Just to make it clear: I have no problem that people have been discussing the political aspects and issues of gay marriage below. I take my cue from the happy couple themselves. Barely 72 hours after the wedding, George and Brad were on a local Los Angeles radio talk program discussing the issue. Why? Because of their concern that CA voters will overturn the ruling of the California state supreme court.
Food for thought: If in 1957, Arkansas residents could have voted on the issue of desegregation and whether to overturn the Supreme Court's ruling declaring schools could no longer be separated by race...
...how do you think that vote would have gone?
I'm reminded of the exchange between Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones in "Men in Black" in which Smith's character wonders why word of aliens isn't made public, because "People are smart. They could handle it." The response: "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it."
A group of learned individuals look at the Constitution and say, "This is wrong," which is what they're trained to do their whole lives. And the response of people is to be dumb and panicky because it threatens their narrow view of the way Life Should Be. And such narrowness of attitude, and such determination to destroy the rights of others to individual happiness, is inherently dangerous.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at September 18, 2008 04:45 PM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingI'm reminded of the words of Winston Churchill:
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep discussing what's for dinner. Liberty is the sheep armed with a gun and objecting."
Proposition 8 - the gay marriage ban initiative - was losing by double-digits in the latest poll, and today even the conservative San Diego Union-Tribune came out against it.
I've been saying all along that once people realized how much money there was to be made from all the extra wedding ceremonies, the initiative didn't stand a chance. :-)
Proposition 8 - the gay marriage ban initiative - was losing by double-digits in the latest poll, and today even the conservative San Diego Union-Tribune came out against it.
I've been saying all along that once people realized how much money there was to be made from all the extra wedding ceremonies, the initiative didn't stand a chance. :-)
It really does help the fact that we've been living with gay marriage here for a few months. People who were iffy on the prospect can see that not a whole hell of a lot has changed.
I'm fairly confident that desegregation would have lost the popular vote by a substantial majority in 1957 Arkansas - and in at least 25-30 other states. There is a popular misconception that the will of the majority is automatically wise and good. The majority has generally supported helping itself and screwing everyone else.
I am a wholehearted proponent of gay marriage, but I oppose the way it has come about in Massachusetts and California. When it's brought about by judicial fiat, all it does is rile the hell out of the opponents and leads to very, very ugly fights -- as well as being, to me, a violation of the principle of democracy. Remember, the same Court that ruled on Brown v. Board of Education also gave us Dred Scott.
I'd much rather it be done on a state-by-state basis, through legislation or referendum. That assures that enough people support it to put an end to these legal challenges and ballot questions and whatnot.
Oh, by the way, PAD, have you seen this?
http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/insp_muddswomen.png
There's four pages of 'em, and most of them are hysterical.
http://echosphere.net/star_trek_insp/star_trek_insp.html
J.
Well, I only see two options.. either you have a democracy where every person's vote has equal weight, however smart or dumb that person happens to be, or you have a situation where some people are more equal than others... The only question then is who decides which category you end up in.
Cheers.
"Posted by: Peter J Poole at September 18, 2008 06:41 PM
Well, I only see two options.. either you have a democracy where every person's vote has equal weight, however smart or dumb that person happens to be, or you have a situation where some people are more equal than others... The only question then is who decides which category you end up in.
Cheers. "
You forgot the third option. Modern democracies have constitution and supreme courts and checks and balances in order to prevent the tyranny of the majority.
Yeah, that worked so well for us in 2000....That's mistaking short-term for long-term. No system is perfect, and all systems will produce individual bad results. Sometimes those results are really bad, and the entire system starts to unravel, like what happened in 1860.
The US system is, on the whole, designed to resist all forms of change. It's fundamentally "conservative" in the sense of "opposed to change." Some states -- like us here in California, where we have a surplus of direct democracy -- have set up their local systems to be capable of quicker changes.
Changing the American government is akin to steering a supertanker. If you want to make a turn, you need to make an appointment well in advance.
Making constitutional change difficult is one of the counter forces to the will of the people your founder fathers built in to the system. But the system also offers the possibility of change through the system so that there would be other options for change other than revolution.
For the life of me, i don't see any logically reason why gay couples should not be allowed to marry. Aside from a misread passage in a dusty old book.
What can be the counter argument except blind, ignorant prejudice?
A group of learned individuals look at the Constitution and say, "This is wrong," which is what they're trained to do their whole lives. And the response of people is to be dumb and panicky because it threatens their narrow view of the way Life Should Be.
Awesome. So I infer from this your support for the following decisions that were rendered by a group of learned individuals looking at the Constitution:
1) Bush v Gore (arbitrary recounts violate due process and equal protection)
2) Gonzales v Carhart (partial-birth abortion ban is constitutional)
3) District of Columbia v Heller (handgun ban violates the 2nd Amendment)
4) Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (Indiana's voter ID act is legitimate)
The problem with that argument is that it proves too much. Why ever have a popular vote? Why not have a technocracy like Plato's Republic? Fundamentally a democracy isn't premised at all on its tendency to reach the right or best result. The premise is that people should get to choose the kind of society in which they want to live, and should have the right to set it up. Virtually everyone will agree that there has to be a protection for minorities built into such a system (because virtually everyone thinks that's the kind of society you want to live in-- one that doesn't screw you over the instant you find yourself in the minority), but there's always going to be some play around the edges in defining just how much protection the minority should have from the majority and in what ways. Ultimately the majority has to decide that. In your example above, the reason that Arkansas didn't have a referendum on desegregation was the 14th Amendment and various Federal civil rights laws... all of which had been passed through Congress in democratic fashion. Our system generally works pretty well. We reach the right result surprisingly often. But even when the American people make a mistake (electing Jimmy Carter, for example), it's their mistake to make.
And for the record, were gay marriage to come before me on a ballot, or in a proposed law if I were in a legislature, I'd be inclined to support it. One day maybe I'll have the chance.
Well, I only see two options.. either you have a democracy where every person's vote has equal weight, however smart or dumb that person happens to be, or you have a situation where some people are more equal than others... The only question then is who decides which category you end up in.
I'd like option #1, please. Preferably within the next 50 days or however long it is till the election. Signed, A Democrat in Texas. Hell, maybe I'll just write-in for Paris Hilton, since it won't matter either way.
Speaking as an Arkansan -- albeit one not alive in the 1950s -- I can say that Arkansans *did* vote in favor of segregation. Amendment 44 to the state constitution was passed in 1956, and called on the state to take any actions necessary to oppose the Supreme Court rulings on desegregation. That included "interposing the sovereignty of the State of Arkansas to the end of nullification of these and all deliberate, palpable and dangerous invasions of encroachments upon rights and powers not delegated to the United States" and "to enact such laws...as may be necessary to regulate health, morals, education, marriage, good order and to ensure the domestic tranquility of the citizens of the State of Arkansas."
Amendment 69 repealed Amendment 44 in 1990 -- about 273,000 voters favored the repeal, and about 263,000 favored keeping the amendment where it was. I was a teenager in Arkansas at the time, and remember that the narrow margin of victory was attributed to the complete absence of advertising or promotions one way or the other. It is possible that some of the people voting against repeal genuinely wanted to bring back segregation, but I hope that number was a small one.
So, yeah, count me in as favoring a thoughtful judiciary.
My only thoughts on gay marriage (or any marriage, for that matter) is that any special privileges (tax, property, benefits, etc) should either be taken away from married couples altogether, or else extended to everyone (in that people could name any person as their beneficiary, regardless of their relationship). The whole "special benefits to married people" thing is unreasonably discriminatory against people who don't choose that lifestyle; the government ought to have no business in people's private lives.
I'm a huge advocate for gay marriage (and equal rights at work; after that, let 'em struggle with the rest of us) and am astonished that there's so much opposition. Religious objections are fair, but the attempts to advance religious beliefs to laws affecting all are asinine. (To me, it's like a Jewish group making it illegal for anyone to eat non-kosher foods.) The idea that marriage has always been unchanging and can't survive changing is equally asinine: Marriage today is radically different from what it was, from the days of politically arranged marriages to the days when interfaith or interracial marriage were illegal. And so far, no state that's allowed gay marriage has crumbled into dust or had a skyrocket in the divorce rate.
I'm sorry Peter, I just don't see how discrimination against an external phenotype (such as one's skin color), can be equated with a behavior (such as sexual activity). Society has always deemed some behaviors as "bad" or "good" since the dawn of time. The degrees of restrictions may have varied but societies have always put limitations on some forms of sexual behavior. I suppose one could argue that any or all laws prohibiting certain types of sexual behavior are either discrimantory or unenforceable.
Some may argue it is merely an issue of semantics. On many levels the Union of a man and a woman has its own unique characteristics (ability to reproduce, members of the opposite sex, male & female role modeling, etc.)that for people to argue that word "marriage" remain unique to describing THAT type of relationship, does not sound unreasonable to me. If the government wants to either create a separate unique descriptor for Male/Male or Female/Female relationships (even then I am assuming only two individuals are invovled, and have excluded relationships of 3 or greater...Pandora's box I suppose), or recognize none then that seems to me to be more fair than just redefining an ancient concept. Once it has been decided that "Marriage" can mean whatever you want it to mean, than it become a meaningless concept.
I'm sorry Peter, I just don't see how discrimination against an external phenotype (such as one's skin color), can be equated with a behavior (such as sexual activity).
Try that again. You're starting from a wrong assumption.
I'm sorry Peter, I just don't see how discrimination against an external phenotype (such as one's skin color), can be equated with a behavior (such as sexual activity)
okay about discrimination of interfaith marriages? Is that okay? Religion is a behaviour
Peter David: A group of learned individuals look at the Constitution and say, "This is wrong," which is what they're trained to do their whole lives. And the response of people is to be dumb and panick...
Luigi Novi: Well, sometimes that group is learned and responsible. But it isn't always. I'd like to think that it usually is, but there are certainly instances in which it hasn't been.
jasonk: I'm sorry Peter, I just don't see how discrimination against an external phenotype (such as one's skin color), can be equated with a behavior (such as sexual activity)
Luigi Novi: It isn't. It is the the discrimination that both groups face that is equated. In each case, the discriminator feels he/she can come up with some rationalization by which the withholding of rights from that group to do as they please with each other is logical and morally acceptable. In both cases, their arguments tend to be pseudoscientific, and can be boiled down to aesthetic discomfort. It is for this reason that in both cases, they're wrong.
Luigi Novi:
It may not have been obvious but Jasonk was quoting Rudy, two comments above him.
Posted by: Luigi Novi at September 19, 2008 02:42 AM
Peter David: A group of learned individuals look at the Constitution and say, "This is wrong," which is what they're trained to do their whole lives. And the response of people is to be dumb and panick...
Luigi Novi: Well, sometimes that group is learned and responsible. But it isn't always. I'd like to think that it usually is, but there are certainly instances in which it hasn't been.
Micha: That's why you have that nice seperation of powers flowchart. The power of supreme court justices comes from the people too.
-----------------
David: "Our system generally works pretty well. We reach the right result surprisingly often."
Micha: But sometimes the part of the system that works well is the supreme court.
-----------------------
Rudy: "Some may argue it is merely an issue of semantics. On many levels the Union of a man and a woman has its own unique characteristics (ability to reproduce, members of the opposite sex, male & female role modeling, etc.)that for people to argue that word "marriage" remain unique to describing THAT type of relationship, does not sound unreasonable to me. "
Micha: If the government is going to enforce semantics, and ensure the words have exact meanings, I would start with the word "bad". You can't have it meaning good and bad. It's confusing.
And then take care of "cool" and "hot" please.
It's about time the dictionary was legislated.
Rudy: "Once it has been decided that "Marriage" can mean whatever you want it to mean, than it become a meaningless concept."
Not meaningless, the meaning changed, because the view of what's the essential part of marriage marriage changed. The male-female thing doesn't seem as important as the commitment, the forming of a household, the love, etc. The opponents of gay marriage think that same-gender relationship os bad, and they should admit it, instead of making the absurd claim that they are protectinng the meaning of the word marriage.
Rudy: "Society has always deemed some behaviors as "bad" or "good" since the dawn of time. The degrees of restrictions may have varied but societies have always put limitations on some forms of sexual behavior. I suppose one could argue that any or all laws prohibiting certain types of sexual behavior are either discrimantory or unenforceable."
The question is what justifies restricting certain behaviors? Unless you assume the government can restrict any behavior it does not like for whatever reason. In your system, and the historical processes your system went through, it is usually considered wrong for the government to restrict individual behavior without good cause. Obviously, in this spirit of limiting the power of the government, it seems unjustified to restrict the sexual behavior of consenting adults, but it is deemed necessary to protect people who are not concenting or two young to consent.
Rudy: "I'm sorry Peter, I just don't see how discrimination against an external phenotype (such as one's skin color), can be equated with a behavior (such as sexual activity)."
Micha: It has already pointed out that this argument justifies descrimination against members of different religions or different political beliefs.
Awesome. So I infer from this your support for the following decisions that were rendered by a group of learned individuals looking at the Constitution:
1) Bush v Gore (arbitrary recounts violate due process and equal protection)
2) Gonzales v Carhart (partial-birth abortion ban is constitutional)
3) District of Columbia v Heller (handgun ban violates the 2nd Amendment)
4) Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (Indiana's voter ID act is legitimate)
Do you see me scrambling to take action to find ways to overturn them? I may disagree with the reasoning of the courts, and even complain about them, but I'm not actively endeavoring to overturn them.
Unlike, say, individuals attempting to overturn gay marriage or, for that matter, the relentless forces that have been trying to overturn Roe V. Wade since the decision was first made.
PAD
I'm sorry Peter, I just don't see how discrimination against an external phenotype (such as one's skin color), can be equated with a behavior (such as sexual activity).
Well, first of all, homosexuality has to do with more than "behavior." Behavior is learned. People are born the way they are, be it black, white, or gay. But that's really irrelevant to the point. The point is that the same rationalizations are used for discrimination, be it on the basis of race or on the basis of sexual orientation.
Society has always deemed some behaviors as "bad" or "good" since the dawn of time.
If you mean people have been judgmental of their neighbors and taken biased and hurtful actions against them since the dawn of time, yes. It would be nice to think that we've evolved since then. Assuming you believe in evolution, which nowadays can't be assumed.
The degrees of restrictions may have varied but societies have always put limitations on some forms of sexual behavior.
You insist on tying this solely to "sexual behavior."
On many levels the Union of a man and a woman has its own unique characteristics (ability to reproduce, members of the opposite sex, male & female role modeling, etc.)that for people to argue that word "marriage" remain unique to describing THAT type of relationship, does not sound unreasonable to me.
Prejudice and bias never sounds unreasonable to the people who aren't experiencing the bias.
PAD
Posted by Micha at September 18, 2008 06:51 PM
"Posted by: Peter J Poole at September 18, 2008 06:41 PM
Well, I only see two options.. either you have a democracy where every person's vote has equal weight, however smart or dumb that person happens to be, or you have a situation where some people are more equal than others... The only question then is who decides which category you end up in.
Cheers. "
You forgot the third option. Modern democracies have constitution and supreme courts and checks and balances in order to prevent the tyranny of the majority."
Playing Devil's apricot here, but isn't that 'third option' just option two with clearer identification of who/what decides which category you're in? And isn't the 'tyranny of the majority' the cost of democracy?
If turkeys want to vote for Thanksgiving and Christmas, should they be over-ruled by the smart folks who know better about what's in their best interests? Doesn't every dictatorship in the world claim to have its peoples best interests at heart?
Cheers.
"The US is not a democracy, it's a Republic"
I don't know where that quote comes from. But a true democracy is simply rule of the people, which usually means the majority. In a Republic (or constitutional monarchies) you have forces that counter the powerr of the majority. One is that you elect representatives -- that gives the system a partial aristocratic tinge. The 2nd is constitution (or common law in your country) that gives the past, tradition, certainpower. But you also have seperation of powers and the dependancy of powers, so the power of the justices also depends on the people. In the American system you also have an almost monarchic aspect to the system with the President.
Polybius called it a mixed system, when he was talking about Rome. It's supposes the combine the advantages of democracy, aristocracy and monarchy, and avoid the disadvantages of rule of the mob, oligrachy and tyranny. The seperation of powers stuff was a later addition. Also, Madison outsmarted the flaws of democracy by having such a large mass of people vote. It avoids some of the problems in city-states. Although wouldn't it have been cool if we all went to assembly like in Athens. I think the Swiss have it in some places.
...I just don't see how discrimination against an external phenotype (such as one's skin color), can be equated with a behavior (such as sexual activity).
Intolerance of gay marriage is a behavior. Let's make it illegal for you to marry since, by your own account, prohibiting marriage of those exhibiting a behavior is no inconvenience to you.
Scott Adams had the best breakdown on the problems of democrocry I ever read. Paraphrasing, it was something like this.
Take an issue that the public is evenly divided on (Gay Marriage for Example). Now, take the 100 smartest, most educated people in the world, and have them vote on it. 1 of 2 things would happen.
1. Their vote would be divided as well, showing that intelligence and education are irrelevent to Democracy.
or.
2. They'd be 100% in agreement on the issue, which shows that intelligence and education ARE relevent but are negated by the masses.
Either way....
Peter J. Poole: "Well, I only see two options.. either you have a democracy where every person's vote has equal weight, however smart or dumb that person happens to be, or you have a situation where some people are more equal than others... The only question then is who decides which category you end up in."
No. Micha is correct: what you've posited is a false dilemma. Democracy doesn't necessarily mean everything is up for a vote.
At one time, you would have been right. Democracy used to mean one and only one thing: a system of governance where authority rested in the hands of an assembly of all citizens who chose to participate.
The definition of democracy has since expanded. In addition to the form of democracy described above (now known as "direct democracy"), the word also encompasses representative democracy, which is a practice where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people chosen on the basis of election.
So the fact that the Bill of Rights cannot be altered by popular vote does not preclude the U.S from being a democracy. It is not anti-democratic to decide that certain fundamental rights are not subject to the whim of the majority.
Micha: "I don't know where that quote comes from. But a true democracy is simply rule of the people..."
Not anymore. As I explained above, the word democracy now encompasses what used to be known as a republic.
Peter it appears that if they took a vote on the east coast, asking if people in Arkansas ( and I'm just guessing anywhere in the south) were/are smart were/are hillbillies/rednecks/trash were/are worth as much as those on the coasts, the vote would be No they are not smart, Yes they are hillbillies and rednecks and trash, and hell no they are not worth nearly as much as us.
For someone promoting less discrimination you sure do seem to have have low opinion of others.
I'm sorry Peter, I just don't see how discrimination against an external phenotype (such as one's skin color), can be equated with a behavior (such as sexual activity). Society has always deemed some behaviors as "bad" or "good" since the dawn of time. The degrees of restrictions may have varied but societies have always put limitations on some forms of sexual behavior. I suppose one could argue that any or all laws prohibiting certain types of sexual behavior are either discrimantory or unenforceable.
The question is: why must any sexual behavior be restricted? The fact that "societies have always restricted certain types of behavior" doesn't give any society the moral right to restrict just any type of behavior. When certain types of sexual behavior are restricted, it should be (always a very loaded word, that) because they are harmful. Same-sex relationships harm...what, exactly? Aside from many people's mental comfort zones? Homosexuality is not the same thing as pedophilia, bestiality, incest or rape. Two consenting, informed adults entering into a committed relationship cause harm to no one. Discriminating against them is a poor use of society's energy.
Legislate against sexual behaviors that actually hurt people. Let same-sex couples live their lives like honest people.
Some may argue it is merely an issue of semantics. On many levels the Union of a man and a woman has its own unique characteristics (ability to reproduce, members of the opposite sex, male & female role modeling, etc.)that for people to argue that word "marriage" remain unique to describing THAT type of relationship, does not sound unreasonable to me. If the government wants to either create a separate unique descriptor for Male/Male or Female/Female relationships (even then I am assuming only two individuals are invovled, and have excluded relationships of 3 or greater...Pandora's box I suppose), or recognize none then that seems to me to be more fair than just redefining an ancient concept. Once it has been decided that "Marriage" can mean whatever you want it to mean, than it become a meaningless concept.
Why should the characteristics of reproduction and male/female role modeling be enforced in the legal definition of marriage? In no humane society are married couples required to bear offspring, nor can any marriage law dictate how spouses approach their roles in the relationship.
Allowing same-sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, and even giving it the same name, is not the same thing as "deciding that 'marriage' can mean whatever you want it to mean." It doesn't mean that I can suddenly decide that my co-worker is my wife and therefore be excused from testifying against her. It doesn't mean that I can claim my brother is my spouse and therefore claim his property as my inheritance if he gets killed in a plane crash. It means that two grown-ups of the same gender can file for a legal recognition of their relationship. That's a far, far cry from having it so that a single girl like me suddenly has nothing different in her life from the average married woman.
Furthermore, the world is not going to disappear in a puff of smoke because we redefine an ancient concept. Human beings created the concept of marriage, we have already adjusted the definition many times and in many places, and we can continue to do so. The "traditional" definition of marriage, no matter what one insists is "traditional" in our culture, is just that--a part of a culture, and cultures are created by people, not handed down from God or developed in nature. If people never made changes to their own cultures, especially in "ancient concepts," we would never have grown out of the Stone Age.
Hmm. You got me thinking, Bill Myers (always very bad). The phrase I learned was, "... and to the Republic, for which it stands.", not "to the Democracy...". Never thought about that one before, but I think I have to agree.
Posted by: Bill Myers at September 19, 2008 10:25 AM
Micha: "I don't know where that quote comes from. But a true democracy is simply rule of the people..."
Bill Myers: Not anymore. As I explained above, the word democracy now encompasses what used to be known as a republic."
Micha: See, a slippery slope. Words changing there meaning at a whim. First marriage, now democracy. where will it stop.
Micha: "See, a slippery slope. Words changing there meaning at a whim. First marriage, now democracy. where will it stop."
Oh, I KNOW. Society is eroding, I tell you. Just yesterday I heard that women now have the vote and are allowed to own property, too. Also, I see men are ignoring basic hygeine and wearing their own hair rather than powdered wigs. What is up with THAT?
Posted by: Susan O at September 19, 2008 10:50 AM
"Hmm. You got me thinking, Bill Myers (always very bad). The phrase I learned was, "... and to the Republic, for which it stands.", not "to the Democracy...". Never thought about that one before, but I think I have to agree."
The idea of the Roman Republic (or the Galactic Republic) was definitely on the minds of the founding fathers, which is why you have a Senate on Capitol Hill with this kind of architecture.
I don't know when they started talking about your system as a democracy. Probably when the word stopped having negative connotations.
--------------
Bill, as far as I'm concerned things have been going down hill since the middle Ages. Although the 17th century Dutch Republlic was pretty cool. The guy in charge was called a Plenapotentiary. I think it would have been nice to have plenapotential elections instead of presidential.
The real reason people are against gay marriage.
The Talk
Dad: Hury up and get dressed in your Sunday clothes we're going to a wedding.
Son (8 years old): We are?? whose wedding.
Dad: Uncle Bill's.
Son: Uncle Bill??? Who is marrying him?
Dad: uh..um...his best friend.
Son: Who is she?
Dad:....aarrr ...uuhh. its his bestfriendFrank(hushed tones)
Son: Frank? But...oh....does that mean I can marry my best friend MArk?
DAD: ARRGGHHHHH
Support gay marriage. its the Christian thing to do.
Take an issue that the public is evenly divided on (Gay Marriage for Example). Now, take the 100 smartest, most educated people in the world, and have them vote on it.
Right off the bat I'd be nervous about the premise that the best educated people would obviously be the best choice. There were some interesting articles in Skeptical Inquirer that showed that people become more likely to believe in the paranormal as they become better educated.
(The study is referenced in an article today in the Wall Street Journal that looks at the religious element in this, particularly in the wacky views of avowed atheist Bill Maher, who thinks that one can't be religious and rational, a pretty bold statement to make from someone who doesn't accept germ theory.)
If turkeys want to vote for Thanksgiving and Christmas, should they be over-ruled by the smart folks who know better about what's in their best interests? Doesn't every dictatorship in the world claim to have its peoples best interests at heart?
Oh, a flag on the play! The ref's call: Reducto ad absurdum. Logical fallacy. Ten yard penalty and first down for the opposition.
PAD
And such narrowness of attitude, and such determination to destroy the rights of others to individual happiness, is inherently dangerous.
Thanks for explaining my motive to me. Guess my whole intention is simply to deny someone happiness. Not.
The reality is there are many ways laws are made for the common good. Everything from requiring seat belts to banning (in most states) prostitution.
I am sure some would argue against these very laws. I get that. But they are not intended to "deny someones happiness." It is done (rightly or wrongly) because of a concern for the greater good.
But I don't expect you to give me that much of a benefit of the doubt. You have your mind made up. So enough said.
Iowa Jim
Reducto ad absurdum. Logical fallacy.
Reductio ad absurdum aren't logically false. They are considered valid conditions for mathematical proofs. What they may be -- like logic -- is unfaithful to reality.
Iowa Jim: "The reality is there are many ways laws are made for the common good. Everything from requiring seat belts to banning (in most states) prostitution."
It's interesting that you chose to lump in seatbelt laws with anti-prostitution laws. Seatbelt laws can be justified by the provable risk of harm that results from not wearing seatbelts. Laws against prostitution cannot be justified in the same way; prostitution poses no risks that aren't already inherent in having casual sex with strangers, an activity which is perfectly legal.
Homosexual marriage is no more harmful than heterosexual marriage, a legal activity. Your attempts to argue otherwise have fallen apart upon close examination by others.
Iowa Jim: "But I don't expect you to give me that much of a benefit of the doubt. You have your mind made up. So enough said."
Ah, yes, the old "if you're not going to play right I'm going to pick up my toys and go home" response.
You're advocating that homosexuals be treated as second-class citizens, using arguments that have been exposed as illogical, and citing "facts" that have been exposed as blatantly inaccurate. If you can't come up with an argument that can withstand logical examination, whose fault is that?
Peter it appears that if they took a vote on the east coast, asking if people in Arkansas ( and I'm just guessing anywhere in the south) were/are smart were/are hillbillies/rednecks/trash were/are worth as much as those on the coasts, the vote would be No they are not smart, Yes they are hillbillies and rednecks and trash, and hell no they are not worth nearly as much as us.
Thus proving my point: That asking peopel en masse what they think isn't always the fairest way to address something.
For someone promoting less discrimination you sure do seem to have have low opinion of others.
Nice point, but irrelevant. My statement regarding Arkansas had nothing to do with Arkansas of the present day. I asserted that back in 1957, if the people of Arkansas had been polled, they would likely have voted to keep schools segregated. Would you care to refute that? Because I'm basing my belief on the fact that the Supreme Court actually made the ruling for desegregation in 1954, and after three years of Arkansas refusing to cooperate he had to send in Federal troops to enforce the Supreme Court's ruling. The picutres of troopers escorting black children into schools while protestors massed and screamed leads me to conclude that the voters of Arkansas would have shot down the Supreme Court's ruling if they could. If you have something concrete upon which to base an opposing view (editorials of the time, letters to the editor of the time, etc.), feel free to trot them out. Such evidence would impress me in a way that your snide insinuations do not.
PAD
Thanks for explaining my motive to me. Guess my whole intention is simply to deny someone happiness. Not.
My God, does anyone other than Borat still use "not" as a one word sentence? Furthermore, I don't think your motivation is to stop someone from being happy. That's just a byproduct. I think your motivation is that you're just a bigot. You don't like gays; they skeeve you out. And that's fine. That's your business. I feel a little sorry for you, but beyond that, it's of no relevance. Where it becomes relevant is when people like you, because of that bigotry, take actions that wind up stopping others from being happy over something that will have no personal impact upon you. If someone would be happy because they ran over you with a car, that's a direct problem for you. If someone would be happy because they want to spend the rest of their lives with someone of the same gender, that's not a problem for you, or even your business, unless you choose to make it your business. Which bigots such as you have done and continue to do.
The reality is there are many ways laws are made for the common good. Everything from requiring seat belts to banning (in most states) prostitution.
Okay. And you have to prove that gay marriage somehow harms the commonweal. You have thus far provided no arguments that make sense to anyone who isn't skeeved by gays.
Here's what you need to do: You have to find me a hundred straight married men who, upon learning that Mr. Sulu married a guy, are going to turn to their wives and say, "I'm dumping you, moving to California (or Massachusetts), turning gay and marrying a man."
Even simpler, find me ten married men who will do that.
Or one. Start with one. Find me a single case where that has happened anywhere in the United States.
I am sure some would argue against these very laws. I get that. But they are not intended to "deny someones happiness." It is done (rightly or wrongly) because of a concern for the greater good.
And in this case, it's wrongly. I have no doubt that bigots like you truly believe it's being done for the greater good, just as bigots of the 1940s believed that stopping black men from marrying white women (and vice versa) was being done for the greater good. That doesn't make your beliefs less bigoted, or your actions less wrong.
But I don't expect you to give me that much of a benefit of the doubt. You have your mind made up. So enough said.
In what respect is enough said? You have failed to credibly refute a single point I've made. You have failed to provide a single instance of proof that gay marriage is a serious undermining of straight marriage. You have failed to provide any arguments that are not rooted in bigotry, suspicion, hatred and fear. So much fear that you're afraid to keep discussing it because you must be realizing by now that you haven't a reasonable or rational leg to stand on.
It is painfully obvious that, for instance, divorce is a far more credible threat to marriage than gay marriage is for the simple reason that divorce laws can destroy straight marriages while gay marriage cannot. So go ahead and try to convince me that divorce should be outlawed. You might even be able to make a credible argument for that because you can base it in facts and figures.
But when it comes to outlawing gay marriage because it presents a threat to society, you've got nothing. No facts. No figures. Nothing except fear, and an argument that boils down to this: I believe it because I believe it. The sort of circular reasoning that bars any outside thoughts to enter. That's just sad and pathetic and, unfortunately, all too typical.
PAD
Peter:" People are born the way they are, be it black, white, or gay."
Peter, you are grossly overstating the realtionship between genetic inheritance and homosexual behavior and for you not to make a distinction between an external characteristic ,such as skin color, and that of a behavior, such as homesexual activity, is disingenuous. I hope you will re-examine how you have formulated this opinion. Have a nice weekend and thanks for the robust discussion.
Peter, you are grossly overstating the realtionship between genetic inheritance and homosexual behavior
Evidence, please.
Peter, you are grossly overstating the realtionship between genetic inheritance and homosexual behavior and for you not to make a distinction between an external characteristic ,such as skin color, and that of a behavior, such as homesexual activity, is disingenuous.
I don't think Peter's the one who's oversimplifying.
I think you should review the evidence from biological research over the weekend and re-examine how you've formed your opinion.
John: It may not have been obvious but Jasonk was quoting Rudy, two comments above him.
Luigi Novi: Ack. Sorry about that.
Iowa Jim: Thanks for explaining my motive to me. Guess my whole intention is simply to deny someone happiness. Not. I am sure some would argue against these very laws. I get that. But they are not intended to "deny someones happiness."
Luigi Novi: They never say that that's their intent, because no one ever admits to having such an intent. Such positions are always camouflaged behind motives that with a more benevolent facade. The very bane of the tendency to discriminate against others is the blindness of the bigot to this behavior. But denying someone else's happiness is indeed the effect that banning gay marriage has.
Iowa Jim: It is done (rightly or wrongly) because of a concern for the greater good.
Luigi Novi: Prove that the good you mention is not based purely on your personal sense of aesthetics and sensibilities, and can be objectively measured in such a way that the "good" is visible to everyone, and the happiness that you would deny homosexuals can be rationalized.
Iowa Jim: The reality is there are many ways laws are made for the common good. Everything from requiring seat belts to banning (in most states) prostitution.
Luigi Novi: Again, show me the result of gay marriage that is comparable to not wearing a seatbelt.
As for criminalizing prostitution, that is also based on religion/aesthetics. The states and countries that do allow it don't seem to be suffering for it.
Iowa Jima: But I don't expect you to give me that much of a benefit of the doubt. You have your mind made up.
Luigi Novi: I've made my mind up because I've evaluated the facts and arguments presented by both sides, and because I try to form my opinions, particularly on social issues, based on internally consistent reasoning and a desire not to meddle in someone else's life. But all my conclusions are held provisionally, and are subject to change, if you can provide reasoning that would require me to do so. The fact that I don't is because you haven't, and can't, since there is no justifiable reason to ban gay marriage, and your evidence/arguments are easily exposed as false, and not because my conclusions are either prejudicial or immutable.
Some may argue it is merely an issue of semantics. ...snip... Once it has been decided that "Marriage" can mean whatever you want it to mean, than it become a meaningless concept.
Linguistically speaking, all words change their meaning through time, and ultimately, all words "mean" what the general community decides they mean. This is true in every human language - we do not get our "meanings" from any outside source. So unless you think every single word in English is a meaningless concept, I suggest you rethink your premise.
Peter, you are grossly overstating the realtionship between genetic inheritance and homosexual behavior and for you not to make a distinction between an external characteristic ,such as skin color, and that of a behavior, such as homesexual activity, is disingenuous. I hope you will re-examine how you have formulated this opinion.
I say it based upon the indisputable fact that homosexual behavior exists in nature. What am I supposed to believe? That lower orders of animals engage in male-on-male sexual activities because they heard George Takei got married or they've been watching too many shows on Bravo?
I'm aware that scientific examinations on the topic remain splintered, but I'm certain that if such research continues--and it can be de-politicized--it will continue to provide substantive evidence that backs up what observation and common sense already dictate: That people are what they are, with particular leanings and preferences towards which they have a birth-generated disposition.
And I don't appreciate your assertion that I'm lying.
PAD
The debate about whether homosexuality is a choice or not has always seemed like a red herring to me. I personally believe it's not a choice, but why should it matter anyway? Isn't freedom all about choice? Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want with each other.
Rudy: "Peter, you are grossly overstating the realtionship between genetic inheritance and homosexual behavior and for you not to make a distinction between an external characteristic ,such as skin color, and that of a behavior, such as homesexual activity, is disingenuous."
Rudy, I have a number of gay friends and I even had a gay family member (now deceased) once. None of them are gay because they chose to be so. None of them are gay because they woke up one morning and chose this “behavior” over being heterosexual. They were born that way just as someone else, continuing Peter’s argument, might be born black.
Ask most gay men or women when they first realized that they were gay, or at least “different” from the rest of the crowd, and they’ll often tell you that they knew since their early teens. Maybe younger.
I have a friend who’s the about same age (37) as I am. While I was watching WKRP and The Dukes of Hazard and plastering my walls with posters of Catherine Bach and Loni Anderson, he was trying to figure out why people were so hot and bothered by those two. Now, when the Duke boys were on the screen…
And it’s not just antidotal. There’s more and more scientific evidence of this fact found everyday. Homosexual men actually have completely different chemical/biological responses to various pheromones than heterosexual men, the thymus gland in homosexuals actually shows chemical differences to those of heterosexuals, some studies have shown that the mothers of homosexuals have certain factors in common in regards to their levels of estrogen and so on.
The simple fact is that people who are legitimately gay were born that way. They didn’t choose it and they’re not simply deciding to engage in a certain type of behavior for the hell of it. And given the fact that so many of them end up losing friends, family and, at one time, the ability to live without threat of being beaten half to death for being who they were; what makes you think that anyone would just do this to engage in gay “behavior” for the hell of it?
People are gay because they’re born gay and have about as much choice in the matter as people who are born to a certain skin color. To discriminate against them because of that is flat out wrong.
Iowa Jim: "Thanks for explaining my motive to me. Guess my whole intention is simply to deny someone happiness."
No, your intention is not to deny someone's happiness. But this is the consequence of the position you hold. And so far you have not presented any compelling argument to deny homosexuals equal rights other than the fact that you want to enshrine the inequality of their relationship in law by preventing them from calling it marriage.
And why is it justified to treat that relationship as unequal and homosexuals as unequal? Because in the past they have been treated that way? Because it does not conform with the meaning of a word in a dictionary? Because it undermines society?
Do you realize what it means to label a certain group as a threat to society? More so because that claim has no real basis. The only threat they pose is the threat that their relationship will stop being considered inferior,that threatening a long held prejudice that existed in society.
-------------
Rudy: "you are grossly overstating the realtionship between genetic inheritance and homosexual behavior and for you not to make a distinction between an external characteristic ,such as skin color, and that of a behavior, such as homesexual activity, is disingenuous."
You are wrong on two counts:
1) Homosexual attraction, like skin color, is not a matter of free choice. How do I know that? Simple. As every heterosexual knows, heterosexual attraction is not a matter of free choice (also acording to the bible). So basically you support discriminating against gays for who they are, just like blacks. Moreover, if in the case of the sexual attraction to children we can justify discrimination on the ground of protecting children, tou have presented no good reason to discriminate against homosexuals other than that penuses seem to be shaped to fit into vaginas. For some reason you decided that this biological fact is actually a clue from god that homosexuality is wrong, and you want this view enshrined in law. Somehow, the fact that homosexuality exists in nature at all is not considered a clue from god.
2)Even if we view homosexaulity as voluntary (acting on the attraction is), it is completely irrelevant to your argument, simnce it is no more justified to to discriminate against a voluntary behavior for no good reason, than it is to discriminate against a genetic feature.
You are also being disingenuous because the 2nd point has been pointed to you already by several people here, but you didn't bother answering any of them.
-----------------
PAD: "You have to find me a hundred straight married men who, upon learning that Mr. Sulu married a guy, are going to turn to their wives and say, "I'm dumping you, moving to California (or Massachusetts), turning gay and marrying a man."
Iowa Jim could take that bet. The more legitimacy homosexuality receives in society, more closeted homosexuals, many of them married, decide to come out of the closet. From Iowa Jim's point of view this is bad on two counts:
1) He probably sincerely believes that this people were not gay until they were tempted by the option, and had that option still been considered illegitimate they would have remained straight. We, of course, believe that they were always gay, and their marriages were mere facades.
2) I suspect that Iowa Jim prefer that people remain in a fake heterosexual marriage than come out of the closet, just in order to maintain the illusion of homosexuality as something wrong and inferior.
---------------
"As for criminalizing prostitution, that is also based on religion/aesthetics."
That issue is a little more complicated. Having heard the feminist arguments against prostitution I think that it cannot be justified to restrict prostetution as such on the ground of them being consentual adults. But in the real world it seems that a large part, quite possibly the majority, do not fall into that category. Some are minors, some adicts, some captives, some might have acted voluntarily but are threated by their employers in ways that in other cases we would consider as violations of labor laws. There is also the issue of protecting people from risk that is the justification for seatbelts. As for the effect of society, it seems that both sides of the debate can provide research to justify their claims.
------------------
Posted by: Jerry Wall at September 19, 2008 09:10 AM
"Scott Adams had the best breakdown on the problems of democrocry I ever read. Paraphrasing, it was something like this.
Take an issue that the public is evenly divided on (Gay Marriage for Example). Now, take the 100 smartest, most educated people in the world, and have them vote on it. 1 of 2 things would happen.
1. Their vote would be divided as well, showing that intelligence and education are irrelevent to Democracy.
or.
2. They'd be 100% in agreement on the issue, which shows that intelligence and education ARE relevent but are negated by the masses.
Either way...."
Almost every political position under the sun can boast that it has the support of extremely educated people -- geniuses even.
But I wouldn't say that inteligence and education don't matter in a democracy. Whatever your political position, you don't want ignorant idiots working on its behalf, I think.
That issue is a little more complicated. Having heard the feminist arguments against prostitution I think that it cannot be justified to restrict prostitution as such on the ground of them being consensual adults.
I have to admit, I think George Carlin pretty much put a case-closed spin on it when he said, "Sex is legal. Selling is legal. How can selling sex be illegal?"
Oh, Jerry Chandler: The word is "anecdotal," i.e. evidence that is gathered via anecdotes. Not "antidotal," a word that doesn't exist to my knowledge.
PAD
"I have to admit, I think George Carlin pretty much put a case-closed spin on it when he said, "Sex is legal. Selling is legal. How can selling sex be illegal?"
In theory this simple answer would be enough. But the reality of prostitution is not that simple. It is women shipped in craters from eastern Europe and held by criminals and forced to have sex. It is crack addicts. It is homeless runaways, often minors.
Personaly I think feminists are wasting time arguing about prostitution on the theoretical level instead of dealing with the actual phenomenon that should worry them. In theory there is nothing wrong with the idea of prostitution. But the reality is all too often very ugly. I think drugs should be legalized and all the wasted energy should focused on fighting human trafficking.
"Oh, Jerry Chandler: The word is "anecdotal," i.e. evidence that is gathered via anecdotes. Not "antidotal," a word that doesn't exist to my knowledge."
Oops... Yeah, I know.
And "antidotal" actually it is a word. I just have no idea why my brain slipped a gear there on the two words. Antidotal is of, relating to, or acting as an antidote.
http://cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?antidotal
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antidotal
"Oh, Jerry Chandler: The word is "anecdotal," i.e. evidence that is gathered via anecdotes. Not "antidotal," a word that doesn't exist to my knowledge."
Oops... Yeah, I know.
And "antidotal" actually it is a word. I just have no idea why my brain slipped a gear there on the two words. Antidotal is of, relating to, or acting as an antidote.
cancerweb.ncl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/omd?antidotal
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antidotal
Well, that was a paraphrase of it, Peter, as you yourself noted when you used that argument in a BID column years ago, except that now you're putting it in quotes. For those unfamiliar with Carlin, the exact quote is a bit saltier. :-)
"I'm sorry Peter, I just don't see how discrimination against an external phenotype (such as one's skin color), can be equated with a behavior (such as sexual activity). Society has always deemed some behaviors as "bad" or "good" since the dawn of time. The degrees of restrictions may have varied but societies have always put limitations on some forms of sexual behavior. I suppose one could argue that any or all laws prohibiting certain types of sexual behavior are either discrimantory or unenforceable"
Great Zot, Rudy, where do I start?
First, at one time, slavery was legal and just Okey-dokey with God, thank you very much.
The local lord o'the manor taking a peasant girl on her wedding night was legally enforced.
Lynching a black man...nudge-nudge wink-wink say no more.
Teaching a black man or women to read or write was illegal.
And all of these things changed.
Nobody is saying children should be allowed to marry (as they once were). As for homosexual/lesbian "behaviour" between two consenting adults, Pierre Trudeau once said that the state has no business in the nation's bedroom.
Great Zot, Rudy, where do I start?
Manny, do you speak Albanian? Or does Zot mean the same thing in other languages?
To get back on-topic, I don't think it even matters all that much what "causes" homosexuality. Or what causes any sexual orientation, for that matter. Nobody ever "chooses" to be a part of a group that has to deal with discrimination ranging from minor harassment to loss of livelihood to outright violence. The root of the differences, however, is immaterial. The point is that homosexual "behavior" doesn't bring about any harm. George and Brad, Ellen and Portia aren't hurting anyone by formalizing their relationships the way they've done. Barring them from that legal recognition was harmful to them and many other people, and there is no moral or ethical justification for society's withholding that right. "This is the way it's always been done in society" is not a reason. Cultures, traditions and institutions are all practices that human beings create and perfect, and they are practices that we can change and abolish, as well. If a culture and its traditions and institutions do not allow all people the freedom to live up to their full potential, then those traditions and institutions must be reformed or abolished where applicable, and that culture must change.
Posted by Red Monster at September 19, 2008 08:13 PM
Great Zot, Rudy, where do I start?
Manny, do you speak Albanian? Or does Zot mean the same thing in other languages?
Hi, R.M. (may I call you R.M., you don't wanna know what Red Monster means in my life...)
My first Wiccan High Priestess was part Albanian, and when asked who our god was, and being unable to get through to the poor door to door salvation peddler that we have both a god and a goddess and they have many aspects, she finally said "Oh fine, he's the Great Zot!!!". She never explained her amusement to me before her death 10 years ago.
I'm sure it's something not meant for religious discussion, but I saw it used in the "B.C." comic strip, and thought she got it from there, given the late writer's religious views.
Ellen and Portia aren't hurting anyone by formalizing their relationships the way they've done.
Portia de Rossi. * sigh * Finding out about her was the biggest hit my fantasy life had taken since I learned about Jodie Foster.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at September 19, 2008 08:39 PM
Ellen and Portia aren't hurting anyone by formalizing their relationships the way they've done.
Portia de Rossi. * sigh * Finding out about her was the biggest hit my fantasy life had taken since I learned about Jodie Foster.
PAD
That they secretly dig Wang Chung? ;)
I'm sure it's something not meant for religious discussion, but I saw it used in the "B.C." comic strip, and thought she got it from there, given the late writer's religious views.
I'm not quite sure what "B.C." had in mind, but Zot is also the Albanian word for god. I speak it as a foreign language. That's why I asked.
Portia de Rossi. * sigh * Finding out about her was the biggest hit my fantasy life had taken since I learned about Jodie Foster.
She's obviously off-limits in real life, but who says ya can't fantasize? :p
You know, I'd argue some of the points here, but Luigi and PAD always do such a good job that I'm unnecessary. If doing so, I'd also make a point of being as logical and dispassionate as possible.
But, I'm not doing those things, so here it is: As the father of an adopted child, as a man who chose to adopt because he and his wife are physically incapable of producing children, it makes me furious that anyone would ever suggest that a marriage that cannot produce children is somehow illegitimate. My marriage is legitimate despite the lack of my DNA running around in child form, thank you very much.
Quit using "And they can't have kids!" as an argument against any kind of marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise. It's a BS argument.
Thanks,
Eric
Posted by Eric Qel-Droma at September 19, 2008 09:54 PM
Quit using "And they can't have kids!" as an argument against any kind of marriage, gay, straight, or otherwise. It's a BS argument.
Thanks,
Eric
Eric, I'm right there with ya. A while ago I had the experience of listening to some truckstop Einstein, without seeming to stop for breath say that:
1) Same sex partners cannot have children ergo the partnership could not be legitimately called a marriage.
2) That now "they" want to adopt so they can "pretend" to be married.
I asked if medical science somehow managed to find a way to allow same sex couples to conceive, would that change his narrow mind.
He started to talk about NASCAR at that point.
In theory this simple answer would be enough. But the reality of prostitution is not that simple. It is women shipped in craters from eastern Europe and held by criminals and forced to have sex. It is crack addicts. It is homeless runaways, often minors.
That's like blaming Al Capone on booze rather than prohibition. Rendering the criminality implausible as the shelter of the abuse you refer to seems detached from reality.
” Portia de Rossi. * sigh * Finding out about her was the biggest hit my fantasy life had taken since I learned about Jodie Foster.
PAD”
And you fancy yourself a creative individual…
See, I had no major problems with this information. In fact, it actually made things better. I mean, hey, there are four of them now. Granted, I had to do some creative editing where her real life girlfriend at the time was, but that was a minor quibble.
Still, I can understand how you might not want to risk such thoughts. Considering the circle of friends you sometimes run with you’ve a far greater chance than I of actually meeting the woman in real life and having a Steve moment.
For those of you who don’t know what a Steve moment would be in this discussion: Coupling, Season 1: Episode 4.
It’s 2 minutes into (2/3), but if you’ve never seen it before it’ll only make sense if you take the time to watch (1/3) from the beginning and then move on to the Steve moment.
(1/3) www.youtube.com/watch?v=sERk_T9lJrk&feature=related
(2/3) www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUB335yiZ40&feature=related
~8?)`
Any legislating about gay marriage is silly. Gay marriage doesn't break any laws, so it's legal, period. To create laws to stop people from doing things that impact other people absolutely none is stupid.
It should be treated with no more scrutiny than a football player changing his name to Ochocinco.
Any legislating about gay marriage is silly. Gay marriage doesn't break any laws, so it's legal, period. To create laws to stop people from doing things that impact other people absolutely none is stupid.
It should be treated with no more scrutiny than a football player changing his name to Ochocinco.
Quoting Bill Myers..
"The definition of democracy has since expanded. In addition to the form of democracy described above (now known as "direct democracy"), the word also encompasses representative democracy, which is a practice where sovereignty is exercised by a subset of the people chosen on the basis of election.
So the fact that the Bill of Rights cannot be altered by popular vote does not preclude the U.S from being a democracy. It is not anti-democratic to decide that certain fundamental rights are not subject to the whim of the majority."
Hmmmm.. I sense a flaw in your definitions. If 90% of the heaving masses are against something, how can the subset of the people chosen on the basis of an election support it and still be a representative democracy?
Answer, because it's best fit democracy, where most of the legislation supports most of the democratic popular view, most of the time.
Which may be as good as it gets.
But it does lead to the conclusion that some are more equal than others when it comes to ruling against the "whims of the majority" when it's for the Greater Good...
Cheers.
A. The constitution can be changed, it's just very hard.
Nobody is more equal than anybody else. What you have is mechanisms that act as a counter to the power of the majority, but there are no people (kings, aristocrats, clergymen) who have a privilaged status. Their power also comes from the people.
Peter J Poole: "Hmmmm.. I sense a flaw in your definitions."
I can't account for what you "sense." I can only tell you that I'm using the word correctly. Per Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary, a democracy is defined as "government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system." (Emphasis mine.)
This is a pet peeve of mine. Why do people argue about the definition of a word without first looking it up in a good dictionary?
Peter J Poole: "If 90% of the heaving masses are against something, how can the subset of the people chosen on the basis of an election support it and still be a representative democracy?"
Because a representative democracy qualifies as such if the duly elected representatives are, y'know, duly elected. As long as there is a free electoral system, a government qualifies as democratic, even if the duly elected leaders do something unpopular.
Peter J Poole: "But it does lead to the conclusion that some are more equal than others when it comes to ruling against the 'whims of the majority' when it's for the Greater Good..."
Yes. Yes it does. Thank goodness for that. Otherwise, women might never have been given the vote, and we might never have eliminated Jim Crow laws.
"My God, does anyone other than Borat still use "not" as a one word sentence?"
Yes, unfortunately. Along with "whatever" and other annoyances.
... Peter, you are grossly overstating the realtionship between genetic inheritance and homosexual behavior ...
Ok, so the fact that my best friend from age 5 onward is gay had nothing to do with genetics but the fact that we were the only two kids the same age in the entire neighborhood, and my tomboy girlishness rubbed off on him after so many years? Even though he had a brother to copy from as well?
Yes, it IS true that many genetic predispositions need a certain catalyst to set them off (especially things like cancer genes), but sex drive is so far back in the primitive hindbrain it is almost impossible to eradicate it (males that are castrated as adults can still have sterile sex. Children with IQ's two points above decerebrate will still gain a sex drive at puberty. Even retarded children can be homosexual). Sexual orientation is not even passed on genetically, but a result of individual cases - sons of gay men are at no higher risk of becoming gay than any others, no more than your mother seeing a rabbit while pregnant gave you large ears.
Behavior - eg, nailbiting - is learned, but is an expression of a genetic tendency to anxiety. So is hair twirling, lip biting, and grimacing, all those tells poker players love to discover. How the genetics of homosexuality are expressed - "butch", "drag queen", monogamous or not, is the observable individual behavior, not the issue itself. Comparing the genetic inheritance of homosexuality to the inheritance of skin color is absurd, as skin color itself can never be a behavioral expression (no stereotypes allowed).
Bill, I think we're bringing out the worst in each other, again. :)
I'm not debating the definition of the word 'democracy', I was pointing out that a 'representative democracy' is not instantly 100% representative of every opinion held by all of those who elected them, which you've agreed with, and which I then put in context as maybe being as good as it gets...
Which leads to the other thing you've agreed on, which is that sometimes people in power make decisions that are not necessarily what those who put them in power would want.
Which I'll agree is sometimes a good thing.
But I think it should also be a slightly worrying thing.
Which is all I really set out to say...
Cheers.
Just once, I'd like to see a reasonable, rational argument against gay marriage. I still have yet to come across one that remotely qualifies as such.
Even the argument in the voter information guide I just got in the mail essentially amounts to "change is bad," with some thinly veiled homophobic remarks thrown in ("We should not accept a court decision that may result in public schools teaching our kids that gay marriage is okay").
What completely baffles me are the arguments centered around "traditional" marriages being best for the children. Um, even if that were true (which it clearly isn't), gay people are allowed to have children. Gay people are allowed to ADOPT children. No law banning us from getting married is going to change that, so it's a moot point.
Really, it's not gay marriage that threatens these people. It's homosexuality itself. Anything that seeks to add any amount of validity or propriety to homosexuality is deemed a threat. It doesn't matter what it is. Gay marriage is just the easiest target.
"Posted by: Peter J Poole at September 20, 2008 02:05 PM
"I was pointing out that a 'representative democracy' is not instantly 100% representative of every opinion held by all of those who elected them,"
Which leads to the other thing you've agreed on, which is that sometimes people in power make decisions that are not necessarily what those who put them in power would want."
1) Representatives are not delgates, Their job does involve applying judgement to situations ratherthan just presenting the opinion of the voters.
2) But they do have to consider the possibility of not getting elected again, if the people who sent them feel that he choices they made did not reflect their will or interest. (at least in theory)
3) Representatives also have a harder time if they don't have popular support.
"which you've agreed with, and which I then put in context as maybe being as good as it gets..."
Well, it's possible to give the public more influence by using referenda more often. Public opinnion is also a power, although not as much.
"But I think it should also be a slightly worrying thing."
There are two other aspects in which the voice of the people is obscured somewhat.
1) There is a limited choice of representatives. Not everybody can be a representative. It requires money, influence etc.
2) In the American system a lot of votes go down the drain because winner takes all. If a state is red or blue then the democrat or Republican minority can end up not represented at all.
From my own experience, I can say I was either born gay, or have had this condition triggered at a very early age. I had some homosexual and transgender desires when I was 9-10 years old, maybe even before.
I didn't have any older gay parent or friend or even a gay character seem on TV at the time that could have "influenced" me.
If you don't believe it's genetical, it is still something that is formed at a very early age, and isn't necessarily triggered by any of the things conservatives would suspect.
If it's a psychological condition, I think conservatives should be prepared for the possibility that what triggers homosexuality might as well be a sort of aversion thing. Meaning, it's not seeing gays marrying on TV that will make their kids gay, it's seeing Dad coming home drunk and stinking and shouting, and maybe deep inside the mind of the 5-year old scared boy he is thinking "I don't want ever to be like Daddy." And the idea of a heterosexual relationship as painful and self-destroying being hard-wired early on in the kid's psyche.
Particularly, I believe it's a biological tendency. But if I had to look for a psychological explanation, I'd say a deep-seated thing that manifests early on in a person's life is more likely to originate from trauma than from any desire of a kid to imitate a behaviour seem on TV by adults.
No offense, but I really feel like I could present the most iron-clad argument proving gay marriage does do harm to society and it wouldn't matter. So it hardly seems worth the effort to try. You called me a bigot the very first time I ever even dared to disagree with you on this issue years back, so it is hardly a matter of you knowing me, my personal feelings towards those who are gay, or my lack to prove my case that leads you to that conclusion. It sure seems like you have your mind made up that anyone who feels gay marriage is wrong is a bigot.
Iowa Jim
Peter J Poole: "Bill, I think we're bringing out the worst in each other, again. :)"
No, I'm quite confident that what I posted was fair and appropriate.
Robert Fuller: "Really, it's not gay marriage that threatens these people. It's homosexuality itself."
He shoots he SCORES!
Members of the anti-gay movement often complain about a "homosexual agenda." What they're really complaining about is the refusal of many homosexuals to continue to accept second-class status. "Homosexual agenda" is often a code-word for "homosexual existence."
But just as you needn't wear a white hood to be a racist, you needn't be of the "gays will go to hell" crowd to be bigoted towards homosexuals. I know people who claim they are willing to "tolerate" homosexuals as long as they don't "flaunt" their sexuality. As though two men kissing in the park is any more "flaunting" than a man and woman doing the same. This sort of bigotry may be more subtle, but make no mistake: it's bigotry just the same.
No offense, but I really feel like I could present the most iron-clad argument proving gay marriage does do harm to society and it wouldn't matter. So it hardly seems worth the effort to try.
That's the can-do attitude that exemplifies the American spirit!
Jim, please: That's pathetic. Even for you. "The most iron-clad?" You haven't presented one yet that's wearing so much as aluminum foil. You've offered no proof that gay marriage can harm society. No empirical evidence. Nothing. Nada. You've offered opinion without foundation. No facts. No figures. No logic. Nothing. And now you're not going to bother because "it wouldn't matter" even if you did? Bullshit. I call bullshit. You're not offering an "iron-clad" reason because you haven't got one. There isn't one. Not one that makes sense to any rational way of thinking.
You called me a bigot the very first time I ever even dared to disagree with you on this issue years back, so it is hardly a matter of you knowing me, my personal feelings towards those who are gay, or my lack to prove my case that leads you to that conclusion. It sure seems like you have your mind made up that anyone who feels gay marriage is wrong is a bigot.
Well, I've yet to see a reason against gay marriage that isn't steeped IN bigotry. I don't simply say, "Anyone who thinks gay marriage is wrong is a bigot." I read the arguments against it which are steeped in intolerance, hatred and discrimination, feel that they are bigoted sentiments, and therefore decide that the people spouting the opinions are in fact bigots. If opponents of gay marriage want people not to think they're bigots, they might want to take the step of not saying bigoted things. Unfortunately since there is no rational reason to oppose it, bigotry is all that's left.
PAD
Iowa Jim: "No offense, but I really feel like I could present the most iron-clad argument proving gay marriage does do harm to society and it wouldn't matter."
I realize this was directed at Peter David and not me. It's also pretty clear you consider me beneath your notice. So I'm probably wasting my time addressing you, but I'm willing to take that risk because I think discussions like this are important.
Each time the illogic of your arguments is exposed, or your "evidence" is revealed to be false, you fall back on the complaint that everyone's mind is closed and no one is giving you a fair hearing. Nothing could be further from the truth.
People are picking apart your arguments because they are not iron clad. Most of us are reading what you write, thinking about it, and saying, "No, this is not logical and here's why."
For example, you've stated that giving homosexual marriage the same legal status as heterosexual marriage threatens the latter institution. But when pressed, you've been evasive and offered "evidence" that was proven to be inaccurate.
First, you stated the push for gay marriage "really is an insistence that heterosexual marriage is no longer seen as healthy and good." When pressed, however, you were unable to cite anyone claiming such a thing.
Next, you tried moving the goalposts. You claimed you "meant" that "The moment you say homosexual marriage is no different than heterosexual marriage, you deny that heterosexual marriage is preferable and best." When asked to substantiate that claim, you said, "I am arguing that marriage is NOT what we define it to be anymore than I can say a man is actually a woman." But that idea is demonstrably false. The definition of marriage can vary by culture, and has changed over time. Today in the U.S., marriage requires two willing partners to be legal. That isn't the case in cultures where women's rights aren't respected.
Again, I suspect you consider me beneath your notice. But in case I'm wrong, I'm going to throw down the gauntlet, sir. If you truly have an iron-clad argument, if what I've stated above is simply misguided, then help me to see where I'm going wrong.
Do you see me scrambling to take action to find ways to overturn them? I may disagree with the reasoning of the courts, and even complain about them, but I'm not actively endeavoring to overturn them.
Why not? If you really think there's been a miscarriage of justice, why not try to fix it? Do you think Brown v Board of Education was wrongly decided because it was the result of people actively endeavoring to overturn Plessy v Ferguson? The Supreme Court used to strike down minimum wage and maximum hour laws left and right because they interfered with individuals' and businesses' rights to make contracts. Should social activists have just shrugged and gone away when Lochner came down?
Clearly I think the answer is "no" to all of the above.
Unlike, say, individuals attempting to overturn gay marriage or, for that matter, the relentless forces that have been trying to overturn Roe V. Wade since the decision was first made.
I have some bad news for you then. The US Supreme Court already ruled that there's no federal right to gay marriage. I don't suppose you endorse relentless forces that might try to overturn that decision either?
Oh, a flag on the play! The ref's call: Reducto ad absurdum. Logical fallacy. Ten yard penalty and first down for the opposition.
As someone quickly pointed out, a reductio ad absurdum isn't a logical fallacy. To the contrary, its rhetorical strength derives entirely from applying the internal logic of someone else's argument correctly. Done correctly, it should show that the original argument was logically flawed, because it ultimately leads to a contradiction; or that the original argument was normatively flawed, because a logical application of its premises leads to a result that is either repugnant or devoid of common sense.
Done poorly it degenerates into a straw man argument, which might have been what you had in mind. To make it work you have to actually be faithful to the argument you're criticizing; taking a stupid or weakened paraphrasing undermines the whole exercise, because it isn't really useful to point out the errors in an argument your opponent didn't really make.
I tend to use similar strategies fairly frequently. I think it's a very good strategy to say, "You claimed X implies Y. Yet in situation Z, you conclude not-Y. There does not appear to be any meaningful distinction between X and Z. Can you explain the inconsistency?" Your opponent should then either have to admit that there is a flaw in his logic, or introduce additional premises to distinguish between X and Z. It's a good strategy IFF the two examples are in fact quite similar, and Y would in fact be an undesirable result in Z.
I just tried this strategy on one of your claims.
1) You made a comment about "a group of learned individuals" interpreting basic laws, and equated attempts to overturn that interpretation, in at least this context, as people being "dumb and panicky." (X := appellate court interpretation, Y := efforts to overturn = bad)
2) I listed a few SCOTUS cases that I suspected you'd disapprove of, and pointed out that your earlier claim would suggest that they should be left standing. (X := SCOTUS interpretations, !Y := efforts to overturn = good)
3) You responded basically by reasserting your original claim, that while you might disagree with the opinions you weren't "scrambling to overturn them." (Y := efforts to overturn = bad)
4) I pointed out that I'm glad Thurgood Marshall disagreed with you. (!Y := efforts to overturn = civil rights movement = good)
I think you have a problem. In Re Marriage Cases, Gonzales v Carhart, and Plessy v Ferguson are all appellate opinions that various people have claimed to be atrocious. In at least the last one, I really don't see how you can avoid endorsing attempts to have it reversed. You can't distinguish Marriage Cases from Plessy by a normative claim that the former expands rights while the latter contracts them, because Carhart also contracts rights and you already disavowed scrambling to overturn it. So far you've avoided inconsistent logic, but I think if that logic is applied consistently to "separate but equal" you end up with a normatively unacceptable result. I think you either have to introduce a new premise to distinguish Plessy from Carhart or make a normative argument about why lobbying to overturn judicial rulings is at least sometimes bad, or both.
My position is clearly that efforts to overturn are acceptable political strategies. If you really think a legal precedent is screwy, it's perfectly appropriate to use lawful means to limit or overturn that interpretation of the law. I think I'm a little bit safer in my argument because I'm willing to agree that it's a valid tactic whether I agree with the campaigners (Plessy/Brown) or not (DC v Heller).
And yeah, my last comment about SCOTUS rejecting a Federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage is kind of a trap. It's obscure but it's out there. I was kind of curious to see if anyone would challenge me on it, but I've decided that was kind of mean.
I wrote "2) I listed a few SCOTUS cases that I suspected you'd disapprove of, and pointed out that your earlier claim would suggest that they should be left standing. (X := SCOTUS interpretations, !Y := efforts to overturn = good)"
That should have been "(Z := SCOTUS interpretations, !Y := efforts to overturn = good)" to be consistent. I shouldn't write while sleepy.
Jim the nice things I said before. I want to take them back.
The only thing that allowing gay marriage does is send a message that being gay is not a bad thing.
This is not 2000 years ago where the chances of child death and stillborns are so much higher than today, that you needed to procreate as much as you can because chances are half the kids won't survive long enough to have kids of their own.
This is just my opinion but I think all homophobia is about the fear guys have of being penetrated.
I used to work in a movie theatre and there was a change room. One evening the light switch accidentally got hit and it went dark for about 10 seconds one guy absolutely flipped out. we all thought he was ascared of the dark. turns out he was just scared of being in a dark room with other men. Like someone was going to take the opportunity to rape him.
I was like dude do you have women throwing themselves at you where ever you go? No? then why assume that Men would that much more attracted to you then women.
I'm reminded of Harlan Ellison's recounting of visiting San Quentin.
I want to quote it because I think it explains it perfectly. From The Harlan Ellison Hornbook The Essay Death Row, San Quentin part one.
[i]As we walked, the barred windows that filled one entire wall of a dorm to our left began to show men staring out. then hung on the bars and watched, and then they began to whistle.
I have heard a sound like that only once before in my life. At a concert for the Rolling Stones that was mostly young boys. It was not the hig-pitched screaming offemale groupies, but a lower throatier moan, pierced by whistling.
That was the wave of sound that washed over me.
Never having had, or having even been approached to have, a homosexual liason, and thus never having thought of myself as fair game for other men...I suddenly realised the horror and dismay experienced by women for whom a walk past a hardhat's construction site is a degrading experience.
To those men, I was a sexual object, a potential catamite, what Hammett called a gunsel. My asshole was suddenly, for the first time in my life, something more than an orifice used to void my bowels. My mouth was being looked at in a very different way than ever before. I was frightened, and chilled, and wanted to turn and run.[/i]
Lesbian sex is more tolerated than gay sex. Not by much depending on where you are, but I think it's safe to say that.
Why? because the lesbian isn't a 'threat'.
I think in the homophobic mind,men are under the irrational belief that gay men look at them the way they might look at a woman, they are used to be in control, and the idea of someone taking that away scares the hell out of them.
It's irrational and I think deep down it has a lot to say about how that person views women.
The argument that marriage is natural, has been like this for centuries or longer. However it's only recently that the idea of marrying someone based on a personal connection, for hundreds of years it was a buisiness arrangement. And in this arrangement the man was pretty much dominant.
Gay marriage throws that out of what doesn't it? Even more than currnet marriages. It's a marriage of equals, (there may be some financial discrepancies) but in the sense of the relationship they are equal, before they could be called spouses they were partners.
Is that why heterosexual marriages should be preferable? Because in heterosexual marriages there is an implied inequality? I wear the pants in the relationship? etc etc...
Is that what you're afraid of that Billy may decide that he can stay at home and take care of the kids while his wife works because when he was growing up his friend Stan had two dads and one of them stayed at home and that was really great to have a dad around the house all the time?
Give us something Jim. Something other than procreation as a reason.
C'mon if you're so convinced it shouldn;t be that hard.
David the Lawyer: "Done poorly it [reductio ad absurdum] degenerates into a straw man argument."
Are you sure this isn't the only case when we would call it reductio ad absurdum? The example of you using the technique might be a reduction but not really ad absurdum.
David: "My position is clearly that efforts to overturn are acceptable political strategies. If you really think a legal precedent is screwy, it's perfectly appropriate to use lawful means to limit or overturn that interpretation of the law. I think I'm a little bit safer in my argument because I'm willing to agree that it's a valid tactic whether I agree with the campaigners (Plessy/Brown) or not (DC v Heller)."
I could be wrong, too lazy to scroll up, but didn't this discussion start because you said it was wrong to use the courts the get gay marriages recognized?
--------
Iowa Jim, I don't think you are a bigot in the sense of a person who beats up gays or something like that. But it does seem that you either have a prejudiced view of gays (as bad and unhealthy and a danger to society), or you are caught in a bind because of your religious beliefs.
So far you have only proven one thing, that gay marriages threaten the notion that heterosexual marriages are superior and homosexual relationship inferior. That's true, but I (and others) dispute the claim that heterosexual marriages are better. Clearly, for homosexuals heterosexual marriages are not superior. I also dispute the claim that by claiming equality with heterosexual marriages, homosexual marriages somehow devalue heterosexual ones. It is true that there are things we do tolerate in the name of individual liberties that possibly devalue the institution of marriage -- like divorce (maybe), people who marry and divorce many times, people who marry for 10 minutes, shotgun weddings and adultery, to name some (in the case of divorce I'm not sure unhappy marriages help the institution). But I don't agree that homosexual marriages fall in that category, and I don't really think that these things reduce the value and happiness of individual marriages, whose value seems determined by individual aspects.
You made a claim about the problems of single parents and children joining gangs. I'd hazard a guess that the children of middle class gays or of middle class single parents are not the ones who join gangs. And that the circumstances that cause children of single parents to join gangs have little to do with gays and a lot to do with poverty and other forces that threaten families.
I said: Iowa Jim, I don't think you are a bigot in the sense of a person who beats up gays or something like that. But it does seem that you either have a prejudiced view of gays.
To which I want to add that I certainly might hold prejudices toward gays as well as others. That's almost inevitable. The point is to try to get over them, or at least not act upon them. restricting the equality of gays certainly falls under the category of acting upon prejudices.
Susan O: "...Bill Myers (always very bad)."
No, not always. ;)
Bill Myers:
Naw, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I meant making me think is always bad. I'm blonde. It hurts.
Susan O: I knew what you meant. But it looked funny out of context and I like the funny.
Iowa Jim; I think some of the replies to you have been needlessly antagonistic. Your making an effort to engage with people you disagree with and that deserves some respect. In their defense, when you're arguing that, essentially, a group of people should stay as a kind of second class citizen, those who are either in that group or sympathetic to its members can hardly be expected to respond generously.
I think you're wrong about this. You think that allowing gays to marry will make marriage more meaningless, a problem that I think we all agree has been fostered by too easy marriage and too easy divorce. There's also the attitude among many young people that marriage is not necessary or even bad for a relationship--the hollywood stars who have lived together for years, had kids but talk about how 1-a "piece of paper" won't make any difference and 2- getting harried will somehow ruin the good thing they ahve going (points 1 and 2 seem to contradict one another but that's why they get paid to act, not epistmology).
Now here come gays who are telling everyone that marriage is great, it completes a relationship, it's the highest expression of love. etc. That's some of the nicest stuff about marriage anyone's said in a long time (Seriously, listen to the average sit-com and see how many snide cracks about marriage there are. I suspect most comedy writers struggle making alimony payments).
And also consider how encouraging gays to live their lives would also minimize the terrible situation many people have found themselves in--being married to someone who, unbeknown to them, is struggling with their sexuality. Even if I didn't like gays I Do like my sisters and I would not want them to end up in a marriage with some guy who is living a lie just because he feels it's the only way to get accepted.
A good argument can be made against polygamy, in my opinion. I have yet to see a convincing one about gay marriage and, for the reasons I've given, I think one can argue that both society and the institution of marriage will be strengthened.
I would caution my allies on this opinion however. Gay marriage was hardly on the radar not too many years ago. For all the righteous indignation many of us hold now for anyone who doesn't see the obvious light here, most weren't worried about gays and marriage until Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (and I can't recall the pejorative "bigot" being applied to Clinton, Joe Biden, Tom Harkin, Chris Dodd, aul Wellstone, etc. Why not? How are they different from Iowa Jim--other than the fact that they had the power to make their prejudices law of the land and did?).
David the Lawyer: "Done poorly it [reductio ad absurdum] degenerates into a straw man argument."
Are you sure this isn't the only case when we would call it reductio ad absurdum? The example of you using the technique might be a reduction but not really ad absurdum.
I suggested that one part of PAD's argument implies that Thurgood Marshall and the NAACP Legal Defense Fund should have left Plessy v Ferguson alone. I think that's pretty absurdum.
I could be wrong, too lazy to scroll up, but didn't this discussion start because you said it was wrong to use the courts the get gay marriages recognized?
That wasn't how the thread started. The discussion was going on the first "George and Brad" thread before I jumped in. But yes, I do have problems with using courts to rewrite domestic relations laws. I see it as two distinct issues (though your mileage may vary).
1) The courts shouldn't have gotten involved in the issue at all because of the political questions doctrine, which simply states that some issues are better left to the political branches, which are directly responsible to the people through elections. It's not cases in which the courts feel they *can't* act, but cases in which they elect to exercise restraint. If the political branches make an error the error can be fixed by veto, or veto override, or if all else fails in the next election, but for all practical purposes, Supreme Court constitutional decisions are unreviewable, and for that reason the Court prefers to tread lightly, often to the point of being chicken and ducking issues wherever they can, like with the Pledge of Allegiance case. When they can't duck the issue entirely, they can resort to a quite valid "political question" explanation for not resolving the issue themselves. For example, "The Judicial Branch should not decide issues affecting the allocation of power between the President and Congress until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse." Goldwater v Carter 444 US 996 (1979) Most state constitutions are easier to amend than the US Constitution, so the cost of correcting a mistake is different, but it still leaves the argument that the judicial branch should stay out of some fundamental issues "until the political branches reach a constitutional impasse." "Gay rights" has been a live political issue for decades now, so there's no reason to think that there's any kind of impasse. On top of that there's a long tradition of the courts deferring to state policy making on marriage. I'm much more critical of the courts for getting involved than I am of the litigants who are using the tools available to them.
2) Given that, I don't think it's at all inconsistent for me to claim that people should be free to use the political process to fix something that the courts should have left to the political process to begin with. Even on issues where the political questions doctrine doesn't apply, I still think it's always appropriate to lobby for a law you think is necessary. I thought it was stupid to campaign for a flag-burning amendment, but I think the campaigners had the right to advocate for a law that I think would be stupid.
Are you sure this isn't the only case when we would call it reductio ad absurdum? The example of you using the technique might be a reduction but not really ad absurdum.
Actually I may have misunderstood your question. The argument isn't called a reduction to the absurd because the person making the argument does it absurdly (e.g. straw man arguments). It's called that because the goal is to point out that the original claim you're arguing against plays out in absurd ways.
I think it takes monumentally brass balls to try and equate the civil rights movement, which was designed to try and expand and equalize individual rights through judicial and congressional means, with voters actively endeavoring to legalize bigotry and restriction of individual rights by voting to formalize bigotry.
I'm saying that the voters actively endeavoring to overturn, undercut or do an end run around the CA Supreme Court is not only unwise but stems from an act of bigotry. That rather than give consideration to the Court's saying that the Constitution doesn't allow for bigotry, the response is to try and slap in a law that puts bigotry into place. I'm saying that they should be taking the opportunity to reexamine their own prejudices; instead they're only using it as an excuse to try and overwrite existing law with those same prejudices.
And your response is to cite instances where civilians put together a civil suit that wound up going--where?--to the Supreme Court. Do you see the disconnect there? I'm objecting to people trying to replace the reasoning of the court with their own, and you're coming back with instances where the legal system was utilized to redress a wrong done generations earlier by justices long dead.
In other words, I'm saying that the California voters are out of line trying to replace a learned reading of the Constitution with their own bias, and you're responding with, Well what about these earlier examples where lawyers and justices combined with organizations designed to expand individual rights in order to get the Supreme Court to overturn a sixty year old decision?
I have to think that you know and understand the difference, which either means you're deliberately being obtuse, or you just think this is an academic exercise. Except there's roughly ten percent of the population for whom this is not simply an academic exercise.
PAD
And your response is to cite instances where civilians put together a civil suit that wound up going--where?--to the Supreme Court. Do you see the disconnect there? I'm objecting to people trying to replace the reasoning of the court with their own, and you're coming back with instances where the legal system was utilized to redress a wrong done generations earlier by justices long dead.
So overturning a bad decision through another lawsuit is okay but not through legislation? Because then you've got to rethink the 14th Amendment, which was passed legislatively at least in part to overturn Dred Scott. And that wasn't a wrong done generations earlier. It was a wrong done 9 years before the amendment was proposed in Congress, 11 before it was ratified.
There is a huge difference between the Fourteenth Amendment and the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment. The first one was one of the triumphs of our nation's liberty, and the second is a horrible idea. But that has absolutely nothing to do with an interested party substituting its own judgment for that of a court. Because substituting almost anyone's judgment for Chief Justice Taney's would be an improvement.
I have to think that you know and understand the difference, which either means you're deliberately being obtuse, or you just think this is an academic exercise. Except there's roughly ten percent of the population for whom this is not simply an academic exercise.
Law is never "simply an academic exercise," but it's always an academic exercise with real world implications. It was an academic exercise when the SCOTUS punted on the Pledge of Allegiance because the person filing the suit didn't have the right qualifications to file the suit. It's an academic exercise when SCOTUS interpreted the timing requirement for filing equal pay lawsuits in a way that made it very hard for women to file valid lawsuits. It is important to have rules that people can rely on, even when rules lead to unfortunate results in individual cases. And one of those rules is that, in a democracy, people get to vote on how society is structured. The Defense of Marriage Act and the Civil Rights Act came through Congress in exactly the same way. The Fourteenth Amendment and the proposed (and probably dead) Federal Marriage Amendment were proposed in Congress in the exact same way. I don't disagree that one of them is a better idea than the other, but don't try to argue that overturning court opinions is a valid tactic for people you agree with (NAACP) but not with people you disagree with (bigots). We're talking past each other. You're talking about reaching the right substantive result. That's fine, but you keep phrasing it like you're talking about what's procedurally right-- "replacing the reasoning of the court with their own." People do that all the time in a democracy. They have that right. They should have that right. Even people with crappy reasoning. The Constitution guarantees everyone the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. Not just good grievances and not just grievances that aren't caused by bad judicial opinions. That's not simply an academic exercise. It's a foundation of self-government.
Attack them all you want for being wrong and standing in the way of other people's civil rights. That's a good point. I'll join you. But you can't seriously attack them for exercising their own civil rights. You come across as something of a free speech absolutist. Shouldn't the entire First Amendment apply to people you disagree with? That's not simply an academic exercise either.
On a completely unrelated topic, that 10% figure came from a very bad Kinsey Institute report. The real number is closer to 2. It doesn't really matter though; invidious discrimination against 2% of the population is 2% too many. But then again, I'm an obtuse academic.
Bill Mulligan: "There's also the attitude among many young people that marriage is not necessary or even bad for a relationship--the hollywood stars who have lived together for years, had kids but talk about how 1-a "piece of paper" won't make any difference and 2- getting harried will somehow ruin the good thing they ahve going (points 1 and 2 seem to contradict one another but that's why they get paid to act, not epistmology)."
The Hollywood stars who rejected marriage have grandchildren by now. The younger generation of stars seem to be marrying all the time these days.
--------------------
Bill Mulligan: "I would caution my allies on this opinion however. Gay marriage was hardly on the radar not too many years ago. For all the righteous indignation many of us hold now for anyone who doesn't see the obvious light here, most weren't worried about gays and marriage until Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (and I can't recall the pejorative "bigot" being applied to Clinton, Joe Biden, Tom Harkin, Chris Dodd, aul Wellstone, etc. Why not? How are they different from Iowa Jim--other than the fact that they had the power to make their prejudices law of the land and did?)."
I'll admit that the issue of gay marriage wasn't obvious to me from the beginning. I think my first reaction was one of prejudice. But by demanding the right and forcing me to think about it, gays caused me to realize that there is no good rreaason to deny them marriage other than that the idea is weird to me.
--------------
David, you're right about reductio ad absurdum.
----------------------
David: "I do have problems with using courts to rewrite domestic relations laws."
I am familiar with the argument. It is not invalid. But the civil rights movement faced the same criticism for using the courts to affect change. But could change have been made withoout them? I remember reading MLK's response to this. But I don't know where it is.
David: ""Gay rights" has been a live political issue for decades now, so there's no reason to think that there's any kind of impasse."
Actually doesn't the fact that the issue has not been resolved in the political arena after all these years show that American society is at an impasse on this subject?
--------------------
David: "On a completely unrelated topic, that 10% figure came from a very bad Kinsey Institute report. The real number is closer to 2. It doesn't really matter though; invidious discrimination against 2% of the population is 2% too many. But then again, I'm an obtuse academic."
What is the source of the 2% number, and what makes it more reliable than the previous?
That's my problem with the mixture of academics and politics. It's as if each side can find the right researches to reach the conclusions they need on any disputed subject. At the end, if you dopn't have the skill to check the data, science becomes not much more helpful then opinion.
------------------
Jason: "I think in the homophobic mind,men are under the irrational belief that gay men look at them the way they might look at a woman"
I have a theory about that, that addresses this question and a bunch of other issues.
I think humans send and recieve signals from each other on a unspoken level, like posture, appearance, behavior, tone of voice, smaells. Some of the signals are related to sex --
