Omaha Mall Shooting
Pages
| Author | Topic: Omaha Mall Shooting |
|---|---|
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 06:12
Profile
quote:I see a pattern here, I just can't point my finger at it. quote:The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. If your personal freedom does not allow for this canonical piece of logic you'll be having serious trouble in any community. quote:Cute. Thanks for the talk. -------------------- Always be true to yourself - unless you suck Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 06:19
Profile
Homepage
quote:This isn't such an asburd comparison. India, a country that tends to be fairly progressive politically, briefly had programs to sterilize lower class men in the 80's. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 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
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 06:44
Profile
quote:I just want to creep back out to say, I didn’t mean “design” in the sense that the Almighty God made it. I have heard naturalist evolutionist use this same language. And my argument wasn’t that homosexuality is wrong since the organs are shaped as they are, but that the heterosexual union is special in that it uses them according in the way implied by the shape, whereas the other pairings (or groupings since bisexuality came up) do not. So yes, I do disagree. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 06:52
Profile
Homepage
Where is this bisexuality -> groupings thing coming from? Bisexuality implies pairings just as much (or as little) as heterosexuality and homosexuality do. Polygamy (or polysexual, or poly-whatever) imply groupings. -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 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 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 07:13
Profile
Homepage
quote:What on earth is praiseworthy about using one's organs in obvious and natural ways? Surely it would be far more creative to use them in ways that nobody has ever thought to use them before. That's how humanity progresses. Any fool can put a human penis in a human vagina: it takes a visionary to find ways of deriving pleasure from one person's forearm and another's nose hair. Bending nature to see how far it can stretch is what makes life interesting. [ Monday, December 10, 2007 07:32: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 07:42
Profile
quote:The argument is that same-sex pairings are discriminated against because homosexual marriages are not recognized, so this somehow infringes on their rights. My argument then was: Should this stop with pairings since some people are bisexual? They are also discriminated against. I gave the example of a group of 2 bisexual men and 2 bisexual women all marrying each other so that each individual has 3 spouses. I also extended this to a group of 100. Then I mentioned marriage to close relatives (without a reproductive component so as to avoid the argument regarding defects). No one seems to want to address these cases of discrimination. Who will cry for the polysexuals? Thuryl? Is your heart big enough to include a father and his daughter that have special feelings for each other? Maybe they want to adopt a baby together or have the other privileges on Salmon’s list extended to them. Maybe when you meet a person you think is an alright guy, you could vote him into your “marital group.” quote:I somehow missed this response. I agree! My point is that in the case you mentioned some people were segregated and treated as second-class citizens. Disallowing same-sex marriage is not the same kind of discrimination. Equivocating these two types of discrimination gives the argument for same-sex union a false strength because of the feelings that words like “discrimination” and “racism” stir up in the American psyche. quote:I’m one of Jehovah’s Witnesses. We’re politically neutral. We only get excited when governments interfere with our worship. Incidentally, a lot of folks are unaware that we’ve won some landmark cases that aid the cause of freedom for everyone because of our worship. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
...b10010b...
Member # 869
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 08:02
Profile
Homepage
quote:See, this is precisely why governments shouldn't get into the business of discriminating on the basis of whether people have "special feelings" for each other in the first place. Any kind of legal status that assumes the existence of a sexual relationship is discriminatory against asexuals, for starters. If a married couple, or a family, or a group of five friends have living arrangements such that they're dependent on each other and have a reasonable capacity to make decisions on each other's behalf in emergencies, why is whether or not they're having sex a relevant issue? Civil unions ought to be a purely legal construct with purely legal consequences; as long as the union is between consenting adults, the nature of the personal relationship between the parties involved is not a proper matter for governments to inquire into. [ Monday, December 10, 2007 08:03: Message edited by: Thuryl ] -------------------- The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure! Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00 |
|
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 08:02
Profile
Homepage
Most bisexual people, like most gay and straight people, are monogamous. You could just as easily have a grouping of a straight man and two straight women, or of three lesbians, as you could have three bisexual people. (And my impression is that the first has been by far the most common in history, though that's just an impression and I have nothing to back it up.) I think your point about "where do we draw the line" is legitimate, and is yet another reason I don't see why the government should legislate marriage. Excluding same sex couples is just as arbitrary as excluding poly triples (etc.). However, the government does have a line drawn in two places, by default: CONSENT and LEGAL STATURE. If somebody wants to marry a plant, that's completely irrelevant to our conversation as the plant is incapable of receiving any of the legal benefits on Salmon's long list. Same thing for animals, which are considered a special type of property under U.S. law (whether that's justified could be a separate conversation, I suppose). Laws regarding consent make it illegal for minors of any age to be involved with anyone who is significantly older or in most caretaking capacities. I would sooner die than marry one of my parents, but if some other 25-year-old wants to, who am I to stop him? -------------------- Slarty vs. Desk • Desk vs. Slarty • Timeline of Ermarian • G4 Strategy Central "Slartucker is going to have a cow when he hears about this," Synergy said. Posts: 3560 | Registered: Wednesday, November 7 2001 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 08:44
Profile
quote:Like people don't have to subscribe to a blood transfusion after a car accident (no seat-belt), if their parents say so? -------------------- Always be true to yourself - unless you suck Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 09:13
Profile
quote:Are you really serious about the seatbelts? I was making a point, not arguing against wearing them. I personally think its a good law. OK? By the way, I had in mind freedom of speech and children not being forced to pledge allegiance aand salute the flag, but we've done things with laws for medical treatment as well. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Shaper
Member # 32
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 09:13
Profile
There is no such thing as a politically neutral religion... -------------------- Lt. Sullust Quaere verum Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 09:19
Profile
quote:OK, I'll bite. Please explain. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 09:32
Profile
Homepage
quote:Um, simply asserting that you're right without addressing anything that I said is both unconvincing and impolite. The law doesn't treat homosexuals as it does heterosexuals. Heterosexuals can marry whomever they want. Homosexuals cannot. While we're at it, Stillness, you sound as though you don't know what bisexuality is. It doesn't have anything to do with polygamy, as Alo has pointed out. [ Monday, December 10, 2007 09:42: Message edited by: Kelandon ] -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 | Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 09:37
Profile
quote:Personally, I don't think it's a very good idea to make this a law - I was making a point. I am actually pretty serious about the blood-transfusion. -------------------- Always be true to yourself - unless you suck Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 09:57
Profile
quote:I didn’t just assert. I gave reasons. A heterosexual might not want to marry a woman and so decides he’ll marry his best friend, not for sex, just because they get along well and want to pool resources and help each other out. He can’t marry him, just like a homosexual cannot. A homosexual that has a friend of the opposite sex can marry them. And being technical on my use of bisexual doesn’t answer the question about groups or close relatives that want to marry. It just dodges it. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
By Committee
Member # 4233
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 10:08
Profile
What is the purpose of marriage at all, then? Why should it receive special government treatment? One could argue that it should on account of procreation, but whether people are married or not doesn't seem to stop that from happening. For that matter, many married couples decide not to have children at all. Why should they receive special government benefits that other couples can't? How about the fact that a number of churches are willing to perform or have performed marriages for same-sex couples? A marriage is a marriage, right? And yet the government is willing to privilege the marriages of some faith traditions while denying the marriages of others. Seems like we're on murky First Amendment ground there, and not just on account of "extreme secularists." Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 10:21
Profile
Homosexuals can marry any person of the opposite sex, same as heterosexuals. That's equality. They can't marry anyone of the sex to which they are attracted. That's not. So in one respect the situations are equal, and in another they are not. Is this just a standoff of perspectives? No, because a dime and a nickel are still unequal even if they were minted in the same year. Piling on equalities in other respects, however many, can never remove an inequality in one. Unequal in any relevant respect is unequal, period. In general there may be much room for debate on what respects are relevant. On whether or not sexual attraction is relevant to marriage, though, I think there is not so much room. It does not follow that equality in all important respects must prevail. I favor letting the marital opportunities of pedophiles be unequal in respect to legality of preferred partner age, for instance. Right or wrong, though, a ban on gay marriage is certainly an inequality. If it is to be defended, it needs to be defended as an inequality. -------------------- Listen carefully because some of your options may have changed. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 10:46
Profile
quote:That’s a great question. I know what the purpose of it from a Christian perspective is, but I’m not sure why the government blesses it. I always thought it was because the man-woman/man-woman-child bond is seen as healthy for society. But maybe if you can find out the answer to your question you’ll find out why all of the other possible unions are not priviledged. I don’t think it’s religious, at least not solely. I believe there’s a practical rationale. I’ll tell you what else I believe (I know you’re eager to hear my deep thoughts). In general, people don’t get married for the legal priviledges, nor would the absence of those priviledges prevent those wanting to marry from doing so. That’s why I’m convinced that the desire for same-sex marriage recognition is not based on government discrimination, but based on concerns of society’s views. That in and of itself doesn’t make it wrong, it just cuts through the smoke and mirrors. If you think it’s about legalities, I’d like to show you our fine selection of bridges available for your purchase. quote:…along with polyamorous marriage which is also discriminated against, oh and incestuous marriage (where the couples/groups don’t reproduce of course). Right? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Warrior
Member # 6934
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 11:06
Profile
quote:And what might that be? quote:Wrong, actually. Infact, I know (careful: pun!) a couple of couples who got married for exactly this reason: legal privileges (taxes, to be more precise). It's quite common over here, to tell you the truth. quote:Oh, but it's the government executing on society's concerns and views. These concerns and views, by the way, are merely smoke and mirrors we should be cutting through. What you are infact talking about is discrimination. And I ain't sure I want to purchase any of your bridges. Too many of them collapse before I can see them. -------------------- Always be true to yourself - unless you suck Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 11:24
Profile
Locmaar, I said I don’t know and gave a possible reason. Why are you asking me for a reason? And when I say “I believe…in general” that doesn’t mean that it’s a fact in every single case. And I’m not buying your anecdotal “evidence.” Where is “over here?” quote:So what? Everybody agrees the laws are discriminatory. That’s exactly the kind of loaded language that masks the truth of the matter. The question is whether or not it’s a constitutional matter (e.g. seperation of church and state or infringement of rights) in which the government should override the will of the majority to protect the minority from harm. Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 6193
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 11:28
Profile
Homepage
quote:I agree with you here. Although the legal rights are important, and give a concrete reason to allow same-sex marriage, perhaps just as important is giving these relationships the same status and regard as heterosexual marriages. Not permitting gay marriages gives the message that the government (and society in general) doesn't value homosexual relationships the same way it does heterosexual ones. [ Monday, December 10, 2007 11:29: Message edited by: Lazarus. ] -------------------- "NOW PASS ME MY BOOTS. I HAVE AN APPOINTMENT WITH A FACE." -Nikki Frostbite: Get It While It's...... Hot? Posts: 900 | Registered: Monday, August 8 2005 07:00 |
|
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 11:34
Profile
quote:Right — as I said, in the quoted post, using the example of pedophilia. Unequal isn't necessarily wrong. Calling it equal is. -------------------- Listen carefully because some of your options may have changed. Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00 |
|
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 11:45
Profile
quote:Tangentially, I disagree. Marriage is social construct which is formulaic. Two people, of their own free and on-going will, recite formula in the presence of one official and two witnesses. The official and witnesses are deemed by the state to be enough proof that neither the official nor the participants fabricated the event. My signature is not on my marriage certificate. It is my choice, however, as to location and type of official. I can choose a judges office and justice of the peace, or a church and clergyman. I chose my house and a fake (yet approved) clergyman. The "traditional" wedding that involved an entire community was for good reason. It announced to that community that those two people were now wed, and as such had a different status within. This was especially important in colonial times, as Nathaniel pointed out. Today, with society frowning on marriage being a determining factor in social status or conduct, it is only convention which keeps a church wedding as part of the marriage initiation process. Well, that and the huge billion dollar industry that feeds off of them. Anyhow, I somehow doubt that a church gathering of 100 people will suffice in announcing the event in a time when a person interacts with many more than that in any given day. -------------------- 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 |
|
Law Bringer
Member # 335
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 12:07
Profile
Homepage
Not many people get married for the benefits, but there are plenty of people who see no moral or religious reason to marry. They could happily just live together. They get married, though. Why? Among other reasons, the rights and privileges of marriage are useful for partners living together. Since we don't legally object to polyamory, I see no reason to legally obstruct it. Allow civil unions between anyone and everyone as long as all participants are consenting, informed adults. Let people sort out the significance and reasons for themselves. —Alorael, who agrees that society values man-woman partnerships over other kinds. What he's not satisfied with is that that may be more than an artifact of religion, which is in turn an artifact of society thousands of years ago. Maybe it's time for a change. Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00 |
|
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
|
written Monday, December 10 2007 12:10
Profile
quote:Why should it? Or better yet, should it have to if most don’t think it should? Especially if there are practical reasons. Let’s say you want to build a home and live in an area that a city is trying to develop. To encourage you and anyone else that would do the same, they give you tax breaks and assistance. I am building a similar house in another area and want the same treatment, but the city discriminates against me and won’t give it. Should I be able to force their hand constitutionally? Or does the government have the right to show favor to a group they want to encourage, while not stopping anyone else from doing what they please? Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00 |