Omaha Mall Shooting

Pages

AuthorTopic: Omaha Mall Shooting
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #150
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
Originally written by Lazarus.:

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.
Why should it? Or better yet, should it have to if most don’t think it should? Especially if there are practical reasons.

This is why we look at imaginary scenarios to double check ourselves. Reverse homo and hetero in your statement. Aside from childbirth, which obviously exists outside of marriage, what possible reason would a predominantly homosexual society find for prohibiting heterosexual marriage, and would it be discriminatory of them to do so.

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:


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?

Location of residence is not a genetically influenced characteristic. It is nurtured.

--------------------
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
Warrior
Member # 6934
Profile #151
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

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?”

There's been many a time when you've stated your belief(s) as something universal enough to be discarded by others.

Over here is Germany and it's not for sale just yet.

quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

What you are infact talking about is discrimination.
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

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.
So what? Apart from now knowing what the majority wants and - again - discarding everything anyone's been saying: SO WHAT??!

Never you mind 'so what'. You just get yourself a fancy job on a football ground, shifting them posts.

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #152
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

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.
…along with polyamorous marriage which is also discriminated against, oh and incestuous marriage (where the couples/groups don’t reproduce of course). Right?

I'll interpret this as you granting that a ban on gay marriage is in fact discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Especially in light of this:
quote:
So what? Everybody agrees the laws are discriminatory.
The next question to answer is whether this discrimination is warranted or not. Discrimination in general isn't warranted (and is unconstitutional) unless some significant harm can be shown to stem from not discriminating.

In the case of consenting adult incest (of which I've never heard, but let's imagine), the harm is to the children of such a union: children of incest are far more likely to have serious genetic defects than the general population. If someday we can screen for such defects very effectively, I see no reason not to allow a man to marry his sister if both are consenting adults, but until that day, it is better to prevent harm to the children.

As for polygamy, I have said that I'm not sure what harm comes from it in an ideal circumstance, but I suspect that the harm is in rivalry. Spouses are not treated equally, and that causes discord, which tears homes apart. In that case, the harm is to anyone whose well-being is dependent on the marriage(s) surviving, including the children.

No such harm is to be had in the case of gay marriage, so there is no reason to prevent it. In the same way, no harm could be shown to come from interracial marriage, so there is no reason to prevent it.

--------------------
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
Profile #153
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:
…along with polyamorous marriage which is also discriminated against, oh and incestuous marriage (where the couples/groups don’t reproduce of course). Right?

And if they do reproduce they might be facing genetic degradation in their offspring(s).

Mind you, we should be very careful in talking about incestuous marriage if we are to establish that marriage should be a bond between consenting adults.

edit: Two or more consenting adults.

[ Monday, December 10, 2007 13:03: Message edited by: Locmaar ]

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Post Navel Trauma ^_^
Member # 67
Profile Homepage #154
quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

In the case of consenting adult incest (of which I've never heard, but let's imagine), the harm is to the children of such a union: children of incest are far more likely to have serious genetic defects than the general population.
It can happen (although in that case they grew up apart). And yes, genetic defects all round.

--------------------
Barcoorah: I even did it to a big dorset ram.

New Mac BoE
Posts: 1798 | Registered: Thursday, October 4 2001 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #155
quote:
Originally written by Jumpin' Salmon:

what possible reason would a predominantly homosexual society find for prohibiting heterosexual marriage, and would it be discriminatory of them to do so.
Overpopulation. Yes.

Giving benefits based on location is discriminatory, but doesn’t stop a person from building a house. In the same way, a person can have a homosexual relationship without marriage benefits. Why should the government give privilege if they don’t see any benefits to society?

Let’s say there was a genetic component, maybe the empowerment zone is smoggy and the person inherited asthma.

quote:
Originally written by Kelandon:

I'll interpret this as you granting that a ban on gay marriage is in fact discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. ...Discrimination in general isn't warranted (and is unconstitutional) unless some significant harm can be shown to stem from not discriminating.
A ban on any marriage other than 1 male-1 female discriminates against every other form of marriage, not sexual preference, in the same way, the city above discriminates against building your house anywhere besides a special zone. What’s wrong with that?
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #156
quote:
Originally written by Hollow Face:

—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.
This is plainly the case. What is marriage supposed to be anyway? What is it other than a moral construct based on ancient religious views and property laws? In this modern world, what business or even use does government have in being involved in the arbitrary construct we still call marriage. Why should the government care one bit or affix legalities to reliational contracts? I say the government should get out of marriage entirely. I'd say the same to a lot of people too. If you need to have laws or contracts to have a meaningful and ongoing relationship and partnership with another person, then it is based on fear (of loss), rather than on love, which gives absolute freedom and does not require someone to love them till death do they part. How can you make demands of the heart of another over the course of an entire lifetime? If you can create such a thing in your life, fantastic. It's the ideal of many. But it's religion that assigns value, rules, restrictions, and moralities to how people partner and couple. We have governments in the world that evolved out of the belief systems of ancient peoples and this has always been based on religion. Government is and always has been a reflection of the religious beliefs of the world.

Any implication of any morality around people partnering in any way that does not infringe on others is religious only. Why are our governments still marrying religion to themselves by being involved in marriage? That's the only question I see in this whole issue.

-S-

--------------------
A4 ItemsA4 SingletonG4 ItemsG4 ForgingG4 Infiltrator N:R Items The Lonely Celt A5 Items A5 Map
Posts: 2009 | Registered: Monday, September 12 2005 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #157
So I suppose, Stillness, you think that the Americans with Disabilities Act is just a bunch of bullcrap? After all, individuals with mobility disabilities, if they work very hard against what life has given them, can enter a building only accessible by stairs if they really wanted to. Or wait - maybe it's actually unfair to a class of individuals who can't help being the way they are. Hmm...

EDIT: But Synergy, getting the lovin' outside of marriage is a SIN, didn't you know? Jesus has to be there in the bed with you for it to be okay. :rolleyes:

[ Monday, December 10, 2007 14:56: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #158
I don't think he equates the two; so you're response may be taking it a step to far. While we're complaining about needless government spending, it's time the old folks started earning their own keep. I am irritated by the fact that I'll never see a dime of the money I pay into social security...

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #159
He's equating discrimination against same-sex marriage with discrimination in distribution of housing development dollars. Why not throw the disabled in there? It's actually a tighter analogy, though I in no way am positing that homosexual people are disabled.

The threshhold for access to the privilege of marriage is based on relatively religiously-based discrimination; whereas the threshhold for participation in, say, a housing development project is meeting an ascertainable economic standard.

[ Monday, December 10, 2007 15:20: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #160
As for Jehovah's Witnesses not being political...

OSCE

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #161
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

A ban on any marriage other than 1 male-1 female discriminates against every other form of marriage, not sexual preference
You've been told how it discriminates against homosexual people. The law has wildly different effects on gay and straight people. Whether the law is phrased that way or not is irrelevant.

And it discriminates against every other form of marriage generally for reasons (harm, as cited above). In the cases in which there are no reasons to discriminate (as in the case of same-sex marriage), such discrimination is wrong.

[ Monday, December 10, 2007 16:33: 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
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #162
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

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.
Oh, I'm not arguing that it's not relevant to marriage. I'm just arguing that marriage is not a status that should be privileged officially over other kinds of union. As far as the government is concerned, the relevant factor is that two or more people have chosen to become dependent on each other in ways that require government recognition in order for that dependence to be practical. It would be fairer for all concerned if the concept of marriage were divorced (pardon the pun) from the concept of civil unions: marriage would become just another reason for wanting a civil union, and no more or less valid than any other reason.

What I'm arguing, I suppose, is that civil unions ought to be something that people enter into solely for the legal and financial benefits, because those are the only kinds of benefit that a government is in the proper business of granting. If some of the people who enter into civil unions also happen to enter into marriages, that's a separate matter entirely.

quote:
Originally written by Drew:

He's equating discrimination against same-sex marriage with discrimination in distribution of housing development dollars. Why not throw the disabled in there? It's actually a tighter analogy, though I in no way am positing that homosexual people are disabled.
In the strictest sense of the word, any sexual orientation other than bisexuality could be considered an impairment.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #163
The concept that married couples receive benefits over singles is a bit unfair.

Oral contracts do not require licenses and neither does marriage. Had marriage licenses never been implemented, than political battles over homosexuality should not be a problem. Society should be the only factor making any arbitrations over such matters.

quote:
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)
:o OK, sorry about that. Apparently some historians suspect such groups as the Amazon warriors to be examples of this. That isn't a fact though, but a hypothesis.

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #164
The rest of us could learn a thing from you Excalibur. We tend not to budge an inch; even if there is glaring evidence to the contrary...

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #165
Oral contracts are also almost unenforceable in court, and don't count for squat for purposes of determining testamentary dispositions, especially in the case where someone dies without any testamentary devices at all, i.e. a will or trusts. In those cases, your oral contract with your partner counts for nada, which I believe is a light chicken gravy...

[ Monday, December 10, 2007 19:39: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #166
Yes, but does the testimony of several witnesses overrule that or are such conditions entirely void of recognition?

I'm sure oral contracts count as something in some situations. My father summoned the police once because his cousin failed to submit to an oral contract. His cousin admitted he had made an oral contract, but he thought it was meaningless. The police ruled in favor of my father.

I'd ask my father about this, but he's working at the moment.

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #167
quote:
Originally written by Drew:

So I suppose, Stillness, you think that the Americans with Disabilities Act is just a bunch of bullcrap?
I suppose this means you’re not answering my question about the city government that discriminates.

I don’t see how you conclude I think this act is bad.

quote:
The threshhold for access to the privilege of marriage is based on relatively religiously-based discrimination; whereas the threshhold for participation in, say, a housing development project is meeting an ascertainable economic standard.
Can you prove that? I think the recognition of marriage is practical. For example, I don’t think it’s debatable that a child that grows up in a secure, loving home with a mother and father generally fairs well. Of course other arrangements can work, but I think that this is the most natural and therefore the ideal.

If you think that homosexuals, the polyamorous, and whoever else should have their unions recognized in the same way, THAT IS YOUR OPINION. You are entitled to try to legislate it if you please, just like I’m entitled to try to make the neighborhood I want to build in an empowerment zone. But to say that a certain law is bad solely on the basis that it discriminates is not accurate. Claiming that one person is hurt because another person gets favor is also off. If the government gives tuition assistance to a soldier, does that hurt the person with a handicap who can’t join the armed forces? Should everybody get tuition assistance since this discriminates? And trying to make this a religion or rights violation issue is deceptive. No one is forcing anybody to come to church and no one is saying you can’t have relations with whoever you please. It’s simply one opinion vs. another.

I still think your side will win out over those trying to maintain the status quo, though. Give it time. They already losing.

quote:
Originally written by Lt. Sullust:

As for Jehovah's Witnesses not being political...
What point are you trying to make with this link?

When I say we’re not political, I mean we don’t take sides on political issues that don’t involve worship. So, you won’t find us trying to vote for or against same-sex marriage. We register with governments, though. We have legal corporations. This doesn’t make us political.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #168
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Can you prove that? I think the recognition of marriage is practical. For example, I don’t think it’s debatable that a child that grows up in a secure, loving home with a mother and father generally fairs well. Of course other arrangements can work, but I think that this is the most natural and therefore the ideal.

And since same-sex couples can already have children by adoption, surrogate, or sperm donation, isn't it best for the children to give the family the protection of a legal marriage?

But that's besides the point. Marriage is not about children. Making it so is another legal battle entirely.

quote:
If you think that homosexuals, the polyamorous, and whoever else should have their unions recognized in the same way, THAT IS YOUR OPINION. You are entitled to try to legislate it if you please, just like I’m entitled to try to make the neighborhood I want to build in an empowerment zone. But to say that a certain law is bad solely on the basis that it discriminates is not accurate.
Sure it is. Discrimination is bad. What makes some discriminating laws good is their other effects. You haven't provided positive effects for preventing same-sex marriage.

quote:
Claiming that one person is hurt because another person gets favor is also off. If the government gives tuition assistance to a soldier, does that hurt the person with a handicap who can’t join the armed forces?
Tuition assistance in this case is a perk/payment for services rendered. An individual does something to earn the assistance. Like any job, preventing the handicapped from joining the armed forces is not permitted unless it's not possible for them to do work.

quote:
Should everybody get tuition assistance since this discriminates?
Yes, ideally. But funds are, sadly, limited. Marriages aren't. Once again: there is no cost to same-sex marriage. There is no downside to same-sex marriage. Demonstrate one or provide another argument to justify your position.

—Alorael, who will not accept the costs to the government from income lost to marriage tax breaks. By that reasoning nobody should be able to get married.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #169
quote:
Originally written by Norwegian Playwright Henry Gibson:

quote:
If you think that homosexuals, the polyamorous, and whoever else should have their unions recognized in the same way, THAT IS YOUR OPINION. You are entitled to try to legislate it if you please, just like I’m entitled to try to make the neighborhood I want to build in an empowerment zone. But to say that a certain law is bad solely on the basis that it discriminates is not accurate.
Sure it is. Discrimination is bad. What makes some discriminating laws good is their other effects. You haven't provided positive effects for preventing same-sex marriage.

quote:
Claiming that one person is hurt because another person gets favor is also off. If the government gives tuition assistance to a soldier, does that hurt the person with a handicap who can’t join the armed forces?
Tuition assistance in this case is a perk/payment for services rendered. An individual does something to earn the assistance. Like any job, preventing the handicapped from joining the armed forces is not permitted unless it's not possible for them to do work.

I was going to respond to Stillness, but my response would've been almost exactly the same as Alo's. Underscore what Alo said here. Discrimination of any sort is to be discouraged except when demonstrably necessary.

--------------------
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 #170
quote:
Originally written by Excalibur:

I'm sure oral contracts count as something in some situations. My father summoned the police once because his cousin failed to submit to an oral contract. His cousin admitted he had made an oral contract, but he thought it was meaningless. The police ruled in favor of my father.
Wow - that actually sounds really scary. Your dad in the mob or something? 'cause I reckon that's how they enforce their agreements.
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Agent
Member # 4506
Profile Homepage #171
quote:
But that's besides the point. Marriage is not about children.
If not, then let me ask a very seemingly naive question, one which I don't think we've covered enough: What IS marriage?

We can discuss reasons for whether certain people should be allowed to marry each-other or not, but we need to first establish what marriage actually constitutes.

I think we all agree that a sexual relationship does not imply marriage, and the other way round (marriage doesn't even imply a stable relationship). Anyone can have a healthy sexual relationship with whoever they want (yes even a plant), it's their choice. Nearly every couple/ling can have children if they want, whether it be through sex, adoption etc (again, even that pesky plant)- so what makes marriage so special?

What does marriage actually do for most people (I'm not saying people shouldn't get married if they don't want to)? Sure, they can claim certain benefits, but other than that, it makes both people property of one-another, and gets their names down on some church role somewhere as being technically "together".

So yeah, call me young and naive if you want (and I expect many of you will), but what is the point to marriage- is there anything making it better than any other union, or is it just some by-forgotten relic from the past. And if so, why do you need it? You can get married in an office for £60, or in a church for several thousand quid- why all the need to spend that much money if you truly love each-other? If it's what god wants, why does "he" (or she, or it) even care about money? Surely he should do it for the "blessed union".

I'm sorry if this post will rub some people the wrong way, but I feel that these are honest questions which deserve answering.

- Archmagus Micael

[ Monday, December 10, 2007 22:36: Message edited by: Archmagus Micael ]

--------------------
"You dare Trifle with Avernum?" ~ Erika the Archmage
--------------------
Posts: 1370 | Registered: Thursday, June 10 2004 07:00
Electric Sheep One
Member # 3431
Profile #172
I agree that whatever legal or tax benefits accrue to marriage would more sensibly and legitimately be attached to purely civil contracts between any two signatories regardless of sex. Churches can administer their sacraments, or not, as they choose; this should have no secular consequence. Render unto Caesar. As I understand it (and perhaps Thralni can correct me) this is how things are in the Netherlands. The Dutch social fabric is pretty obviously still going strong.

Since Thuryl is on this thread: I think legal domestic partnerships of groups larger than two must be possible now, if the parties draw up a contract from scratch. That might not get an employer to pay multiple spousal benefits, for example, but maybe it's reasonable to limit an employer's liability at some point. Anyway, menages à N for N > 2 are uncommon, and baffling to me, but if the participants want a contract it's no skin off my nose. The legal issues are bound to be a lot more complex with anything that doesn't happen nearly as often, though, so I doubt larger groupings could become really comparable to couples, no matter how tolerant social mores may become, without some sort of basic shift in the Anglo-Saxon legal system.

EDIT: It's not the church wedding that's expensive, it's the big reception, the photographer, the honeymoon, and all that. And that all costs the same if you get married in a civic ceremony. Marriage ceremonies themselves are cheap, or even free.

[ Monday, December 10, 2007 23:25: Message edited by: Student of Trinity ]

--------------------
Listen carefully because some of your options may have changed.
Posts: 3335 | Registered: Thursday, September 4 2003 07:00
Shaper
Member # 32
Profile #173
quote:
Originally written by Archmagus Micael:

Anyone can have a healthy sexual relationship with whoever they want (yes even a plant), it's their choice.
Physically, maybe; however, I question your mental state if you are doing said things to a plant...

As for the tax benefits. It is much easier for an opposite-sex couple to produce children. The benefits they acquire are in order to encourage the increase in population, and hence strengthen the government on a global scale...

[ Tuesday, December 11, 2007 03:23: Message edited by: Lt. Sullust ]

--------------------
Lt. Sullust
Quaere verum
Posts: 2462 | Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #174
quote:
Originally written by Lt. Sullust:

As for the tax benefits. It is much easier for an opposite-sex couple to produce children. The benefits they acquire are in order to encourage the increase in population, and hence strengthen the government on a global scale...
If the goal is to bribe people into having more children, then why not just cut out the middle man and pay people for actually having children rather than for getting married?

EDIT: This topic would be greatly improved by changing its title to "Omaha Malls Hooting". The current one doesn't have anything to do with the discussion anyway.

[ Tuesday, December 11, 2007 04:35: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

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

Pages