Omaha Mall Shooting

Pages

AuthorTopic: Omaha Mall Shooting
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #100
The loss of productive citizens is a huge loss to society. The whole point of modernity is that most people produce more than they consume, so that gradually everybody gets to live better. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, because mankind makes stuff and sells it to me.

--------------------
Listen carefully because some of your options may have changed.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #101
True, but I believe the personal right to engage in risky behavior (and, yes, suicide) trumps the very small benefit to society of heavy-handed safety. It requires a bit of ethical calculus to work out exactly how the utiles stack up, but I don't a debt to society is a good justification for promoting mandatory safety measures.

—Alorael, who on the other hand would be quite happy if cars were made so that turning the car on were impossible without the the driver's being buckled in. Law must permit stupidity, but manufacturers only have to pander to mass preference for the ability to be stupid.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #102
I don't, especially given the ridiculously small cost to an individual involved in buckling up. It doesn't pass the common law Judge Learned Hand balancing test, where you weigh the cost of the remedial action (P) against the probability of an adverse event (B) multiplied by the potential liability (L); or P = BL. Here, the cost to all drivers and passengers of simply putting a seatbelt on (P) is significantly lower than the potential liability (I assume you aren't going to argue against the great difference between the outcomes of an auto accident where a person is wearing a seatbelt versus one where a person is not)(L) times the likelihood of an accident occurring, which is not infrequent (P). Now, suppose instead that a state legislature passed a law saying that all occupants of a car must wear body armor made out of titanium/some very expensive material, and that the net increase in safety from merely buckling up to this standard made only a small improvement in safety in the outcomes of accidents. There, the price of the remedial action would be disproportionately higher than the potential liability, and so doesn't make sense to regulate.

In court, if a victim of an accident is proven not to have been wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident, it seriously mitigates the damages that person can expect to recover because of this formula.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 15:28: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #103
quote:
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.

You show me an existing homosexual society, or why a society would turn predominately homosexual and I'll believe you. But until then, I don't think so.

EDIT: I'm sure there's some homosexual communes, but that's not what I mean.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 15:00: Message edited by: Excalibur ]

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #104
Excalibur, you may as well stop participating in this discussion now if you're unable or (hopefully for you just) unwilling to engage in abstract reasoning.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 15:23: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #105
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

Excalibur, you may as well stop participating in this discussion now if you're unable or (hopefully for you just) unwilling to engage in abstract reasoning.
It is easier to give up. When a person can say, with a straight face, "society would turn predominately homosexual" there is exposed a fundamental lack of understanding which effectively removes them from the conversation.

--------------------
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 #106
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

You show me an existing homosexual society, or why a society would turn predominately homosexual and I'll believe you. But until then, I don't think so.
There's nothing to "believe." It's a hypothetical situation. If you lack the ability to imagine it, then that says something terrible about you.

I'm tempted to cite ancient Greece, but that would get us into arguments that we need not get into.

[ Sunday, December 09, 2007 17:23: 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
The Establishment
Member # 6
Profile #107
quote:
Originally written by Hollow Face:

True, but I believe the personal right to engage in risky behavior (and, yes, suicide) trumps the very small benefit to society of heavy-handed safety. It requires a bit of ethical calculus to work out exactly how the utiles stack up, but I don't a debt to society is a good justification for promoting mandatory safety measures.
It's a balance between the rights of the individual and the rights of those around. The problem is not wearing your seat belt increases your risk of having more severe injuries in a given accident.

So what? Well, health care in our society is subsidized as is everything else. Also, ratepayers for insurance also subsidize healh care as well. Sure, you have a right to engage is risky behavior, but do you have the right to insist that ratepayers of your insurance company pay the increased costs of your injuries? Unfortunately, there is no way to definitively prove what costs would have been had you been wearing your seatbelt, so it's impossible for your insurance just to cover that portion and leave you with the rest.

Mandating seat belts is simple and fairly non-invasive. While yes, it does infringe on your civil liberties to a small degree, it does not materially impact your life in any significant way other than reducing the risk of severe injury. On the same token, there is no right to drive automobiles on publicly maintained roadways. If you accept the benefits, you need to accept the rules that go with it.

--------------------
Your flower power is no match for my glower power!
Posts: 3726 | Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #108
Okay, I profess myself won over. Devil's advocate mode off.

Now I'll play Excalibur's game. Suppose a society takes the problem of overpopulation very seriously. This is reasonable, after all; the problem is enormous. Now, let's suppose this society has the will and the wherewithal to tweak genes in all embryos. Not out of question in either a near dystopian future or a near wealthy commune! Now, population comes from sexual intercourse, which occurs primarily between heterosexuals. Homosexuality appears to be at least partially genetic. So let's hypothesize a society that's willing to both tweak and condition its babies to be homosexual for population control. (Credit where it's due: Joe Haldeman's Forever War)

—Alorael, who in any case thinks you are egregiously missing the point. This is a thought experiment about the current situation reversed. If you can't manage that, your lack of ability with abstractions renders you largely unsuited to considering possible futures based on possible policies.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #109
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

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.
I’m not very smart about the Constitution or the details of various political movements. Are we talking about some regulations I’m unaware of to control homosexual activity or the fact that the government only recognizes male-female marriage? The latter doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights.

quote:
Originally written by Mallorquin Slef:

laws should not be moral.
What law is not moral? Give me an example. Maybe it’s just my worldview affecting my outlook, but laws are based on protecting society and individual citizens and that’s all moral to me. We want to live in a fair and just society because justice is good. Yes, it benefits us, but that’s exactly why it’s moral.

quote:
If two consenting adults can get married, any two consenting adults should be able to get married.
If your fellow citizen disagrees with you (for whatever reason) should he have the right to vote according to his idea of what makes for a good society?

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

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…I see you reverting to party line discourse
Male-female is a natural distinction, not a manmade one. The government recognizing male-female unions as special is not arbitrary because that pairing is naturally unique and different and from male-male/female-female groupings. If you feel the latter should be treated as the former, that is your opinion and you are entitled to it and in the US you are even entitled to try to make your opinion law.

And I don’t have a party line as I’m not for or against recognition of same-sex marriage. What interests me is secular extremism.

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

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

Marriage is a divine arrangement predating human government. Tax breaks and other benefits wouldn’t affect my decision to marry. So it wouldn’t matter.

Happy?

quote:
It is similar enough to Jim Crow discrimination that making finer distinctions is truly splitting hairs.
No it’s not. Black children were not treated the same as white children. Homosexuals are treated just like heterosexuals.

Some people are bisexual. Should four bisexuals be able to marry? What about ten people? 100? Two heterosexual men? A parent that lives with their adult child (marriage doesn’t have to be sexual)? If no, why? If yes, what would be the purpose of marriage in your ideal society? Do you have the right to try to get legislation to support your views? Does someone else have the right to legislate against them?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #110
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Male-female is a natural distinction, not a manmade one. The government recognizing male-female unions as special is not arbitrary because that pairing is naturally unique and different and from male-male/female-female groupings.
That females only bear children when impregnated by a male of the same species is a result of evolution. There is no "natural" distinction, other than impregnation, which makes pairings of sexes important at all. Quite frequently in nature you find that a single dominant male will impregnate multiple females. You will also find subordinate males frequently copulating amongst themselves, at least in pack-type species, until a time when they get females of their own. And since you find the same behaviors in humans, I see your argument is based on the world-view espoused by your faith, which is seeking a perfection of world which might even admit that homosexuals play no role. Which is fine, as we are in the United States. Just realize that by creating a set of rights, and applying them unevenly across our citizens, with the only distinction being a factor of genetics, we have created a new set of Jim Crow laws. They're just harder to see, because it's harder to test for gay than for African ancestry.

--------------------
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
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #111
Originally by Stillness:

quote:
What law is not moral? Give me an example. Maybe it’s just my worldview affecting my outlook, but laws are based on protecting society and individual citizens and that’s all moral to me. We want to live in a fair and just society because justice is good. Yes, it benefits us, but that’s exactly why it’s moral.
But morals become immoral when the laws based on them hurt people who they are supposed to protect. Society will not fall apart if same-sex marriage or civil unions are recognized. But not recognizing it causes hardship and grief for the people who want to marry a specific someone but can't solely because it would result in a male/male or female/female pair instead of a female/male pair. No one benefits from these laws and some people suffer. What's moral about that?

And you know what? If opposite-sex marriages apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals, then same-sex marriages apply equally to heterosexuals and homosexuals as well. If two heterosexuals of the same sex really wanted to marry each other, they could.

Dikiyoba.

--------------------
Episode 4: Spiderweb Reloaded
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #112
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Marriage is a divine arrangement predating human government.
Then aren't you angry about the government thinking it has the right to decide what is and isn't a "marriage"? Shouldn't you be campaigning for the word "marriage" to be struck off the law books entirely, and replaced by civil unions for heterosexuals, homosexuals, or any other group of people, whether involved in a sexual relationship or not, who feel that they'd benefit from participating in a civil union? This seems like an eminently reasonable solution that would please almost everybody.

quote:
If yes, what would be the purpose of marriage in your ideal society?
The purpose of marriage is whatever the people involved in the marriage want it to be. Again, a marriage is a private contract between the individuals involved in it, and it's not anybody else's business why they choose to make that contract.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #113
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

This seems like an eminently reasonable solution that would please almost everybody.
Heee.

Except the fundamentalist Christian movement in the USA (and perhaps elsewhere). A similar solution was shot down in Oregon with a bumper sticker campaign of [One Man/One Woman]. Those stickers are usually seen in companionship with Anti-choice stickers and Jesus fish.

--------------------
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 #114
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

There is no "natural" distinction, other than impregnation, which makes pairings of sexes important at all.
All three pairings are distinct by nature. Impregnation is one aspect that makes the male-female pairing naturally unique. The physical design of the sex organs also indicates they are designed for male-female pairing.

quote:
I see your argument is based on the world-view espoused by your faith
What argument? Do you still think I’m arguing against recognition of same-sex marriages? What I really want is to know if you feel that the person that disagrees with you has the right to push his values just like you have the right to push yours.

I hear the right saying the left is immoral, bent on destroying the family, corrupting our society, etc, but I don’t hear them saying the left doesn’t have the right to push their view…at least not in the same numbers or with the same passion.

The comparison to racism and claims of discrimination are just clever equivocation.

quote:
Originally written by Dikiyoba:

Society will not fall apart if same-sex marriage or civil unions are recognized. But not recognizing it causes hardship and grief for the people who want to marry a specific someone but can't solely because it would result in a male/male or female/female pair instead of a female/male pair.
Will society fall apart if same-sex marriages are not recognized? How does the government not recognizing same-sex marriage cause hardship?

I believe the simple truth is that some people feel homosexuality should be accepted by society the same as heterosexuality and they think marriage will get them closer to that goal.

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Then aren't you angry about the government thinking it has the right to decide what is and isn't a "marriage"? Shouldn't you be campaigning…

The purpose of marriage is whatever the people involved in the marriage want it to be.

Those of my faith are generally apolitical. I think my comments are being misread.

And thanks for dodging the meat of my question and giving a fluff, coockie-cutter answer.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #115
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

And thanks for dodging the meat of my question and giving a fluff, coockie-cutter answer.
I'm not sure what answer you want. My only concern is that people are free to enter into mutually consensual personal relationships if, to whom, and on such terms as they choose, and that governments don't privilege some kinds of relationship above others. As long as all people have that freedom, I don't really care what they do with it.

quote:
Those of my faith are generally apolitical. I think my comments are being misread.
There's no such thing as being apolitical. Have you ever bought any product from a company that's made contributions to a political party? If so, congratulations: you've helped fund a political campaign.

[ Monday, December 10, 2007 01:25: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #116
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

What I really want is to know if you feel that the person that disagrees with you has the right to push his values just like you have the right to push yours.
Absolutely. The KKK still holds rallies. The difference is that my values are more open and friendly than the ones I oppose. By allowing more equality I have the higher moral ground. I make no distinction. Race, creed, color, ability, sexuality, transportation preference, looks, hair color, weight, and location. If you and another human being wish to enter into a contract that says you will provide a stable home for one another until death do you part, then I award you one benefits package courtesy of the Federal government. If you chose to not enter into a contract, then you don't get that benefits package. And best of all, anyone can enter into that contract. You and your sweetie can establish a home together, and know that some things automatically happen. Like these.
quote:
Written by the Committee that worked to decide how to cause hardship by denying marriage to same sex couples.
Married people have the following Federally legislated rights.
* Right to many of ex- or late spouse's benefits, including:
o Social Security pension
o veteran's pensions, indemnity compensation for service-connected deaths, medical care, and nursing home care, right to burial in veterans' cemeteries, educational assistance, and housing
o survivor benefits for federal employees
o survivor benefits for spouses of longshoremen, harbor workers, railroad workers
o additional benefits to spouses of coal miners who die of black lung disease
o $100,000 to spouse of any public safety officer killed in the line of duty
o continuation of employer-sponsored health benefits
o renewal and termination rights to spouse's copyrights on death of spouse
o continued water rights of spouse in some circumstances
o payment of wages and workers compensation benefits after worker death
o making, revoking, and objecting to post-mortem anatomical gifts
* Right to benefits while married:
o employment assistance and transitional services for spouses of members being separated from military service; continued commissary privileges
o per diem payment to spouse for federal civil service employees when relocating
o Indian Health Service care for spouses of Native Americans (in some circumstances)
o sponsor husband/wife for immigration benefits
* Larger benefits under some programs if married, including:
o veteran's disability
o Supplemental Security Income
o disability payments for federal employees
o medicaid
o property tax exemption for homes of totally disabled veterans
o income tax deductions, credits, rates exemption, and estimates
* Joint and family-related rights:
o joint filing of bankruptcy permitted
o joint parenting rights, such as access to children's school records
o family visitation rights for the spouse and non-biological children, such as to visit a spouse in a hospital or prison
o next-of-kin status for emergency medical decisions or filing wrongful death claims
o custodial rights to children, shared property, child support, and alimony after divorce
o domestic violence intervention
o access to "family only" services, such as reduced rate memberships to clubs & organizations or residency in certain neighborhoods
* Preferential hiring for spouses of veterans in government jobs
* Tax-free transfer of property between spouses (including on death) and exemption from "due-on-sale" clauses.
* Special consideration to spouses of citizens and resident aliens
* Spouse's flower sales count towards meeting the eligibility for Fresh Cut Flowers and Fresh Cut Greens Promotion and Information Act
* Threats against spouses of various federal employees is a federal crime
* Right to continue living on land purchased from spouse by National Park Service when easement granted to spouse
* Court notice of probate proceedings
* Domestic violence protection orders
* Existing homestead lease continuation of rights
* Regulation of condominium sales to owner-occupants exemption
* Funeral and bereavement leave
* Joint adoption and foster care
* Joint tax filing
* Insurance licenses, coverage, eligibility, and benefits organization of mutual benefits society
* Legal status with stepchildren
* Making spousal medical decisions
* Spousal non-resident tuition deferential waiver
* Permission to make funeral arrangements for a deceased spouse, including burial or cremation
* Right of survivorship of custodial trust
* Right to change surname upon marriage
* Right to enter into prenuptial agreement
* Right to inheritance of property
* Spousal privilege in court cases (the marital confidences privilege and the spousal testimonial privilege)

Those don't apply to same-sex couples living together without the government license. Let me repeat that. If you don't have a marriage license, you don't have those protections under law. No survivorship rights, no visitation rights, no rights to dispute legal documents post-mortem. These are ALL hardships, and are visited upon homosexuals in relationships because they aren't permitted to marry. It is extremely straightforward.

quote:
The comparison to racism and claims of discrimination are just clever equivocation.
Thanks. Oh. Wait. You mean you don't understand that treating someone differently is wrong, or you don't understand that sexual preference isn't a deliberate choice.

Edit - I highlighted a few, but many of them are huge benefits gifted for married couples and deserve recognition.

[ Monday, December 10, 2007 01:41: Message edited by: Jumpin' Salmon ]

--------------------
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 #117
Thuryl, I presented multiple scenarios and asked if you should be able to try to legislate your view and if someone with the opposite view should be able to as well.

quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

What I really want is to know if you feel that the person that disagrees with you has the right to push his values just like you have the right to push yours.
Absolutely.

Thanks for your answer.

quote:
You mean you don't understand that treating someone differently is wrong, or you don't understand that sexual preference isn't a deliberate choice.
I mean I don’t think disallowing same-sex marriage is equivalent to racial discrimination. I think denying housing, classifying it as a mental illness, and military policy is.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #118
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Thuryl, I presented multiple scenarios and asked if you should be able to try to legislate your view and if someone with the opposite view should be able to as well.
I'm not sure I understand the question. It's impossible to prevent someone from trying to do something, so to say that somebody shouldn't be able to try to get their personal beliefs enshrined in legislation is a patent absurdity. Of course, I'll do everything within my power to prevent people who disagree with me from succeeding in getting their beliefs enshrined in legislation, and I'd expect anybody else to do the same.

quote:
I mean I don’t think disallowing same-sex marriage is equivalent to racial discrimination. I think denying housing, classifying it as a mental illness, and military policy is.
Did you not even notice Salmon's big list? There are certain benefits which are only available to married couples. Denying the benefits of marriage to unmarried partnerships is, objectively, discrimination, whether you approve of it or not. Some kinds of discrimination are laudable and necessary, as when we discriminate against murderers by imprisoning them. Unnecessary discrimination, however, is harmful.

[ Monday, December 10, 2007 02:00: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Agent
Member # 4506
Profile Homepage #119
quote:
Denying the benefits of marriage to unmarried partnerships is, objectively, discrimination, whether you approve of it or not. Some kinds of discrimination are laudable and necessary, as when we discriminate against murderers by imprisoning them. Unnecessary discrimination, however, is harmful.
Ofcourse, this all depends then on the individual's view of what is necessary discrimination and what isn't. While I firmly agree that murderers should be locked up, and that homosexuals should be given the same rights as any other human being, others could say that there is a necessary reason to discriminate against them.

Unfortunately it's been done in the past, and could happen again (Nazi Germany).

- Archmagus Micael

--------------------
"You dare Trifle with Avernum?" ~ Erika the Archmage
--------------------
Posts: 1370 | Registered: Thursday, June 10 2004 07:00
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #120
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

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.

You've quite lost it now, haven't you? A seat-belt is physical restraint? What about the confinement of your car? Oh, wait: You chose to sit in that car in order to enjoy your personal freedom/confinement?

If it wasn't for the fact that your argument is just another one of those 'hey-I-looked-it-up-you-are-wrong'-statements that you seem to be so agreeing of, I might actually get upset. But, hey, go and read ET's signature. There's infinite wisdom to be found.

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #121
Take a deep breath -- I find myself agreeing with Stillness on several points:

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

The purpose of marriage is whatever the people involved in the marriage want it to be. Again, a marriage is a private contract between the individuals involved in it, and it's not anybody else's business why they choose to make that contract.
I can't agree with this. While the relationship enshrined in marriage is certainly a private thing, marriage itself is one form (the traditional form) for a public representation of that relationship. Historically marriage ceremonies have tended to involve not just relatives and local officials but, often, entire communities. It seems to me its significance was always social more than anything else. In cases where marriage has explicitly involved a contract, the contract often involved persons other than the beloved, or even was negotiated or signed by them, especially in the case of women, ever held low.

Is marriage different today, in a society organized around individual selection of spouses based on love -- a very different criterion than has been in use in most of human history?

It is different for many people, but not for everyone. That is why I think the fairest route is to leave marriage as a community decision (obviously, this would include religious communities) and attach all the government benefits to something more equitable.

quote:
I believe the simple truth is that some people feel homosexuality should be accepted by society the same as heterosexuality and they think marriage will get them closer to that goal.
I think this is actually quite true. The people you describe probably also genuinely want same sex marriage to exist -- it isn't just a stepping stone -- but you're right.

It was probably also true that some of the people arguing against segregation in Brown v. Board of Education felt that blacks should be accepted the same as whites and thought that was one step closer. That hardly makes their position any weaker.

quote:
Those of my faith are generally apolitical. I think my comments are being misread.
What faith are you? Because Christianity in general is certainly the most politically active religion in this country.

--------------------
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 #122
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

It's impossible to prevent someone from trying to do something, so to say that somebody shouldn't be able to try to get their personal beliefs enshrined in legislation is a patent absurdity. Of course, I'll do everything within my power to prevent people who disagree with me from succeeding in getting their beliefs enshrined in legislation, and I'd expect anybody else to do the same.
But everybody won’t do the same, Thuryl. Some people are not willing to lie and cheat the system to get their way and to stop their neighbor from getting his. For example, the Constitution forbids restricting or enforcing religion. So when some people aren’t getting their way they equivocate and say that there is a conflict of church and state when there isn’t any, so their opponent doesn’t even have the constitutional right get their beliefs enshrined in legislation. That is the sentiment of many on this issue.

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

Denying the benefits of marriage to unmarried partnerships is, objectively, discrimination
The law discriminates between a male-female union and every other. That’s why I asked about bisexual unions, community unions, and parent-child unions, which it also discriminates against. The point was that this is not like racial discrimination though. That was the argument.

quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

You've quite lost it now, haven't you? A seat-belt is physical restraint? What about the confinement of your car? Oh, wait: You chose to sit in that car in order to enjoy your personal freedom/confinement?

If it wasn't for the fact that your argument is just another one of those 'hey-I-looked-it-up-you-are-wrong'-statements that you seem to be so agreeing of, I might actually get upset. But, hey, go and read ET's signature. There's infinite wisdom to be found.

A law requiring wearing a seatbelt restricts freedom because it takes away my freedom to drive without one and makes it illegal and punishable.

I show people definitions when their arguments indicate ignorance of them. Unfortunately, sometimes they still don’t get it.

quote:
Originally written by Archmagus Micael:

Unfortunately it's been done in the past, and could happen again (Nazi Germany).
Yes, and we all know how the USA loves to sterilize homosexuals.

Well, I was getting sick of this discussion anyway. I think this is my cue to creep back into the shadows. *creeps*...
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #123
A few points:

On nature: Of course genitalia are "designed" for male-female sexual intercourse for impregnation, but design is the wrong word. Yes, I know you'll disagree. Evolution provides plenty of reasons for sex and plenty of reasons why sex requires evolving for sex.

Anyway, since creationism/ID isn't generally accepted, arguing from design is meaningless.

On morals: Law is not about doing the right thing. Law is about doing the fair thing. It is, or should be utilitarian. Put bluntly, I don't trust most people to make laws that are morally correct, but I do trust them to make laws that are best for the largest number of people and that's good enough.

On disagreement: Anyone has the right to propose any legal changes. One of the jobs of the government is to refuse some changes even if the majority supports them. Discrimination is one of those cases: minorities should be and must be protected.

By the same token, anyone has the right to try to role back civil rights and return to Jim Crow. Even if 90% of the country supports this, the government is obligated to refuse. Discrimination against blacks is unconstitutional, and I would argue that discrimination in general (without good reason, as Thuryl pointed out) is against the spirit of the document and really ought to be amended in.

—Alorael, who views this as secular extremism only in that certain political agendas particular to the religious are not viable. Plenty of secular agendas are equally unacceptable, though, so it's not as though this is some atheist crusade against the faithful.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #124
quote:
Originally written by Fernication:

That is why I think the fairest route is to leave marriage as a community decision (obviously, this would include religious communities) and attach all the government benefits to something more equitable.
Given that our positions have more or less the same policy consequences in this case, I think we can safely agree to disagree on whatever we may happen to disagree on (which is, I think, not as much as we're making it sound like).

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

But everybody won’t do the same, Thuryl. Some people are not willing to lie and cheat the system to get their way and to stop their neighbor from getting his. For example, the Constitution forbids restricting or enforcing religion. So when some people aren’t getting their way they equivocate and say that there is a conflict of church and state when there isn’t any, so their opponent doesn’t even have the constitutional right get their beliefs enshrined in legislation. That is the sentiment of many on this issue.
The court system is a machine that turns arguments into decisions. If you can discover what legal arguments will produce the judicial decision you want, in what sense is that lying or cheating the system? Both sides will manipulate the system by whatever legal means are available in order to produce the result they want. It's not the job of the involved parties to decide what is or isn't true, only what will help win their case. This is exactly the way the system is meant to work: in fact, you'd be cheating the system if you found a legal way to win your case and refused to use it, because you'd be depriving the process of valid input. If you have a quarrel with the nature of the adversarial system, then I guess you'll have to push for a constitutional amendment to change it.

[ Monday, December 10, 2007 06:19: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

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

Pages