Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on!
Quote | Reply
The Supreme Court will hear the Proposition 8 case and DOMA appeals. I am not totally sure of the logic for hearing the Prop 8 case, but it certainly should be an interesting session. Looking forward to hearing Scalia turn into a pretzel, trying to argue against state's rights in DOMA.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
With nearly 20% of stated now allowing gay marriage, this will be the final nail in the coffin against marriage inequality.

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm not so sure about that.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
I'm not so sure about that.

It's gonna happen, That shits getting struck the fuck down

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
National support for gay marriage is now about on par with the percent of heterosexual marriages that fail.

the nation is ready. Let's see if the old guys in the black robes are.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Almost all companies health insurance plans no cover "partners", so the law is actually behind the times in where society and businesses are regarding gay marriage.

oldandslow, think of it, you'll be able to marry any man you want ;-)
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
veganerd wrote:
BarryP wrote:
I'm not so sure about that.


It's gonna happen, That shits getting struck the fuck down

I'd be surprised if they strike down Prop 8.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [veganerd] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I live in Washington state and yesterday I wrote on Facebook that it was a good day to live in WA. My best friend wrote "Why, because we can get married or because we can get stoned?" Ha ha!

I don't know the specifics on what the appeals are based on that got the cases to the SC. I'm hopeful they'll have a hard time justifying inequality in the laws and same sex marriage will finally be legal at the federal level, like marriage between and man and a woman is.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen

"In order to keep a true perspective on one's importance, everyone should have a dog that worships him and a cat that will ignore him." - Dereke Bruce
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
veganerd wrote:
BarryP wrote:
I'm not so sure about that.


It's gonna happen, That shits getting struck the fuck down


I'd be surprised if they strike down Prop 8.

Prepare to be surprised sometime next spring!

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I'd be surprised if they strike down Prop 8.

I'm wondering how the decision to hear Proposition 8 came about. The narrow ruling overturning Prop 8 was extremely uninteresting, since it only specifically dealt with California. Subsequent events in public opinion have overtaken any narrow SCOTUS decision, since a narrow ruling overturning Prop 8 is the same as refuing to hear it, while a ruling upholding Prop 8 will easily be overturned by the voters during the next election (support for gay marriage has risen to 60% in California). The only purpose for a hearing on Prop 8 would seem to be a home run attempt to invalidate ALL state bans, something that will certainly happen in the future, but is probably too big a a stretch for the SCOTUS at this point in history. Of course, they ruled on Loving v. Virginia when 90% of people opposed mixed marriage....
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [Duffy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Duffy wrote:
veganerd wrote:
BarryP wrote:
I'm not so sure about that.


It's gonna happen, That shits getting struck the fuck down


I'd be surprised if they strike down Prop 8.

It's already been struck down twice. Each federal challenge to the law succeeded.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [scorpio516] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
scorpio516 wrote:
Duffy wrote:
veganerd wrote:
BarryP wrote:
I'm not so sure about that.


It's gonna happen, That shits getting struck the fuck down


I'd be surprised if they strike down Prop 8.


It's already been struck down twice. Each federal challenge to the law succeeded.

By the 9th circuit (in a very narrow, technical ruling). The 9th is the most overturned court. They're generally looney tunes. I think the fact that the appeal to the Supremes is coming from a 9th circuit ruling is one of the reasons they are even hearing it.

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I kind of agree with my wife on this. If gay marriage is ruled to have the same benefits and rights of traditional marriage, what's next? Why is gay marriage now OK? Why not bigamy, polygamy, getting married to an animal, a minor? Changes to the accepted subjective morality can lead a society down a slippery slope. Same goes for pot laws.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [tigermilk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If gay marriage is ok to be banned, what next? Interracial marriage? Changes to the accepted subjective morality can lead society down a slippery slope. Same goes for pot laws. What next? Alcohol?

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [tigermilk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
>I kind of agree with my wife on this. If gay marriage is ruled to have the same benefits and rights of traditional marriage, what's next? Why is gay marriage now OK? Why not bigamy, polygamy, getting married to an animal, a minor? Changes to the >accepted subjective morality can lead a society down a slippery slope. Same goes for pot laws.

The slippery slope argument/fallacy works both ways. Government restriction of rights is a slippery slope towards totalitarian Naziism. (you brought up donkey-porking so it's only fair.)
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
BarryP wrote:
If gay marriage is ok to be banned, what next? Interracial marriage?

Apple meet orange.


~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
The Supreme Court will hear the Proposition 8 case and DOMA appeals. I am not totally sure of the logic for hearing the Prop 8 case, but it certainly should be an interesting session. Looking forward to hearing Scalia turn into a pretzel, trying to argue against state's rights in DOMA.

Are you also looking forward to the chief Justice potentially making a decision based on politics and public opinion as opposed to the law?


~
"You lie!" The Prophet Joe Wilson
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [Rodred] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Are you also looking forward to the chief Justice potentially making a decision based on politics and public opinion as opposed to the law?

If the law is unjust and public opinion recognizes that then yes, every fucking time i want the justices to rule atgainst the unjust law.y

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [Rodred] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Apple meet orange.


Thanks for making my point for me.


"If gay marriage is ruled to have the same benefits and rights of traditional marriage, what's next? Why is gay marriage now OK? Why not bigamy, polygamy, getting married to an animal, a minor?"


Apple meet oranges.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [tigermilk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Why not bigamy, polygamy, getting married to an animal, a minor? Changes to the accepted subjective morality can lead a society down a slippery slope.

Because they are different? Slippery slope fallacies have been covered here a time or a thousand. There was a thread about the crucial differences between polygamy and SSM last month. The bestiality/pedophilia examples are so offbase, they don't deserve a response (Google 'consent').
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
oldandslow wrote:
The Supreme Court will hear the Proposition 8 case and DOMA appeals. I am not totally sure of the logic for hearing the Prop 8 case, but it certainly should be an interesting session. Looking forward to hearing Scalia turn into a pretzel, trying to argue against state's rights in DOMA.


Interesting but needed to be done. I think the underlying reason for taking on Prop 8 is the precedents that could be set regarding states rights. A voter referendum that essentially bars a gov't granted right to a segment of society could set a huge precedent if allowed to go through. It could be used for years to come to support legalization of marijuana or any vice by referendum or even enslavement of a population based on mob rule. Personally, I don't agree with Prop 8 and find the idea vile, but I also do not like the stance the 9th Circuit Court took. I find the fact they are overturned so frequently to be a shining example of judicial activism. But again, I don't support the underlying law they abolished.

DOMA is an example of a law that should never be passed by a federal gov't and is a living example of the failure of a federal system. Such a polarizing law that really has no concensus in terms of a "general welfare" benefit should be voided. However, it does appear to be a redundancy of laws. States are not required to recipricate licenses on anything, so why marriage. I guess the details come in the form of accepting some licenses but not others. Honestly I do not know enough about the law as I have no skin in the game and have other issues I would rather deal with then culture war issues.

With that said, the majority of those who disagree with DOMA, probably supported Obamacare, and guess what, I could see this one passing for much the same reason Obamacare did. Not because of the merits of the constitution, but like Roberts stated "We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."

Based on this precedence, I could see DOMA passing. I hope not, but we'll see. It would be poetic justice if the group that seemed to support judicial tyranny for something they wished are screwed by similar judicial tyranny? In fact, I have even heard that that was the Roberts Endgame. Legitimize the court with a controversial position taken by his biggest critics on the left on an issue that was inevitable so that he could would legitimacy to attack issues that he politically supports down the road.


"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden
Last edited by: TheForge: Dec 10, 12 10:28
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
There was a thread about the crucial differences between polygamy and SSM last month.

There are no crucial differences between polygamy and SSM such that SSM must be allowed on rights grounds and polygamy can be banned.


Arguing that we're not already on a slippery slope when it comes to marriage is ridiculous. We clearly are, and the indicators are all around us; academic discussions over the end of marriage altogether, calls to allow virtually every type of relationship to be labeled "marriage," the recent introduction of the idea of temporary marriage in Mexico, to the increasing number of people who apparently think the government should get out of marriage altogether. Heck, the Atlantic had an article last month that argued that single people should have weddings, too.

I'm not even sure, at this point, why SSM advocates argue that there isn't a slippery slope. What have you got against polygamy? The ick factor?









"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [tigermilk] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Changes to the accepted subjective morality can lead a society down a slippery slope."

Canada legalized gay marriage several years ago and the country didn't burn in a hail of fire and brimestone. Life just went on as normal the day after. Now its become a non issue. If two gays want to call themselves married let them. The only people that it makes any difference to are the divorce lawyers because now they will have more work.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
When support for polygamy in society and law parallels support for gay marriage you win, until then you lose and the slippery slope must remain a fallacy. I previously put forth differences between the two which clearly explain why reality is so at odds with your argument (equal rights, role of women, entitlement programs, artificial insemination, move away from an agrarian society, etc.). The differences remain and have convinced a sizeable number of people, whether you acknowledge them or not.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
When support for polygamy in society and law parallels support for gay marriage you win, until then you lose and the slippery slope must remain a fallacy.

Support for polygamy in society? That dog won't hunt. This isn't a popularity contest, remember? This is about people's rights. The question is not appropriately decided by majority vote.
Bigots shouldn't be allowed to deny people their rights.

You're better off just embracing that slippery slope. It's inevitable anyway, why fight it when doing so only makes you look like a hypocrite?










"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
The "slippery slope" designation can only apply if the ultimate argument is against gay marriage. Using the same principles to legalize other kinds of marriage is something entirely different.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If you wsnt to use the slippery slope argument then be consistent and start from the begining.

If we let straight couples marry then soon all the dog fuckers are going to start marrying and fucking your dogs.....marriage is a slippery slope!

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:

Support for polygamy in society? That dog won't hunt.


Sure it will, and that dog has eaten your dog for lunch. Believe it or not law must at some level align with society. If you refuse to ignore that, and continue to ignore the specific points that I raised which clearly show the differences between polygamy and SSM, that's fine. Your particular argument has been losing for several decades and will continue on that inglorious path for a while longer. It's so funny that you cavalierly ignore the whole of human history (societies have often had polygamy and no gay rights, where was your slippery slope then???)
Last edited by: oldandslow: Dec 10, 12 12:37
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Believe it or not law must at some level align with society.

You crack me up.
Are you really arguing that a minority's civil rights can be ignored if the majority in society just don't like them?

continue to ignore the specific points that I raised which clearly show the differences between polygamy and SSM, that's fine.


I'm sorry, I'm not really clear on what specific points they were, and why you think they'd justify violating polygamists' rights to marry who they want. Explain it to me?

It's so funny that you cavalierly ignore the whole of human history (societies have often had polygamy and no gay rights, where was your slippery slope???)


It's funny that someone who supports SSM and opposes polygamy is accusing me of ignoring the whole of human history, while simultaneously acknowledging that polygamy, at least, has precedence.

I don't argue that there's some magical link between SSM and polygamy such that if one is allowed, the other is always and everywhere inevitable. What I've said, and continue to say, is that if SSM is recognized on the grounds on which it's being argued for- that, essentially, people have a right to marry whoever they choose, and it's unfair to deny them the opportunity to marry who they love- then there is no legitimate grounds on which polygamy and a variety of other marital relationships can be denied.

Again, this isn't hypothetical, and it really isn't even arguable. There have already been calls to allow polygamy, on the same grounds advocates argue for SSM. There have already been calls to allow people to classify whatever relationship they happen to be in as marriage. You're behind the curve on this one. Better hurry and catch up.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
the recent introduction of the idea of temporary marriage in Mexico

Temporary marriage is not new--in fact, it's (at least) many hundreds of years old. So if there is a "slippery slope" at play here, it's more like a "slippery false flat".

Here's a primer on its use under one of the world's most oppressive regimes. Enjoy the reading. It's interesting.

http://www.library.cornell.edu/.../mideast/tmpmrig.htm

___________________________
De que depende?
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [Blue Rider] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Temporary marriage is not new--in fact, it's (at least) many hundreds of years old.

It's new to us. And by "us," I mean Western Civilization.


I'm not sure how similar the Mexican proposal is to sigheh, either.









"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Oh, and another thing:

People love to point out all the varying forms marriage has taken in different cultures throughout human history. Many people never seem to notice the one constant within all of those forms. Wonder what it could be . . .








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:

Believe it or not law must at some level align with society.

You crack me up.
Are you really arguing that a minority's civil rights can be ignored if the majority in society just don't like them?



That's been happening for ... well, for all of human history. Generally, society decides that there is an overriding rationale or basis for making a law. We spent over a century denying the rights of women to vote, we spent two centuries denying the rights of gays in almost all areas of society. Jesus did not abolish slavery, although it is pretty safe to say that he would have made that a part of his moral teaching if he had been around two hundred years ago. With regard to homosexuality, there are a number of court cases which go into great length as to why society does not have a rational basis for discriminating against gays. The arguments are very specific to homosexual relationships, and do not apply to animals/children/multiple partners/etc.


Quote:

continue to ignore the specific points that I raised which clearly show the differences between polygamy and SSM, that's fine.

I'm sorry, I'm not really clear on what specific points they were, and why you think they'd justify violating polygamists' rights to marry who they want. Explain it to me?



Here is a link: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/cgi-bin/gforum.cgi?post=4291721;search_string=polygamy%20slope;#4291721


Quote:

It's so funny that you cavalierly ignore the whole of human history (societies have often had polygamy and no gay rights, where was your slippery slope???)

I don't argue that there's some magical link between SSM and polygamy such that if one is allowed, the other is always and everywhere inevitable. What I've said, and continue to say, is that if SSM is recognized on the grounds on which it's being argued for- that, essentially, people have a right to marry whoever they choose, and it's unfair to deny them the opportunity to marry who they love- then there is no legitimate grounds on which polygamy and a variety of other marital relationships can be denied.

Again, this isn't hypothetical, and it really isn't even arguable. There have already been calls to allow polygamy, on the same grounds advocates argue for SSM. There have already been calls to allow people to classify whatever relationship they happen to be in as marriage. You're behind the curve on this one. Better hurry and catch up.


First, thank you for admitting (finally) that there isn't a necessary link between SSM and other marriage issues. I would say that you are conveniently misrepresenting the pro-SSM argument -- It is not "people have a right to marry whoever they choose." Rather, the argument is that two adult, non-related people should be allowed to freely marry each other (with the concommitant mutual rights and responsibilities). A short while ago, the view (and law) was that two adult non-related people of the same race should only be allowed to marry each other. Expanding the definition to include polygamy is a big jump (arguably bigger than the jump from mixed marriage to SSM), which is why the slippery slope argument has been failing. The present emphasis on equal rights is a big impediment to support for polygamy. The argument over SSM is done anyway. When homosexuality ceased to be taboo, SSM became inevitable. At present monogamy is still a strong societal preference for monogamy. There are many specific arguments against polygamy which will have to be overcome.
Last edited by: oldandslow: Dec 10, 12 14:29
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not to be nitpicky but no, that's not true. The Romans and Greeks had same sex marriage but it was outlawed when Christianity became popular.

General comment:

I believe homosexuals are born homosexuals.

I see this as the equivalent of punishing people for being gay. They do NOT get the same benefits as "married" couples. There are inheritance implications for one. To get a rundown of the differences, read this:

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/same-sex-marriage-pros-cons-30219.html

The first couple in King County to be granted a marriage license has been together for 35 years. Many of the couples have been together for 5+ years. Longer than most heterosexual engagements. The pictures from the granting of licenses and weddings at city hall are very emotional. It is hard to look at those pictures and think they don't deserve the same rights as same sex couples. I can't imagine someone moving to another state and being told their marriage is invalid there and losing their rights. They are basically being told they are allowed to live in specific states unless they don't want to be considered a legal couple.





----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen

"In order to keep a true perspective on one's importance, everyone should have a dog that worships him and a cat that will ignore him." - Dereke Bruce
Last edited by: JenSw: Dec 10, 12 14:46
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [JenSw] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Not to be nitpicky but no, that's not true. The Romans and Greeks had same sex marriage

Yes, it is true, and no the Romans and Greeks did not have same sex marriage. I eagerly await a reputable link stating the contrary.



I see this as the equivalent of punishing people for being gay. They do NOT get the same benefits as "married" couples. There are inheritance implications for one. To get a rundown of the differences, read this:


It's not about punishing people for being gay, it's about preserving marriage as an institution that's actually meaningful and significant to society. Nor is it accurate to argue that people argue so passionately for gay marriage simply because of legal rights. We've covered this before- almost all of those rights could be easily covered by existing legal means. (Inheritance rights are easily protected with a will, for instance.) Even more tellingly, SSM advocates have not been at all satisfied with civil unions granting the same legal rights as marriage. It isn't about those legal rights.








"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:

It's not about punishing people for being gay, it's about preserving marriage as an institution that's actually meaningful and significant to society.


Did marriage stop being meaningful and significant in Canada and New England? My marriage doesn't feel any different, even though there are several thousand gay couples married in California. Adamantly stating that it has lost it's meaning has convinced exactly zero people. You need much better proof than apocalyptic statements. See the inter-racial marriage debate for evidence how that line of argument will play out.

Quote:

Nor is it accurate to argue that people argue so passionately for gay marriage simply because of legal rights. We've covered this before- almost all of those rights could be easily covered by existing legal means. (Inheritance rights are easily protected with a will, for instance.) Even more tellingly, SSM advocates have not been at all satisfied with civil unions granting the same legal rights as marriage. It isn't about those legal rights.


Equal rights are kinda funny. People argue passionately about them, even when they are "separate but" equal. You are correct, people who believe in equal rights for gays oppose discrimination against gays and support full marriage rights for gay couples. Impugning the motiviations of people that you oppose is standard practice, but doesn't work too well.

BTW, Before you go back to "but, but, but, polygamy!" let's all agree that we (you and I and almost everyone we know) have a strong bias toward supporting monogamy, in law, in religious teachings, and in society at large. Perhaps that's unfair to polygamists, but that's where the line is drawn today, and it is holding just fine.
Last edited by: oldandslow: Dec 10, 12 18:07
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Before you go back to "but, but, but, polygamy!" let's all agree that we (you and I and almost everyone we know) have a strong bias toward supporting monogamy, in law, in religious teachings, and in society at large. Perhaps that's unfair to polygamists, but that's where the line is drawn today, and it is holding just fine.

That may well be true, but his point is valid nonetheless. Even though I support SSM as the best available solution, arguing for SSM on the grounds of human or civil rights but not for polygamy doesn't hold up to cursory examination. Once we redraw the line anywhere beyond the point of heterosexual monogamy among two consenting adults, it becomes arbitrary and not firmly rooted in any particular principle beyond what society chooses to accept at that point in time. I'm fine with that, but let's acknowledge it for what it really is--a matter of subjective fairness, and not objective right.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:

That may well be true, but his point is valid nonetheless. Even though I support SSM as the best available solution, arguing for SSM on the grounds of human or civil rights but not for polygamy doesn't hold up to cursory examination. Once we redraw the line anywhere beyond the point of heterosexual monogamy among two consenting adults, it becomes arbitrary and not firmly rooted in any particular principle beyond what society chooses to accept at that point in time. I'm fine with that, but let's acknowledge it for what it really is--a matter of subjective fairness, and not objective right.


We are closer than you might think. Honestly all "rights and laws" have been "arbitrary" for all of recorded history. There have been general principles (and laws), but they have only worked at a certain point in time, and they have changed drastically over the millenia. Check evolving views of "cruel and unusual punishment" over the centuries. Legal interpretations always closely hew to prevailing societal values. Such interpretations are not "arbitrary", but firmly rooted in underlying principles subject to societal norms. At this point in history homosexuality taboos are disappearing very quickly, and legal discrimination against gays has become utterly untenable (given the ending of these taboos).
Last edited by: oldandslow: Dec 10, 12 21:11
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm all for ending discrimination against homosexuals. I think the repeal of DADT was a great day in our history. That said, I don't think it's fair to equate DADT discrimination with refusal to sanction SSM, unless you're willing to concede that it is equally discriminatory against polygamists.

For the record, I don't really object to polygamy in principle, though as with prostitution (which I also don't object to per se), the forms in which it is currently practiced, to my knowledge, are generally not psychologically healthy arrangements, and exist in subcultures rife with abuse and control.

But then, half of all hetero marriages end in divorce, so take that for what it's worth.

The devil made me do it the first time, second time I done it on my own - W
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Marriage is about recognizing the validity of the union between two consenting adults. It is about family and honoring commitment in a legal and emotional sense. Same sex marriage is not recognized at a federal level and it isn't recognized in most states. That is not equal.


Same sex marriage has no affect on anyone else's marriage. It doesn't diminish anyone else's marriage. The word marriage is about love and commitment to family regardless of who are members of that family.


I know this won't change how you think of this, I don't expect that to ever change. That's fine. We don't have to agree. Not that I expect this to make any difference but I found a good write-up of research done on the history of same sex marriage.

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html


It is a long article but here is an excerpt:


Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John.

Such same gender Christian sanctified unions also took place in Ireland in the late 12thand/ early 13th century, as the chronicler Gerald of Wales (‘Geraldus Cambrensis’) recorded.

Same-sex unions in pre-modern Europe list in great detail some same gender ceremonies found in ancient church liturgical documents. One Greek 13th century rite, "Order for Solemn Same-Sex Union", invoked St. Serge and St. Bacchus, and called on God to "vouchsafe unto these, Thy servants [N and N], the grace to love one another and to abide without hate and not be the cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God, and all Thy saints". The ceremony concludes: "And they shall kiss the Holy Gospel and each other, and it shall be concluded".

Another 14th century Serbian Slavonic "Office of the Same Sex Union", uniting two men or two women, had the couple lay their right hands on the Gospel while having a crucifix placed in their left hands. After kissing the Gospel, the couple were then required to kiss each other, after which the priest, having raised up the Eucharist, would give them both communion.

Records of Christian same sex unions have been discovered in such diverse archives as those in the Vatican, in St. Petersburg, in Paris, in Istanbul and in the Sinai, covering a thousand-years from the 8th to the 18th century.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen

"In order to keep a true perspective on one's importance, everyone should have a dog that worships him and a cat that will ignore him." - Dereke Bruce
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:
There are no crucial differences between polygamy and SSM such that SSM must be allowed on rights grounds and polygamy can be banned.

Rodred just told us a few posts back that they're as different as apples and oranges. You SSM opponents really need to get your stories straight.

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vitus979 wrote:
Not to be nitpicky but no, that's not true. The Romans and Greeks had same sex marriage

Yes, it is true, and no the Romans and Greeks did not have same sex marriage. I eagerly await a reputable link stating the contrary.



I see this as the equivalent of punishing people for being gay. They do NOT get the same benefits as "married" couples. There are inheritance implications for one. To get a rundown of the differences, read this:


It's not about punishing people for being gay, it's about preserving marriage as an institution that's actually meaningful and significant to society. Nor is it accurate to argue that people argue so passionately for gay marriage simply because of legal rights. We've covered this before- almost all of those rights could be easily covered by existing legal means. (Inheritance rights are easily protected with a will, for instance.) Even more tellingly, SSM advocates have not been at all satisfied with civil unions granting the same legal rights as marriage. It isn't about those legal rights.



Did you mean "me"?
If you truly meant society should you not take the position of allowing a democratic vote on the issue and allowing "society" to make the decision?
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [Eppur si muove] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote:
Rodred just told us a few posts back that they're as different as apples and oranges. You SSM opponents really need to get your stories straight.

We were told earlier in this thread that SSM is all about conferring legal rights, but I've previously been told that it's really about recognizing the comittment of two people who love eachother. You SSM proponents really need to get your stories straight.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:

Quote:
Rodred just told us a few posts back that they're as different as apples and oranges. You SSM opponents really need to get your stories straight.


We were told earlier in this thread that SSM is all about conferring legal rights, but I've previously been told that it's really about recognizing the comittment of two people who love eachother. You SSM proponents really need to get your stories straight.

My own father, a gay and SSM activist has told me this is the real point. Civil unions do not meet this goal and therefore are not the point of the fight. This creates a point of contention between us. Because my view is that there should be no state control over marriage and everybody should have access to civil unions, leaving marriage as a private institution (secular and/or religious). But he has said that is not going to happen nor would it mandate the equality they desire in terms of marriage (certain institutions would still not accept SSM).

So it isn't about equal rights, it is about equal recognition. Don't let anybody tell you different.


"In the world I see you are stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center. You'll wear leather clothes that will last you the rest of your life. You'll climb the wrist-thick kudzu vines that wrap the Sears Towers. And when you look down, you'll see tiny figures pounding corn, laying stripes of venison on the empty car pool lane of some abandoned superhighway." T Durden
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
slowguy wrote:

Quote:
Rodred just told us a few posts back that they're as different as apples and oranges. You SSM opponents really need to get your stories straight.


We were told earlier in this thread that SSM is all about conferring legal rights, but I've previously been told that it's really about recognizing the comittment of two people who love eachother. You SSM proponents really need to get your stories straight.

I don't think legal rights and romantic commitments are mutually exclusive, unlike Rodred's and Vitus's contentions. In fact, I'm going to make a wild guess and posit that your own marriage involves both legal rights and romantic commitments. Could be wrong though.

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [vitus979] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
Inheritance rights are easily protected with a will, for instance

No they arent. Not even close. How much taxes would your wife pay on your estate if you died today? She would also pay nothing to get it all. It automatically goes to her.

Now compare that to a gay couple. first they have to pay a lawyer to draftba will. Essentially an extra tax just because they are gay and youdont want then to marry. Then, after one dies, the inheritance gets a shit load of taxes taken out.

having a will in place of marriage is not even close to the same thing and its overwhelmingly unfair. Of course you already know this because there would be no way you would trade your marriage gor a civil union and a will. You wouldbt do it and your refusal to do it proves you know its not equal.

who's smarter than you're? i'm!
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [Eppur si muove] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"In fact, I'm going to make a wild guess and posit that your own marriage involves both legal rights and romantic commitments. Could be wrong though. "

You're wrong. I'm single.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Maybe its because the ladies want a romantic commitment.

-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
You're wrong. I'm single.

Then you are also treated unfairly (along with some poor polygamists, though I don't personally know any). If nothing else, this thread points out that society grants a huge preference to commited monogamous relationships over other arrangements. That in itself can certainly be considered "arbitrary." The two sides in the marraige debate overwhelmingly support special rules for monogamous couples, with a basic disagreement about which couples should be included.
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote:
That may well be true, but his point is valid nonetheless. Even though I support SSM as the best available solution, arguing for SSM on the grounds of human or civil rights but not for polygamy doesn't hold up to cursory examination. Once we redraw the line anywhere beyond the point of heterosexual monogamy among two consenting adults, it becomes arbitrary and not firmly rooted in any particular principle beyond what society chooses to accept at that point in time. I'm fine with that, but let's acknowledge it for what it really is--a matter of subjective fairness, and not objective right.


Sphere, I have to pose the same question to you that I've posed to others. Why is the line drawn at "consenting adults who are of opposing sex" not arbitrary while moving the line to include SSM would be? Just because you can find a "reason" for one that you like, but don't like the reasons for the other doesn't mean that one is based on a valid principle while the other is based on something arbitrary.

We've been down this road many times, and that valid principle has been defined to be "marriage for the purposes of having children, but only in the case where a single person can mate with exactly one other person provided that the biolgical functions still work. This is inclusive of all couples that have malfunctioning organs, and exclusive of polygamous groups even if they have fully funcitoning organs. Though adoption is a viable substitute for malfunctioning organs, marriage shall still only be granted if the two organs *could* produce a child if they still function even though those malfunctioning organs are no more useful than any other pairing of organs."

The bottom line is, no matter how much one tries to come up with a foundational principle to allow only hetero couples, it always comes back to "all consenting hetero couples (excluding in breeeding and minors, etc.) and only consentinf hetero couples because they are hetero."



FWIW, I personally think polygamy should be legal provided that a) they conform to all other legal standards (i.e. I don't support mormon's forcing their 13 year old duaghters to marry their uncles) and b) they don't gain additional benefits as a result (i.e. 5 wives should not count as 5 dependents for tax purposes).





-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [Eppur si muove] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't think legal rights and romantic commitments are mutually exclusive


Exactly. It isn't an either or.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jen

"In order to keep a true perspective on one's importance, everyone should have a dog that worships him and a cat that will ignore him." - Dereke Bruce
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [sphere] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
sphere wrote:
That may well be true, but his point is valid nonetheless. Even though I support SSM as the best available solution, arguing for SSM on the grounds of human or civil rights but not for polygamy doesn't hold up to cursory examination. Once we redraw the line anywhere beyond the point of heterosexual monogamy among two consenting adults, it becomes arbitrary and not firmly rooted in any particular principle beyond what society chooses to accept at that point in time. I'm fine with that, but let's acknowledge it for what it really is--a matter of subjective fairness, and not objective right.

I think the Roosevelt quotation in your signature applies very well here. (Actually, the quotation makes no sense logically, since it he was right then doing nothing would be the "most wrong thing"--but despite the illogic, we still have a pretty good idea what he meant.)

-----
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
Which is probably why I was registering 59.67mi as I rolled into T2.

Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [BarryP] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Maybe its because the ladies want a romantic commitment. "

The list of reasons is long. I'm sure romantic commitment is among them.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [oldandslow] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
"Then you are also treated unfairly (along with some poor polygamists, though I don't personally know any). If nothing else, this thread points out that society grants a huge preference to commited monogamous relationships over other arrangements. "

I'm ok with this. As I've said before, monogamous heterosexual relationships offer a basic value to society, in that they are the basic model by which children are produced and raised, and as such help to perpetuate society. I'm not going too far down this road again, because I'm not up for a night of being called a hateful bigot and a racist and an asshole.

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply

Quote:
......because I'm not up for a night of being called a hateful bigot and a racist and an asshole.


If it makes a difference, we don't think of you any worse for being a hateful biggoted racist asshole provided that you take your hat off at the dinner table like a gentleman.


(har har har! I crack me up!)




-----------------------------Baron Von Speedypants
-----------------------------RunTraining articles here:
http://forum.slowtwitch.com/...runtraining;#1612485
Quote Reply
Re: SCOTUS and gay marriage - game on! [slowguy] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
I'm not going too far down this road again, because I'm not up for a night of being called a hateful bigot and a racist and an asshole.


That's okay, the argument is over anyway. People who think homosexuality is wrong/immoral buy your argument, people who don't think homosexuality is inherently immoral agree with me (this basic axiom holds for at least 90% of the populace). The fight was lost when the homosexuality taboo ended (it is still very strong in many places in this country, but it is literally dying out in most places). For what it's worth, I never have called you names. I have always understood the viewpoint of people who oppose homosexuality on moral grounds, and consistently apply that logic with regard to public policy (even though I have a different opinion).
Last edited by: oldandslow: Dec 11, 12 12:11
Quote Reply