Gay Thread:6-3-05 Republicans succeed at keeping California discriminatory against Gays

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

EndGame

Golden Member
Dec 28, 2002
1,276
0
0
Well, long thread and lots of points.....good and bad. I honestly don't give a rats behind if gays want to be married.......doesn't affect me either way.

That said, IMHO, what is happening is the right way to go about it.......elections. Right now they are not producing the desired results as far as the gay community goes, so, you do what everyone else does.......keep going after it! Get it put back on the ballot and do a better job of getting your message across next time. This is still the best way to go about it though because you will either get the mandate of the people.......or you won't. Apparently in 18 states or is it 19 now with Kansas, the majority are against it........so be it, the people have spoken. If the gay community is serious about getting this done, they just need to do it all over again at the next election and do a better job of educating the public. Until then, you're just going to have to live with the results the same way those against it would if it passed and when it passed in the states it has........JMO

 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
Originally posted by: Kibbo
The point at which the government should or should not extend benefits lies in where the greater good lies. If the costs of taxation outwiegh the greater good, they should not subsidize. If the benefits of subsidies (like in education, or telecommunications, or roads, or the military) outweigh the costs of taxation, they should not subsidize.

(Note that I would personally change this this equation in favour of the poor, but not all would agree with me).

Marriage subsidies,like all policy subsidies, should be weighed in terms of a societal cost benefit model, with potential modifications in terms of class (if one leans towards rooting for the litle guy, like I do, but that is a value question.) But if the cost of the subsidized contract no longer benefits society on the aggregate (or the value-biased aggregate), then the subsidy should be ended. Period. But through it all, the nature and definition of the contract should remain independent of the fiscal decision to subsidize said contract.
I'm not sure where what you said here disagrees with what I said. We are in agreement (I think) that the government gives benefits/subsidies to the married couple based on some criteria. What these criteria are I have not been able to define, nor has anyone else in this thread as far as I can tell. However, it seems clear that there may be just restrictions placed on this subsidy based on the qualifications of the recipients. Else, the government would subsidize all landlords rather than only those who keep rent low, for example, which would clearly be a waste. Thus, I think we need to define what it is that government's criteria are before we can decide how they should be regulated or restricted.
 

Yo Ma Ma

Lifer
Jan 21, 2000
11,635
2
0
Originally posted by: glorifiedg790
Originally posted by: Yo_Ma-Ma
Originally posted by: glorifiedg790
Why would you want to be married if you are gay.
For the same reasons as when you aren't gay?

Try reading the whole post.......:disgust:

I did, I just quoted the 1st line in reply You already stated it was a parody, so why the :disgust:?
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Kibbo
Originally posted by: aidanjm

I don't think quasi-religious explanations of human rights or civil rights are terribly honest. Saying your rights are derived from nature (the nature of man), or from god, is really just a way of avoiding acknowledging that you are simply offering up your opinion on how things should be. :)

I would suggest that either you beleive that human rights are a fundamental, inalieanble aspect of human nature,

The desire to steal, cheat, rape and kill are part of our human nature. Shall we make cheating, stealing, killing a human right?

Originally posted by: Kibbo
or they are merely self-intersted legal and political rights won due to the vagaries of history (and as such, the vagaries of whoever has political power at a given tme). If they are the latter, then "rightness" in an objective sense is irrlelevant or nonexistant, and as such, the current legal, politcal debate over gay marriage is merely a batle between self-intersted parties and whoever wins, wins. If you are willing to admit that the current battle shall (and should) be won by womever is stronger politically, then I will say that you are correct.

Yes, the current political battle will be won by whoever is stronger politically. (Or, whoever prevails in the courts). I have an opinion on what outcome will be the best for gay individuals and the larger community, which I am of course going to argue for.

What of cultures which do not see eye to eye with our Western notions of human rights? Are you willing to say categorically that these cultures have got it wrong? Do you not open yourself up to allegations of cultural imperialism?

My own view is that all morality is ultimately grounded in the social world, i.e., our relationships with other people. Morality makes sense because we are vulnerable and we depend on others for our survival. If we were lone predators like sharks with no need to cooperate with other people there would be no morality and no need for morality. I don't believe that morality is uniquely human, for example recent studies indicate that social animals such as (non-human) primates have what appears to be a rudimentary social morality.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
If you are willing to admit that you are basing your argument on the historically random (and fundamentally unequal) permutations of political power,

What do you mean, "admit"? I am just calling a spade a spade. This is the way things are.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
then I will admit that my own beleifs are based on a personal faith in what is objectively right.

Let's say you are magically transported to be with a native eskimo tribe, 200 years ago, and see the tribe's people abandoning the elderly or the sick in the snow to die. That behavior was required to allow the tribe to survive in an environment of limited food resources. Can you state categorically that what they are doing is wrong? I.e., are your human rights applicable or appropriate universally, across both time and culture?

Originally posted by: Kibbo
You may call it quasi-religious, but I beleive that these tenents of my "faith" are bounded by reason, and are teleologically tied to what is the overall "purpose" of human existence. I acknowledge that these tenents are not in-and-of themselves compelling to any who deny them as univerals. But I am willing to bet that most people, of any faith secular or religious, will agree to them as self-evident. And that those who disagree do so on a reletavatist basis, which limits their own argument to being one of practical, political immediacy. And one who falls victim to an argument that is to follow.

I think you are kidding yourself.

Regarding rights,

-they can't be self-evident - because people have been arguing over them for millenia (if they are so "self evident" or obvious, what's up with all the disagreement?)

-they can't be inalienable, because governments revoke rights all the time (e.g., state governments routinely take away the right to life itself by executing prisoners, similarly the government of Iraq has killed an estimated 4000 lesbians and gay men over the past decade for the reason that they are homosexual)

-they can't be universal, because we recognize that certain rights appropriate under some circumstances might not always be appropriate. For example, we (as a society) revoke the right to life when people commit certain crimes. The Chinese government has pretty much revoked the right of parents to have an unlimited number of children - are you willing to say that is categorically wrong, given China's problem's associated with over-population?

-rights are based on human nature? It's part of human nature to rape, kill, lie, cheat and steal. :) Is it a human right to kill, to steal, to cheat?

-finally religion offers no unambiguous or definitive account of human rights. There is no agreement among the spiritual texts of the major religions on what human rights should consist of. With respect to xiantiy, the Biblical god supports the killing of children, the raping of women, slavery, and genocide. How is this consistent with a contemporary Western understanding of human rights? Do you have to be a Biblical reconstructionist (not sure if that's the right term) to get the human rights you "want" out of the Xian scripture? If that's the case, then how can you say (with a straight face) that your rights are god-given -- as opposed to merely being your particular interpretation of or "take" on the Xian scriptures?

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Rights are social contructs. Negotiating new rights is a process of arguing, debating, compromising, until some agreement is reached. We already have substantial agreement in our society on the rights we are going to extend to people. Those rights are enshrined in our legal system - the right to be treated equally before the law, the right to go about our business without undue interference from the government, etc. An even-handed application of "equality before the law" and also possibly "due process" is all that is needed to secure same-sex marriage.

Tying your argument to legalistic realities exposes your flank to one simple attack: the whim of the legislature. If it so chose, the legislature could impose a law that contradicted centuries of British common law and American constitutional law (which could arguably support your position) and your ethical system would have nothing to say about that political victory, apart from "good show old chap, you've won this round."

Gee, it would be SO much more effective to be able to say "You are violating my god-given or natural human rights" as they lead me to the gallows.

Actually, my realistic (honest) assessment of where rights come from (the social world) doesn't prevent me from arguing my ethical beliefs on appropriate treatment of people.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
I also think certain values are widely held in our community (even if they are not rigidly enshrined into law) - notions of fairness, the notion that certain groups of individuals shouldn't be singled out for harsh treatment on grounds of certain of their human attributes or characteristics, and so on, can all be called upon to justify the leglaisation of same sex marriage.

These values are exactly the objective principles upon which my argument relies. These values I believe are exactly the fundamental axioms on which my interpretation of objective morality lies.

You only think these values are fundamental and "objective" because you're stuck in the one culture, you've never encountered a culture where these values are alien. But notions of equal treatment for all citizens are historically a very recent development. Look to old texts (especially old religious texts, such as the christian bible) and you will see a blase acceptance of things like slavery, genocide, the subjugation and rape of women, etc.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
These values are important, because they are "right." The fact that other societies may place more value on other principles does not weaken these values, but in fact strengthens their position as universal absolutes. The fact that they are univerally accepted (though perhaps differently wieghted in some societies) as principles throughout the history of humankind lends credence to my (natural law) argument that they are universal human values.

Notions of equal treatment for all people are not universally accepted. Such an idea is vigorously contested in the Muslim world for example. How is the slavery of the chiristian bible (such slavery is endorsed by saint paul, jesus) consistent with contemporary notions of equality?

Originally posted by: Kibbo
I think that I am right. My beliefs may approach the certitude of faith, but they are informed by the history of all human civilizations, bounded by the strictures of reason. Only by eliminating the very concept of universality, or by finding fault in my reason, or by casting doubt on my view of human history, can you find fault with these principles. (The first and third are the easiest to criticize, and of course are related.)

You haven't been very specific, so I'm not even sure what you're talking about here.

You'd need to spell out some of your universal absolutes wrt human rights for the discussion to go much further, I think.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
But, if you limit yourself to attacking the first premise, that of universality, (as you have so convieniently done) you also limit the battle for human rights in all spheres of history to the simple struggle of self-interested groups.

And why is that self-interest a bad thing?

I personally don't think a degree of self-interest makes the fight any less noble. You're still talking about people putting themselves on the firing line advocating for rights for others.

I want to live in a society that values of gay people. Any improvement in the legal position of gay people will benefit me in some way (even if it is only more peace of mind). I stand to benefit from progress in gay rights. I am not going to elevate human rights to some godly plane, just to avoid acknowledging this element of self-interest.

(BTW I believe that homophobia hurts straight people, as much as it hurts gay people, in the long run; a more gay-friendly society will be a healthier society for all people, imo).

It is arguably possible to advocate for human rights from a purely altruistic position, I suppose. I also tend to argue for reproductive rights for women. Not sure what benefits such rights would provide me.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
If you limit yourself in that manner, then you implicitly justify the victor of any such battle. Which means that you implicitly justify the potential victory of those who would restrict gay marriage through legitimate legislation, up to and including constitutional ammendments.

I am free to argue my case, express my opinion on why it is morally desirable for gay people to be able to marry.

Originally posted by: Kibbo
With my model, I can argue that such an ammendment would be wrong. Your model can't.

So you get the emotional "thrill" or satisfaction of being able to say "You are categorically wrong, I am categorically right". Does that make you feel better? I think it takes courage to be realistic about where rights come from.

I don't think notions of equal treatment or equality before the law are universal across time and culture, but I do think such a notion has strongly taken hold in our Western culture, and I would draw on themes of equality to argue my case.


Originally posted by: Kibbo
As a caveat, I would like to say that I am fvcking trashed right now, and as such I beg charity regarding spelling, grammar and argument.

Edit: I agree that "rights" as we legally recognize them today are merely a socio-legal construct, but that they are also the purest instrumental tool humanity has ever devised in order to express those principles which are universally "right."

 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: aidanjm

The desire to steal, cheat, rape and kill are part of our human nature. Shall we make cheating, stealing, killing a human right?

No, because it is a universal desire for us and ours to be free of that. Within commnities, these are universal wrongs. Pointing to things that cannot be morally justified to be legal only supports my position.

Yes, the current political battle will be won by whoever is stronger politically. (Or, whoever prevails in the courts). I have an opinion on what outcome will be the best for gay individuals and the larger community, which I am of course going to argue for.

Cool. You've not given me a single reason to agree with you, unless I also am gay. Why should I care? There will be a small economic disruption as pensions and so forth are sorted out. That could affect me negatively in some small way. On sheer self-interest it would be rational for me to oppose it. You've given me no reason to not act on self-interest.

What of cultures which do not see eye to eye with our Western notions of human rights are in the wrong? Are you willing to say categorically that these cultures have got it wrong? Do you not open yourself up to allegations of Western cultural imperialism or colonialism?

On some matters, these cultures are wrong. Islamic culture is no more wrong to have the Hajib as a part of their culture than we are to have cleavage as a part of our mating rituals. They are wrong when they stone a woman in the street for breaching this custom, just as we are wrong when we say "she deserved it, look at how she was dressed." You can only call it imperialism or coloninalism when we back up our moral certitude with military action. I have mentioned when that should happen for ethical reasons. Basically, it should only be done to avoid the large-scale, immediate loss of civillian life.

Cultural sensitivity is neccessary when discussing varying values across cultures. Many times it will be the same value manifested differently, and other times a given aspect of a culture can be openly and honest called evil, or wrong. The German dehumanization of the Jews was evil. Period. On some matters, I do think that Western culture has found ways that are "better" in principle, on a moral level. Democracy, the very concept or human rights are two examples. I think that there may be things we can learn from other cultures, however.

My own view is that all morality is ultimately grounded in the social world, i.e., our relationships with other people. Morality makes sense because we are vulnerable and we depend on others for our survival. If we were lone predators like sharks with no need to cooperate with other people there would be no morality. I don't believe that morality is uniquely human, for example recent studies indicate that social animals such as (non-human) primates have what appears to be a rudimentary social morality.

Ar you suggesting that we have developed instincts that lay the fuondations of morality? Maybe. If you require a purely mechanistic model of the universe, then this is one thing that would explain the universal nature of ethics. I don't see how that helps your argument.

What do you mean, "admit"? I am just calling a spade a spade. This is the way things are.

Again, you give me no reason to support your view in this case. You could be an industrialist who wants to fight for fewer taxes on his product. In fact, he could at least point to the marginal benefit his workers would experience, and that would be more compelling. If it all comes down to who wins the fight, what's wrong with picking up a bigger stick than the other side and settling it old-school?

Let's say you are magically transported to be with a native eskimo tribe, 200 years ago, and see the tribes people abandoning the elderly or the sick alone in the snow to die. That behavior was required to allow the tribe to survive in an environment of limited resources. Can you state categorically that what they are doing is wrong? I.e., are your human rights applicable or appropriate universally, across both time and culture?

The basic principle that benefits of all should be maximized, including the (time-discounted, but that's a minor detail) benefits of future generations. Observe:

We share with our elders. -> Our mothers are malnourished. -> Fewer childern survive, and those who do are weaker. -> In the next generation, we are even less able to provide for the generation after.

Every society must ration it's resources. It should do so guided by basic values. Sometimes the principle of providing for future generations outwieghs the principle of respecting and caring for our elders. Note that both principles are universal to all human cultures. In some circumstances of economic scarcity, the ethical decision isn't pleasent.

You misunderstand me. You seem to think that I am defending the enumerated human rights on some sheet of paper somewhere as universal absolutes. No, I think that they are the best expressions of certain moral principles derived by humanity to date that trancend whichever legal or rhetorical system is currently in place.


I think you are lying to yourself.

Ohh, ballsy, I'm beginning to enjoy this.

Regarding rights,

-they can't be self-evident - because people have been arguing over them for millenia (if they are so "self evident" or obvious, what's up with all the disagreement?)

I am using my drunken charitability clause here: I withdraw any use of the word "self-evident." I was overstating what I beleive. All this high-minded rhetoric got to my head (and mixed with the whiskey). I do beleive in certain basic principles, which could never be ennumerated completely, which are known to us in one way or another, though since they are often in conflict they can be difficult for our limited minds to percieve 100% correctly.

-they can't be inalienable, because governments revoke rights all the time (e.g., state governments routinely take away the right to life itself by executing prisoners, similarly the government of Iraq has killed an estimated 4000 lesbians and gay men over the past decade for the reason that they are homosexual)

Just because a right is not recognize does not mean that it has been taken away. A naked, starving man in Daschau has the right to better than what he was given. It is a tradgedy, an evil, even, that he died before he saw that right recognized. But it was inherent.

-they can't be universal, because we recognize that certain rights appropriate under some circumstances might not always be appropriate. For example, we (as a society) revoke the right to life when people commit certain crimes. The Chinese government has pretty much revoked the right of parents to have an unlimited number of children - are you willing to say that is categorically wrong, given China's problem's associated with over-population?

These basic principles, derived in the form of rights currently, can sometimes be in conflict. Sometimes many of them can conflict in extraoridinarily complex ways, and the limited language we use to derive them will always leave us as to some doubt as to the absolute "rightness" of a given policy. Sometimes sheer empirical doubt of what the future lies can also cloud the "rightness" of a decision. Because we cannot know for sure, does not mean we should not try.

-rights are based on human nature? It's part of human nature to rape, kill, lie, cheat and steal. :) Is it a human right to kill, to steal, to cheat?

Dealt with above. Here's an interesting little empirical fact: Social Psychologists can find many different weightings given to many different values in many societies. Of course, these studies must be taken with a very large grain of salt, as the possibility for accidental bias is large. But one value seems cross all cultural boundaries: the value of reciprocity. The idea that you should gain what you have earned, and pay what you owe. If one accepts that this value is absolute (and if you beleive in any sort of natural law, it's a compelling one), then it is easy to see that the above behaviours contradict this value on an extreme level. This might also by why it is universally considered 'wrong" in all cultures to behave in this way.

-finally religion offers no unambiguous or definitive account of human rights. There is no agreement among the spiritual texts of the major religions on what human rights should consist of. With respect to xiantiy, the Biblical god supports the killing of children, the raping of women, slavery, and genocide. How is this consistent with a contemporary Western understnading of human rights? Do you have to be a Biblical reconstructionist to get the human rights you "want" out of the Xian scripture? If that's the case, then how can you say (with a straight face) that your rights are god-given (as opposed to merely being your particular "take" on the xian scriptures)?

Irrelevant. Human religious scripture is also an imperfect relection of these principles, one that is often more primitive. Look how often the principle of survival outwieghs other principles in these derivations. It may only our modern wealth that allows us the luxury of de-valuing these principles. But it allows us to re-value others.


Gee, it would be SO much more effective to be able to say, "You are violating my god-given or natural human rights", as they lead me to the gallows.

Yes, it is slim comfort to call your killers evil. It was little comfort to those who were slaughtered Hitler. But the evil inspired us to build our modern framework of human rights. And awakened like never before the common feeling all humanity shares. Because of the extent of the evil. (And, of course, cynically, how much we were exposed to it in the media. We didn't hear nearly as much about Stalin's evils which were greater in magnititude)

Actually, my realistic (honest) assessment of where rights come from (the social world) doesn't prevent me from arguing my ethical system. I am free to draw on arguments of equality, equal treatment for everyone, etc.

Yes, but you don't beleive that, deep down, equality matters. You merely use the fact that others do hold this deep-seated belief in order to further your own ends. That is dishonesty in its purest form.



You only think these values are fundamental and "objective" because you're stuck in the one culture, you've never encountered a culture where these values are alien. But notions of equal treatment for all citizens are historically a very recent development. Look to old texts (especially old religious texts, such as the christian bible) and you will see a blase acceptance of things like slavery, genocide, the subjugation and rape of women, etc.

Yes, and I would suggest that in a militaristic, competitive society, the civilization that could live best by the sword had an evolutionary advantage. And so, the survival priciple was emphasized over other moral principle. And that this partriarchal system was so successful, it became a. . .habitual part of our culture. And as soon as we ended up in a situation (most likely due to economic developpment, where strength was no longer the determinant of cultural survival) where it was no longer needed to survive (hard to say where that would be in history, I'll think on my guess) then that system became "wrong." Just as Mary Wollenstonecraft saw that it was wrong in the 18th century, and the suffragettes in the early 20th, up to modern feminist thinkers. At least, when they're not wrong.

Notions of equal treatment for all people are not universally accepted. Such an idea is vigorously contested in the Muslim world for example. How is the slavery of the chiristian bible (such slavery is endorsed by saint paul, jesus) consistent with contemporary notions of equality?

Again, historically it might have been neccssary for cultural survival. As soon as it is not, it is wrong.

You haven't been very specific, so I'm not even sure what you're talking about here.

You'd need to spell out some of your universal absolutes wrt human rights for the discussion to go much further, I think.

Well, I'm more intersted in debating whether or not a universal morality is possible at all. I've mentioned reciprocity as a specific, and I've said that Human rights are the best stab we as humans have ever made at piercing the veil. Since these are broad principles, that we didn't create (either because they are an objective part of the universe or because they are a fundamental part of our human phyche) it has always been difficult to derive them. The point, like in all domains of human knowledge, is not to finish the task but to constantly refine it.



And why is that self-interest a bad thing?

I personally don't think that degree of self-interest makes the fight any less noble. You're still talking about people putting themselves on the firing line advocating for rights for others.

No, I think that if people didn't believe in natural law, they would only act in the self-interested, rational manner predicted in the simplest economic theories. You (when I make things personal like this, I am talking about the "you" you have been representing in this discussion; not who you arctually "are".) will fight for gay marriage up until you are asked to give up something that you value more than the right to marry.



I want to live in a society that values of gay people.

Why? Why does your sense of societal esthetic get strumed by this question of equality? Is it as arbitrary as liking broccoli?

Any improvement in the legal position of gay people will benefit me in some way (even if it is only more peace of mind).

Why? Why is your mind more at peace when people on the other side of the country are treated more equally?

I stand to benefit from progress in gay rights. I am not going to elevate human rights to some godly plane, just to avoid acknowledging the element of self-interest.

Hey, if you have a self interest, that does not invalidate your argument. But you have an altruistic motive as well, and you have not satisfactorially accounted for that.

(BTW I believe that homophobia hurts straight people, as much as it hurts gay people, in the long run; a more gay-friendly society will be a healthier society for all people, imo).

Cool, I can see the argument, again how moral issues can be clouded by empirical ones.

It is arguably possible to advocate for human rights from a purely altruistic position, I suppose. I also tend to argue for reproductive rights for women. Not sure what benefits such rights would provide me.

Then why do you argue for them? Is it just an "our side" thing in these "culture wars" we are told we are fighting? Or do you think it's right?

If you limit yourself in that manner, then you implicitly justify the victor of any such battle. Which means that you implicitly justify the potential victory of those who would restrict gay marriage through legitimate legislation, up to and including constitutional ammendments.

I am free to argue my case, express my opinion on why it is morally desirable for gay people to be able to marry.

I wasn't trying to say that you limited the rhetorical tools at your disposal. But if you remain true to your arguments above, then you cannot say that it is morally desireable. You have denied the very existence of a morality. Or, at least, the existence of a morality outside of your skull. And that desireability becomes as arbitrary as the desire for a nice juicy steak.*

*Can you tell I"m broke and need decent food? I would kill for steak, broccoli and chocolate.

With my model, I can argue that such an ammendment would be wrong. Your model can't.

All you are getting is a cheap rhetorical victory, the "thrill" of being able to say "You are categorically wrong, I am categorically right". Does that make you feel better? I think it takes more courage to be realistic about where rights come from. I think you are taking the philosophical equivalent of a narcotic to make yourself feel good.

Wow, harsh. I think that to be "honest" about it in your system would strip them of all meaning. If you are right (in a way this is an empirical argument about something we will never be able to test), then life is a bleak place, absent of meaning beyond that which we absurdly apply to it. The only difference between a morally pure act of self-sacrifice and the pleasure of a drunken rut is the level of sophisitication of the experience.

It could be that the majority (who I think in one way or another agrees with me) is wrong, and you are right. It could be that we live in a world which is meaningless at its core, and people like me cloak ourselves in this teleological blanket because we lack the balls to see the edge of the precipice over which we must fall. It could be that we cannot look down that cliff, and take that leap, because our minds shrink anxiously away from the truth.

But if you are right, and we are wrong, why do you care? Why do you care about gay marriage? Why do you care about other's views of morality? Why do you care about any of this? Why are you having this discussion with me?

 

Kibbo

Platinum Member
Jul 13, 2004
2,847
0
0
Originally posted by: CycloWizard


I'm not sure where what you said here disagrees with what I said. We are in agreement (I think) that the government gives benefits/subsidies to the married couple based on some criteria. What these criteria are I have not been able to define, nor has anyone else in this thread as far as I can tell. However, it seems clear that there may be just restrictions placed on this subsidy based on the qualifications of the recipients. Else, the government would subsidize all landlords rather than only those who keep rent low, for example, which would clearly be a waste. Thus, I think we need to define what it is that government's criteria are before we can decide how they should be regulated or restricted.

Because you are saying that a contract where I ship widgets to Max, and then the gov't then chooses whether or not to tax it, it then becomes a contract between max, me and the gov't.

A government's fiscal policy towards a given contract does not affect the nature of the contract itself.

Marriage is a contract between two people who agree to meld their economic identities. Why they do it is not our business. If the government sees that there is societal benefit to subsidizing the formation of the contract, or common outcomes of the contract, then that is the government's business. It does not give the government the right to alter the nature of the contract by fiat in order to serve it's own interests. Or if it does, it has a much higher standard of proof to fulfill. The difference between taxing a product to discourage it's use, and throwing the users of a product in jail.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Spain to approve Gay Marriages

Looks like there is 3 Countries from which the U.S. Religious Republicans that control the Country can exile Gays to now.

Look at that Spanairds are not as religious as they used to be.

Now I know why they got bombed.

The Religious are pissed they lost control and fear over the populous.

4-21-2005 Gay Marriage Bill Makes Progress in Spain

The lower house of the Spanish Parliament approved the Socialist government's gay marriage bill Thursday, a major step toward making traditionally Roman Catholic Spain the third European country to legalize same-sex marriages.

Belgium and the Netherlands are the only two other European countries that have legalized gay marriages.

Polls say nearly half of the country's Roman Catholics almost never go to Mass, and a third say they are simply not religious.
 

sumrtym

Senior member
Apr 3, 2002
633
0
0
Apparantly, Microsoft caved on support of a Washington state law to end discrimination based on sexual orientation. They had supported it till meeting with an evangelical church leader who threatened to start a Christian boycott of Microsoft products.

Ken Hutcherson is the pastor of the Antioch Bible Church with whom they met. He's quoted in the New York Times as stating, "I told them I was going to give them something to be afraid of Christians about."

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the church. It's all about power/fear/control.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: sumrtym
Apparantly, Microsoft caved on support of a Washington state law to end discrimination based on sexual orientation.

They had supported it till meeting with an evangelical church leader who threatened to start a Christian boycott of Microsoft products.

Ken Hutcherson is the pastor of the Antioch Bible Church with whom they met. He's quoted in the New York Times as stating, "I told them I was going to give them something to be afraid of Christians about."

That pretty much sums up my feelings on the church. It's all about power/fear/control.

I would like to see the Christian zealots attempt to run their PC's without Microsoft Products.

When they come crawling back, Microsoft should charge an extra "cleansing" fee. :laugh:
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
The U.S. is at the center of a new Halocaust.

Leading the charge is a member of P&N, incredible

It started as a hatred by the Religious and has grown into an all out call for extermination.

I'd like to know from the P&N member and those that support him how far will this go?

What is your goal of what is to be done by this group that is not even human in your eyes??

5-3-2005 Anti-Gay Laws Reveal Inhumanity

Gay Holocaust?

That was the subject line of an e-mail I received last week from "Chris," a lawyer in a red state.

He wanted to know if anybody else sees a similarity between the beginning of the Holocaust -- the nibbling away of rights and personhood that ultimately led to the attempted extermination of a people -- and what is happening to gay people in American right now.

He knows it's far-fetched. "But," he says, speaking of the conservative element that is pushing hardest against gay rights, "we are not dealing with normal people here."

Chris concedes that there are differences between the plights of Jews and gays. "But they also have this in common -- at one time in history, that time being the present for gays, they were the object of official government-sponsored hatred couched in the name of religion or morals."

And who can deny that this describes the plight of gay Americans in 2005? Or that demagogic lawmakers are using this environment to further their own ambitions?

There used to be an expression in Southern politics. The candidate who lost because he had been found insufficiently draconian on racial issues was said to have been "out-niggered." These days, the worry seems to be that one might be "out-homoed." Consider, for instance, a law under consideration in Alabama to ban books with gay characters from public school libraries.

We just don't learn.

Ours is a stable and prosperous democracy, so no, I don't predict train cars full of gays rolling toward death factories. Still, the mindset of aggrieved righteousness that allowed those trains to roll is not dissimilar from that which would ban books about gay people from public school libraries.

Maybe your instinct is to find the comparison unthinkable. Nobody is interning gays, nobody is mass murdering them.

You're right. But ask yourself: How many would if they could?
 

Particle

Member
Apr 23, 2005
38
0
0
A Civil union is best since it's more controlled. Marriage is more family orientated with children involved as well as public sensuality. Since gay people are an extreme minority and straights are naturally sickened by gay sexual behavior, it should be kept more in the closet as a civil union.

Gay-marriage is quite an Oxymoron. Why do gay people want to get 'married' anyway? Don't you enjoy the more freer gay lifestyle as well as not haveing to fall into allot of restrictions marriage can present? Marriage is a bitch. I'm curious not bi-curious though.
 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: Gamble
A Civil union is best since it's more controlled.

What do you mean? Please explain.

Originally posted by: Gamble
Marriage is more family orientated with children involved as well as public sensuality.

Families and gay couples are not mutually exclusive. The last US national census (2000, I think) found that 33% of lesbian couples and 25% of gay couples in the USA are raising children. (This number would no doubt be even higher if there were not so many legal barriers making it difficult for gay people to raise children.) Do these gay families with children not deserve the legal protections associated with marriage?

Originally posted by: Gamble
Since gay people are an extreme minority

In the 2002 US mid-term elections, gays made up 5% of the electorate. In the last 5 elections, gays have consistently made up around 5% of the electorate. For comparison, African-American voters comprised 10% of the electorate, Latino voters 7%, Jewish voters 4%, and Asians 2%. (These figures are from Voters News Service).

% of the electorate

10% - blacks
7% - latinos
5% - gays/ lesbians
4% - jewish people
2% asians

Thus there are most likely more gay and lesbian citizens than there are Jewish citizens, or Asian citizens. Given this, your description of gay people as an "extreme minority" is not an accurate reflection of the facts.

Originally posted by: Gamble
and straights are naturally sickened by gay sexual behavior, it should be kept more in the closet as a civil union.

The fact that you are sickened by something you don't understand is not an adequate argument against gay marriage. Actually, it is not an argument at all, it's just an emotional response.. try thinking before typing ;)

Originally posted by: Gamble
Gay-marriage is quite an Oxymoron.

gay marriage = a marriage where each partner is of the same sex. I see no oxymoron here. ;)

Originally posted by: Gamble
Why do gay people want to get 'married' anyway?

For all the same reasons heterosexual couples want to marry.

Originally posted by: Gamble
Don't you enjoy the more freer gay lifestyle

What is this gay lifestyle you speak of? Most gay people have jobs, pay their taxes, mow their lawns, just like everyone else does. Many gay couples are raising kids.


Originally posted by: Gamble
as well as not haveing to fall into allot of restrictions marriage can present? Marriage is a bitch. I'm curious not bi-curious though.

That's an odd way to end your post.
 

Particle

Member
Apr 23, 2005
38
0
0
quote:

Originally posted by: Gamble
A Civil union is best since it's more controlled.

What do you mean? Please explain[/a]
More controls law-wise to protect people who are hurt and repulsed by it.
Marriage is too liberal of an agreement for this unless you would have certain restrictions within the guidelines of marriage to allow for a 'Gay clause', but I'm not sure if that would work.
Families and gay couples are not mutually exclusive. The last US national census (2000, I think) found that 33% of lesbian couples and 25% of gay couples in the USA are raising children. (This number would no doubt be even higher if there were not so many legal barriers making it difficult for gay people to raise children.) Do these gay families with children not deserve the legal protections associated with marriage?

Why are you pushing an agenda? Because of the fact that people are 'doing it' (raising children).doesn't mean it is Automatically right. Why do you assume children are not being hurt by this? Nothing is sacred. Nothing is ever automatic unless it has been thoroughly tested first.

Thus there are most likely more gay and lesbian citizens than there are Jewish citizens, or Asian citizens. Given this, your description of gay people as an "extreme minority" is not an accurate reflection of the facts.

That doesn't constitute a basis if you consider anything 5 percent or below an extreme minority in a percentage base, which I do.

The fact that you are sickened by something you don't understand is not an adequate argument against gay marriage. Actually, it is not an argument at all, it's just an emotional response.. try thinking before typing

This is a society and in a society we have to come up with laws so we can live together peacefully. As a straight male I am sickened by gay people doing sexual things in front of me and I can guarantee that there are several other people on this board who would feel the same way. I m also quite sure you are sickened by certain sexual acts in front of you too so we're both the same in that respect and I consider that valid fuel for an argument. I think you should understand that it's not the most normal thing for 2 men to be having anal intercourse but that doesn't mean that I am against it because the norm is not always the only way to go. I have a right not to see it though. It is physically it is repulsive to straight people and that can't be helped no matter how much 'understanding'. 'This 'understanding' term is a brainwash mechanism When things deviate from the norm more variables or people are naturally repulsed.
quote:

Originally posted by: Gamble
Don't you enjoy the more freer gay lifestyle



What is this gay lifestyle you speak of? Most gay people have jobs, pay their taxes, mow their lawns, just like everyone else does. Many gay couples are raising kids.
Everything is a lifestyle. We make lifestyle choices everyday. I think one person can raise a family. Is it harder and less desirable, yes. That has been scientifically proven. Is it possible with 2 people of the same sex to raise children as a mother and father could, I don't think it has been scientifically proven.
Can two people of the same sex raise children, yes, and probably better then once person but not as one communion so stick with the Civil Union as it's not a matrimony.
It's just scientifically unfeasible.
Marriage is just a term. Why do you crave it so? Statistics point out that gay people stay together allot less then married people which is at 50%, so getting married would be more restrictive for you then a civil union because a Civil Union is more Liberal about breakup laws concerning money and kids etc.. It's better for you. I am trying to help you here. Don't be mislead by the extremist telling you that you have to get married. We are a society on the go these days and a civil Union is allot more portable for that. I'm not getting married.
 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
The U.S. is at the center of a new Halocaust.

Leading the charge is a member of P&N, incredible

It started as a hatred by the Religious and has grown into an all out call for extermination.

I'd like to know from the P&N member and those that support him how far will this go?

What is your goal of what is to be done by this group that is not even human in your eyes??

5-3-2005 Anti-Gay Laws Reveal Inhumanity

Gay Holocaust?

That was the subject line of an e-mail I received last week from "Chris," a lawyer in a red state.

He wanted to know if anybody else sees a similarity between the beginning of the Holocaust -- the nibbling away of rights and personhood that ultimately led to the attempted extermination of a people -- and what is happening to gay people in American right now.

He knows it's far-fetched. "But," he says, speaking of the conservative element that is pushing hardest against gay rights, "we are not dealing with normal people here."

Chris concedes that there are differences between the plights of Jews and gays. "But they also have this in common -- at one time in history, that time being the present for gays, they were the object of official government-sponsored hatred couched in the name of religion or morals."

And who can deny that this describes the plight of gay Americans in 2005? Or that demagogic lawmakers are using this environment to further their own ambitions?

There used to be an expression in Southern politics. The candidate who lost because he had been found insufficiently draconian on racial issues was said to have been "out-niggered." These days, the worry seems to be that one might be "out-homoed." Consider, for instance, a law under consideration in Alabama to ban books with gay characters from public school libraries.

We just don't learn.

Ours is a stable and prosperous democracy, so no, I don't predict train cars full of gays rolling toward death factories. Still, the mindset of aggrieved righteousness that allowed those trains to roll is not dissimilar from that which would ban books about gay people from public school libraries.

Maybe your instinct is to find the comparison unthinkable. Nobody is interning gays, nobody is mass murdering them.

You're right. But ask yourself: How many would if they could?

His whole premise is based on:
the nibbling away of rights and personhood

Can anyone point out any of these rights that have been "nibbled at"?
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: shrumpage
Can anyone point out any of these rights that have been "nibbled at"?

I don't have a link, but there was a law passed in one of the virginias a few years ago that totally prevents two homosexual people from creating legal contracts with eachother, preventing gays from passing down anything to their partners after their death.

edit: link

The act -- really an amendment to an earlier law -- was passed in April, over Gov. Mark R. Warner's objections, and it takes effect July 1. It says, "A civil union, partnership contract or other arrangement between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges and obligations of marriage is prohibited." It goes on to add that any such union, contract or arrangement entered into in any other state, "and any contractual rights created thereby," are "void and unenforceable in Virginia."

In the Marriage Affirmation Act, Virginia appears to abridge gay individuals' right to enter into private contracts with each other. On its face, the law could interfere with wills, medical directives, powers of attorney, child custody and property arrangements, even perhaps joint bank accounts.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
5-5-2005 FDA to ban sperm from men who had gay sex

"Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he's been celibate for five years," said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, California, that seeks gay sperm donors.

"The part I find most offensive -- and a little frightening -- is that it isn't based on good science," Cathcart said. "There's a steadily increasing trend of heterosexual transmission of HIV, and yet the FDA still has this notion that you protect people by putting gay men out of the pool."

Dr. Deborah Cohan, an obstetrics and gynecology instructor at the University of California, San Francisco, said some lesbians prefer to receive sperm from a gay donor because they feel such a man would be more receptive to the concept of a family headed by a same-sex couple.

"This rule will make things legally more difficult for them," she said.

"I can't think of a scientifically valid reason -- it has to be an issue of discrimination."

 

aidanjm

Lifer
Aug 9, 2004
12,411
2
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
5-5-2005 FDA to ban sperm from men who had gay sex

"Under these rules, a heterosexual man who had unprotected sex with HIV-positive prostitutes would be OK as a donor one year later, but a gay man in a monogamous, safe-sex relationship is not OK unless he's been celibate for five years," said Leland Traiman, director of a clinic in Alameda, California, that seeks gay sperm donors.

"The part I find most offensive -- and a little frightening -- is that it isn't based on good science," Cathcart said. "There's a steadily increasing trend of heterosexual transmission of HIV, and yet the FDA still has this notion that you protect people by putting gay men out of the pool."

Dr. Deborah Cohan, an obstetrics and gynecology instructor at the University of California, San Francisco, said some lesbians prefer to receive sperm from a gay donor because they feel such a man would be more receptive to the concept of a family headed by a same-sex couple.

"This rule will make things legally more difficult for them," she said.

"I can't think of a scientifically valid reason -- it has to be an issue of discrimination."

I guess the aim here must be to start weeding the gay gene or gay genes out of the population
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Republicans succeed at keeping California discriminatory against Gays

6-3-2005 California lawmakers kill off gay marriage bill

SACRAMENTO, Calif. - California's Assembly on Thursday killed off a bill that would have allowed gay marriage in the nation's most populous state.

The Democratic-controlled Assembly fell six votes short of the needed 41 votes for the bill by Democratic Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco.

None of the 33 Republicans in the 80-member Assembly backed the bill.


 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: shrumpage
hmmm- even though the democrats have a majority control, you blame the republicans?

Yep, absolutely.

Look at the numbers.

Not every Democrat voted for the bill while on the other side of the coin, every single Republican voted against it.

It's in plain Black & Anti-Gay for all to see.

 

shrumpage

Golden Member
Mar 1, 2004
1,304
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: shrumpage
hmmm- even though the democrats have a majority control, you blame the republicans?

Yep, absolutely.

Look at the numbers.

Not every Democrat voted for the bill while on the other side of the coin, every single Republican voted against it.

It's in plain Black & Anti-Gay for all to see.

It just shows that there is not enough support for this bill amoung democrats and is an unpopular bill with the MAJORITY, period. Coming from a liberal state as CA, reinforces the notion that people do not want and are not ready for same-sex marriage, reguardless of their policitcal affilation.