Same Sex Marriage Thread - Part III

[AEON]

Originally Posted by anitram

Because not all opinions require tolerance.

I am sorry you feel like this. Of course, with a viewpoint like this, you can see why it is not exactly fun to disagree with you in a forum.

[anitram]

Originally Posted by AEON

I am sorry you feel like this. Of course, with a viewpoint like this, you can see why it is not exactly fun to disagree with you in a forum.

That's fine.

If you think that all opinions demand tolerance, then I assume you also tolerate the opinions of racists, anti-semites, Islamic jihadists and so on. I don't.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

As I'm reading through the responses to INDY I'm reminded on why I rarely come in here anymore. There really is very little tolerance for opposing opinions. And, instead of challenging the opinion of the person - many just attack the person. There really is no room for civil discourse here on "hot" issues.

If your intention is to create a forum where only "liberal" voices can post and congratulate each other on liberal victories in the world, you are succeeding. But it would probably be easier if all of you became Facebook friends and just collect "likes."

Anyway, I'm sure you don't care if AEON comes around that often. I admire that INDY remains here and continues to take a beating, but this place has too much bullying, hatred, and negative energy for me.

I will probably continue to poke my head in here from to time and test the waters, I enjoy learning and sharing. But until the environment becomes more tolerant - there are usually better ways to spend my time.

because gay people are the real bullies?

no one would be tolerant of blatant racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, etc. opposition to SSM isn't something principled, beyond vague religious objections or incredibly tortured logic.

you have every right to hold and opinion and to speak out and defend that opinion, but that doesn't mean that such an opinion is entitled to respect if it is poorly reasoned or based in fear and loathing.

INDY has been engaged many, many times on this issue, it's been extremely well fought out in here going back years, particularly between Melon, Nathan, and myself. i hardly think FYM suffers from lack of real debate on this issue.

the problem is that the anti-SSM folks have lost -- in court, in the legislatures, in public opinion, with the young, and on the merits of the argument itself. it becomes a very hard position to defend (witnessing the contortions of logic in the National Review is painful, i'd rather a "God's Will" argument because at least it's more honest), and it seems odd that conservatives want a cookie and a pat on the head simply for holding an opinion.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by AEON

Anyway, I'm sure you don't care if AEON comes around that often. I admire that INDY remains here and continues to take a beating, but this place has too much bullying, hatred, and negative energy for me.

I will probably continue to poke my head in here from to time and test the waters, I enjoy learning and sharing. But until the environment becomes more tolerant - there are usually better ways to spend my time.

Just so you know, the anti-gay sentiment that's been expressed here falls under the bullying, hatred and negative energy category.

Also, I can't help but notice that by using your username in the third person, you trying to play the victim card.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by anitram

Who cares?

i had planned to write a long rebuttal of INDY's post and especially Scalia's tantrum, but perhaps because it's friday of a long week and it's hot and humid here in DC, i think that this is the best response to the nonsense we're getting from non-religious arguments against SSM.

i can perhaps see a small amount of merit in NBC's objection to how the opinion was actually arrived at, and the future of ballot initiatives in states, but that seems like incredibly small potatoes compared to the victory that was won.

DOMA was absolutely conceived in animus. "defending" marriage from whom? it is in the text of the 1996 law:

When Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan read aloud from the 1996 Report to Congress that accompanied the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, there were audible gasps of shock in the courtroom, according to several people who attended oral arguments Wednesday.

"I'm going to quote from the House Report here," Kagan had said "... 'Congress decided to reflect and honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality.' Is that what happened in 1996?"

The Jaw-Dropping Reason Congress Drafted DOMA: 'Moral Disapproval of Homosexuality' - Garance Franke-Ruta - The Atlantic

it's nakedly about animus. there's no disputing this. while we can argue that individuals who are opposed to SSM don't oppose out of animus, DOMA absolutely is about animus.

as for Prop 8, i point people back to the Prop 8 transcripts from the trial that aptly demonstrated that, yes, Prop 8 was conceived in animus, and the Prop 8 team was unable to provide a single witness -- a single witness -- who could demonstrate any conceivable harm that SSM would do to any sentient being in California.

there is no correlation between expressing moral disapproval of SSM and moral disapproval of murder, as Scalia has said. there is harm with murder. there is harm with stealing. there is harm with man on dog relationships.

the only harm with homosexuality is that which is done to gay people themselves by a society that expresses moral disapproval and then codifies that prejudice into law. and there is clear harm done, as Kennedy eloquently stated:

“DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others… The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity. By seeking to displace this protection and treating those persons as living in marriages less respected than others, the federal statute is in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

and that's really all there is to it. within 5 years we'll have SSM in at least a majority of states.

goodbye to all that.

you can disapprove of me all you like, but you can't use the law to force me into second class citizenship any longer.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

because gay people are the real bullies?

no one would be tolerant of blatant racism, misogyny, anti-semitism, etc. opposition to SSM isn't something principled, beyond vague religious objections or incredibly tortured logic.

I assume most U2 fans are intelligent, educated adults. I doubt more than a few of them are really these things you list here.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

I assume most U2 fans are intelligent, educated adults. I doubt very few of them are really these things you attribute to them.

which is why anti-gay arguments are obliterated in here.

[AEON]

I thought this was a well written response that captures what many intelligent, loving men and women believe.

ORTHODOX UNION STATEMENT ON TODAY’S SUPREME COURT RULINGS

Today, the leadership of the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America issued the following statement:

“In response to the decisions announced today by the United States Supreme Court with reference to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8, we reiterate the historical position of the Jewish faith, enunciated unequivocally in our Bible, Talmud and Codes, which forbids homosexual relationships and condemns the institutionalization of such relationships as marriages. Our religion is emphatic in defining marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman. Our beliefs in this regard are unalterable. At the same time, we note that Judaism teaches respect for others and we condemn discrimination against individuals.

We are grateful that we live in a democratic society, in which all religions are free to express their opinions about social issues and to advocate vigorously for those opinions. The reason we opt to express our viewpoint in a public forum is because we believe that our Divine system of law not only dictates our beliefs and behaviors, but also represents a system of universal morality, and therefore can stake a claim in the national discourse. That morality, expressed in what has broadly been labeled Judeo-Christian ethics, has long had a place in American law and jurisprudence.

We also recognize that no religion has the right to dictate its beliefs to the entire body politic and we do not expect that secular law will always align with our viewpoint. Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect.

The Orthodox Union is proud to assert its beliefs and principles in the public forum, and will continue to do so in a manner that is tolerant and respectful of all of our nation's citizens, but which is also authentically based upon our sacred ancient texts and time-honored traditions.”

[Jive Turkey]

God created marriage hahahahaha

Originally Posted by anitram

Because not all opinions require tolerance.

Indy fully deserves the beating he gets. Having the opinion of a bigot isn't something to be treated with respect.
That opinions like his get torn to shreds by nearly everyone is a hopeful sign that archaic world views like his are nearly dead

[Galeongirl]

Originally Posted by AEON

I am sorry you feel like this. Of course, with a viewpoint like this, you can see why it is not exactly fun to disagree with you in a forum.

There's plenty of tolerance here from our side, but when someone comes in with bold statements that knowingly piss people off and then leave without actually discussing anything? I'm sorry, but I feel no respect for that. I've tried to engage INDY in conversation plenty of times, honestly interested in why he thinks I can't love or marry my girlfriend, yet I have not received an answer. That kind of behaviour doesn't show much respect to me..

Quote:

Marriage was created by the hand of God. No man, not even a Supreme Court, can undo what a holy God has instituted.

Really? Is there a source that marriage was created by god? Or is this proof that God is truly created by humans after all, since marriage was too?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Jive Turkey

God created marriage hahahahaha

Having the opinion of a bigot...

wikipedia

Name calling is a cognitive bias and a technique to promote propaganda. Propagandists use the name-calling technique to incite fears or arouse positive prejudices with the intent that invoked fear (based on fearmongering tactics) or trust will encourage those that read, see or hear propaganda to construct a negative opinion, in respect to the former, or a positive opinion, with respect to the latter, about a person, group, or set of beliefs or ideas that the propagandist would wish the recipients to believe.

The method is intended to provoke conclusions and actions about a matter apart from an impartial examinations of the facts of the matter. When this tactic is used instead of an argument, name-calling is thus a substitute for rational, fact-based arguments against an idea or belief, based upon its own merits, and becomes an argumentum ad hominem.[1]

Name calling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Essentially, using "Name Calling" in an argument technique is the lowest form of rhetoric.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

I thought this was a well written response that captures what many intelligent, loving men and women believe.

this is respectfully stated, but an appeal to religion as a motivation for denying legal rights to others isn't terribly full of love and/or respect.

one is free to believe whatever one wants, but religious freedom doesn't mean one gets to break laws or deny rights to others.

your religion may tell you to murder your daughter if she has sex before marriage, but you can't actually murder your daughter if she has sex before marriage.

it is true that it might be slightly more uncomfortable for people who are against SSM to live in a world where there is SSM, but that's about it. no rights are denied to people, nor is religious freedom curtailed when gay people marry each other. they can hold and express any opinions they want, just as they can with objections to interracial marriage or marriage between atheists, but they shouldn't expect that this belief gives them the right to take away rights from others.

[martha]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

-- a single witness -- who could demonstrate any conceivable harm that SSM would do to any sentient being in California.

This is the core of the thing. All the pursed lips, shakes of the head, and Biblical references of the capital letter posters here still don't demonstrate that SSM would harm them.

All the wounded pride and the threats to leave FYM still don't equal evidence that anyone is harmed by two law-abiding, tax-paying, consenting adults getting married.

To paraphrase my favorite pro-choce slogan: Against gay marriage? Then don't have one.

[AEON]

Deleted

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by AEON

Name calling - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Essentially, using "Name Calling" in an argument technique is the lowest form of rhetoric.

What does this have to do with Michelle Bachman claiming god created marriage?

Or is calling a bigot a bigot suddenly "name calling"? I wasn't engaged in any debate. I was stating why Indy's views aren't tolerated.

[Irvine511]

i swore i wouldn't engage, but ...

Scalia the Mullah
The justice’s misunderstanding of morality, and how it leads him astray in cases about homosexuality.

By Nathaniel Frank|Posted Tuesday, June 25, 2013, at 3:07 PM
451
132


In a speech last week titled “Mullahs of the West: Judges as Moral Arbiters,” Justice Antonin Scalia told the North Carolina Bar Association that the court has no place acting as a “judge moralist” in issues better left to the people. Since judges aren’t qualified—or constitutionally authorized—to set moral standards, he argued, the people should decide what’s morally acceptable.

But does Scalia, whose quarter-century on the bench has marked him as the court’s moral scold for his finger-wagging views on social issues, have a coherent understanding of what it means to say something is or isn’t moral, and of morality’s proper role in the law?

Scalia would have you believe it’s liberal, pro-gay sympathizers who are imposing their own brand of moral laxity on the nation, and unconstitutionally using the courts to do it. His angry dissent in the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas case ending sodomy bans—decided 10 years ago this week—blasted the court for embracing “a law-profession culture that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda [which is] directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct.”

Ever since, Scalia has been railing against the loss of “moral opprobrium” as a legitimate basis for passing laws. Scalia implies that whatever the people feel should rule the day, constitutional rights be damned. “Countless judicial decisions and legislative enactments,” he wrote, “have relied on the ancient proposition that a governing majority's belief that certain sexual behavior is ‘immoral and unacceptable’ constitutes a rational basis for regulation.” A long string of state laws, he argued, are “sustainable only in light of” the court’s “validation of laws based on moral choices,” including bans on incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, public indecency and selling sex toys.

Yet as Sandra Day O’Connor pointed out in her concurring opinion in Lawrence, that’s not actually true. At least when you’re singling out a group for separate treatment. “We have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons.”

Scalia may wish that moral disapproval alone were a legitimate basis to discriminate, but if you read his Lawrence dissent closely, you’ll find evidence that he knows he’s lost that battle: The giveaway is that he nearly always pairs his references to morality with some other asserted state interest. He defends the people’s right to legislate their belief that some forms of sex are “immoral and unacceptable,” to oppose, by law, “a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive,” and to pass public indecency statutes to protect “order and morality.”

The American legal system, while making some room for moral complaint in law, has nearly always paired it with some more concrete form of harm. According to the legal scholar Diane Mazur, the Supreme Court has, for most of its history, combined reference to morality with other actual harms such as threats to order, health, safety and welfare. It decided cases on the importation of slaves based on the “health and morals” of the people; it decided whether to permit a civil rights march based on its impact on the town’s “safety, health, decency, good order, morals or convenience”; and it decided cases about nude dancing based on a state’s interest in “protecting societal order and morality.”

In each case, “morality” seems an afterthought—something that legislators or judges throw into the mix to make a point, but never the real basis of law. If what’s really at issue are acts that threaten safety, health, and order, why do people like Scalia keep insisting that mere moral disapproval, rather than preventing harm, should be a constitutionally legitimate basis to limit people’s rights?

The entire anti-gay movement has gotten this memo. Which is why arguments that gay people are sick, disgusting and all-around morally bad have yielded, since the 1990s, to arguments alleging that gays threaten to cause concrete harm to American families and institutions. Of course, many social conservatives, often animated by their religious traditions, still believe homosexuality is immoral. And this view occasionally still appears in arguments against gay marriage, as when the proponents of Prop 8 claimed that the initiative advances “important societal interests” like accommodating the rights of those who “support the traditional definition of marriage on religious or moral grounds.”

But these days anti-gay advocates mostly stick to claims of harm, even bending over backward to insist they don’t view homosexuality as a moral issue. Societies have historically restricted marriage to opposite-sex pairs, argued Prop 8’s defenders, “not because individuals in such relationships are virtuous or morally praiseworthy, but because of the unique potential such relationships have either to harm, or to further, society’s vital interest in responsible procreation and childrearing.”

If you’re obsessed with morality, like Scalia, that approach must be irritating indeed. Scalia seems to reduce morality to feelings and tastes alone. He wants judges to get out of the way and respect that “people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough” to pass laws against them. For him, it was the very “impossibility of distinguishing homosexuality from other traditional ‘morals’ offenses” that allowed the court to ban sodomy prior to Lawrence.

But homosexuality is distinguishable from other morals “offenses.” Assisted suicide, incest, adultery, pornography—all these arguably cause some form of harm to living creatures, while two women loving each other just doesn’t. We can argue this point and debate the subtleties of that harm—Is a fetus a full human with capacity for pain? Does pornography necessarily degrade women? Indeed the healthy—and genuinely moral—society is the one that does debate these points instead of lumping together whatever scrunches up our noses into the amorphous category of a moral wrong.

What we should no longer be able to get away with in the 21st century is calling something immoral just because we don’t like it. Genuine moral judgment is not reducible to whatever people feel, what they like or don’t like. (Isn’t that what lax liberals are alleged to believe?) Morality is not just whatever views a majority has long held, and it’s not simply what you learned on your mother’s knee or whatever it says in your faith’s scripture. Moral belief is a grounded judgment about what harms or helps living things. Yet somehow, homosexuality’s become just about the only thing left that people get to call immoral without every explaining why.

If equal treatment of gay people harms society, that alleged harm should be debated. But trying to defend discrimination by giving free rein to some people’s moral disapproval of homosexuality is a losing battle, and a shockingly sloppy mode of thinking about what “morality” actually means. Morality actually has a rational basis; moralists, not so much.

Scalia and gay marriage: How the justice misunderstands morality. - Slate Magazine

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by AEON

Deleted

why?

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

this is respectfully stated, but an appeal to religion as a motivation for denying legal rights to others isn't terribly full of love and/or respect.

Well, yes, it is an appeal to religion. But it would seem they appeal to religion in every aspect of their lives, not just this issue. "Religion" is the source of their wisdom. I would also imagine that they would also argue that God is the source of all love and/or respect.

Originally Posted by Irvine511

one is free to believe whatever one wants, but religious freedom doesn't mean one gets to break laws or deny rights to others.

from the article...

...We also recognize that no religion has the right to dictate its beliefs to the entire body politic and we do not expect that secular law will always align with our viewpoint. Ultimately, decisions on social policy remain with the democratic process, and today the process has spoken and we accord the process and its result the utmost respect.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

why?

I was going to ask you what your motivation was - to vent rage or to have a discussion.

Then you answered the article I posted in a very polite, respectful manner. So to me, you answered the question.

I did not know it was there long enough for anyone to see. Otherwise I would have left it.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by AEON

Well, yes, it is an appeal to religion. But it would seem they appeal to religion in every aspect of their lives, not just this issue. "Religion" is the source of their wisdom. I would also imagine that they would also argue that God is the source of all love and/or respect.

But it's also their source for intolerance and disdain. Why does religion get a pass on this? Why isn't "well, I think homosexuality is wrong because my Dad is a lifelong Storm Front member and it was hammered into me from a young age" given the kid glove treatment?