SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 9 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-30-2008, 03:57 PM   #121
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
so the majority gets to vote on whether or not to extend basic equal treatment under the law to a minority (who already have a long history of social, legal, and political oppression).

Yes.


Just like when all those civil rights issues were voted on in Mississippi.
__________________

__________________
martha is online now  
Old 09-30-2008, 03:57 PM   #122
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
there are no "ideals" involved in marriage. and to try to suggest that there are, or that there should be, comes very close to social engineering
You're equating "for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, so long as we both shall live" with social engineering?

Quote:
and, further, even if you believe that there are specific "ideals" (standards?) that all potential couplings must measure up to, i'd be curious to see how a gay couple couldn't measure up to your standards.
Because "marriage is primarily a license to have children," and the best configuration that has evolved over time is a mother and a father who love each other and their children.

Quote:
this is incredibly vague. laws do not hold up the ideal
It is in fact for the promotion of an ideal society that laws are even brought into being. Don't believe citizens should steal from each other? Codify laws dealing with property rights. Don't believe citizens should murder each other? Codify laws dealing with murder. Ideals are promoted all the time. Are they inherently prejudicial? Or just the ones you don't agree with?

Quote:
if people want to argue for polygamy, they can do so on it's own terms. to conflate it with the "well, then what's next?" question that gets tossed around with same-sex marriage is not just insulting, but it's fundamentally wrong.
My friend Heather was the one who brought it up. Her question was, "if we remove the ability to define marriage, shouldn't anyone be able to do it?" For her the question was rhetorical in one direction -- for me it was rhetorical in another. Either way, she's the one who opened the door.

Quote:
there are lots of Auntie Toms to be found, and simply quoting one doesn't confer any legitimacy onto the point being made.
But does it confer illegitimacy? And shouldn't voters be allowed to decide either way?

Quote:
if you're going to say that marriage must measure up to "ideals" then i suppose it does follow that parenthood must measure up to "ideals"
Only in the all or nothing, Absolutist construct you've created. I've never said that, and I don't believe that. As I've said before, there are exceptions to the rule all the time. But does the exceptions eliminate the rule? And should the exceptions be the ones who get to decide?

And yes, there are some pretty crappy parents out there.

Quote:
the Declaration of Human Rights is not a list of aspirations -- what i think you really are talking about when you say "ideals" -- but a list of crimes that human beings have the right not to be subjected to on the basis of their humanity.
From earlier in the thread:
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Sounds pretty aspirational to me....
__________________

__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 03:58 PM   #123
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
so the majority gets to vote on whether or not to extend basic equal treatment under the law to a minority (who already have a long history of social, legal, and political oppression).
Democracy's a pain in the neck sometimes...do you have another system you'd like to suggest?
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 04:09 PM   #124
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
You're equating "for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, so long as we both shall live" with social engineering?
you're the one who's said that i'm not worthy of taking such a vow, that only heterosexuals can make these vows to one another and have it mean anything in the eyes of the law. yes, that is social engineering.

i'm arguing for the expansion of marriage, that's it.



Quote:
Because "marriage is primarily a license to have children," and the best configuration that has evolved over time is a mother and a father who love each other and their children.
"marriage is primarily a license to have children," is your own formulation, no one else's. lots of married people do not have children, lots of people who have children are not married.

this has nothing to do with the question before us. nothing.

and love is quite a new concept.


Quote:
It is in fact for the promotion of an ideal society that laws are even brought into being. Don't believe citizens should steal from each other? Codify laws dealing with property rights. Don't believe citizens should murder each other? Codify laws dealing with murder. Ideals are promoted all the time. Are they inherently prejudicial? Or just the ones you don't agree with?
this isn't the promotion of an ideal, nathan. this is where i think you've really confused yourself. why don't we steal? because someone loses property. why don't we murder? because someone loses their life. these are prohibitions against certain behaviors, not endorsements of a specific kind of behavior that we wish to promote our citizens to aspire to.

there are clear consequences to murdering or stealing. that's why they are illegal. you're prohibiting specific kinds of behavior. *that's* what laws do.


Quote:
My friend Heather was the one who brought it up. Her question was, "if we remove the ability to define marriage, shouldn't anyone be able to do it?" For her the question was rhetorical in one direction -- for me it was rhetorical in another. Either way, she's the one who opened the door.

that sounds like you've really twisted her words.

and, again, i don't care what Heather's position on polygamy is. she's misunderstood the entire question, as i've laid out for your in the previous post.



Quote:
But does it confer illegitimacy? And shouldn't voters be allowed to decide either way?

when said Auntie Toms are trotted out by those opposed, to quote David Letterman, "something doesn't smell right." you can pay Armstrong Williams lots of money and he'll talk about how he thinks that vouchers are good for African-American kids. that doesn't make it so. and when you, yourself, point to the writer's self-appointed "liberal" status as one of his qualifications for making the point, you, yourself, have undermined his credibility.

again, it's perverse to have to vote to extend civil rights to a group of people. liberal democracies also protect against the tyranny of the majority and seek to secure equal protection under the law of minorities.

you know, the thing that allows you to worship in the way that you so choose -- would you like to have to pray the rosary every morning and worship Mary?



Quote:
Only in the all or nothing, Absolutist construct you've created. I've never said that, and I don't believe that. As I've said before, there are exceptions to the rule all the time. But does the exceptions eliminate the rule? And should the exceptions be the ones who get to decide?
that's what the judiciary is for. seems to me that having straight white christians in Kansas voting on equal protections for gay people is much like having white southerners in Alabama voting on allowing black students to enter the state university in 1957.


Quote:
From earlier in the thread:
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Sounds pretty aspirational to me....

sounds like legal rights, not aspirations:

1. people are allowed to get married and divorced, no one shall prohibit them from doing that
2. no one has the right to force another into marriage
3. families should be given protection by the state

i also see nothing that prohibits same-sex marriage. my guess is that it was intentionally written to be so vague so that it could include the inevitability of same-sex marriage.

and, in fact, #3 is a perfect argument for same-sex marriage -- gay people form their own families, always have, don't their kids deserve equal protection? what about the kids?

or are those kids not "ideal"?
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 04:11 PM   #125
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Democracy's a pain in the neck sometimes...do you have another system you'd like to suggest?


i admire it when the three branches of government all do their jobs.

preserving the rights of a minority against the tyranny of the majority is the job of the judicial branch.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 05:44 PM   #126
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Yes.


Just like when all those civil rights issues were voted on in Mississippi.
I don't expect that this will be addressed.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 05:59 PM   #127
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anitram View Post
I don't expect that this will be addressed.
It's been pretty successfully avoided so far, hasn't it?
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 09-30-2008, 06:02 PM   #128
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 11:11 AM
The bottom line is that those who disagree that same-sex marriage is a civil right consequently do not equate it with the civil rights of African-Americans, and thus, to them, simply stating that the two are not equal is sufficient in and of itself. That's all they need to say, because to them, it's practically a statement of fact.
__________________
phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 06:06 PM   #129
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
The bottom line is that those who disagree that same-sex marriage is a civil right consequently do not equate it with the civil rights of African-Americans, and thus, to them, simply stating that the two are not equal is sufficient in and of itself. That's all they need to say, because to them, it's practically a statement of fact.
But he was talking about the oppressed group waiting for a vote for access to rights, not necessarily the civil rights aspect of it.

Plus, both INDY and nathan frequently dodge questions. INDY's especially accomplished at it.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 09-30-2008, 06:08 PM   #130
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Yes it seems they are making the same point - that questions of civil rights should be open to a referendum in a democratic society since the granting of those rights will somehow fundamentally alter our society.

Then it is fair to ask when it is that the fine citizens of Mississippi got to vote for granting blacks the right to vote, the right to attend white schools and the right to sit at the front of the bus.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 06:15 PM   #131
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,474
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillyfan26 View Post
The bottom line is that those who disagree that same-sex marriage is a civil right consequently do not equate it with the civil rights of African-Americans, and thus, to them, simply stating that the two are not equal is sufficient in and of itself. That's all they need to say, because to them, it's practically a statement of fact.

i think that's correct.

though it's tough to tease it out, the only explanation that i can think of is the believe that sexual orientation cannot be compared to race or gender. that there is no such thing as a sexual orientation. that there are no homo or heterosexuals. there are just people. and those with same-sex attraction are defective in some way.

or that it's a sin.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 07:18 PM   #132
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,429
Local Time: 04:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
you're the one who's said that i'm not worthy of taking such a vow
I understand that it's convenient for you to say that, but I never did. You're the one speaking in Absolutist terms. I'm the one who's said there are exceptions to the rule all the time.

Quote:
i'm arguing for the expansion of marriage, that's it.
And that's absolutely your right. But in a democratic society, there are others who can argue that such an expansion would redefine family, gender, etc. Do we have the right to vote, or is your argument the only one that is allowed to stand?

Quote:
"marriage is primarily a license to have children," is your own formulation, no one else's.
Ironic, since that's a quote.

Quote:
lots of married people do not have children, lots of people who have children are not married. this has nothing to do with the question before us. nothing.
Most married people, however, as I've said before, do. So it has everything to do with the question before us. Everything.

Quote:
there are clear consequences to murdering or stealing. that's why they are illegal. you're prohibiting specific kinds of behavior. *that's* what laws do.
For the promotion of a fair and civic society.

Quote:
i don't care what Heather's position on polygamy is. she's misunderstood the entire question, as i've laid out for your in the previous post.
She's the one who raised the issue.

Quote:
liberal democracies also protect against the tyranny of the majority and seek to secure equal protection under the law of minorities.
They also protect against the tyranny of the minority as well. So the knife cuts both ways.
__________________
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 09-30-2008, 07:24 PM   #133
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
And that's absolutely your right. But in a democratic society, there are others who can argue that such an expansion would redefine family, gender, etc. Do we have the right to vote, or is your argument the only one that is allowed to stand?

Set me straight (no pun intended). When again did we vote to change the laws about married women having access to property rights? 'Cause that sure changed the definition of family and I don't remember voting on that.
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 09-30-2008, 07:26 PM   #134
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 08:11 AM
Quote:
there are clear consequences to murdering or stealing. that's why they are illegal. you're prohibiting specific kinds of behavior. *that's* what laws do.
Quote:
For the promotion of a fair and civic society.
So you think denying Irvine and Memphis the same legal rights as a couple that you and I have access to results in a fair society?!
__________________
martha is online now  
Old 09-30-2008, 07:29 PM   #135
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,272
Local Time: 11:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martha View Post
Set me straight (no pun intended). When again did we vote to change the laws about married women having access to property rights? 'Cause that sure changed the definition of family and I don't remember voting on that.
When did you vote for no fault divorce?
__________________

__________________
anitram is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com