Omaha Mall Shooting

Pages

AuthorTopic: Omaha Mall Shooting
Lack of Vision
Member # 2717
Profile #356
I've been sort of reading this post for a while now and am dumbfounded by anyone saying restrictions on gay marriage are not discriminatory. You've either talked yourself out of the ordinary language definition of "discrimination" like a sophist or are engaging in an exercise of willful ignorance.

What happened when gay couples got married in MA? Um, pretty much nothing, except many people were able to legally sanction their unions. (horrors!)

And as for saying this era being one of extreme secularism, you better put down that skirribane weed. The president of the republic runs around talking about how his faith tells him to bomb middle eastern countries. And Mitt Romney runs around telling us he believes in God enough to get elected. And how many of those major candidates are atheists? Oh, that's right, ZERO.

When JFK gave his famous speech about being a Catholic, he assured Americans that it was okay to vote for him because he would leave religion in the church and govern the affairs of men based on reason and logic, and not on orders from the Vatican. Can someone seriously say that a major candidate would say the same thing today?

Let me repeat - the president of the republic feels perfectly okay saying GOD SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO HIM. If this is extreme secularism, my god what would you consider mild secularism? Burning witches and stoning children to death for disobeying their parents?

Z

[ Sunday, December 16, 2007 17:25: Message edited by: Zorro ]

--------------------
Pan Lever: Seventeen apple roving mirror moiety. Of turned quorum jaggedly the. Blue?
Posts: 186 | Registered: Thursday, February 27 2003 08:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #357
It's nice to see you stop in, Zorro.

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #358
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Synergy,

Are you even trying to understand what I’m saying? Your responses indicate that you’re not. I’m not saying that marriage should be restricted because it’s a moral issue, because I’m not saying that marriage should be restricted!

Yeah, Stillness is right on this one. Synergy's responses have reflected little to no understanding of what Stillness has actually said. Just wanted to note that.
You're so helpful.

Show me anyone who does get what the hell Stillness is actually trying to say, and, more importantly why he is saying it.

I think Stillness is dodgy and disingenuous, about the degree to which his religion shapes his opinions, rather than anything personal or otherwise meaningful. Either way, I wish he'd just put his cards on the table in simple, concise terms: "This is what I believe and why."

The bottom line on morality is there is no absolute morality. It's whatever we say is "right" or "wrong," (or say God says is right and wrong - same thing), and it changes continually throughout time and place, as even the history of the large churches alone will plainly show. "Morality" might be argued to be little more than popular opinion and preference winning out. My point is that there is no argument I see Stillness making, or that I see even can be made, that the social construct we have invented called marriage has any inherent reason to favor any combination of the sexes. He seems to be saying otherwise, and seems to want to suggest there is some reason other than just because he believes God said so. I can't see him actually offering one yet though, apart from some murky generality about one way being more "natural" than another.

Stillness, put your cards on the table in 1-3 simple sentences, if you are able, so that someone reading them for the first time could understand your belief system regarding marriage and the sexes. I don't even care what you think government should or shouldn't do. All I want to know is what you personally think and why.

Permit me to demonstrate how this might appear, by doing the same for myself first.

1) Marriage is an arbitrary social construct with no inherent quality or meaning apart from what we have chosen to give it.

2) There is no practical or moral reason any combination of people who wish to "marry" should not be permitted to do so.

3) Any "moral" reason that could be given is irrelevant, because morality is also our own, ever-changing construct, just like marriage. Even the churches have changed their morality significantly over the centuries.

BOTTOM LINE: There is no absolute or practical reason why marriage should be favored for some or limited for some. The government doesn't need to be involved with it at all. The only basis I can see for absolute declarations of inherent value or morality to any particular construct of marriage is religious: "Because God said so" which is not any kind of answer at all, but the real reason we have such lingering hangups about domestic and sexual partnership in the first place.

I perceive this is the only real reason Stillness has for making his argument against certain kinds of marriage being recognized, but I don't think he has the guts to admit it.

-S-

[ Monday, December 17, 2007 02:56: Message edited by: Synergy ]

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator N:R Items The Lonely Celt A5 Items A5 Map
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #359
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

BOTTOM LINE: There is no absolute or practical reason why marriage should be favored for some or limited for some. The government doesn't need to be involved with it at all.
Unfortunately, your argument, like most extreme moral relativist arguments, proves too much: if marriage and morality are both arbitrary constructs, there's also no reason for the government not to arbitrarily limit marriage. Whatever the people in power decide to allow or disallow, their decision is just as valid as any other decision they might have made. This kind of relativism is fine if you want to end up defending fascism, but not so great otherwise.

If one is a moral relativist but not a fascist, it's generally best to keep up the polite fiction that one isn't completely relativist either -- or at least find some other hobby-horse, like "practicality", that can do most of the important work that "morality" does. I gotta say, though, I didn't have you picked as a Nietzschean either. Besides, it's kinda hard to credibly tell others what they can and can't tell others to do if you've already rejected the idea that your statements have any objective normative power. I mean, unless you want to go to the trouble of explaining to them why it's in their own best interests to avoid telling others what to do.

[ Monday, December 17, 2007 04:56: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #360
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Show me anyone who does get what the hell Stillness is actually trying to say, and, more importantly why he is saying it.
He's said it a whole bunch of times. He's saying that not allowing gay marriage is not discrimination in the way that Jim Crow laws were discrimination, because gay marriage really is different from straight marriage, whereas black people aren't really different from white people.

This argument isn't valid, but it isn't hard to understand.

The problem that you've been having is that you think that this means that he's arguing against gay marriage. He's not. One could (via some circuitous but possible logic) argue that it may not be prejudicial discrimination but it's still not right for various reasons, and therefore gay marriage should be allowed. He's explicitly not taken a stand on that. He's just saying that it's not like racial discrimination, whether it's right or wrong.

[ Monday, December 17, 2007 05:29: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #361
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

He's said it a whole bunch of times. He's saying that not allowing gay marriage is not discrimination in the way that Jim Crow laws were discrimination, because gay marriage really is different from straight marriage, whereas black people aren't really different from white people.

This argument isn't valid, but it isn't hard to understand.

The problem that you've been having is that you think that this means that he's arguing against gay marriage. He's not. One could (via some circuitous but possible logic) argue that it may not be prejudicial discrimination but it's still not right for various reasons, and therefore gay marriage should be allowed. He's explicitly not taken a stand on that. He's just saying that it's not like racial discrimination, whether it's right or wrong.

We mustn't forget, as splendid as your logic sounds, that we can't compare marriages in order to find discrimination, since it isn't marriage that's being discriminated.

The individuals who are getting married (or not) are the ones who are being discriminated on feeble grounds. Stillness has stated that he thinks 'practicing homosexuality is bad'. He never answered why.

Instead he took it from there trying to prove his point. At first he was eager about proper definitions of words (pumpkin pie vs. sweet potatoe pie) and when that didn't work he refused to respond to other people's comments on that. Then he was shifting goal-posts again, talking marriage and people as if it were the same thing until most people who were willing to argue with him couldn't see through all the smoke he created.

It boils down to this: Sex (as in gender) is nothing people decide on, it merits (warrats) no reward. Withholding certain legal (not biological) benefits from people on these grounds is discrimination (and, yes: sexual discrimination is not like racial discrimination, because it isn't racial discrimination. In every other aspect it is just like racial discrimination.)

If somebody, e.g. a homophobe Jehova's Witness tries to prove to you that homosexuality is bad without daring to say so from the start, beating around the bush in which he hides his core thesis, it might not be a very good idea to keep debating, after you discovered what he's really after, as if he weren't a homophobe loony.

edit: quite a few typos. I hope I squashed them.

[ Monday, December 17, 2007 06:07: Message edited by: Locmaar ]

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #362
quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

We mustn't forget, as splendid as your logic sounds
My logic? Now you really are being obtuse. I was just summarizing the argument of the person I've been disagreeing with for fifteen pages.

quote:
If somebody, e.g. a homophobe Jehova's Witness tries to prove to you that homosexuality is bad
That's not the topic under discussion.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #363
I know what you were trying to do and that is what I was referring to: your explanation of Stillness' reasoning. If you think I'm confusing your explanation of his reasoning with your own thoughts and opinions, then you clearly misunderstood me as much as you misunderstood Stillness' ambition.

quote:
That's not the topic under discussion.
It isn't for you, nor most other people on the board, but for Stillness it is. That's my point.

Edit: As regards to my being obtuse (better: now being really obtuse): Alec at least had the courtesy of explaining to Safey why he is an idiot. What's your story?

[ Monday, December 17, 2007 07:14: Message edited by: Locmaar ]

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #364
No, it's not.

Stillness has said that he believes that, but he has explicitly avoided using it as an argument for anything.

There are places where Stillness has not provided a reasonable argument, and it may be construed -- as you seem to be construing it -- that Stillness actually arrived at his conclusion by means of "homosexuality is bad." However, it really doesn't matter. Lack of a reasonable argument is lack of a reasonable argument; it doesn't really matter what is motivating the lack of reason.

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #365
quote:
Originally written by Fernication:

No, it's not.

Stillness has said that he believes that, but he has explicitly avoided using it as an argument for anything.

What is not?

I never said he was. But it's the basis for him getting started in this discussion. From there he was trying to argue, which is why:

1.) he broke his chain of reasoning by his own terms every now and again

and

2.) he didn't make sense some of the time.

I ask you now: What's so difficult to understand about this?

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #366
quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

I know what you were trying to do and that is what I was referring to: your explanation of Stillness' reasoning.
You said: "We mustn't forget, as splendid as your logic sounds, that we can't compare marriages in order to find discrimination, since it isn't marriage that's being discriminated. The individuals who are getting married (or not) are the ones who are being discriminated on feeble grounds." The only point that I made in the preceding post was that one could think that banning gay marriage is not comparable to Jim Crow discrimination but also think that banning gay marriage is wrong.

quote:
Edit: As regards to my being obtuse (better: now being really obtuse): Alec at least had the courtesy of explaining to Safey why he is an idiot. What's your story?
I did. It was the following sentence. Confusing my opinions with Stillness's is pretty bad.

quote:
quote:
That's not the topic under discussion.
It isn't for you, nor most other people on the board, but for Stillness it is.
If I'm not mistaken, this is what Slarty's "No, it's not," was in reference to.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #367
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

Edit: As regards to my being obtuse (better: now being really obtuse): Alec at least had the courtesy of explaining to Safey why he is an idiot. What's your story?
I did. It was the following sentence. Confusing my opinions with Stillness's is pretty bad.

Even when I didn't?
I thought I had explained that in my follow-up.

quote:
The only point that I made in the preceding post was that one could think that banning gay marriage is not comparable to Jim Crow discrimination but also think that banning gay marriage is wrong.
This is the logic I was referring to. Obviously a lot of us didn't actually get what Stillness was getting at. I think your explanation of what you think he was trying to get at sounds nice, but I don't share your assessment.

If I have insulted you in any way by making the impression I thought you and Stillness were arguing the same case, then I apologize. I'm not that mean.

[ Monday, December 17, 2007 08:35: Message edited by: Locmaar ]

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #368
quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

I think your explanation of what you think he was trying to get at sounds nice, but I don't share your assessment.
You still aren't understanding, I think. I'm not saying that Stillness supports gay marriage (he doesn't). I'm not saying that he's not horribly biased and prejudiced (he is). I'm saying that he has claimed not to take a stand on the gay marriage issue here, and his arguments here regarding the issue that he's attempting to address have not made any point about whether gay marriage is right or wrong; they've addressed its comparability to other forms of discrimination.

I've merely asserted that it's possible for him to do so. If you disagree with me, please explain clearly why, in particular by saying what exactly you disagree with (whether this was in fact Stillness's point or whether it is possible for someone to avoid taking a position on this issue in this discussion).

[ Monday, December 17, 2007 10:03: Message edited by: Kelandon ]

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #369
Hopefully Stillness will be able to continue this discussion, as these last pages of trying to introduce new participants to the discussion has not been turning out very well.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #370
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

I think your explanation of what you think he was trying to get at sounds nice, but I don't share your assessment.
You still aren't understanding, I think. I'm not saying that Stillness supports gay marriage (he doesn't). I'm not saying that he's not horribly biased and prejudiced (he is). I'm saying that he has claimed not to take a stand on the gay marriage issue here, and his arguments here regarding the issue that he's attempting to address have not made any point about whether gay marriage is right or wrong; they've addressed its comparability to other forms of discrimination.

I understand very well what you are saying, even though I feel like you don't quite understand my point.

First off: you can compare absolutely everything. If you don't compare apples to pears you won't find out the difference. I feel quite positive you know this already, but there's a reason why I'm bringing this up. Once you've stated these differences you can finish your comparism and come to a result. They are both fruit and grow on trees. They might taste different, but then again no breed of apple tastes quite like another, nor does any kind of pear.

Eventually you have to reach a conclusion, right? Now after your conclusion (fruit, eadible, trees, taste) somebody (who's had an apple once that made him ill) says: "Wait! You're wrong. You can't compare them because they are different. Apples are no fruit. Just because they grow on trees and taste like something, they are completely different and can't be treated the same. Pears, on the other hand, are fruit, so let's stick to that."

I don't know many people who would subscribe to this point of view, and I still don't know if this illustrates what I'm trying to get at any better.

I don't think Stillness meant to compare these two. It has been pointed out to him way too often that his arguments don't make sense, and why. The only reason I can see is that he just doesn't like apples.

So you're right with your summary of what Stillness said, but not with what he was trying to get at, I think. That's what I was trying to point out.

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #371
Locmaar: is what you're saying that you believe Stillness isn't arguing in good faith, and that as long as that's the case you believe it's pointless to attempt to engage with his arguments? We all know quite well that Stillness's arguments are motivated by the fact that in his heart of hearts he's a homophobic jackass; we've been skirting around this fact because the polite thing to do in a debate is to play the ball and not the man.

[ Monday, December 17, 2007 12:32: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #372
Thuryl, yes, that's part of what I mean. Of course it's more polite to play the ball, as long as everybody's doing that. But if somebody starts cheating, gets caught doing so, is confronted with this fact, and still continues, it's time to call it off. That's not polite, it's futile. Staleness is probably laughing his butt off by now.

PS: I almost laughed my butt off after reading this sentence:

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

... Stillness isn't arguing in good faith..
That's funny stuff. :)

[ Monday, December 17, 2007 12:57: Message edited by: Locmaar ]

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #373
quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

So you're right with your summary of what Stillness said, but not with what he was trying to get at, I think.
And you think that what he "was trying to get at" is that homosexuality is wrong and immoral, and that was the point of all of this?

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #374
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

[QUOTE]And you think that what he "was trying to get at" is that homosexuality is wrong and immoral, and that was the point of all of this?
Sad as that may sound - yes. But it fits nicely with what he was doing last time, when he was telling everybody how wrong evolution is, luring us into Behe's dark realm. He would even have read us 'Of Pandas and Men' or some other ill-begotten piece of drool.

Please, don't get me wrong. It's a good thing to try and debate with people who don't share your point of view. But with Stillness it seems to be a different case altogether.

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #375
I don't think Stillness is going to be back for this one folks. He has a pattern of debating while on topic, and then leaving at the point of ad hominem. Which is fine with me, since no one here would dream of trying to persuade someone to change their faith. Especially when it is one they are comfortable inhabiting.

--------------------
Synergy, et al - "I don't get it."

Thralni - "a lot of people are ... too weird to be trusted"
Posts: 4114 | Registered: Monday, April 25 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #376
You guys are funny. Not only is practicing homosexuality wrong by standards of absolute morality, but also it’s physically harmful and bad for society in the ways it is practiced. I could argue the latter without flipping a page in the Bible, but I’m am not interested in having this discussion or one on Biblical morality, which is why I avoided it. And I am a minister and a teacher of the Bible, so to think I’m afraid of discussing it is ridiculous. Every time I crack it open my atheistic/agnostic students challenge me to prove it’s real or that it’s morality is superior.

Google diseases common to sodomy and vaginal-oral sex if you think these things are good. There are doctors that specialize in treating homosexuals for this reason. We already discussed the health benefits of heterosexual sex. Compare away. I didn’t compare the two, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE ISSUE AND I DON”T WANT TO DISCUSS IT HERE. Having a discussion about secular views is of interest to me in this forum. It’s too bad that some of you lack the focus and reading comprehension to have it with me.

And I wasn’t aware of a pattern in leaving discussions, but I doubt it has as much to do with ad hominems, as it does with sidetracking, distortion of the argument, and lack of reason. If a person misses the whole point of the discussion and adds nothing worthwhile (Locmaar) I feel no further need to address them. If my opponent calls me a jackass and brings my family into the discussion (Thuryl), but makes the best argument in defense of the position opposite mine I can usually ignore the fluff.

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

A woman is allowed to do something that I'm not: namely, marry a man. That's sexual discrimination, and if you want to justify it you're going to have to do better than claim it isn't discrimination.
How did it take you all so long to hit on this? Every single post I was waiting for it.

I have an answer, but let me ask you this first: You accuse me of arbitrary legalism for going with the sex on the birth certificate, so how would you know if the government is discriminating without looking at the sex on birth certificate? Or try this one: If sex were not on the birth certificate, would there be another way of telling the difference between a male and a female?

Black people do generally have a darker skin tone, but not always. I don’t think your question qualifies as discrimination, but what would be better (not that either would be good policy) is if the government set a more objective skin tone standard instead of basing it on your more arbitrary one. (Notice that I say “more arbitrary, ” because the idea the most black people are darker that white people is an objective fact, even though white and black are arbitrary divisions).

And way to miss the point on my other questions. I know a man can’t get away with raping his wife anymore and I don’t know what you mean when you say you feel sorry for my wife but sexual attraction is mutual and was part of the basis for our marriage, like just about every marriage in which the partners choose their mate. The point that you miss, however, is that marriage was and still is considered to be sexual in nature.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Fernication:

it's false to suggest that you can prejudge a group on the basis of its composition without also prejudging its members…

[1] Individuals have races.
[2] Marriages do not, so you can't discriminate between marriages based on the race of the marriage.
[3] Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable to pass a law recognizing only marriages that include both a black person and a white person.

Do you agree with that statement as well?

If you substitute "gender" for "race" and "a man and a woman" for "a black person and a white person" this is your exact logic.

No it is not. This is discrimination against individuals, more along the lines of what Thuryl is arguing above, only with genders. While the government is making a distinction on the nature of the marriage based on the sexes of its partners, it’s not prejudging to say a male is a male, a female is a female, or that a union of these two is different from any other. I’m going to stop here, though and just stick to Thuryl’s new argument, as it has not been addressed a zillion times and is stronger IMO.

I suggest that you all do some research on race though. I have in the past and I don’t think you understand the scientific view of it. There are more differences within the “races” that there are between them. I’ve personally experienced how arbitrary the categorization is. I’m of Native American, African, and European descent (that I know of). I’ve been asked if I’m Hawaiian, Puerto Rican, Cuban, and Ethiopian…off the top of my head. A fellow “African-American” (which is a ridiculous classification if you ask me) recently asked me if I was “pure.” I told her I would answer her question if she could tell me what “pure” is. She could not. That’s because it’s an almost meaningless question. There are some traits that may be typical to different “races,” but to divide along these lines is arbitrary. It certainly lacks the meaning in differentiating between male and female because the very existence of humanity is tied to the uniting of the two sexes. And it’s becoming less and less meaningful as the world becomes a smaller and smaller place and more and more “interracial” babies are born.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

In appearance, at the very least (and here I'm not getting into genetic arguments, but they could be made), people of different races are genuinely different. They're not exactly the same (not like the current in the wire). If they were exactly the same, racial discrimination wouldn't even be possible (because how would you ever tell the difference, in order to discriminate?). Racial discrimination is not wrong because race is arbitrary; it's not.
I have a great-grandmother and a grandmother that are “black” that could pass for white. You can’t tell the difference in a lot of cases, at least not with ease. This is why I mentioned the “African-American” that found out that he was really of East Asian descent at the top of the discussion. One could do genetic studies. But you could do this with height, hairiness, or foot size too, if you knew the code well enough. What makes it arbitrary is the way the division is made, not the fact that people have differences. Parents can even have children that appear to be different races, but no one would say that they are.

quote:
gay people can have sex. Unless you can make a reasonable argument that the kind of sex matters — and the Lawrence v. Texas decision goes against that notion — then gay marriage should be on equal footing.
Does it really? I don’t think so. I think it says the government can’t interfere in the bedroom, not that sodomy=heterosexual vaginal sex. Correct me if I’m wrong. If I am, it would seem you have the law in your favor.

quote:
same-sex marriage can be good in the very same ways that opposite-sex marriage can be.
This is a logical argument if you can make it. I won’t argue here. I have never heard this argument publicly espoused, except on these boards.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Stillness, every time you state that you see no connection between forgone discriminatory laws and present day laws that we say discriminate, you reinforce my point that you may be incapable of seeing the difference.
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

The problem is not that the weak parallel is missed by me, but that the differences are missed by you.

I told you I’m not being repetitive by myself.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

I think Stillness is dodgy and disingenuous, about the degree to which his religion shapes his opinions, rather than anything personal or otherwise meaningful.
My religion shapes everything about me. I’ve never been dishonest about that. The problem is that you want to make this discussion about what you want it to be about. It’s not. Find someone else that wants to debate your topic or add something worthwhile to this one.

-----

By the way, I’m completely open to the possibility that my views on homosexuality affect my view of the logic inherent to the arguments for legalization of homosexual marriage. That’s the very reason I challenged you all. I’m a skeptic and I try to be intellectually honest and logical. I’m really trying to see your perspective and I am in some ways. But, are you open to the possibility that your views on what is moral and what is not color your perception of logic?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #377
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Google diseases common to sodomy and vaginal-oral sex if you think these things are good. There are doctors that specialize in treating homosexuals for this reason.
If you don't want to discuss this issue, don't bring it up. Since you brought it up in such an absurd way, it's clearly going to be discussed. If sexually transmitted diseases are the reason you think anal sex and vaginal oral sex are bad, doesn't that apply to a similar degree to vaginal sex and genital oral sex? Yes, I am aware that disease transmission works differently depending on the type of contact (obviously). But there's plenty of chance for disease transmission in any kind of sex, most especially any kind of penetrative sex. If anything this is an argument for lesbianism.

quote:
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

A woman is allowed to do something that I'm not: namely, marry a man. That's sexual discrimination, and if you want to justify it you're going to have to do better than claim it isn't discrimination.
How did it take you all so long to hit on this? Every single post I was waiting for it.

How did it take you so long to recognize this? This is the same thing that Alorael, myself, and several others were saying again and again for pages now.

quote:
quote:
Originally written by Fernication:

it's false to suggest that you can prejudge a group on the basis of its composition without also prejudging its members…

[1] Individuals have races.
[2] Marriages do not, so you can't discriminate between marriages based on the race of the marriage.
[3] Therefore, it would be perfectly reasonable to pass a law recognizing only marriages that include both a black person and a white person.

Do you agree with that statement as well?

If you substitute "gender" for "race" and "a man and a woman" for "a black person and a white person" this is your exact logic.

No it is not. This is discrimination against individuals, more along the lines of what Thuryl is arguing above, only with genders. While the government is making a distinction on the nature of the marriage based on the sexes of its partners, it’s not prejudging to say a male is a male, a female is a female, or that a union of these two is different from any other.

I don't see the difference. Let me extend your explanation to my example:

"While the government is making a distinction on the nature of the marriage based on the races of its partners, it's not prejudging to say a black person is a black person, a white person is a white person, or that a union of these two is different from any other."

quote:
It certainly lacks the meaning in differentiating between male and female because the very existence of humanity is tied to the uniting of the two sexes. And it’s becoming less and less meaningful as the world becomes a smaller and smaller place and more and more “interracial” babies are born.
This is a good argument for why gender is more meaningful than race. But it doesn't explain why gender should be more connected to government benefits than race should be.

quote:
By the way, I’m completely open to the possibility that my views on homosexuality affect my view of the logic inherent to the arguments for legalization of homosexual marriage. That’s the very reason I challenged you all. I’m a skeptic and I try to be intellectually honest and logical. I’m really trying to see your perspective and I am in some ways. But, are you open to the possibility that your views on what is moral and what is not color your perception of logic?
This is an intelligent comment. The solution to this kind of situation, where we are aware that morality or emotion might be affecting our rationality, is to be ruthlessly rigorous with our logic, and to seek out all of its underpinnings. The fundamental disagreement here seems to me to be that your logic depends on a distinction between genders and our logic depends on applying rights and benefits without regard to gender.

[ Tuesday, December 18, 2007 08:50: Message edited by: Fernication ]

--------------------
Slarty vs. DeskDesk vs. SlartyTimeline of ErmarianG4 Strategy Central
"Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said.
Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00
Lack of Vision
Member # 2717
Profile #378
217 369 5484

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

You guys are funny. Not only is practicing homosexuality wrong by standards of absolute morality, but also it’s physically harmful and bad for society in the ways it is practiced.
This is hilariously wrong. Obviously you're not a medical professional or you would know better than to suggest being gay is physically harmful, and my advice to you is to check out WebMD. Here are a couple of basic readings that might be a useful place to start:

http://blogs.webmd.com/sexual-health-sex-matters/2007/04/is-homosexuality-against-nature.html

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/guide/sexual-orientation

Also, I have no idea why you think being gay is bad for society, but obviously that is the reason to which you object to gay marriage. You see, it is incumbent on you, the person proposing legal restrictions on who your fellow citizens can marry, to provide a clear rationale for why such a restriction is warranted. Like it or not, the USA was built on a foundation of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. And since you're proposing to interfer with at least two of the three listed above, give us a good reason. So far, you haven't - you've given a bogus and easily refutable medical argument; and an unsupported claim that gay people are a menace to society.

At any rate, it will do no good to trying to argue around the ordinary language meaning of "discrimination" - what you propose (legal restrictions on gay marriage) is clearly discriminatory. Discrimination is a family resemblance concept, so you'll just tie yourself in linguistic knots trying to understand the essence of “discrimination”. Like the word "game", its uses generally share the same features but there is no single feature that applies to all instances in which the word "discrimination" is properly used.

So your challenge is clear - describe why it is proper to restrict the constitutional rights of citizens to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Z

[ Tuesday, December 18, 2007 10:07: Message edited by: Zorro ]

--------------------
Pan Lever: Seventeen apple roving mirror moiety. Of turned quorum jaggedly the. Blue?
Posts: 186 | Registered: Thursday, February 27 2003 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #379
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
gay people can have sex. Unless you can make a reasonable argument that the kind of sex matters — and the Lawrence v. Texas decision goes against that notion — then gay marriage should be on equal footing.
Does it really? I don’t think so. I think it says the government can’t interfere in the bedroom, not that sodomy=heterosexual vaginal sex. Correct me if I’m wrong. If I am, it would seem you have the law in your favor.

I don't think there is any circumstance — maybe someone can contrive one — in which the exact nature of the sex being had makes any legal difference whatsoever. Laws regarding rape, etc., all apply no matter what position or type of intercourse was happening.

quote:
quote:
same-sex marriage can be good in the very same ways that opposite-sex marriage can be.
This is a logical argument if you can make it. I won’t argue here. I have never heard this argument publicly espoused, except on these boards.
You may not have heard it publicly espoused, because politicians tend (particularly on this issue, but also in general) to stress their positions and not their reasoning. But this has been what I've been saying for pages now: there is no difference relevant to the purposes of marriage between same-sex marriages and opposite-sex marriages, and since there is no difference, they are equally good and useful.

--------------------
Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens.
Smoo: Get ready to face the walls!
Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr.

Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me
The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever
Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #380
Slarty,

On your race-gender comparison, gender is not an arbitrary distinction as race is. That’s the difference. Contrary to the opinion of some, marriage is strongly related to child rearing and sex. Some of the proofs of this have already been discussed. When I got married (in Michigan) I had to watch a video on health and STD’s first and they suggested we get check ups, though these were optional. I do believe that in some states it is still required that the man and woman are tested for genetically and sexually transmitted disease first, though. If you don’t think that sex and children are related to the government view of marriage, please tell me why marriage to close relatives is forbidden.

And I’m sorry if I missed the sexism point, but I really don’t remember seeing it until Thuryl brought it up…and I was waiting for it. I saw comparisons to sexual discrimination, but not the claim that it is sexual discrimination because Thuryl can’t marry a man. But, never mind that. I see it now, and I’ll respond once I get my question is answered.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Zorro:

I have no idea why you think being gay is bad for society, but obviously that is the reason to which you object to gay marriage. You see, it is incumbent on you, the person proposing legal restrictions on who your fellow citizens can marry, to provide a clear rationale for why such a restriction is warranted.
I looked at both of your links and read them thoroughly because I thought that they might have information saying that homosexuality was good or as beneficial as heterosexuality and that piqued my interest, but they don’t. Even if they did I’m not objecting to gay marriage or proposing legal restrictions. Please don’t think I missed you if you make this argument again and I don’t respond.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

I don't think there is any circumstance — maybe someone can contrive one — in which the exact nature of the sex being had makes any legal difference whatsoever. Laws regarding rape, etc., all apply no matter what position or type of intercourse was happening.
But, if the government sees some particular type of action as generally good, why can’t it encourage that while not discouraging or making illegal other types of actions? I don’t think anyone is answering this question. That’s why I gave the example of development zones, which some folks seem to be missing. Anybody can build a house or start a business. But if you do so in a certain way in a certain area, you can get grants, credits, etc. Is this wrong? Is this discrimination? That’s the way I always imagined the governmental view of marriage is, like an empowerment zone. They see stable and more permanent relationships between a man and a woman as good and want to encourage this.

Why do you all think governments give special consideration to marriage?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00

Pages