User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 65

  1. #11
    Sheep pill, broster asynartetic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    10,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captain curmudgeon View Post
    Why would I want to go with them? 2014 isn't like 1954- times change for a reason.
    Or stay here, I don't care.

  2. #12
    Senior Member captain curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    BIRD
    Enneagram
    631 sp
    Posts
    3,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy Conduit View Post
    Or stay here, I don't care.
    It seems that you're assuming that I am against gay marriage, even though in a previous post I clearly used the word 'unfortunately' in reference to opposition to gay marriage. Didn't your parents teach you that assumptions are bad, or at least that wildly off-base ones are bound to make you look intellectually weak?
    Jarlaxle: fact checking this thread makes me want to go all INFP on my wrists

    "I'm in competition with myself and I'm losing."
    -Roger Waters

    ReadingRainbows: OMG GUYS
    ReadingRainbows: GUESS WHAT EXISTS FOR ME
    hel: fairies?
    Captain Curmudgeon: existential angst?


    Johari Nohari

    https://www.librarything.com/profile/wheelchairdoug

  3. #13
    Sheep pill, broster asynartetic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    10,070

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by captain curmudgeon View Post
    It seems that you're assuming that I am against gay marriage, even though in a previous post I clearly used the word 'unfortunately' in reference to opposition to gay marriage. Didn't your parents teach you that assumptions are bad, or at least that wildly off-base ones are bound to make you look intellectually weak?
    bro, i've been drinking. :fistbump:

  4. #14
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Another example of judicial tyranny. Let the states decide and put the matter to a vote. Marriage is a privilege, like it or not, and all privileges are by definition discriminatory. That's why it's called a privilege and not a right. People who use the equal treatment argument don't really support equal treatment. If they did, they'd oppose progressive taxes since these taxes discriminate against the rich, but the same people who want equal treatment in marriage don't want equal treatment in taxation.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  5. #15
    Member KittyrinahasCupquake's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    N/A sp
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    73

    Default

    I think this is a mjor step forward, if the U.S does this then a few other countries will follow (hopefully) and if they don't then they will be seen as discriminatory, just my opinion
    INFJ
    9w1 sp "The Dreamer"
    New here with little knowledge of what any of this means
    New opportunities
    New ways of thinking

    Introverted 100%
    Intuition 73%
    Feeling 87%
    Judging 56%

  6. #16
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Another example of judicial tyranny. Let the states decide and put the matter to a vote. Marriage is a privilege, like it or not, and all privileges are by definition discriminatory. That's why it's called a privilege and not a right.
    As I said, the judge in this case is a Christian Republican. he was also accused of "judicial activism" for the Dover outcome, although he mentioned as much in his judgment that he would be accused by people who didn't like the decision.

    The problem is that SCOTUS set groundwork last summer for it to be read as discriminatory, because there was no compelling reason for the ban, and the class of people had been specifically singled out for discrimination (the DOMA resolution in the 90's specifically said they were providing "moral repudiation of homosexualithy" as a basis for the law), and since gay people are already allowed to raise families, adopt kids, etc., to not provide the full extent of privileges actually undermine their ability to create the stable family structures that marriage supporters claim to venerate. EDIT: We also have a problem where it's a tangled mess for one state to recognize it and another state not... I can explain the intricacies but you can easily Google them.

    on that basis, your suggestion is like saying, "Well, as long as the state votes to take away the women's vote because they are female, or that black people can be refused service in public establishments because they are black, or old people can be refused for jobs they are qualified for simply because of age, then it's fine... because the people have chosen to discriminate." That's not how this country works.

    Besides, this is exactly the role of the judiciary branch: To screen laws that have been passed, to see if they are constitutional or not. The legislature is free to make whatever laws it wants and the people are allowed to vote, but they have to pass this kind of screening. Otherwise there'd be no checks and balance on the legislature.

    People who use the equal treatment argument don't really support equal treatment. If they did, they'd oppose progressive taxes since these taxes discriminate against the rich, but the same people who want equal treatment in marriage don't want equal treatment in taxation.
    people aren't required to be consistent in the broad ways you're stating. I could say as much about people who would claim to believe in freedom and charity, then insist on certain kinds of discriminatory policies. But maybe that analogy wouldn't be fair, because I've defined "freedom and charity" too broadly, just like you've done with "equal treatment" here?

    Let's keep the topics separate. You can believe in equal treatment in terms of one situation, while in another you might believe the situation is different or that the context results in another conclusion.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  7. #17
    Ginkgo
    Guest

    Default

    \m/

  8. #18
    Senior Member captain curmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    BIRD
    Enneagram
    631 sp
    Posts
    3,266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy Conduit View Post
    bro, i've been drinking. :fistbump:


    Wait, I haven't been drinking...yet?
    Jarlaxle: fact checking this thread makes me want to go all INFP on my wrists

    "I'm in competition with myself and I'm losing."
    -Roger Waters

    ReadingRainbows: OMG GUYS
    ReadingRainbows: GUESS WHAT EXISTS FOR ME
    hel: fairies?
    Captain Curmudgeon: existential angst?


    Johari Nohari

    https://www.librarything.com/profile/wheelchairdoug

  9. #19
    deplorable basketcase Tellenbach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    3,953

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer
    As I said, the judge in this case is a Christian Republican.
    This is irrelevant. This is a 10th Amendment issue. Each individual state should get to decide which groups to grant certain privileges to.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer
    The problem is that SCOTUS set groundwork last summer for it to be read as discriminatory, because there was no compelling reason for the ban, and the class of people had been specifically singled out for discrimination (the DOMA resolution in the 90's specifically said they were providing "moral repudiation of homosexualithy" as a basis for the law), and since gay people are already allowed to raise families, adopt kids, etc., to not provide the full extent of privileges actually undermine their ability to create the stable family structures that marriage supporters claim to venerate. EDIT: We also have a problem where it's a tangled mess for one state to recognize it and another state not... I can explain the intricacies but you can easily Google them.
    Of course it's discriminatory since all privileges are discriminatory. Society can't afford to give everyone certain privileges, especially privileges that cost money. For instance, President Obama can give an ambassadorship to Caroline Kennedy and that privilege isn't extended to the rest of us. I have no problem with that even though it is discriminatory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer
    on that basis, your suggestion is like saying, "Well, as long as the state votes to take away the women's vote because they are female, or that black people can be refused service in public establishments because they are black, or old people can be refused for jobs they are qualified for simply because of age, then it's fine... because the people have chosen to discriminate." That's not how this country works.
    Voting is a Constitutionally guaranteed right; it's not a privilege. That's the difference. I also disagree with laws that tell a business who they should or shouldn't hire. The free market automatically weeds out bigots because it's an inferior business model; we don't need the government involved at all.

    Besides, this is exactly the role of the judiciary branch: To screen laws that have been passed, to see if they are constitutional or not. The legislature is free to make whatever laws it wants and the people are allowed to vote, but they have to pass this kind of screening. Otherwise there'd be no checks and balance on the legislature.
    How does defining marriage as between a man and a woman violate the Constitution? It doesn't; this is clearly a 10th Amendment right given to the states and we're seeing judges impose their personal beliefs on tens of millions of people.

    people aren't required to be consistent in the broad ways you're stating.
    Gay marriage proponents who use the equal treatment argument are hypocrites; they support discrimination of other groups as I've demonstrated. They aren't required to be consistent but I'm going to point it out.

    You can believe in equal treatment in terms of one situation, while in another you might believe the situation is different or that the context results in another conclusion.
    I'm entirely and perpetually consistent. I support discrimination-based privileges because it's a necessity and there is no getting around it.
    Senator Rand Paul is alive because of modern medicine and because his attacker punches like a girl.

  10. #20
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,130

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Another example of judicial tyranny.
    A tyrant who strikes down bans and makes privileges accessible to all is a good democrat and a tyrant worth keeping.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tellenbach View Post
    Of course it's discriminatory since all privileges are discriminatory. Society can't afford to give everyone certain privileges, especially privileges that cost money. For instance, President Obama can give an ambassadorship to Caroline Kennedy and that privilege isn't extended to the rest of us. I have no problem with that even though it is discriminatory.
    You can rest easy: Marriage is still discriminatory. As a privilege, it is not extended to all, it is merely made accessible to all. You still have to perform certain rituals to be granted legal recognition of your partnership.

    Similarly, President Obama can give an ambassadorship to Caroline Kennedy only because women are allowed to hold such positions. Imagine they were not. Imagine there was a beautifully discriminatory ban on women in such positions. I would be in favor of removing such a ban, if necessary by an act of judicial tyranny. Then again, I am not fanatically afraid of the government.

Similar Threads

  1. Support for Same-Sex Marriage Climbs to New High
    By Totenkindly in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 299
    Last Post: 06-26-2011, 10:43 PM
  2. Question for those who oppose same-sex marriage on religious grounds:
    By Brendan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 05-05-2010, 09:32 PM
  3. Same-Sex Marriage
    By metaphours in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 08-04-2009, 07:52 AM
  4. Do you think same-sex marriage should be legal?
    By ez78705 in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 257
    Last Post: 05-22-2009, 05:02 PM
  5. Christianity Today Poll (same-sex marriages)
    By Totenkindly in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 09-14-2007, 08:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO