Omaha Mall Shooting

Pages

AuthorTopic: Omaha Mall Shooting
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #50
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

However, I doubt such matters are a vexation in secondary education (What I want to major in).

You might be surprised. There are many non-secular schools which would not have you as teacher. That aside, how white of you to consider it a non-issue since it wouldn't affect you personally.

--------------------
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 #51
quote:
Originally written by Elastikon:

[QUOTE]Originally written by Stillness:
[qb] heterosexual relationships are treated differently from homosexual relationships even if they are otherwise similar

Marriage is treated differently. Everyone is equally free to marry.

By the way, race is based on arbitrary manmade distinction. Gender is not.

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

We're only a few decades removed from a racial caste system; I don't see why this is at all hard to believe.
Indeed. It’s not very hard to believe. I was just unaware.

quote:
You're treating them all the same, but are you being fair?
It depends on what you’re trying to evaluate. Are you testing for knowledge of math? If so your test is bad. Are you testing for how well they can do math in an environment where English is spoken? You have a good test. I would not hire someone that did not speak English.

quote:
the notion that sentiment against homosexuality is universal among human cultures would be hilarious to me if it weren't so offensive.
I clarified my position. It was not meant to be offensive. I was just stating the fact that it’s not a protestant thing or even necessarily a religious one.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #52
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Marriage is treated differently. Everyone is equally free to marry.
And again, that isn't the issue. The issue is that the government treats people differently when they are married in several ways that are not, or are not easily, duplicatable by other means. This is the whole point of a domestic partnership type approach: churches are allowed to define the parameters of marriage however they like, preserving that religious freedom, while non-religious privileges traditionally associated with marriage do not depend on those parameters.

quote:
By the way, race is based on arbitrary manmade distinction. Gender is not.
Does that mean we can discriminate against women? Oh, goody.

If that's not what you meant, and I hope not, could you clarify what you are getting at?

quote:
I was just stating the fact that it’s not a protestant thing or even necessarily a religious one.
Well, it's certainly not a religious thing. Historically, I think religion has served as a home for liminal sexuality just as often as it's castigated it. It may not be unique to Protestantism, but isn't it pretty classically Protestant? I mean, what about all those bible verses people are constantly quoting about it?

--------------------
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
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #53
quote:
Originally written by Elastikon:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Marriage is treated differently. Everyone is equally free to marry.
And again, that isn't the issue.

For me it is. My initial question to Aran was concerning why she (or he, sorry, I don’t know) said the US governement was endorsed religion. While I think the population is religious, the government is not.

quote:
Originally written by Elastikon:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

race is based on arbitrary manmade distinction. Gender is not.
Does that mean we can discriminate against women?

My point is that saying same sex marriage is not allowed is not the same as having white-only water fountains. The former is not discriminatory as it applies to everyone.

quote:
It may not be unique to Protestantism, but isn't it pretty classically Protestant?
Yes, but it’s also Chinese, Muslim, Catholic, Jewish, African, etc. What does the fact that a view is held by some religious people have to do with whether or not a government holds that position as well? Viewing murder as wrong is classically Protestant too.

Here’s what I’m really saying: If you have a secular view of the world, you are entitled to your opinion. But it seems hypocritical for you to then say that another person is not just as entitled to their opinion because they are religious or that they can’t vote for what they think is right and best for society because their views appear in a holy book. If someone’s trying to legislate you into their church, that’s one thing, but other than that I don’t see how one person’s views on morality are any less valid than another’s.

If you think same-sex marriage should be allowed but your right-wing-Bible-thumping neighbor disagrees, does he have less of a right to vote his beliefs than you? I’m apolitical, so I don’t have an opinion either way. It’s just that I’ve been seeing what I view as a trend towards Secular Extremism and I’m very curious about it.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #54
Originally by Stillness:

quote:
My point is that saying same sex marriage is not allowed is not the same as having white-only water fountains. The former is not discriminatory as it applies to everyone.
A white-only water fountain applies to everyone too. No one is preventing other races from drinking water altogether. They just can't drink out of that fountain, while whites can. The same goes for [civil] marriage when limited to only between a man and a woman. It doesn't prevent homosexuals from marrying altogether. But it does prevent them from marrying the partner they want (while heterosexuals can marry the partner they want), and that's why it's discrimination.

Dikiyoba.

--------------------
Episode 4: Spiderweb Reloaded
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #55
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

If you think same-sex marriage should be allowed but your right-wing-Bible-thumping neighbor disagrees, does he have less of a right to vote his beliefs than you? I’m apolitical, so I don’t have an opinion either way. It’s just that I’ve been seeing what I view as a trend towards Secular Extremism and I’m very curious about it.
I think that same-sex marriage should be something that two people of the same sex who find each other stupendously attractive have to worry about. If that upsets somebody - anybody - they should reconsider if it's any of their business at all. The 'right-wing-Bible-thumping neighbor' has nothing to do with this unless one of his own sex forces him at gunpoint to marry him.

It's about people wanting to live their lifes vs. other people telling them what to do. There's the difference.

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #56
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

By the way, race is based on arbitrary manmade distinction. Gender is not.

What's arbitrary about race? Different races obviously aren't the same. They look different. They have different genetic predispositions. There's something real there. The fact that we have decided it isn't okay to legislate based on it is right in all of our opinions (I hope!), but it's also arbitrary.

The problem with voting by your beliefs is the fine line between that and forcing your beliefs on others. If you are an evangelical Christian, you believe that everyone else should belong to your religion as well. It would make sense to vote to make Christianity required by law. There's no reason other than religion to vote in such a way, though. Same-sex marriage is a similar problem: except for religious beliefs, there's really not any good reason to ban it.

—Alorael, who still thinks the problem would be most easily solved by striking the word marriage from all legal documents and replacing it with civil union. Leave the sacred union to the purveyors of sanctity and keep the legal benefits strictly separate and available to anyone.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #57
quote:
Originally written by Dikiyoba:

A white-only water fountain applies to everyone too.
It’s application is dependant on race. It therefore discriminates. Limiting marriage to opposite sexes does not discriminate in the same way. And you still may not get the partner you want, but you are free to marry whoever will have you.

What you’re calling discrimination would apply to gender designated restrooms and interspecies marriage as well. Why shouldn’t I be able to walk in on naked girls at the community center or marry a plant?

quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

It's about people wanting to live their lifes vs. other people telling them what to do. There's the difference.
I have to wear a seatbelt in my state. That restricts my freedom even though I don’t risk hurting anyone but myself. Why should the government be able to tell me what to do?

quote:
Originally written by Pseudocrat:

[QUOTE]What's arbitrary about race?
The lines can be drawn any way you please. I could say that everyone taller than me is a different race just as easily as you could say everyone with different hair or skin color is. The census department has been having increasing difficulty as people from the same so-called race often view themselves as differently. For example, some Latinos don’t view themselves as Hispanic and vice versa. And if my great-great grandfather had a drop of African blood, does that make me African-American/Black? If my great grandmother was white, but I’m as black as midnight, why can’t I say my race is white? I recently heard of a case of an adopted “African-American” that found out that he was really of Indian descent. You’ll never get an adopted girl who grows up to find out she was really a boy all along (barring some rare defect).

quote:
The problem with voting by your beliefs is the fine line between that and forcing your beliefs on others. It would make sense to vote to make Christianity required by law. There's no reason other than religion to vote in such a way, though. Same-sex marriage is a similar problem: except for religious beliefs, there's really not any good reason to ban it.
No, evangelical Christians believe each individual has to make a decision and that this can’t be forced.

Your point on same-sex marriage is also not received. That’s why I was making a point of saying that some non-religious people feel it’s wrong, just like some religious people feel it’s ok. Either way, no one’s beliefs are forced on anyone else.

Out of curiosity, how do you view polygamy? Are laws against it discriminatory?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #58
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:

Originally written by Locmaar:
It's about people wanting to live their lifes vs. other people telling them what to do. There's the difference.
I have to wear a seatbelt in my state. That restricts my freedom even though I don’t risk hurting anyone but myself. Why should the government be able to tell me what to do?

Thing is, when you get injured and someone calls an ambulance, this very ambulance may not be able to save somebody else's life, because of your odd definition of freedom.

If you think this sounds a wee bit constructed you should probably take a deep breath and contemplate the difference between forbidding people to marry one another and wearing a seatbelt for your own protection. You might as well decide not to wear your seatbelt at all - it's just a matter of paying the fine.

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #59
Unlike the seatbelt law, which has a health and safety rationale, the same sex marriage prohibition has only a moral rationale for its justification.

A similar basis was used for laws banning sodomy, and this was struck down by Justice Kennedy in Lawrence v. Texas. For similar reasons, I don't think that anti-same-sex-marriage laws pass the Constitutional smell test. I think that the government does not have any business regulating moral matters, and for purposes of the law, who one chooses to marry is purely a moral issue.

As far as laws governing estates goes, Stillness, it's not as simple as granting one's partner durable power of attorney. While someone who wanted to be sure to pass on a legacy to a partner could do so through an inter vivos, revocable trust, why should they have to? The laws of intestacy in all 50 automatically award a marital share to a surviving spouse, but this doesn't apply for domestic partners. Sure, you could say that this applies to both unmarried same sex and hetero couples, but it seems particularly unfair when but for laws prohibiting marriage, the same sex couple would choose marry. Furthermore, wills are of little value to same sex couples when it's so easy for disinherited family to challenge the validity of a will on the basis of the "undue influence" of a partner, and courts in many states are happy to hear that challenge.

You seem to be saying: where is the harm? The answer is that homosexuals, when it comes to trying to serve in the military, hold a job, or form a family, are treated as second-class citizens, based on a lifestyle that you probably view as something that should just be "controlled." The effect of these laws is to punish homosexual behavior and reward heterosexual behavior. My question is: what Constitutionally-based business does the government have regulating this behavior? I believe none at all.

---

And Wow! Excalibur bringing up social contract theory. I'm impressed. Just don't get too libertarian before you learn how much of your life in Nevada is possible on account of taxes redistributed from wealthier states. Your song will likely change if you learn how much the price of water alone in Nevada is subsidized.

[ Saturday, December 08, 2007 13:42: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #60
quote:
My question is: what Constitutionally-based business does the government have regulating this behavior? I believe none at all.
The constitution does not allow for the federal government to have jurisdiction over such matters. However, if an individual state feels that it should be a crime, then it has the power to do so.

I don't think Nevada is economically dependent. Our economy receives massive amounts of income form gambling and mining.
Water is becoming expensive. Our fellow Clark county is devouring the state's water tables with it's almost exponential growth.

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #61
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

And you still may not get the partner you want, but you are free to marry whoever will have you.
As long as they are of the opposite sex. This restriction is based on an arbitrary judgment that is traditionally viewed as coming from religion.

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

What you’re calling discrimination would apply to gender designated restrooms and interspecies marriage as well. Why shouldn’t I be able to walk in on naked girls at the community center or marry a plant?
Mostly because marriage is a verbal and written contract between two willing participants. Your plan to marry a plant while breaking into a restroom fails that test. It would be interesting if you tried though. That might make national news.

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I have to wear a seatbelt in my state. That restricts my freedom even though I don’t risk hurting anyone but myself. Why should the government be able to tell me what to do?
If you injure yourself and require medical aid, please do me a favor and restrict that aid to cash-and-carry only. I don't want to see your freedom impinge upon my insurance rates.

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Out of curiosity, how do you view polygamy? Are laws against it discriminatory?
Most people should be aware that laws against polygamy were specifically designed to move the members of the Mormon church from the eastern United States. What could have come to blows instead was defused when the head of the Mormon church agreed to prohibit polygamy within the church. In practice however, all that happened was that it was no longer condoned. It still exists, more so in the Mormon community than in any other.

And kudos to Iffy for the amazing derailment.

--------------------
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
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #62
quote:
In practice however, all that happened was that it was no longer condoned. It still exists, more so in the Mormon community than in any other.
It is prevalent among Mormans, but most often among cultist Mormons such as the group led by Warren Jeffs.

poly - many; gamy - marriage; = Larry King. :D

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #63
Originally by Stillness:

quote:
It’s application is dependant on race. It therefore discriminates. Limiting marriage to opposite sexes does not discriminate in the same way. And you still may not get the partner you want, but you are free to marry whoever will have you.
Well, no. It discriminates based on sexuality rather than race. But that doesn't make it any less discriminatory.

Can you honestly tell me that if you were a heterosexual in a predominately homosexual society in which only same-sex marriage is legal you would be content with "You may not get the partner you want, but you are free to marry whoever will have you."?

Dikiyoba.

--------------------
Episode 4: Spiderweb Reloaded
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #64
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

[QUOTE]The constitution does not allow for the federal government to have jurisdiction over such matters. However, if an individual state feels that it should be a crime, then it has the power to do so.
The U.S. Constitution trumps state constitutions, explicitly through the 14th Amendment. If the Supreme Court were to decide that it is among an individual's constitutionally protected rights to marry whomever they want, then the states couldn't do anything about it, short of trying to secede again. The US Gov, with its tax authority could also recognize civil unions for purposes of the income and estate tax purposes, and the states couldn't do anything about it.

EDIT: Hmm - I guess Nevada really is relatively more "self-reliant" than some of its neighbors. One could argue persuasively though that it benefits from the largesse of residents of other states to a degree unmatched by other states, and were other states to permit gambling to the extent Nevada does, it would quickly lose its advantage.

[ Saturday, December 08, 2007 16:08: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #65
I see someone finally came up with something to draw Stillness out of the shadows again. ;)

Stillness said something that I'd like to comment upon; "race is based on arbitrary manmade distinction. Gender is not."

Gender is a word that gets used in the place of sex, and it blurs the distinction. Your sex is not arbitrary. "Gender" is a construct we invent around what your role is as your sex. Gender is the sex that a person identifies with, regardless of the body they are in. Gender is a socially created and enforced role we play. Books like "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" get written based on gender roles, not on biology.

We're making all this up. Our ideas about gender, marriage, relationships. One man one woman marriage (with all its concomitant rules and requirements/vows/promises) is The Great Sacred Institution of Christianity. It largely crafted it, as we now know it in the west. Religion continues to seek to control it, define it, protect it. But it, too, is an arbitrary construct.

I only ask one question, setting all other assumption/belief aside: How is that working for us? Where divorce is possible, we see more than half of marriges ending in divorce. Of those who stay together, often for religious reasons or children, I'll argue that a large percentage again are in unhappy marriages. How's it working for us? One definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The old, religious institution of marriage as we have inflicted it upon the world, is ripe for serious re-vision. We need a new vision of relationship.

We could start with a different concept: relationships are about opportunity, not obligation. True love gives the beloved absolute freedom, and does not even require vows of devotion and servitude. It does not require the soul to be or do that which is not in the heart to do. True love lets go or permits evolution in relationship. Marriage as it exists is about patriarchy, possession, and property. It's broken. We have a lot of Christian heritage mixed into our current legal consideration of marriage. Any people who love one another and wish to devote themselves to one another could be permitted to do so on equal terms.

Personally, I don't think anyone deserves special monetary consideration whether single or "married." This is a big part of the problem to begin with. This continues to imply people as property/commodity, that somehow they are tax-related possessions along with anything else you "own."

-S-

[ Saturday, December 08, 2007 15:53: 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 #66
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

My point is that saying same sex marriage is not allowed is not the same as having white-only water fountains. The former is not discriminatory as it applies to everyone.
Except that same-sex marriage does discriminate against women. There are more women than men in the United States, so even if every man marries a woman, not every woman will be able to get married unless some of them marry each other.

Besides, why does the government have an interest in interfering in the right of consenting individuals to make contracts with each other on terms of their choosing? The right to same-sex marriage is a logical extension of the right to contract.

quote:
What you’re calling discrimination would apply to gender designated restrooms and interspecies marriage as well. Why shouldn’t I be able to walk in on naked girls at the community center or marry a plant?
Plants can't sign contracts, you galoot.

Oh, and I do think non-unisex restrooms are discriminatory (particularly against transgender and intersex people) and in an ideal world they wouldn't exist, but that would require a rather bigger cultural change than legalising same-sex marriage. Public restrooms are by their nature a public space. The existence of a public space where activities considered private go on is always going to require some awkward compromises. Marriage, by contrast, is a private contract, and no such compromises are necessary.

Having said that, I stayed at a dorm with unisex showers and restrooms once. Sure, it was awkward at first, but people got used to it.

[ Saturday, December 08, 2007 16:14: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #67
quote:
This continues to imply people as property/commodity, that somehow they are tax-related possessions along with anything else you "own."
That's the evil behind marriage "licenses."

quote:
so even if every man marries a woman, not every woman will be able to get married unless some of them marry each other.
Unless a group of people aren't monogamous.

[ Saturday, December 08, 2007 16:01: Message edited by: Excalibur ]

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #68
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

quote:
so even if every man marries a woman, not every woman will be able to get married unless some of them marry each other.
Unless a group of people aren't monogamous.

So you're in favour of polygamy but not same-sex marriage. Good to know.

(I don't think that either should be banned, providing that everyone involved is a consenting adult.)

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #69
quote:
So you're in favour of polygamy
I never said that.

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #70
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

quote:
So you're in favour of polygamy
I never said that.

Okay, so what's your solution to the women who want to get married when there are no longer any available men?

—Alorael, who agrees that unisex bathrooms should be fine. The only problems are Puritanical beliefs, worries about sexual harassment (which require the assumption that only heterosexuals use public bathrooms), the presence of urinals (discriminatory!), and the unfortunate fact that toilets that men can use end up unusable very quickly. Perhaps a large public effort to promote aim would help.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #71
They don't have to marry American men. If there's mail-order brides, shouldn't there be mail-order husbands?

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #72
So you're in favour of mail-order spouses?

("There's a hole in the bucket, dear Excalibur, dear Excalibur...")

--------------------
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
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #73
I've never understood why anyone has a problem with unisex bathrooms, maybe because the bathrooms I've used have almost always had good stalls, dividers, etc.

And consent is the issue negating human/plant marriages, adult/child marriages, or what have you. But that doesn't answer the question of polygamy. I'm not immediately sure what the problem with polygamy is in an ideal world, but I think that the modern non-fundie Islamic take on it may be right: the Koran suggests that a man can marry up to four women, provided that he can treat them all equally. But no one can treat four different people (or even two different people) exactly equally, so there's no way for a man to marry more than one woman fairly.

--------------------
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
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #74
I do find it interesting that whenever anyone talks about polygamy, the implicit assumption is that it's normally going to be polygyny in particular.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00

Pages