: Skiing and Snowboarding.
Person A wants to strap on a pair of Skis and go skiing down the slope. Anybody can go skiing as long as they have two skis. But then Person B comes along and just has one really big board and says, "I want to strap both of my feet to this one board and go skiing". Person A will reply, "well that's fine. You can share the slopes with me and do everything that I do, but that's not called skiing, that's called snowboarding"!

Here's another analogy for you: Skydiving and plummeting to your death.
Person A wants to jump out of a plane with a parachute and go skydiving. Anybody can go skydiving as long as they have a parachute. But the Person B comes along and says, "I want to jump out of the plane without a parachute!" Person A will reply, "well that's fine. You can jump out of the plane with me and do everything that I do, but that's not called skydiving, that's called plummeting to your death"!

Both of your analogies are bad on their face. A better analogy along your lines, is Player A has the proper equipment for the game, as does player B. But player A is white and player B is black. Our community standards does not allow whites to play with blacks, therefore, player B can not play with player A.

Your thinly veiled reference to the proper equipment speaks to having the necessary "equipment" for a marriage. Do you really want to go down that road?

The ability to successfully procreate has never been a prerequisite for marriage.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

01/27/2010 07:02:33 PM · #4416

I would wager that a fair number of those who oppose gay marriage because "it redefines marriage" also oppose interracial marriage but probably wouldn't admit that out loud.

I still do no understand if "traditional marriage" is SO important to be defended why more money and effort isn't being spent to deal with the 50% divorce rate, which strikes me as being significantly, by sheer numbers, more detrimental to the sanctity of the institution than allowing same sex marriages (which would probably suffer from about the same divorce rate, sadly.)

Bugzeye

01/27/2010 07:03:59 PM · #4417

WoW 177 pages. This thread is starting to remind me of Congress.

01/27/2010 07:17:37 PM · #4418

Originally posted by Bugzeye:

WoW 177 pages. This thread is starting to remind me of Congress.

I vote for a pay raise!

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

01/27/2010 07:21:31 PM · #4419

Originally posted by scarbrd:

We can avoid the "equipment" debate. I definitely do not want to get into that.

In your analogy, you are focused on who the person is. In my analogies, I am focused on what the definition is. This is the difference between us. Here is a better analogy for you.

Person A is right handed, Person B is left handed. According to baseball rules, the batter must stand in the box to the left of home plate. Person A and Person B have the same equipment, but they have different handedness. Because the rules declare that the batter must stand to the left of home plate, Person B cannot bat because he would have to stand to the right of home plate, and thus break the rules.

Apple iPhone 5

01/27/2010 07:28:42 PM · #4420

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

In your analogy, you are focused on who the person is. In my analogies, I am focused on what the definition is. This is the difference between us.

I can understand baseball analogies being useful if you are an avid baseball fan. In that scenario, changes to the rules have an affect on your enjoyment of the sport.

But in the case of gay marriage, how would changes to the definition affect you personally? Unless you're gay and want to get married, of course.

01/27/2010 07:33:27 PM · #4421

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Both of your analogies are bad on their face. A better analogy along your lines, is Player A has the proper equipment for the game, as does player B. But player A is white and player B is black. Our community standards does not allow whites to play with blacks, therefore, player B can not play with player A.

Your thinly veiled reference to the proper equipment speaks to having the necessary "equipment" for a marriage. Do you really want to go down that road?

The ability to successfully procreate has never been a prerequisite for marriage.

We can avoid the "equipment" debate. I definitely do not want to get into that.

In your analogy, you are focused on who the person is. In my analogies, I am focused on what the definition is. This is the difference between us. Here is a better analogy for you.

Person A is right handed, Person B is left handed. According to baseball rules, the batter must stand in the box to the left of home plate. Person A and Person B have the same equipment, but they have different handedness. Because the rules declare that the batter must stand to the left of home plate, Person B cannot bat because he would have to stand to the right of home plate, and thus break the rules.

And if that rule was in baseball, it would be equally as silly as saying same sex marriage is against the rules.

01/27/2010 07:54:50 PM · #4422

Originally posted by scarbrd:

And if that rule was in baseball, it would be equally as silly as saying same sex marriage is against the rules.

It might be silly but there would be people who would be opposed to the change. New rules means new strategies. Coaches, players, and fans would all need to adapt to the change. Think about all the poor photographers that would have a horrible angle on the batters arse every time a lefty stepped up to the plate.

01/27/2010 07:59:25 PM · #4423

Originally posted by johnnyphoto:

Originally posted by scarbrd:

And if that rule was in baseball, it would be equally as silly as saying same sex marriage is against the rules.

It might be silly but there would be people who would be opposed to the change. New rules means new strategies. Coaches, players, and fans would all need to adapt to the change. Think about all the poor photographers that would have a horrible angle on the batters arse every time a lefty stepped up to the plate.

I really don't see where you're going with this, but it is fun.

I used to be one of those photographers. We weren't allowed to move to the other side based on the batter's handedness.

We would usually be right behind the batter's box. The on deck batter would usually try to position himself in way the most blocked the photographers anyway. ;-)

Matthew

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

01/27/2010 08:26:53 PM · #4424

Originally posted by scarbrd:

Because the debate arena is Human rights. Animal rights is a different conversation.

To be fair, beastiality is principally a matter of human rights - whether human law should restrict humans from perpetrating these acts. The animals are pretty much oblivious to the legal position. The animal rights angle is secondary and focusses on suffering, not rights. There are worse things we do to animals (like kill and eat them - again, rights issues focus on unnecessary suffering).

There are better reasons why beastiality should be excluded from the conversation re: gay marriage - mainly the specific, not general irrelevance.

Matthew