Omaha Mall Shooting

Pages

AuthorTopic: Omaha Mall Shooting
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #75
quote:
So you're in favour of mail-order spouses?
No, I'm providing other solutions to the hypothetical situation at hand.

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #76
Yes, that's a good point. Bad Thuryl! Don't troll the Christians, they're high in cholesterol.

--------------------
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 #77
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

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 story goes that men died in wars a whole bunch in ancient Arabia, but women didn't, so to keep the population reasonably stable, it was necessary for the men to act as though they were each three or four men, reproductively speaking. I'm not sure that I actually believe it, but that's the story I've heard.

You'll note that the fundamental argument against it applies equally well to polyandry, even though it was designed for polygyny.

Excalibur: If all of your alternative solutions are even more unacceptable, what does that tell us?

--------------------
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 #78
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

You'll note that the fundamental argument against it applies equally well to polyandry, even though it was designed for polygyny.
I'm not convinced that the fact that polygamists will not treat every spouse exactly equally is sufficient grounds to ban polygamy. The classic analogy is to parenthood: most parents do have favourites among their children, and while we may disapprove, we don't institute a one-child policy because of it.

Furthermore, the argument proves too much: if it's wrong to treat one spouse better than another spouse, why isn't it wrong to treat your spouse better than people who aren't your spouse? If there's a legitimate public interest in banning polygamy on the grounds of unequal treatment, then there's a legitimate public interest in banning all marriage, since pairs of people who value each other over everyone else can't help but destabilise and fragment society.

quote:
Originally written by Elastikon:

Yes, that's a good point. Bad Thuryl! Don't troll the Christians, they're high in cholesterol.
What I find most amusing is that he hasn't mentioned the possibility of lifelong abstinence even once. I was fully expecting him to just come out and say "well, then, some people will just have to stay single", but no. Shows how seriously fundamentalists take their own rhetoric.

[ Saturday, December 08, 2007 21:22: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 2984
Profile Homepage #79
quote:
Aran ... why she (or he, sorry, I don’t know)
DAMMIT, NOT AGAIN.

I mean, wtf. Does either "Arancaytar" or "Aran" have a feminine ending in any romanic language? None that I know.

--------------------
The Noble and Ancient Order of Polaris - We're Not Yet Dead.
EncyclopediaBlades ForgeArchivesStatsRSS (This Topic / Forum) • BlogNaNoWriMo
Did-chat thentagoespyet jumund fori is jus, hat onlime gly nertan ne gethen Firyoubbit 'obio.'
Decorum deserves a whole line of my signature, and an entry in your bookmarks.
Posts: 8752 | Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #80
It is a pretty gender-neutral name. Now, if it was Arancaytra, that would be a dead giveaway for a woman. How about Arancaytor? No confusion there. :P
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6785
Profile #81
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

It is a pretty gender-neutral name. Now, if it was Arancaytra, that would be a dead giveaway for a woman. How about Arancaytor? No confusion there. :P
But "tar" in Adunaic denotes king and Aran wouldn't want to give up his divine rights.
Posts: 4643 | Registered: Friday, February 10 2006 08:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #82
Thuryl will have to take his equality arguments up with the angel Gabriel. Kelandon was just citing Muslim law, not making his own case.

Arguments about civic law and religious doctrine, in western cultures, are like the monkey in Buddha's hand. Run as far as you can, you're still wrapped in its grasp. Christian theory about the relationships between state, faith and culture is as old as the faith itself, and has always been important in it.

The origin of the very western idea that state and religion should be separate is surely Jesus's statement that the follower of an all-ruling God still owes taxes to a secular government. Noting that coins all bore Caesar's image, he declared "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's." The principle goes deep.

--------------------
Listen carefully because some of your options may have changed.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #83
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

Thuryl will have to take his equality arguments up with the angel Gabriel. Kelandon was just citing Muslim law, not making his own case.
While that first sentence is one of the best lines uttered on these forums in a while, I did say that I thought that this interpretation might be heading in the right direction. That's waffling with the best politicians: I'm not sure that I actually believe this argument, but let me present it anyway.

Like the old joke: Two politicians are debating. One says to the other: "You're lying!" The other replies, "Yes, I am. But hear me out!" (West Wing FTW.)
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

I'm not convinced that the fact that polygamists will not treat every spouse exactly equally is sufficient grounds to ban polygamy.
I'm not completely convinced, either. But then what is the problem? I feel reasonably certain that there is one.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 00:41: 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
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #84
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

Arguments about civic law and religious doctrine, in western cultures, are like the monkey in Buddha's hand. Run as far as you can, you're still wrapped in its grasp.
This is a rather ominous statement, considering it was recently proved in another thread that Buddha's hand is Cthulhu's head.

--------------------
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 #85
quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

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.

Dictionary.com
freedom
1. the state of being free or at liberty rather than in confinement or under physical restraint

Laws requiring seatbelt usage restrict freedom by definition. Everyone has the same restrictions in this state.

quote:
Originally written by Drew:

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.

Health and safety is a moral issue. So is fairness. You’re interested in homosexuals out of a sense of fairness. That’s moral.

You see keeping people from sodomizing each other as the same thing as defining marriage as between a man and woman? The former interferes in private matters. The latter extends priviledges to anyone who would like to fit in a category. If you want to you can; if you don’t, you aren’t forced. This interferes with no one’s privacy. What you’re talking about is broadening definitions. That’s a horse of an entirely different color.

quote:
You seem to be saying: where is the harm?
I’m really not. Discussion of homosexuality took over, but my initial question was regarding the claim that this government is controlled by religion. I’m curious as to the mindset of those that lean towards extreme secularism, as I think much of the West does. That’s why I asked. They hold what seems to me to be a double standard. I’m wondering about the justification of it.

I think the religious right wing type view themselves as in a battle against secularism. But I don’t seem to hear them speaking with quite the same extremism as some in the secular camp who not only view themselves as in a battle, but don’t even feel that the other side should be given weapons – the right to vote based on their values.

quote:
what Constitutionally-based business does the government have regulating this behavior? I believe none at all.
I’m convinced that you and those holding those beliefs will win out here as with our neighbor to the north – time permitting. It’s actually the religious whose rights are infringed upon regarding these issues there.

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

This restriction is based on an arbitrary judgment that is traditionally viewed as coming from religion.
Let’s say sex is an arbitrary distinction (which it most certainly is not), what does it matter what the origins of a judgment are? As long as no one is trying to force you to worship as they see fit, their views are as valid as yours in this nation.

quote:
Originally written by Dikiyoba:

It discriminates based on sexuality rather than race…if you were a heterosexual in a predominately homosexual society in which only same-sex marriage is legal
It doesn’t discriminate. Whoever, whatever, or however many you like to have sex with, you have the exact same rights as everyone else.

I can’t imagine the bizarro world you describe. Sorry.

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

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?
It doesn’t. You can make a contract for whatever you want and the government won’t interfere.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 6489
Profile Homepage #86
What I don't understand is how marriage came to be a religious matter in the first place. That certainly didn't come from the Bible.

--------------------
"Dumbledore returns from the dead and declares it to be hammertime, Harry proceeds to break it down, Voldemort is unable to touch this." —Dintiradan
Spiderweb Chat Room
Avernum RPSummariesOoCRoster
Shadow Vale - My site, home of the Spiderweb Chat Database, BoA Scenario Database, & the A1 Quest List, among other things.
Posts: 1556 | Registered: Sunday, November 20 2005 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #87
Early fights between the church and the people that were consolidating power bases in politicized Europe became the battleground for authority over marriage, and the various definitions.

Stillness - Dodging my point by hypothesizing wildly is an admirable technique. Also, I'm not sure that anyone was claiming sodomy should be banned. After all, it is only another type of penetration. Traditionally one preferred by men of the cloth, to be sure, but I'm not sure that that should exclude it from normal practice. And from what I understand, it is more and more considered normal practice.

--------------------
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
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #88
Stillness, I think you can answer Dikiyoba's question after all. Surely you have a little bit of imagination!

But perhaps a better question is this one: imagine a world just like ours, in which marriage remains only for a man and a woman. Same sex couples can't be married, but they can be in government-recognized civil unions.

Now suppose that all of the privileges currently tied to marriage -- medical, legal, taxational, etc. -- suppose the government decreed that only same sex civil unions would receive those privileges. Traditional marriages wouldn't.

How would you feel about that? Would that be just? According to the logic you have expressed here, it would be just fine: the same sex couples are receiving something "extra", rather than the heterosexual marriages being denied any privileges.

--------------------
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
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #89
Stillness, while health and safety are moral issues in a sense, they are more importantly also relevant to preserving life, which is generally a right that the Constitution preserves. Further, these laws serve the purpose of limiting the great financial cost to others, particularly family, caused when someone dies or is severely injured in a car accident on account of not wearing a seatbelt/helmet/etc. Beyond that, driver's licenses and the right to operate an automobile are privileges, not rights, and so fully subject to regulation.

You are right - I'm interested for personal moral reasons in people being allowed to marry others of the same sex. That doesn't change the fact that the only reason for a prohibition against this practice has a moral, particularly religious basis, and that such a prohibition interferes with personal liberty.

To the extent that sodomy laws and hetero marital privilege exist purely for moral reasons, I do see them the same way - morally-based discrimination against personal liberty, and therefore inherently unconstitutional. Both sets of laws interfere with private matters - marriage is a deeply private concern.

Extreme secularism is a misnomer. It's rather an interest in personal liberty, tempered by natural law to do no harm to others, that I and others here promote. If that's "extreme," then you're living in an extreme nation, friend.

Everyone is of course free to vote based on their values; I wouldn't have it otherwise. However, they aren't entitled to enact law that runs contrary to rights guaranteed under the Constitution, unless the vote is for purposes of amending it.

"It’s actually the religious whose rights are infringed upon regarding these issues there."

I'm calling your bluff. How are the rights of the religious infringed upon at all by our nation? We're not talking the Waco standoff here, we're talking about your day-to-day life right to practice your religion as you see fit. The only thing that is being "infringed" upon is your ability to use instruments and resources of the state to promote your faith, and as the Establishment Clause has been interpreted by the Court, no one has that "right."

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 10:48: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #90
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

Stillness - Dodging my point by hypothesizing wildly is an admirable technique.
What point am I missing?

quote:
Originally written by Elastikon:

How would you feel about that? Would that be just? According to the logic you have expressed here, it would be just fine: the same sex couples are receiving something "extra", rather than the heterosexual marriages being denied any privileges.
I don’t really have a position on what the government does unless it encroaches on my worship. I didn’t marry for government benefits.

You all are really missing my point. If you feel that the government should allow same-sex marriage the same benefits as man-woman marriage that’s your right. But it’s NOT discrimination if they don’t, at least not in the same way as Jim Crow laws discriminate. That argument is used to cloak what is a moral position. You feel it’s immoral to deny same-sex marriage just like right-wing-evangelicals feel it’s immoral to allow it.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #91
Right - and what I'm saying is that the government should not have anything to do with regulating society purely for moral purposes, beyond those enshrined in the Constitution. Regulation that exists purely for moral purposes inherently infringes upon personal liberty, limited by natural law, that is protected by the Constitution.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 11:00: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #92
I'm not truly convinced that seatbelt laws actually reduce the ambulance and hospital requirements to an extent that makes them meaningful forms of improving the health of others. Wearing a seatbelt is pretty much good for the wearer only. If an adult who knows exactly what the risks are wants to go beltless, I can't really see how the government should be able to overrule the decision.

That said, there's a world of difference between seatbelts, where you can choose to ignore the law and accept the penalty, and same-sex marriage, where you cannot ignore the law because the entire problem is on paper, not physical.

—Alorael, who also thinks the point about morals is a good one and who agrees that laws should not be moral. If two consenting adults can get married, any two consenting adults should be able to get married. In a large sense this is still a problem sex-based discrimination: hetero marriage only discriminates against same-sex couples on the basis of one of them being the wrong sex. That is illegal in every other context.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #93
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

This restriction is based on an arbitrary judgment that is traditionally viewed as coming from religion.
Let’s say sex is an arbitrary distinction (which it most certainly is not), what does it matter what the origins of a judgment are? ...

Please explain what you meant by sex being an arbitrary distinction, or not, and how that applies to restrictions that are (or are not) based on arbitrary distinctions. Because really, when you make statements like the above, your credibility declines and I see you reverting to party line discourse rather than the intelligent rational thought processes of which I know you are capable.

--------------------
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
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #94
quote:
Originally written by Mallorquin Slef:

I'm not truly convinced that seatbelt laws actually reduce the ambulance and hospital requirements to an extent that makes them meaningful forms of improving the health of others.
Then convince yourself. It's true. My brother's an EMT, and I know from his experiences. I know that anecdotal evidence isn't convincing in a scientific sense, but in this case, it's nevertheless true.
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I can’t imagine the bizarro world you describe. Sorry.
Weak.
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

If you feel that the government should allow same-sex marriage the same benefits as man-woman marriage that’s your right. But it’s NOT discrimination if they don’t, at least not in the same way as Jim Crow laws discriminate.
In the Jim Crow South, everyone had the right to go to school. It's just that some people had to go to worse schools. That discrimination was done entirely on the basis of race.

By current law, everyone has the right to marry a member of the opposite sex. But not everyone has the right to marry the person he or she wants. And the latter discrimination is exclusively based on sexual preference (or orientation, if you prefer the compass image).

The analogy is this: by one way of phrasing people's rights, everyone has the same rights. By another way, the law is obviously discriminatory. It is similar enough to Jim Crow discrimination that making finer distinctions is truly splitting hairs.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 11:54: 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
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #95
quote:
Originally written by Mallorquin Slef:

I'm not truly convinced that seatbelt laws actually reduce the ambulance and hospital requirements to an extent that makes them meaningful forms of improving the health of others. Wearing a seatbelt is pretty much good for the wearer only. If an adult who knows exactly what the risks are wants to go beltless, I can't really see how the government should be able to overrule the decision.
It goes beyond that, though, Alo, to overall increases in insurance premiums, the toll it takes on a family's finances when it has to pay for relatively greater medical expenses, or in the worst case scenario, start learning to get by without a breadwinner, etc.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #96
By Salmon
quote:
Dodging my point by hypothesizing wildly is an admirable technique.
Much of the discussion occurring is hypothetical. In fact, most of the theoretical situations in this thread are created by the opposing side.

By Tyranicus
quote:
What I don't understand is how marriage came to be a religious matter in the first place. That certainly didn't come from the Bible.
The Roman Catholic church was the government once. As with most governments, they extended their jurisdiction beyond what is acceptable.
Isaac and Rebekka were married in a tent, and in other words, marriage is merely an oral contract.

By Dikiyoba
quote:
Can you honestly tell me that if you were a heterosexual in a predominately homosexual society
A predominately homosexual society? What kind of hogwash is that? A predominately homosexual society does not exist because...
Drumroll...
It takes a heterosexual relationship to produce a human being. In your situation all the homosexuals would die out, leaving the straight people behind.

As if forcing the heterosexuals to reproduce to the point of exhaustion would be an option.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< >
I pulled my father's law dictionary off the shelf. It's definition of marriage repeatedly uses the phrases "man and woman", and "male and female."

By Thuryl
quote:
I'm not convinced that the fact that polygamists will not treat every spouse exactly equally is sufficient grounds to ban polygamy.
From reading certain excerpts from particular passages of writing, rivalry often occurs among the multiple spouses of the same sex.
--------------------
Someone mentioned that polygamy was banned to drive the Mormons out. Because polygamy is banned or at least frowned upon in much of the world, I doubt that is the case.

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #97
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

A predominately homosexual society? What kind of hogwash is that? A predominately homosexual society does not exist because...
Drumroll...
It takes a heterosexual relationship to produce a human being. In your situation all the homosexuals would die out, leaving the straight people behind.

As if forcing the heterosexuals to reproduce to the point of exhaustion would be an option.

Hypotheticals don't have to be plausible; they just have to be illustrative. Unfortunately, sometimes they fail due to a lack of imagination on the part of their recipients.

quote:
I pulled my father's law dictionary off the shelf. It's definition of marriage repeatedly uses the phrases "man and woman", and "male and female."
No kidding! However, Black's Law Dictionary doesn't carry constitutional, statutory, or common law authority. Regardless, this is completely irrelevant for purposes of this discussion. We are all aware of what the current law is; what we're discussing is whether the current law is right/correct/constitutional/just.

quote:
Someone mentioned that polygamy was banned to drive the Mormons out. Because polygamy is banned or at least frowned upon in much of the world, I doubt that is the case.
It doesn't matter what the rest of the world thinks if that was the actual reason used here.

Please, please think before you type.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 13:11: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #98
Kel: I realize that not wearing a seatbelt greatly increases the chances of severe injury and thus the need for complicated care. I'm just not so convinced that there are so few ambulances and so few hospital beds that this is a critical concern. It could be, but I don't have any evidence either way.

Drew: Likewise, I am aware of the costs to the family of the seatbelt avoider. I'm just not sure that the cost is societal enough to justify legal safe(ty belt)guards. Insurance premiums might count, but the health insurance system is such a mess that I'm much more inclined to take this as evidence that insurance needs an overhaul, not car safety.

—Alorael, who must point out that a homosexual society is not unthinkable. It has been suggested many times in science fiction, has been one of Leon Kass's rather crazy objections to both IVF and gene therapy, and is quite feasible using current technology as long as both males and females continue to coexist, the former are willing to donate sperm, and the latter are willing to accept it.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #99
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

By Dikiyoba
quote:
Can you honestly tell me that if you were a heterosexual in a predominately homosexual society
A predominately homosexual society? What kind of hogwash is that? A predominately homosexual society does not exist because...
Drumroll...
It takes a heterosexual relationship to produce a human being. In your situation all the homosexuals would die out, leaving the straight people behind.

Short of calling you a moron, I don't know how to respond to this. Let me just suggest that you exercise your brain and imagine a world where people reproduce out of necessity and a sense of community, but preserve their bonds of affection to those that they truly love.

quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:


Someone mentioned that polygamy was banned to drive the Mormons out. Because polygamy is banned or at least frowned upon in much of the world, I doubt that is the case.

Again, your personal impressions about how the world oughta be have absolutely no impact on reality. You can do the research yourself, but you won't, and discover the truth. And that was me that "mentioned" it. Because it deserved mention because it was part of the discussion, and was the true history of the ban. Polygamy was not illegal prior to the propagation of the Mormon 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

Pages