SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage - Page 11 - 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 10-07-2008, 01:54 AM   #201
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 08:39 PM
Quote:
Really. So the American system of government has nothing to do at all with protecting democratic principles and values of, say, freedom of speech? Or separation of church and state? Or separation of the powers?
Those are not inherently democratic values, that is the point that I have consistently made. Free speech and secularism would get wiped out at the ballot box, having it protected in the constitution it is out of reach, its really quite commendable.
Quote:
No one's saying it doesn't. But is it normative? Should it be equated as such?
Homosexuality is normal, gays shouldn't experience discrimination in the law, the government shouldn't be intervening in peoples sex lives.
Quote:
And the freedom to marry anyone I would like and call it marriage isn't in the constitution. So I guess tyranny affects us all in different ways.
I am not a constitutional scholar, although I have heard that the 14th Amendment has some relevance.
Quote:
No, I merely point out that the freedom to marry anyone I want has limitations too.
Those limitations are hardly equivalent to those placed on gays, your making a statement not an argument and one which underscores the state sponsored discrimination that you advocate.
__________________

A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 05:26 AM   #202
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 30,343
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
I would argue just that.

That of course men and women are inherently different and therefore not interchangeable.
That, of course a child benefits from being raised by both a father and a mother.
And that, while this ideal may not always occur because of divorce, death, abandonment et cetera, that only same-sex marriage ensures that it doesn't.

Not bigotry, just the truth.
God, do I hate willful ignorance.

Anyone remember the poster Varitek? She doesn't post much anymore because she's studying abroad in Europe, but she is the child of a lesbian couple. And she could come in here right now and point-by-point explain to you how her childhood was just as "beneficial" as any other one.

Defining that as an ideal, and saying that same-sex couples can never provide for their kids as well as heterosexuals, is not only blatantly false, it's pure, 100%, hateful bigotry. At this point you've heard way too many facts and opposing viewpoints from people who've actually lived it for it to be anything other than willfully ignorant bigotry.

My hope is that posts like this, in the near future, would get one suspended on a forum like this.
__________________

phillyfan26 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 06:45 AM   #203
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
Moms and dads are different, contrasting yet complementary, where do I come up with this stuff?

But they aren't always "complementary". And what is your experience with gay couples that say they don't compliment each other? Common sense tells me; very little.
BVS is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 07:49 AM   #204
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
"Credible studies" What the hell was I thinking just relying on the obvious and common sense? Moms and dads are different, contrasting yet complementary, where do I come up with this stuff?
Who needs things like facts, research and observation, when we can rely on good, old fashioned folksy wisdom?

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and He placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with His arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that He separated the races shows that He did not intend for the races to mix." - Judge Leon Bazile, echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th century "folksy wisdom" on race, in the court decision that preceded Loving v. Virginia

"Where do you come up with this stuff?" They're called stereotypes, which are nearly always the foundation for bigotry.
melon is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 08:35 AM   #205
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
where do I come up with this stuff?
Apparently, you pull it out of your ass.
martha is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 08:37 AM   #206
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by maycocksean View Post

Hey, did anyone ever see that show "My Three Sons" ? I don't think there were any women in that household but seems the guys turned out fine. . .I mean if we're using 1950's-60's TV shows as moral compasses. . .
My mom watched My Three Sons religiously.

Eventually the dad remarried and the oldest son married, bringing some chicks into the picture. Before that, though, it was just the dad, the boys, and that male housekeeper. What were his duties, anyway?
martha is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 08:39 AM   #207
Blue Crack Supplier
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,555
Local Time: 03:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
And, as we know, every red-blooded 100% heterosexual father has been perfect. Just. Like. Him.
You're right. All those restraining orders against straight dads are all lies. LIES!















Art you sure he's not hot?
martha is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 08:54 AM   #208
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by A_Wanderer View Post
Those are not inherently democratic values, that is the point that I have consistently made. Free speech and secularism would get wiped out at the ballot box, having it protected in the constitution it is out of reach, its really quite commendable.
So....government DOES exist to protect certain values? Huh. So who gets to decide which values are protected? The voters? Or a minority?

Quote:
the government shouldn't be intervening in peoples sex lives.
The government isn't intervening in people's sex lives. People can have sex with whomever they want. But it's a real stretch to go from that to say that the government should recognize and support people's sex lives. If anything, you're contradicting yourself.

Quote:
I am not a constitutional scholar, although I have heard that the 14th Amendment has some relevance.
The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Lopez cites and rejects the Equal Protection Amendment when applied to same-sex marriage when it says, discussing the "Loving" case:

"Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations". Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation."
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:08 AM   #209
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
So....government DOES exist to protect certain values? Huh. So who gets to decide which values are protected? The voters? Or a minority?
A mature democracy protects the inalienable rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Those governments that don't experience sectarian violence and effectively do not function. Some rights are not up for a vote--hence, the concept of "inalienable rights."

Quote:
The Majority Opinion of the New York Court of Appeals in Hernandez v. Lopez cites and rejects the Equal Protection Amendment when applied to same-sex marriage when it says, discussing the "Loving" case:

"Although the Court characterized the right to marry as a "choice," it did not articulate the broad "right to marry the spouse of one's choice" suggested by plaintiffs here. Rather, the Court observed that "[t]he Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations". Needless to say, a statutory scheme that burdens a fundamental right by making conduct criminal based on the race of the individual who engages in it is inimical to the values embodied in the state and federal Due Process clauses. Far from recognizing a right to marry extending beyond the one woman and one man union, it is evident from the Loving decision that the Supreme Court viewed marriage as fundamental precisely because of its relationship to human procreation."
No different, frankly, from the nonsensical reasoning behind Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that affirmed the constitutionality of racial segregation in light of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment ("separate but equal"). Plessy v. Ferguson was always wrong, even if it lasted for 58 years unchallenged until Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Justice John Marshall Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson deserves repeating:

"But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law."

Amen.

Eventually, this nonsensical ruling--where, at all, did Loving v. Virginia reference procreation in ruling in favor of mixed-race marriages?--will get overturned, even if it takes another 58 years to do so.
melon is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:24 AM   #210
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
A mature democracy protects the inalienable rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Agreed. We all have the right to life, liberty, and property. Whether marriage comes under those rights, and how it does, is certainly up for debate. Shouldn't the debate about how marriage is to be defined, particularly since we all seem to agree that it is one of the bedrocks of society, be up for discussion amongst the members of that society?

Quote:
where, at all, did Loving v. Virginia reference procreation in ruling in favor of mixed-race marriages?
As Hernandez v. Lopez rightly pointed out, the implications of Loving should not be misapplied: "There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation."

Hernandez v. Lopez also pointed out:

"Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

Indeed...
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:32 AM   #211
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Biology is sexist? Geez, Irvine, even at the most fundamental level you need sperm and an egg -- "male and female." So you've got bigger fish to fry...


what is sexist is ascribing social roles to people on the basis of their sperm or eggs and not on the basis of their interests and ability.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:36 AM   #212
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by INDY500 View Post
"Credible studies" What the hell was I thinking just relying on the obvious and common sense? Moms and dads are different, contrasting yet complementary, where do I come up with this stuff?


actually, if you really want to look at studies, they're starting to suggest that, in some areas, children do best with two moms.

that and they're far, far less likely to be sexually abused in female/female households because the #1 abusers of children are straight men. fathers, uncles, etc.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:36 AM   #213
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
what is sexist is ascribing social roles to people on the basis of their sperm or eggs and not on the basis of their interests and ability.
I've pointed out repeatedly that biology, chemistry, and sociology have maybe more than a little to do with gender. You're the one who seems to be arguing in the face of reality.
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:37 AM   #214
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Agreed. We all have the right to life, liberty, and property. Whether marriage comes under those rights, and how it does, is certainly up for debate. Shouldn't the debate about how marriage is to be defined, particularly since we all seem to agree that it is one of the bedrocks of society, be up for discussion amongst the members of that society?
When the discourse of the "debate" involves shrill stereotypes that are indefensible rationally and appeals to fabricated fantasies of tradition (i.e., 1950s TV shows), it's not hard to see why the discourse has devolved as it has.

Quote:
As Hernandez v. Lopez rightly pointed out, the implications of Loving should not be misapplied: "There is no question that the Court viewed this antimiscegenation statute as an affront to the very purpose for the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment—to combat invidious racial discrimination. In its brief due process analysis, the Supreme Court reiterated that marriage is a right "fundamental to our very existence and survival" (id., citing Skinner, 316 US at 541)—a clear reference to the link between marriage and procreation."

Hernandez v. Lopez also pointed out:

"Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

Indeed...
Thankfully, this is a U.S. Appeals Court ruling and not a Supreme Court ruling. I have made it quite clear that I disagree with the entire substance of this ruling, and the reasoning is on par with Plessy v. Ferguson, frankly. That is, "we all have rights," except for "those people," because it "has always been that way." Essentially, I think they tailored their argument like many lower court rulings do: they do a complete end around the substance of law and court precedent to avoid being the party responsible for changing the status quo.

Let no one think otherwise that the march for equality is anything less than two steps forward and one step back.
melon is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:38 AM   #215
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Ásgarðr
Posts: 11,782
Local Time: 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
that and they're far, far likely to be sexually abused in female/female households because the #1 abusers of children are straight men. fathers, uncles, etc.
I presume you meant less likely, according to your line of reasoning.
melon is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:39 AM   #216
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,232
Local Time: 05:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Agreed. We all have the right to life, liberty, and property. Whether marriage comes under those rights, and how it does, is certainly up for debate. Shouldn't the debate about how marriage is to be defined, particularly since we all seem to agree that it is one of the bedrocks of society, be up for discussion amongst the members of that society?
But here's what I don't get. How does a change in defintion change your marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
Hernandez v. Lopez also pointed out:

"Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude."

Indeed...
So now we're back to the weak-ass argument of 'status-quo'?
BVS is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:41 AM   #217
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
When the discourse of the "debate" involves shrill stereotypes that are indefensible rationally and appeals to fabricated fantasies of tradition (i.e., 1950s TV shows), it's not hard to see why the discourse has devolved as it has.
Who exactly on this board has appealed to Ozzie and Harriet except for maycocksean? I think we've enjoyed a remarkably civilized discussion on these matters, citing legal precedent etc.
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:41 AM   #218
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathan1977 View Post
I've pointed out repeatedly that biology, chemistry, and sociology have maybe more than a little to do with gender. You're the one who seems to be arguing in the face of reality.


of course they have something to do with gender, but the point is flying by you, nathan -- people should not be limited to what they can and cannot do, nor told explicitly what they can and should do, on the basis of their gender.

this is really basic stuff.

and you've yet to point out what it is that *only* a (straight) father can do and that only a (straight) mother can do and then the different aspects of this magical alchemy that confers unto children a good and happy life.

it's absurd on it's face. families come in all shapes and sizes. horrible families have two straight parents who love one another. wonderful families could be a mother and a grandmother raising their kids.

what's wrong is for you to take your model and assume that one size fits all, and not just that, assume that there is only acceptable size ever, and that all else should be kicked out of the human family.
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:42 AM   #219
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Strong Badia
Posts: 3,443
Local Time: 10:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar View Post
So now we're back to the weak-ass argument of 'status-quo'?
By "status quo", do you mean such apparently-trivial matters as historical precedent and human development?
nathan1977 is offline  
Old 10-07-2008, 09:42 AM   #220
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 33,390
Local Time: 06:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by melon View Post
I presume you meant less likely, according to your line of reasoning.


edited. thanks.
__________________

Irvine511 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 05:39 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×