|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/15/2008 12:59:53 PM · #151 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know 'humous has already brought up the tyranny of the majority, but what if 0.1% of the population really feels they are affected by defining marriage as "two consenting adults"? Is the answer for them to simply "get over it because you are a bigot"? |
The only catch to that is in this case it *IS* a tyranny of the majority.
You're talking about justifying discrimination.
There is no downside for this theoretical 60% to extend them the same rights that the rest of the CITIZENS of the society are entitled to BY LAW. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 01:01:27 PM · #152 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If 60% of the population wants to define marriage as "one man and one woman" and 0.1% is affected, why must we neglect the will of the 60%? |
60% of the people do not want to define marriage as "one man and one woman." I guarantee you that less than 5% of the U.S. population gives a damn about the definitions of words. What 60% of the people want is to discriminate against that .1%. What the .1% of people want has no bearing whatsoever on the 60% and does not inconvenience them in any way. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 01:02:57 PM · #153 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Again, just asking. In a place where same-sex marriage is either not recognized or not legal, would a legal document like a will, etc hold up? It would, wouldn't it? |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Probably, but who wants to run around with a binder of Powers of Attorney, health care directives and the like.
Take this scenario: You're on a vacation with your spouse and they have a serious accident. All that you have to say is, "I'm his wife." and you can give consent for treatment, receive information from the doctors, attend their bedside, comfort and care for one of the people dearest to you.
If you were part of a homosexual couple, the scenario would play out quite differently and, in all likelihood, until you produced a health care POA or other directive, you would be denied access to any of those things and would be powerless to advocate for your spouse. |
A sad sidebar?
If the treatment was denied because the hospital/medical center demanded that the wife prove who she is, and the husband died, you'd never see the end of the settlement checks.......same scenario with a gay mate with all the POAs and consent forms in the world.....well, do you really have to wonder if that'd be settled equitably? |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 01:03:02 PM · #154 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If 60% of the population wants to define marriage as "one man and one woman" and 0.1% is affected, why must we neglect the will of the 60%? |
60% of the people do not want to define marriage as "one man and one woman." I guarantee you that less than 5% of the U.S. population gives a damn about the definitions of words. What 60% of the people want is to discriminate against that .1%. What the .1% of people want has no bearing whatsoever on the 60% and does not inconvenience them in any way. |
btw, you're very good at combining specious arguments. In order for me to argue one of your points I had to concede the ".1%" which is an incredibly unfair way to categorize the homosexual community that is being discriminated against. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 01:05:39 PM · #155 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If 60% of the population wants to define marriage as "one man and one woman" and 0.1% is affected, why must we neglect the will of the 60%? |
Originally posted by posthumous:
60% of the people do not want to define marriage as "one man and one woman." I guarantee you that less than 5% of the U.S. population gives a damn about the definitions of words. What 60% of the people want is to discriminate against that .1%. What the .1% of people want has no bearing whatsoever on the 60% and does not inconvenience them in any way. |
I also have to object to teh numbers game.....we're not talking about .1%.....we're talking about a large number of PEOPLE, NOT numbers.
You're not talking dpriving a number of its day in the sun, you're talking about preventing people from doing what most of us take for granted.....file joint taxes, obtain medical coverage, standard RIGHTS for American citizens. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 01:18:54 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So, assuming these numbers are roughly accurate, we are talking about 0.1% of the population. Now I agree that small groups shouldn't be neglected just because they are small, but it does put things somewhat into perspective doesn't it? If 60% of the population wants to define marriage as "one man and one woman" and 0.1% is affected, why must we neglect the will of the 60%? I know 'humous has already brought up the tyranny of the majority, but what if 0.1% of the population really feels they are affected by defining marriage as "two consenting adults"? Is the answer for them to simply "get over it because you are a bigot"?
I do want to step aside and say I hope I am coming across as civil in this debate. My personal opinion is much softer than I'm presenting here, but I do like to argue, as mentioned, as a way to help form my opinions. Hopefully we can keep the tone up. |
Doc, you asked for a moral argument and I gave you one. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree that there is a moral imperitive to allow individuals in a commited relationship to care for one another, then the numbers are irrelevant. If there were only one such couple, their moral right would still exist, and it would be wrong to deny them that right.
Message edited by author 2008-10-15 13:19:16. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 01:20:42 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by karmat:
Again, just asking. In a place where same-sex marriage is either not recognized or not legal, would a legal document like a will, etc hold up? It would, wouldn't it? |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Probably, but who wants to run around with a binder of Powers of Attorney, health care directives and the like.
Take this scenario: You're on a vacation with your spouse and they have a serious accident. All that you have to say is, "I'm his wife." and you can give consent for treatment, receive information from the doctors, attend their bedside, comfort and care for one of the people dearest to you.
If you were part of a homosexual couple, the scenario would play out quite differently and, in all likelihood, until you produced a health care POA or other directive, you would be denied access to any of those things and would be powerless to advocate for your spouse. |
A sad sidebar?
If the treatment was denied because the hospital/medical center demanded that the wife prove who she is, and the husband died, you'd never see the end of the settlement checks.......same scenario with a gay mate with all the POAs and consent forms in the world.....well, do you really have to wonder if that'd be settled equitably? |
Can you imagine what it would be like to be rendered that powerless? To be cut completely out of decisions that could affect whether your spouse lives or dies? To be told that they can't legally tell you ANYTHING about the state of their well-being, their care or anything? |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 01:30:55 PM · #158 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Doc, you asked for a moral argument and I gave you one. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree that there is a moral imperitive to allow individuals in a commited relationship to care for one another, then the numbers are irrelevant. If there were only one such couple, their moral right would still exist, and it would be wrong to deny them that right. |
Mmm, let me think a bit. I think what you are saying (it is moral for individuals in relationships to care for one another) has truth to it, but I'm not sure of the words "imperative" and "committed". Why is there an imperative? What are you basing this on? We're leaving theology out, so you could point to some secular construct of morality (utilitarianism, etc) or you could point to some agreed code of human rights. I'm not aware that any of those carry your "imperative", but I'm open to being taught. The only reason I have question about "committed" is it's hard to define. Are you saying there ISN'T a moral imperitive for people in non-committed relationships?
A second argument is why can't there be a separate parallel method for allowing gay couples to carry out this imperative, if there is such a thing? It could be called domestic partnership or whatever. Would such a system qualify in your eyes?
One final note from the real world is that I have personally never witnessed someone being barred from a hospital room. It may happen, but I doubt it is common. Second, just being married is no guarantee that your wishes will be carried out with end-of-life decisions. I have seen struggles between families where the husband or wife feels one way and the extended family feels another. There is no obvious answer there and to think that you are safe by suddenly being "married" is probably a bit ignorant. I would recommend everybody have a living will. Having one, will trump family ties anyway. If you have a document that clearly states, "I want John to make my decisions for me." and your family disagrees, the hospital is going to side with John as far as I've ever seen. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 01:37:29 PM · #159 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
btw, you're very good at combining specious arguments. In order for me to argue one of your points I had to concede the ".1%" which is an incredibly unfair way to categorize the homosexual community that is being discriminated against. |
I do not think my argument is "specious" (having a deceptive allure). My numbers were good faith estimates. I really did try to search and find some data. That was the best I found. I'm open to opposing numbers if you can find them.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2008 01:48:07 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Mmm, let me think a bit. I think what you are saying (it is moral for individuals in relationships to care for one another) has truth to it, but I'm not sure of the words "imperative" and "committed". Why is there an imperative? What are you basing this on? We're leaving theology out, so you could point to some secular construct of morality (utilitarianism, etc) or you could point to some agreed code of human rights. I'm not aware that any of those carry your "imperative", but I'm open to being taught. The only reason I have question about "committed" is it's hard to define. Are you saying there ISN'T a moral imperitive for people in non-committed relationships? |
I believe that it is moral to care for anyone, but the level of care becomes an imperative in a committed relationship because part of that committment is a committment to provide that care. At least, I believe that's a reasonable definition of a "committed" relationship.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A second argument is why can't there be a separate parallel method for allowing gay couples to carry out this imperative, if there is such a thing? It could be called domestic partnership or whatever. Would such a system qualify in your eyes? |
So you would be in favor of a "separate, but equal" policy? Am I reading that correctly? The problem with "separate, but equal" is that once it is separate it is immediately not-equal. That is why this type of policy was shot down for racial divisions in schools. Once you define something as being different, it is no longer equal, so "separate, but equal" is a paradox. If a separate class of marriage for homosexuals is equal to heterosexual marriage, why is there is a need for the separate class? The only reason would be to create a difference, so it would no longer be equal. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 01:49:01 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
One final note from the real world is that I have personally never witnessed someone being barred from a hospital room. It may happen, but I doubt it is common. Second, just being married is no guarantee that your wishes will be carried out with end-of-life decisions. I have seen struggles between families where the husband or wife feels one way and the extended family feels another. There is no obvious answer there and to think that you are safe by suddenly being "married" is probably a bit ignorant. I would recommend everybody have a living will. Having one, will trump family ties anyway. If you have a document that clearly states, "I want John to make my decisions for me." and your family disagrees, the hospital is going to side with John as far as I've ever seen. |
A quick Google turned up the following:Link
Specifically from the article...
Originally posted by Linked MSNBC Article:
In one example cited by the HRC, attorney Kenneth Johnson described his struggle to verify his relationship with his partner, James Massey, in 2006 when Massey was rushed unconscious to Howard University Hospital in Washington, D.C.
Johnson said he had to travel back to his home in Virginia to fetch legal documents before the hospital allowed him to join in medical decision-making for Massey, who had suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died the next day. The two men had registered as domestic partners in California and had an adopted son. |
|
|
|
|
10/15/2008 01:50:02 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's take the homosexuality out of it completely. Under this argument and posthumous', should we be upset that we do not call heterosexual couples who have cohabitated for a long period of time "married"? In many places, they can have the legal rights afforded by marriage without actually being "married" (Domestic partnership). I don't hear this group running about clamoring that they are being discriminated against. |
That's because they're not. In Canada, if two people (same or opposite sex, as it happens) cohabit for two years or more, they are considered "common-law spouses" and are afforded the same rights, benefits, and obligations as married couples under Canadian law. They are essentially "married". They aren't running around complaining about it because their rights are protected. Delving into semantics simply deflects the issue that this question is one of equality, and that in some places (not Canada), same-sex couples are not equal and are being discriminated against contrary to guarantees of equality in the federal constitution. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 01:56:07 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Let's take the homosexuality out of it completely. Under this argument and posthumous', should we be upset that we do not call heterosexual couples who have cohabitated for a long period of time "married"? In many places, they can have the legal rights afforded by marriage without actually being "married" (Domestic partnership). I don't hear this group running about clamoring that they are being discriminated against. |
That's because they're not. In Canada, if two people (same or opposite sex, as it happens) cohabit for two years or more, they are considered "common-law spouses" and are afforded the same rights, benefits, and obligations as married couples under Canadian law. They are essentially "married". They aren't running around complaining about it because their rights are protected. Delving into semantics simply deflects the issue that this question is one of equality, and that in some places (not Canada), same-sex couples are not equal and are being discriminated against contrary to guarantees of equality in the federal constitution. |
Wait, am I wrong that someone above (might have been you) pointed out that gay marriage is also recognized in Canada? You can't point out that domestic partners aren't clamoring for rights in one place where they are afforded them and then point to gay couples in another place where they are not. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 02:00:03 PM · #164 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Linked MSNBC Article:
In one example cited by the HRC, attorney Kenneth Johnson described his struggle to verify his relationship with his partner, James Massey, in 2006 when Massey was rushed unconscious to Howard University Hospital in Washington, D.C.
Johnson said he had to travel back to his home in Virginia to fetch legal documents before the hospital allowed him to join in medical decision-making for Massey, who had suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died the next day. The two men had registered as domestic partners in California and had an adopted son. |
|
So, A) I would assume the same thing would have happened if Kenneth were a woman and they were not married. B) Even if Kenneth were married and other family members arrived and disagreed with Kenneth there would be trouble. C) Living wills can be had on a card that can fit in your wallet (I had one for years). I do not deny such things may happen. I just think there are current legal means by which they can be solved. Lots of parents go on vacation and leave their kids with the grandparents. How many leave behind a letter stating the grandparents can seek medical care and make decisions? We do. Should I complain if I didn't and my vacation was cut short because I had to rush home to the hospital? That's a failure of my preparation, nothing else. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 02:02:25 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wait, am I wrong that someone above (might have been you) pointed out that gay marriage is also recognized in Canada? You can't point out that domestic partners aren't clamoring for rights in one place where they are afforded them and then point to gay couples in another place where they are not. |
Hm? Oh, I see. Yes, but isn't the issue simpler? If two American domestic partners, male and female, seek marriage after a time, they have no problem. If two same-sex partners seek it, they have a problem. I think it's obfuscating the point using bad analogy when you use a non-issue like domestic partnership to illustrate those who are "not running around complaining about" not being called married. They don't care, and not only that, they're not being treated unfairly. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 02:02:27 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
So you would be in favor of a "separate, but equal" policy? Am I reading that correctly? The problem with "separate, but equal" is that once it is separate it is immediately not-equal. That is why this type of policy was shot down for racial divisions in schools. Once you define something as being different, it is no longer equal, so "separate, but equal" is a paradox. If a separate class of marriage for homosexuals is equal to heterosexual marriage, why is there is a need for the separate class? The only reason would be to create a difference, so it would no longer be equal. |
So do you think the idea that men and women are equal has no chance of attaining reality? |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 02:03:33 PM · #167 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
So do you think the idea that men and women are equal has no chance of attaining reality? |
Is this really an argument? Of course women and men aren't equal. Two men side-by-side aren't equal, nor are two women. But they should all be afforded equal rights. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 02:08:46 PM · #168 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by Linked MSNBC Article:
In one example cited by the HRC, attorney Kenneth Johnson described his struggle to verify his relationship with his partner, James Massey, in 2006 when Massey was rushed unconscious to Howard University Hospital in Washington, D.C.
Johnson said he had to travel back to his home in Virginia to fetch legal documents before the hospital allowed him to join in medical decision-making for Massey, who had suffered a cerebral hemorrhage and died the next day. The two men had registered as domestic partners in California and had an adopted son. |
|
So, A) I would assume the same thing would have happened if Kenneth were a woman and they were not married. B) Even if Kenneth were married and other family members arrived and disagreed with Kenneth there would be trouble. C) Living wills can be had on a card that can fit in your wallet (I had one for years). I do not deny such things may happen. I just think there are current legal means by which they can be solved. Lots of parents go on vacation and leave their kids with the grandparents. How many leave behind a letter stating the grandparents can seek medical care and make decisions? We do. Should I complain if I didn't and my vacation was cut short because I had to rush home to the hospital? That's a failure of my preparation, nothing else. |
Yet, had they been afforded the right to marry, none of this would have happened. Going home to get documents after a loved one is stabilized following an accident is one thing, being denied access from the start is another.
Try as you might, I don't think you can justify the discrimination.
|
|
|
|
10/15/2008 02:10:03 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
btw, you're very good at combining specious arguments. In order for me to argue one of your points I had to concede the ".1%" which is an incredibly unfair way to categorize the homosexual community that is being discriminated against. |
I do not think my argument is "specious" (having a deceptive allure). My numbers were good faith estimates. I really did try to search and find some data. That was the best I found. I'm open to opposing numbers if you can find them. |
If it's "good faith" then why are you ignoring the argument that it affects anyone who is homosexual, not just homosexuals who are in committed relationships? That brings us up to about 5%, according to you, which is similar to the percentage of Jews in the U.S., so be very careful about your too-few-to-matter argument. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 02:13:12 PM · #170 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wait, am I wrong that someone above (might have been you) pointed out that gay marriage is also recognized in Canada? You can't point out that domestic partners aren't clamoring for rights in one place where they are afforded them and then point to gay couples in another place where they are not. |
Hm? Oh, I see. Yes, but isn't the issue simpler? If two American domestic partners, male and female, seek marriage after a time, they have no problem. If two same-sex partners seek it, they have a problem. I think it's obfuscating the point using bad analogy when you use a non-issue like domestic partnership to illustrate those who are "not running around complaining about" not being called married. They don't care, and not only that, they're not being treated unfairly. |
Yes, I can see your point. I guess what I am trying to point out is that domestic partners seem to be afforded rights without being married. We seem to think this is fine without calling it "marriage" when in the eyes of the law they are for all intents and purposes married. When John and Kate, living together for 10 years introduce themselves and say as such, nobody comes back, "you are MARRIED, dammit!" We all understand they are "living together" or "cohabitating" and that they are "significant others". Why can't gay couples participate in this without it being legally defined under the word "marriage"? If we simply say that gay couples feel harmed by not being able to use the word married, I would counter that there are people, probably devoutly religious, who would feel equally harmed if the word, one that originates in religion, is co-opted for a union their religion sees as wrong. They may feel it is harder to raise their children because of the confusion now from the term "marriage". (Mommy,it says in Hebrews that "marriage should be honored by all", does that mean I should honor Frank and Jim's marriage? but that doesn't make sense because the scriptures frown on homosexuality. What gives?) (that, BTW, is a total hypothetical, let's not go down that rabbit hole.)
Anyway, my point is the issue is a two way street. It isn't that one view harms a small minority and the other view doesn't. It is likely either view harms a small minority so pointing out the harm done by one view (against calling gay unions "marriage") only gets us so far. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 02:14:24 PM · #171 |
Originally posted by eqsite:
Is this really an argument? Of course women and men aren't equal. Two men side-by-side aren't equal, nor are two women. But they should all be afforded equal rights. |
But there are many instances in the law where men and women are viewed differently. "Separate, but equal." was the term you used. I'm just trying to point out that such a thing does not automatically equal discrimination. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 02:14:53 PM · #172 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
So you would be in favor of a "separate, but equal" policy? Am I reading that correctly? The problem with "separate, but equal" is that once it is separate it is immediately not-equal. That is why this type of policy was shot down for racial divisions in schools. Once you define something as being different, it is no longer equal, so "separate, but equal" is a paradox. If a separate class of marriage for homosexuals is equal to heterosexual marriage, why is there is a need for the separate class? The only reason would be to create a difference, so it would no longer be equal. |
So do you think the idea that men and women are equal has no chance of attaining reality? |
That same argument could be used for colored water fountains. The very fact that a child cannot use a certain water fountain means something. The same goes for certain people not being able to marry. The same goes for certain people having to be more careful about paperwork than others. I hope you see the flaw in your "oh, they only have to walk ten yards to the next fountain" arguments. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 02:17:32 PM · #173 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wait, am I wrong that someone above (might have been you) pointed out that gay marriage is also recognized in Canada? You can't point out that domestic partners aren't clamoring for rights in one place where they are afforded them and then point to gay couples in another place where they are not. |
Hm? Oh, I see. Yes, but isn't the issue simpler? If two American domestic partners, male and female, seek marriage after a time, they have no problem. If two same-sex partners seek it, they have a problem. I think it's obfuscating the point using bad analogy when you use a non-issue like domestic partnership to illustrate those who are "not running around complaining about" not being called married. They don't care, and not only that, they're not being treated unfairly. |
Yes, I can see your point. I guess what I am trying to point out is that domestic partners seem to be afforded rights without being married. We seem to think this is fine without calling it "marriage" when in the eyes of the law they are for all intents and purposes married. When John and Kate, living together for 10 years introduce themselves and say as such, nobody comes back, "you are MARRIED, dammit!" We all understand they are "living together" or "cohabitating" and that they are "significant others". Why can't gay couples participate in this without it being legally defined under the word "marriage"? If we simply say that gay couples feel harmed by not being able to use the word married, I would counter that there are people, probably devoutly religious, who would feel equally harmed if the word, one that originates in religion, is co-opted for a union their religion sees as wrong. They may feel it is harder to raise their children because of the confusion now from the term "marriage". (Mommy,it says in Hebrews that "marriage should be honored by all", does that mean I should honor Frank and Jim's marriage? but that doesn't make sense because the scriptures frown on homosexuality. What gives?) (that, BTW, is a total hypothetical, let's not go down that rabbit hole.)
Anyway, my point is the issue is a two way street. It isn't that one view harms a small minority and the other view doesn't. It is likely either view harms a small minority so pointing out the harm done by one view (against calling gay unions "marriage") only gets us so far. |
It seems that you're ignoring the fact that heterosexual couples have the legal option of becoming married if they want access to those rights. Homosexual couples do not. |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 02:17:38 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by posthumous:
btw, you're very good at combining specious arguments. In order for me to argue one of your points I had to concede the ".1%" which is an incredibly unfair way to categorize the homosexual community that is being discriminated against. |
I do not think my argument is "specious" (having a deceptive allure). My numbers were good faith estimates. I really did try to search and find some data. That was the best I found. I'm open to opposing numbers if you can find them. |
If it's "good faith" then why are you ignoring the argument that it affects anyone who is homosexual, not just homosexuals who are in committed relationships? That brings us up to about 5%, according to you, which is similar to the percentage of Jews in the U.S., so be very careful about your too-few-to-matter argument. |
A) You'd have to show me some stats that say 5% of the population is gay. B) Only a small % of the gay population seems to take advantage of the chance to get married when it is made available. Sure, it could be a "future" thing, but what % of the heterosexual population is married at any one time? I'm sure it's more that 1-5%. (BTW, although it strengthens your point, the numbers I found say about 2.2% of the US population is jewish, not 5%.) |
|
|
|
10/15/2008 02:18:36 PM · #175 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by eqsite:
Is this really an argument? Of course women and men aren't equal. Two men side-by-side aren't equal, nor are two women. But they should all be afforded equal rights. |
But there are many instances in the law where men and women are viewed differently. "Separate, but equal." was the term you used. I'm just trying to point out that such a thing does not automatically equal discrimination. |
Can you give me an example? It would seem to me that this would be discriminatory. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:53:37 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 03:53:37 PM EDT.
|
