Omaha Mall Shooting

Pages

AuthorTopic: Omaha Mall Shooting
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #431
Originally by Stillness:

quote:
Here are some references for those that think using stuff for a purpose outside what it’s made for equates to using it in harmony with the design:
And yet, considering how easy it is to google up stuff like this, it seems that "using stuff for its intended purpose" isn't always harmonious either.

Also, the first reference had "and venereal infections in the partner" in it, so I read the abstract. The study concludes "[t]he presence of high-risk types of HPV, notably HPV-16 (which is known to cause cancer of the cervix), in the majority of anal-cancer tissue specimens suggests that most anal cancers are potentially preventable." Given that these same high-risk types of HPV cause most cases of cervical cancer too, it proves nothing about hetero-vaginal sex being better than anal sex.

Dikiyoba.

--------------------
Episode 4: Spiderweb Reloaded
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #432
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Matthew 15:11
Fun fact about Matthew 15:11: I just looked it up in Greek, and it's (as is typical of much of the New Testament) pretty conversational and easy-to-translate Greek, except one of the key words: "defile." This word in Greek is "koinow" ("w" for omega), which literally means "to make common" (and is related to the word for the Greek spoken at the time, "koine," referring to the "common" tongue). It seems most normally to mean "communicate" or "impart information" (as in "make commonly known") although "defile" is certainly one of its meanings. The Latin Vulgate has it as a word I'd never seen before, although it apparently is not uncommon: "coinquino," which definitely means "defile."

But anyway, one of the ways that the Greek New Testament calls stuff bad is terming it "common," a very class-based way of thinking (standard at the time, but nonetheless interesting).

[ Thursday, December 20, 2007 16:44: 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
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #433
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

There are no logical or legal arguments to prevent any two people from forming a union we call marriage. You certainly haven't presented any.
Exactly! That is not my position. I knew you didn’t get it.

quote:
Lingering legalities around marriage merely reflect historical/religious relics, prejudices, and hangups, which are today shifting dramatically after centuries of achingly slow progress or stagnation, including a long period we affectionately term The Dark Ages. It is amusing that we imagine there is a difference between the laws of our land and our dominant collective religious beliefs. They are a product of it. There is no actual possible separation of church and state unless the majority of people no longer are churched. Since that may finally be the case, our laws are shifting to reflect a different "morality."
Here’s the funny thing…I actually agree to a certain extent, and this was my original argument. They took it to gay marriage and I followed. But I was initially saying that it’s morality v. morality, not reason v. religion if you look at the first few pages of my posts.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

You haven't given any reason — ever — for the government to favor same-sex couples that holds up to rigorous scrutiny.
They think it’s good for society. That’s it. Like it or not. As I said before, the development zone could be a colossal failure in ten years. But the city has the right to try if they have calculated it will produce. If someone thinks the zone should be expanded, then the onus is on them to make a case for it. My argument is not that the government should favor hetero pairing, but that the position for other unions being favored in the same way is flawed as it is often presented. All the same I did give a list of benefits to society. I think they do show that marriage in its current form is worthwhile. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

-----

Dikiyoba,

The female canal is built for reproductive activity. It’s tough and thick. The anal canal is not. The colon lining is thin and fragile and tears easily. It is designed to expel solid waste, so it absorbs fluid. That’s why disease is spread so easily throughout the homosexual community. It’s also why infection and disease can occur without either partner having STD’s. One of the things you probably learned early on is the direction to wipe. Why? Fecal matter has disease-causing material. My first reference connected anal cancer to homosexual contact, the third connected having homosexual partners and rectal infection, and to quote the second “a host of parasites, bacterial, viral, and protozoan are all rampant in the homosexual population.” It’s no wonder. There’s not really a comparison.

It’s not difficult to reason on, unless you’re clinging to a belief that things are equal because we want them to be. Nature doesn’t care about culture and belief systems. It does what it does regardless.

I don’t know what a link with an abnormality does to further your case. Interestingly, this woman does what a person with a normally functioning anal canal has to do if they want to use it for sex – use lubrication.

I don’t really have much more to say on this. If you can’t see the difference between homosexual sex and heterosexual sex, then more explanation probably won’t help.

By the way, I’m not saying one’s better than the other as you implied. You went there on your own.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #434
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

They think it’s good for society. That’s it. Like it or not.
Not good enough. Individual rights exist precisely so that governments can't just do whatever they think is good for society. Your argument might fly in a country without a Bill of Rights, but not in the US.

[ Thursday, December 20, 2007 20:09: 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 #435
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

They think it’s good for society. That’s it.
That's not an adequate reason in itself, and you know it. "Good for society" without any greater elaboration is not justification. We need to know exactly how and in what way.

quote:
But the city has the right to try if they have calculated it will produce.
And if they haven't, they very much don't. And in this case, they haven't.

quote:
The burden of proof is on you, not me.
You have it backwards. In the development zone, the burden of proof is on the person who proposes sectioning off a particular part of town for development, instead of developing the whole town. In exactly the same way, the burden of proof here is on opponents of same-sex marriage to show that there is a good reason to support one kind of marriage and not another.

The only support that can be offered is based on prejudice.

--------------------
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 #436
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

You haven't given any reason — ever — for the government to favor same-sex couples that holds up to rigorous scrutiny.
They think it’s good for society. That’s it. Like it or not. As I said before, the development zone could be a colossal failure in ten years. But the city has the right to try if they have calculated it will produce. If someone thinks the zone should be expanded, then the onus is on them to make a case for it. My argument is not that the government should favor hetero pairing, but that the position for other unions being favored in the same way is flawed as it is often presented. All the same I did give a list of benefits to society. I think they do show that marriage in its current form is worthwhile. The burden of proof is on you, not me.

What happened to the single income household? Or have you established a new generation of sweatshops to supplant the 21st century education system?
You really need to lose this line of argument. The government is not saying what you think it is saying. We have told you that, in many different ways, many different times. I wish there was some sort of voice relay that could be used, but just know that right now I'm typing slowly and loudly so that you can understand me.

--------------------
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 #437
If I'm not getting your point, it's because I'm not getting answer to key questions. Answer this please:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Why did the government create benefits for married couples? Why not just say, "Hey, if your wife doesn't want to work, that's your problem"? Just saying it's a cultural norm leaves much to be desired in the way of an answer.

Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #438
EDIT: Well, no, let me try again.

Marriage exists entirely to facilitate family law. When couples split and have to divide their property or determine custody of their children, or when one partner dies and inheritance has to be figured out, or in any of many other situations, family law gives rules about what should be done. This allows many situations to be handled by precedent and logic instead of emotion and ad hoc improvisation.

(This is, in fact, one of the problems that same-sex couples face, if they've raised kids together but haven't successfully adopted them together: when they split, the custody battles are particularly awful.)

The tax situation is still controversial ("marriage penalty" and such). It is not the case that married couples always have lower taxes together than they would apart, though, so there isn't necessarily taxation-based financial bribery to get married at present. Why there were incentives at one point is not relevant here; there aren't now, at least not in any trivial way. (Sharing insurance benefits is another issue, though, and these are among the "benefits" referred to when people talk about marrying for the benefits.)

[ Thursday, December 20, 2007 23:25: 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 #439
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

If I'm not getting your point, it's because I'm not getting answer to key questions. Answer this please:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Why did the government create benefits for married couples? Why not just say, "Hey, if your wife doesn't want to work, that's your problem"? Just saying it's a cultural norm leaves much to be desired in the way of an answer.

I'm not a political historian. I can't step into the collective mind of dead law-makers to inquire as to the reasoning behind a decision. If I had to guess, it would be that many blue collar workers in the industrialized northern states were concerned that they didn't have enough money to properly raise a family. No form of childcare existed then, beyond that available through the use of family members, so it was only childless couples that could gain two incomes. And then only until the first pregnancy was coming to term. Upon watching their income cut in half, and having a relatively high proportion taken as taxes, they complained to their representatives. Politicians likely haven't changed, and if that is any guide, they would have jumped at the chance to "cut taxes to save the working class family," much like is done today (if you substitute "rich" for "working class.")
For example, if Joe and Mary earned 35k and 20k, and paid taxes of 8750 and 5000, They still had 41,250. Now Mary gets pregnant, and suddenly the income is cut to 35000, with 8,750 in taxes removed, leaving 26,250. This is a 15,000 reduction, and that 26,250 has to feed, shelter, and cloth at least 2 people. The taxation change let Joe and Mary keep more of that 35,000, which in turn put more food on the table, kept money circulating in the economy, and reduced stress on the family. Not worrying about every penny allowed Joe and Mary to better themselves education, gave them free time to maintain relationships in the community, and created happier people.

So, now it's your turn to again ignore an answer to your question. If you have a problem with this answer, it is because you are providing a question that doesn't match what you are pondering in your head. Try to rephrase it so that you are more clearly understood, remembering that none of us can speak for people that are dead.

--------------------
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
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #440
"Sameness" is a red herring, Stillness. Couples' motives for getting married are many and varied. No one marriage exists for quite the same reason as another, so in that sense, no hetero marriage is "the same." Nevertheless, the one's that are recognized by the government are entitled to the same benefits. So sure, a same-sex marriage might be qualitatively different with regard to the method of copulation. Why shouldn't they be entitled to the same, uniform government benefits that hetero couples enjoy?

For that matter, what sort of behaviors do you think the government should be trying to promote through providing legal benefits to married couples? Why would these benefits be bad for monogamous, married same-sex couples? THe only reason they wouldn't be is because it's blasphemy in your eyes. Otherwise, the same sex couples benefit the same - less promiscuity, so less exposure to STDs; structured, stable family environments for the couple and their children; etc.

It strikes me that you're actually trying to justify the laws by demeaning the nature of same sex relationships, as if those relationships are "lesser" than hetero ones. Your justifications, however, are based purely on your personal (religious) prejudices. I'd like to see you rise above that.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #441
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

It strikes me that you're actually trying to justify the laws by demeaning the nature of same sex relationships, as if those relationships are "lesser" than hetero ones. Your justifications, however, are based purely on your personal (religious) prejudices. I'd like to see you rise above that.
I think the problems we're having with him run even deeper than that. Stillness comes from a strain of Christians who expect governments to be arbitrary and tyrannical, and don't believe they can aspire to anything better. All this talk about governments doing what they think is best is just an ill-considered attempt to be polite; what he really means is that governments do what they want and people have to obey ("give to Caesar" and all of that). This is why so many fundamentalists describe themselves as apolitical.

We, on the other hand, think that a government can be a real force for good as long as it meets certain prerequisites, and that one of the prerequisites is that everyone is treated equally unless there's good reason -- not just a presumptive, theoretical reason, but an actual, concrete reason backed by solid, relevant and specific evidence -- to treat them otherwise.

[ Friday, December 21, 2007 14:45: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #442
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

We, on the other hand, think that a government can be a real force for good as long as it meets certain prerequisites, and that one of the prerequisites is that everyone is treated equally unless there's good reason -- not just a presumptive, theoretical reason, but an actual, concrete reason backed by solid, relevant and specific evidence -- to treat them otherwise.
Which is why we can't give the Arabs** habeas corpus, or they'd be innocent until proven guilty.

And then, naturally, they will have won.

{**Sometimes, just brown people.}
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #443
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Marriage exists entirely to facilitate family law…
Thank you. That simple and succinct statement and your explanation is helpful (I’m assuming that by “marriage” you mean “official recognition of marriage”). I think my view was not quite right until I read this.

So the government is saying that this is a legal matter because of the intrinsic connection to society and the abundance of the institution. There are concerns with efficiency and fairness. They don’t want to have to rework the same case over and over, so the classification “married” allows them to apply the best and most equitable decision to many family cases.

If you say it makes sense for the government to extend the classification “married” to unions beside hetero pairs (e.g. polygamous marriage; homosexual pairs; group marriage; members of the immediate family that don’t reproduce) for the same reasons, that seems logical to me. What I don’t see is how this has anything to do with rights or the Constitution.

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Now Mary gets pregnant, and suddenly the income is cut to 35000, with 8,750 in taxes removed, leaving 26,250. This is a 15,000 reduction, and that 26,250 has to feed, shelter, and cloth at least 2 people. The taxation change let Joe and Mary keep more of that 35,000, which in turn put more food on the table, kept money circulating in the economy, and reduced stress on the family. Not worrying about every penny allowed Joe and Mary to better themselves education, gave them free time to maintain relationships in the community, and created happier people.
This was along the lines of what I was thinking, except that you seem to be attributing it to political and self-interest, not societal interest. Let’s say you’re right. Was it unconstitutional or a violation of rights beforehand? It doesn’t seem so to me in your example of what might have been. It seems some people didn’t like something and put pressure on their representatives and got action.

quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Why shouldn't they be entitled to the same, uniform government benefits that hetero couples enjoy?

For that matter, what sort of behaviors do you think the government should be trying to promote through providing legal benefits to married couples? Why would these benefits be bad for monogamous, married same-sex couples? THe only reason they wouldn't be is because it's blasphemy in your eyes.

Please take this argument and aim it at the nearest right-wing evangelical. Nothing in your last post applies to me or my argument here.

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Drew:

It strikes me that you're actually trying to justify the laws by demeaning the nature of same sex relationships, as if those relationships are "lesser" than hetero ones. Your justifications, however, are based purely on your personal (religious) prejudices. I'd like to see you rise above that.
I think the problems we're having with him run even deeper than that.

No, the problems here are quite shallow. It’s lack of ability to understand the topic of the discussion, let alone stick to it. After a zillion pages of discussion some people are still attacking my faith and what they suppose is my position on whether or not the government should recognize same-sex marriage. This only illustrates the point in my original posts on this thread regarding the lack of logic, emotionalism, and close-mindedness of the brand of secularism sweeping the West. At least the right knows they’re religious.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #444
1) Everyone is religious. They just might not be religious about religion.

2) Everything is about money. The government is not concerned about marriage for moral reasons or the "good" of society. It's all about property.

Yes, intentionally hyperbolic, but not far from the truth.

-S-

--------------------
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
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #445
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

Marriage exists entirely to facilitate family law…
Thank you. That simple and succinct statement and your explanation is helpful (I’m assuming that by “marriage” you mean “official recognition of marriage”). I think my view was not quite right until I read this.

So the government is saying that this is a legal matter because of the intrinsic connection to society and the abundance of the institution. There are concerns with efficiency and fairness. They don’t want to have to rework the same case over and over, so the classification “married” allows them to apply the best and most equitable decision to many family cases.

If you say it makes sense for the government to extend the classification “married” to unions beside hetero pairs (e.g. polygamous marriage; homosexual pairs; group marriage; members of the immediate family that don’t reproduce) for the same reasons, that seems logical to me. What I don’t see is how this has anything to do with rights or the Constitution.

So, just so we're clear, you're saying that heterosexual couples = children. So if a man and a woman are infertile, that makes them gay. Is that right?

quote:
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Now Mary gets pregnant, and suddenly the income is cut to 35000, with 8,750 in taxes removed, leaving 26,250. This is a 15,000 reduction, and that 26,250 has to feed, shelter, and cloth at least 2 people. The taxation change let Joe and Mary keep more of that 35,000, which in turn put more food on the table, kept money circulating in the economy, and reduced stress on the family. Not worrying about every penny allowed Joe and Mary to better themselves education, gave them free time to maintain relationships in the community, and created happier people.
This was along the lines of what I was thinking, except that you seem to be attributing it to political and self-interest, not societal interest.

I'd like to know if you share that concern about 'societal interest' when it comes time to pay your taxes.
quote:
Let’s say you’re right. Was it unconstitutional or a violation of rights beforehand? It doesn’t seem so to me in your example of what might have been. It seems some people didn’t like something and put pressure on their representatives and got action.
Uh, the constitution actually prohibits that 'action'. No matter how much pressure people put on their representatives, it's not sufficient to take an action the constitution forbids; that requires an amendment, which was intentionally designed to require such massive support that passing one requires something close to the unanimous support of the whole electorate. Statues take a plurality of representatives. Can you tell me, Stillness, what you believe the difference between a statute and an amendment is? I want to make sure you're clear on it.

quote:
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Why shouldn't they be entitled to the same, uniform government benefits that hetero couples enjoy?

For that matter, what sort of behaviors do you think the government should be trying to promote through providing legal benefits to married couples? Why would these benefits be bad for monogamous, married same-sex couples? THe only reason they wouldn't be is because it's blasphemy in your eyes.

Please take this argument and aim it at the nearest right-wing evangelical. Nothing in your last post applies to me or my argument here.

The problem is that you're making an argument that is only coherent for a right-wing evangelical, or someone else who starts from the assumption that gay marriage is harmful to society.

quote:
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Drew:

It strikes me that you're actually trying to justify the laws by demeaning the nature of same sex relationships, as if those relationships are "lesser" than hetero ones. Your justifications, however, are based purely on your personal (religious) prejudices. I'd like to see you rise above that.
I think the problems we're having with him run even deeper than that.

No, the problems here are quite shallow. It’s lack of ability to understand the topic of the discussion, let alone stick to it. After a zillion pages of discussion some people are still attacking my faith and what they suppose is my position on whether or not the government should recognize same-sex marriage. This only illustrates the point in my original posts on this thread regarding the lack of logic, emotionalism, and close-mindedness of the brand of secularism sweeping the West. At least the right knows they’re religious.

Pfft. I suppose next you're going to tell us that if we don't discard our puerile emotions, we're all going to suffer under the iron heel of the hated Islamofascist.

Except for your appeals to 'reproduction', which fall apart unless you're prepared to specifically condemn infertile heterosexual marriage - which is every bit as 'reproductive' as a gay one (they have the same options, e.g. surrogate/artificial insemination and adoption, and generally seem to do about the same job of raising a child) - everything you've said so far would apply seamlessly to interracial marriage; it's bad for society, and even if it's not necessarily bad for society society has a right to forbid it for its own welfare, and also marriage is an enduring institution within certain boundaries, and etc and etc. The problem is, and this is where constitutionality comes up, every argument you've made so far is specifically defeated in the unanimous opinion in Loving v. Virginia. Without an amendment to the US constitution, a gay marriage ban is unconstitutional on the same grounds as miscegenation statutes.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the [sexual orientation] classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious [gender] discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of [the same gender] resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Again, your aggressive disdain for gay marriage has no place in the American system of government. And if it is indeed a secular fervor that drives you to disdain it, I assure you that the People's Republic of China seems to hold the same opinion - and has fairly liberal immigration laws.

America is a country founded on certain basic rights, entitlements, and protections; gay rights fall as squarely within them as other civil rights, and if you want to be empowered to deny your neighbors the protection the state affords you, this isn't the right country for you. This isn't a case of 'like it or leave it', it's a case of 'work with it or leave it'. Asking America to prohibit gay marriage is like asking a dolphin to fly. It's just not built to do it, plain and simple. The basic laws constituting its government would be so fundamentally warped by a gay marriage ban that it would defeat the purpose of having a Constitution at all.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #446
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

some people are still attacking my faith and what they suppose is my position on whether or not the government should recognize same-sex marriage.
Okay, so some people are attacking your faith. Most people aren't. If anything, they are suspicious that your personal ethos denies equality to homosexuals. Is this correct, or incorrect? Does the Jehovah Witness faith allow for homosexuality? Would a JW minister solemnize a union between two men or two women of your faith?

--------------------
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
Apprentice
Member # 2473
Profile #447
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I believe homosexuality is a sin
My main problem with this point of view is that i don't believe its a choice.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Friday, January 10 2003 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #448
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

If you say it makes sense for the government to extend the classification “married” to unions beside hetero pairs (e.g. polygamous marriage; homosexual pairs; group marriage; members of the immediate family that don’t reproduce) for the same reasons, that seems logical to me. What I don’t see is how this has anything to do with rights or the Constitution.
You asked a question; I answered it. Now you're not sure how it's relevant.

quote:
No, the problems here are quite shallow. It’s lack of ability to understand the topic of the discussion, let alone stick to it.
See the previous quote. You, too, are having trouble sticking to the topic and remembering what you're talking about.

(For reference, the reason that this has anything to do with rights or the Constitution is that denying gay marriage fails all of the levels of scrutiny associated with the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, since its only basis is in prejudice against homosexual people. Same-sex marriage would be useful for the same reasons that opposite-sex marriage is useful, as I said several pages ago, and there is no reason — save prejudice — to deny it. This is Equal Protection Clause territory. I've been making this argument for a while without using the phrase "Equal Protection Clause," but that's the constitutionality at stake here, I think.)

[ Saturday, December 22, 2007 14:03: 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
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #449
quote:
Originally written by Najosz Thjsza Kjras:

So if a man and a woman are infertile, that makes them gay. Is that right?
Right, except you forgot to add the part about them being executed to purify the nation.

quote:
I'd like to know if you share that concern about 'societal interest' when it comes time to pay your taxes.
I don’t quite know what you mean, but I was thinking that the government might have had the interests of society, not just political ones, behind the decision to give tax considerations to couples.

quote:
Uh, the constitution actually prohibits that 'action'.
Are we both talking about changing tax law? That’s the ‘action’ I was talking about. A statue is just a law. An amendment is a change to the Constitution. Right?

quote:
The problem is that you're making an argument that is only coherent for a right-wing evangelical, or someone else who starts from the assumption that gay marriage is harmful to society.
But, I agree that some good argument can be made for recognition of gay marriage. Positions like, providing homes for children and discouraging promiscuity in the homosexual community that would make a 60’s hippie blush are solid secular reasons if you can back them up. You want to make my stance about religious beliefs, but it simply is not. It’s about the legal and logical basis for your position. What you keep doing is called circumstantial argumentum ad hominem. It’s when you point to the relationship a person’s circumstances have to his assertion instead of attacking the assertion itself. It’s a logically flawed argument.

What you have to do to prove me wrong is show the logic of your position, not talk about my religious beliefs. Your inability to see that after I have repeatedly stated and restated what I’m saying speaks to your lack of reason. And now I see Salmon is doing the same thing in the post immediately after yours. Unfortunate.

Read carefully and see if you note any reference to my religion, your religious beliefs, or how these relate to the price of tea in China in the following:

Regardless of whether your opinion is that the US government should recognize non-hetero pairs as legally married and you have good reasons for believing so, denying this recognition is not analogous to illegal practices, such as discriminatory sexism or racism.

quote:
your aggressive disdain for gay marriage has no place in the American system of government.
Can you look at the statement above and see why this argument is a straw man?

quote:
America is a country founded on certain basic rights, entitlements, and protections; gay rights fall as squarely within them as other civil rights, and if you want to be empowered to deny your neighbors the protection the state affords you, this isn't the right country for you.
This also is strawmannery, but you throw in some prejudicial language to boot. Your arguments drip with illogic.

quote:
The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious [gender] discrimination.
How are you saying it’s gender discrimination?

-----

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

they are suspicious that your personal ethos denies equality to homosexuals. Is this correct, or incorrect?
It’s incorrect, because my “personal ethos” is that I should treat homosexuals equally, and I do. In fact, there was a gay man coming to my previous congregation’s meetings a few years back and he was a very pleasant fellow. I was quite fond of him. The congregation in general was also welcoming. This was in spite of him being known to have HIV or AIDS (I can’t remember which). The openness with which he was received was impressive to me. But, I digress…

If I hated homosexuals with a passion this would have no bearing on whether my position is wrong or right. If I hate kittens, does that mean I’m wrong when I say the argument that cats should not be spayed or neutered is illogical? Stick to the issue.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

the reason that this has anything to do with rights or the Constitution is that denying gay marriage fails all of the levels of scrutiny associated with the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment, since its only basis is in prejudice against homosexual people.
This is a fallacy of distraction called complex questioning. It’s when you present two unrelated points together as a single proposition. The two points are (1) prejudice against homosexual people and (2) denying gay marriage. Homosexuals are entitled by law to equal protection. That does not mean they are entitled to do something that no one is entitled to do, namely, marry someone of the same sex.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Wiz:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I believe homosexuality is a sin
My main problem with this point of view is that i don't believe its a choice.

Wiz, are you misquoting me? You shouldn’t do that. My view on this issue is a bit more complex than this quote you attribute to me implies.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #450
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

What you have to do to prove me wrong is show the logic of your position, not talk about my religious beliefs. Your inability to see that after I have repeatedly stated and restated what I’m saying speaks to your lack of reason. And now I see Salmon is doing the same thing in the post immediately after yours. Unfortunate.
Everyone but you thinks that you've already been proven wrong. We're analysing your religious beliefs in an attempt to figure out why you don't agree.

Also, I think ad hominem arguments do have their uses: if two opposing arguments seem to have approximately equal merit, it's perfectly valid to side with the one that isn't supported by a total nutcase.

quote:
How are you saying it’s gender discrimination?
Um. I explained a couple of pages ago why banning gay marriage is sexual discrimination: a woman can legally marry a man, but a man can't. Your response was to say that you'd been waiting for someone to make this point, and you offered no counterargument whatsoever -- which suggests that you already knew that it was sexual discrimination and were hoping we weren't smart enough to figure out why.

And you claim to wonder why we think you're arguing in bad faith. *sigh*

[ Sunday, December 23, 2007 04:18: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #451
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Everyone but you thinks that you've already been proven wrong. We're analysing your religious beliefs in an attempt to figure out why you don't agree.
Maybe we should analyze yours to understand why you've come to an incorrect conclusion.

EDIT for Thuryl's edit:

quote:
I explained a couple of pages ago why banning gay marriage is sexual discrimination: a woman can legally marry a man, but a man can't. Your response was to say that you'd been waiting for someone to make this point, and you offered no counterargument whatsoever -- which suggests that you already knew that it was sexual discrimination and were hoping we weren't smart enough to figure out why.
I asked a question in response to this argument that has as yet been unanswered and asked that we pursue it. No one seemed to want to, so I was asking Alex for clarification to see if he was raising the same point again. To be clear: I don't think that not recognizing same-sex marriage is discrimination of any sort.

[ Sunday, December 23, 2007 04:24: Message edited by: Stillness ]
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #452
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Maybe we should analyze yours to understand why you've come to an incorrect conclusion.
Maybe we should. If you did so, at least you'd actually be contributing something to the discussion instead of engaging in the kind of vacuous nuh-uhery that you're supposedly above. In the last 18 pages you've not made a single coherent statement beyond "No it isn't!". It's hard to address your arguments when you're not arguing anything.

quote:
I asked a question in response to this argument that has as yet been unanswered and asked that we pursue it. No one seemed to want to, so I was asking Alex for clarification to see if he was raising the same point again.
I didn't answer it because I assumed it was a rhetorical question, and not a very good one. Here you go.

quote:
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?
In answer to Question 1: The fact that discrimination is arbitrary doesn't make it better. If the government assigned people completely at random to one of two groups at birth, and allowed Group 1 people to marry Group 2 people but didn't allow people of the same type to marry each other, that'd still be discrimination.

Question 2: There are many ways of telling the difference between a male and a female. The trouble is that they don't always all come up with the same answer for any given person. There are people legally defined as "male" walking around today who could have been defined as "female" if the doctor attending the birth had been in a different mood at the time. Why does the government need to fit every person into the categories of "male" or "female" anyway? What compelling interest does it have in knowing what sex every single citizen is, by some arbitrarily-chosen definition of sex that varies with each person?

Now, let's see your "answer".

[ Sunday, December 23, 2007 04:35: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Apprentice
Member # 2473
Profile #453
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

[QB
quote:
Originally written by Wiz:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I believe homosexuality is a sin
My main problem with this point of view is that i don't believe its a choice.

Wiz, are you misquoting me? You shouldn’t do that. My view on this issue is a bit more complex than this quote you attribute to me implies.[/QB]
My argument is not against you, but against that point of view. I quoted you as it was your statement that made me state my opinion on the matter.
Posts: 23 | Registered: Friday, January 10 2003 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #454
Well, if it's not a choice, but still a sin, then God's got a pretty cruel sense of humor.

Actually, that's the entire argument of a number of religions though. God gave you free will to choose, but you are born into being "sinful" whether you choose it or not. Morever, depending on what you do choose to do, God will either greatly reward you or punish you. But you have free choice. It's just that you have unthinkable consequences if you don't choose the one choice God wants you to choose. We create God in our image. This God is one who employs manipulation, essential coercion, and bribery, but calls it "free will." I think this is a ridiculous mockery.

-S-

--------------------
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
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #455
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

The two points are (1) prejudice against homosexual people and (2) denying gay marriage. Homosexuals are entitled by law to equal protection. That does not mean they are entitled to do something that no one is entitled to do, namely, marry someone of the same sex.
I figured you'd say this, because you've said it before. But you missed the role that the Equal Protection Clause played in the argument. It only shows why prejudice and prejudicial discrimination are unconstitutional. The rest of the argument showed why not allowing same-sex marriage is based on prejudice alone.

Put another way: I had already connected not allowing same-sex marriage to prejudice. You asked what this has to do with constitutionality. I replied with the EPC. You then completely forgot my argument and the question that you had asked. Focus, man! :P
quote:
Originally written by Synergy:

Well, if it's not a choice, but still a sin, then God's got a pretty cruel sense of humor.
See: original sin. You didn't choose for your ancestors to sin way back in the day, but you're still tainted by it, at least according to that line of reasoning.

[ Sunday, December 23, 2007 12:08: 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

Pages