Omaha Mall Shooting

Pages

AuthorTopic: Omaha Mall Shooting
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #206
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

I don't see anything in there directly comparing marriage to same-sex partnerships.
The idea is just to establish the merit of 1 man-1 woman marriage.

quote:
Which is the more plausible interpretation of this statistic: that divorce causes domestic violence, or that domestic violence causes divorce?
Indeed. It would seem that a broken marriage may in some ways be worse than none at all. All the more reason for you to write your representative and demand that he pass legislation to preserve marriage. Great point. Thanks! I think “Thuryl Act” has a nice ring to it.

quote:
Originally written by Dikiyoba:

There is nothing in that list that suggest the benefits extend only to opposite-sex couples. If it proves anything, it proves that we should allow same-sex marriages right away so that more people can benefit.
I agree that some of the figures would indicate the possibility that any two parents can duplicate certain effects, but the ones that mention marriage and certainly every one of the benefits for the mates are only known for traditional marriage. It does not necessarily follow that same-sex partners would experience the same benefits. After all, we have determined that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are fundamentally different.

quote:
And drinking fountains for whites only discriminate in favor of whites. That doesn't make it acceptable.
Dikiyoba, I don’t know if you are following, but we’ve established that there are two types of discrimination. One is based on merit, the other is based on prejudicial grouping. White only fountains would be the latter; traditional marriage the former. What you did is equivocation. Some of the others just did it for the zillionth time, too.

quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

Stillness could do some work here on articulating what this 'discrimination-for' vs. 'discrimination-against' distinction means, since it isn't quite clear to me.
It’s semantic, but meaningful. I’m trying to shake you all from equivocating. When most people see a handicapped spot, they don’t think it’s ‘discriminating against’ them, they think, “This spot is only for handicapped people because they merit special consideration.” Marriage, as it stands in the US, is the same kind of ‘discrimination-for.’

quote:
Everyone agrees that prohibiting gay marriage is technically unequal
Yeah, but that’s missing the forest for the trees. Gay marriage and traditional marriage are unequal in fundamental, natural ways.

quote:
discrimination is wrong unless it serves a greater good…Stillness could say whether or not he finds this premise meaningful, and if so, whether or not he accepts it.
I’m drawing a blank on any situation in which discrimination (of the illogical, nonmerit based sort) can be good. I'm thinking affirmative action. Is that discrimination? Maybe. I think there is some very good justification behind this.

------

Are we disagreeing that comparing encouragement and protection for traditional marriage or handicapped parking to racism and sexism qualifies as equivocation? It sure does seem like we are because many have been doing the same thing since the beginning of this discussion regardless of the fact that keep pointing it out. It’s a logical fallacy.

Alo has presented some logical, if unsubstantiated, premises.

1. Same-sex marriages may be better than non-marriage for homosexuals.
2. Same-sex marriage provides benefits.

-------------

quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

But I guess not too many people care about what's happening in Ye Olde Europe much.
Not so much your parking spaces, but I do find your high standards for things relating to the health of your citizens interesting.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #207
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Indeed. It would seem that a broken marriage may in some ways be worse than none at all. All the more reason for you to write your representative and demand that he pass legislation to preserve marriage. Great point. Thanks! I think “Thuryl Act” has a nice ring to it.
Now you're just making stuff up off the top of your head without any regard for the logical coherence of your argument. I suppose I'm not exactly in a position to criticise you for that, but the fact remains.

quote:
Dikiyoba, I don’t know if you are following, but we’ve established that there are two types of discrimination. One is based on merit, the other is based on prejudicial grouping.
We have? Because I don't remember that part of the conversation either. It seems like everyone except for you agrees that discrimination, even of the handicapped-parking kind, is always inherently bad; it's just that the practical consequences of discrimination sometimes carry enough good to outweigh the bad.

[ Wednesday, December 12, 2007 05:26: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #208
quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

we’ve established that there are two types of discrimination. One is based on merit, the other is based on prejudicial grouping.
We have? Because I don't remember that part of the conversation either.

Let me refresh your memory.

quote:
Originally written by Fernication:

I think part of the confusion stems from different uses of "discrimination" -- it can be used just to indicate making a rational distinction between two different things, or it can be used to indicate making an irrational, prejudiced decision based on a personal quality...
- The first type of discrimination is typically good
- The second type of discrimination is typically bad
- In practice, either type of discrimination could have net good or net bad effects

quote:
Originally written by Locmaar:

Sounds plenty accurate to me. Well done.
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

I agree that 2 is wrong. 1 is neutral.
For further clarification please see a dictionary. ;)
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Councilor
Member # 6600
Profile Homepage #209
I'm out of time to respond to anything more at the moment, but:

Originally by Stillness:

quote:
Dikiyoba, I don’t know if you are following, but we’ve established that there are two types of discrimination. One is based on merit, the other is based on prejudicial grouping. White only fountains would be the latter; traditional marriage the former. What you did is equivocation. Some of the others just did it for the zillionth time, too.
No. It's not. It's that latter. It's based on prejudicial grouping. There is absolutely no reason except bias against homosexuality/for heterosexuality to have opposite-sex marriages but not same-sex marriages, just like there's no reason except bias to prevent a homosexual from renting a house or holding a job.

Dikiyoba.

--------------------
Episode 4: Spiderweb Reloaded
Posts: 4346 | Registered: Friday, December 23 2005 08:00
Raven v. Writing Desk
Member # 261
Profile Homepage #210
Another thought exercise.

Let's say I'm running two giant games on the internet. In each game, all players start out with 50 points.

In the first game, I change the rules so that male players start out with a bonus 5 points. They now read "All players start with 50 points. Male players get a bonus of 5 points."

In the second game, I change the rules so that female players start out with 5 points less. They now read "All players start with 50 points. Female players get a penalty of 5 points."

Which one of these is discrimination-for and which one is discrimination-against?

Now suppose I change how the rules are worded without changing the effects. The first game becomes "All players start with 55 points. Female players get a penalty of 5 points."

The second game becomes "All players start with 45 points. Male players get a bonus of 5 points."

Now which one is discrimination-for and which one is discrimination-against?

..

This for-against dichotomy seems to me to be a linguistic, deictic distinction regarding how we phrase a particular type of discrimination. It doesn't have anything to do with the content. This is because discrimination does not depend on being treated well or poorly. It depends on being treated differently.

The best logical explanation I can come up with for your dichotomy, Stillness, is that it's based on motivation: discrimination-for is how you describe discrimination that is intended to help people (the parking spaces). Discrimination-against is how you describe discrimination that isn't (the water fountains). But that's subjective. No doubt the white purists who made the water fountain rules think that it keeps "unclean" people away from whites, and therefore helps whites.

--------------------
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
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #211
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

IMAGE(http://sa.tweek.us/emots/images/emot-downswords.gif)
I like how you completely ignored the "either type of discrimination can have net good or net bad effects" part.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #212
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

I don't see anything in there directly comparing marriage to same-sex partnerships.
The idea is just to establish the merit of 1 man-1 woman marriage.

Which hasn't been seriously attacked, but it's good to know that marriage is, in fact, useful. There's a reason to support it in the first place.

quote:
quote:
Which is the more plausible interpretation of this statistic: that divorce causes domestic violence, or that domestic violence causes divorce?
Indeed. It would seem that a broken marriage may in some ways be worse than none at all. All the more reason for you to write your representative and demand that he pass legislation to preserve marriage. Great point. Thanks! I think “Thuryl Act” has a nice ring to it.

Actually, my interpretation is that domestic violence leads to divorce, not vice versa. In this case preserving marriage is a terrible idea. It's preserving an abusive relationship.

quote:
quote:
Originally written by Dikiyoba:

There is nothing in that list that suggest the benefits extend only to opposite-sex couples. If it proves anything, it proves that we should allow same-sex marriages right away so that more people can benefit.
I agree that some of the figures would indicate the possibility that any two parents can duplicate certain effects, but the ones that mention marriage and certainly every one of the benefits for the mates are only known for traditional marriage.

Because there are no statistics for same-sex marriage since it is not possible for same-sex couples to marry. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to bring up the cliche. Many studies contend that same-sex marriages do, in fact, convey all of the same benefits. And as I already said, conveying many but not all of the benefits of opposite-sex marriage would still make same-sex marriage worth legalizing.

quote:
It does not necessarily follow that same-sex partners would experience the same benefits. After all, we have determined that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are fundamentally different.
Sorry, we have? I certainly haven't!

quote:
quote:
And drinking fountains for whites only discriminate in favor of whites. That doesn't make it acceptable.
Dikiyoba, I don’t know if you are following, but we’ve established that there are two types of discrimination. One is based on merit, the other is based on prejudicial grouping. White only fountains would be the latter; traditional marriage the former. What you did is equivocation. Some of the others just did it for the zillionth time, too.

All groupings are prejudicial. I question the word "merit" there, but the point remains that discrimination must do more good than harm. Yes, good and harm eventually require moral judgments that can't be logically justified because morals aren't logical. Segregation does no real good and is harmful on two counts: firstly, separate never manages to be equal; secondly, separating and polarizing elements of a society tends to have very negative effects on stability. Same-sex marriage is opposite: it does no real harm and in fact seems to do some good. What's the justification for not allowing it even if it isn't identical to opposite-sex marriage, which I still think it is (or close enough)?

quote:
quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

Stillness could do some work here on articulating what this 'discrimination-for' vs. 'discrimination-against' distinction means, since it isn't quite clear to me.
It’s semantic, but meaningful. I’m trying to shake you all from equivocating. When most people see a handicapped spot, they don’t think it’s ‘discriminating against’ them, they think, “This spot is only for handicapped people because they merit special consideration.” Marriage, as it stands in the US, is the same kind of ‘discrimination-for.’

Except I don't think anyone seriously argues that straight people deserve special consideration. They don't have any unique needs. They don't provide anything unique to society except, broadly, children, and we're not encouraging children here.

quote:
quote:
Everyone agrees that prohibiting gay marriage is technically unequal
Yeah, but that’s missing the forest for the trees. Gay marriage and traditional marriage are unequal in fundamental, natural ways.

Not in most people's opinions, at least here.

quote:
quote:
discrimination is wrong unless it serves a greater good…Stillness could say whether or not he finds this premise meaningful, and if so, whether or not he accepts it.
I’m drawing a blank on any situation in which discrimination (of the illogical, nonmerit based sort) can be good. I'm thinking affirmative action. Is that discrimination? Maybe. I think there is some very good justification behind this.

Handicapped spaces. Affirmative action, but that's controversial. Braille on labels. Preventing the blind from driving cars or taking jobs that require vision. And so on.

quote:
1. Same-sex marriages may be better than non-marriage for homosexuals.
2. Same-sex marriage provides benefits.

Sorry for not substantiating. I'll work on it. At the same time, though, I'd be interested in seeing nonpartisan documentation of the opposite if you can find it.

—Alorael, who knows this kind of point by point quoting and responding never ends well. He's sorry, and he'll try not to do it again.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #213
quote:
Originally written by Condition:

Actually, my interpretation is that domestic violence leads to divorce, not vice versa. In this case preserving marriage is a terrible idea. It's preserving an abusive relationship.
Yes, I was intending that to be a rhetorical question, but apparently I underestimated just how out of touch with reality Stillness is.

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
By Committee
Member # 4233
Profile #214
Regardless of whether it's discrimination-for or discrimination-against, I think the point of contention here is:

Morality is not a sufficient legal basis for discrimination of any nature.

[ Wednesday, December 12, 2007 07:51: Message edited by: Drew ]
Posts: 2242 | Registered: Saturday, April 10 2004 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #215
quote:
I agree that some of the figures would indicate the possibility that any two parents can duplicate certain effects, but the ones that mention marriage and certainly every one of the benefits for the mates are only known for traditional marriage. It does not necessarily follow that same-sex partners would experience the same benefits.
We don't know that they wouldn't based on those statistics either. You've managed to equivocate far more than anyone else here by bringing up data that has no actual relevance and pretending that it does. (Well, except what Alo said.)

quote:
After all, we have determined that same-sex and opposite-sex unions are fundamentally different.
We have not.

quote:
we’ve established that there are two types of discrimination. One is based on merit, the other is based on prejudicial grouping.
We have not. I granted that one was for differently-abled people, which cannot be summarized by the word "merit."

quote:
When most people see a handicapped spot, they don’t think it’s ‘discriminating against’ them, they think, “This spot is only for handicapped people because they merit special consideration.”
Whether they think this or not, they may not be right, and they may not be thinking of all the ramifications. This is not evidence, even if it is true.

quote:
Gay marriage and traditional marriage are unequal in fundamental, natural ways.
This has not been demonstrated.

quote:
Are we disagreeing that comparing encouragement and protection for traditional marriage or handicapped parking to racism and sexism qualifies as equivocation? It sure does seem like we are because many have been doing the same thing since the beginning of this discussion regardless of the fact that keep pointing it out. It’s a logical fallacy.
You have asserted this, but no one agrees with you.

To remind you of my standing argument, which you have at this point begun to ignore: Discrimination is not justified unless 1) it is done to accomodate differently-abled people, one way or another, or 2) it can be shown to be significantly beneficial or prevent serious harm. Not allowing same-sex marriage is discrimination against gay people, and it fits into neither category of justified discrimination. Therefore it is unjustified and wrong.

You took issue with the second sentence, to which I responded, "Discriminating in favor of one thing is discriminating against everything else. Discrimination in favor of opposite-sex marriage is discrimination against same sex marriage." You have yet to respond.

[ Wednesday, December 12, 2007 09:01: 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
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #216
Prejudice implies coming to a conclusion before determining merit (i.e. pre-judging). Giving male-female pairing special status over all other relationships is not prejudice because marriage has a stabilizing effect, produces children, provides an ideal environment for raising them, etc., so it has a known, age-old, unique benefit to society. Not recognizing other groupings in the same way is not like refusing to hire homosexuals. The later is a non-merit based pre-judging, whereas we know that the male-female union has merit. It is a logical flaw to equate them.

Besides that, all of the privileges of marriage are available to homosexuals if they marry, just like the person that has asthma can get special treatment if he is willing to move into the smoggy development zone.

-----

Fernication, read this comment:

quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

quote:
Originally written by Student of Trinity:

Stillness could do some work here on articulating what this 'discrimination-for' vs. 'discrimination-against' distinction means, since it isn't quite clear to me.
It’s semantic...

Deciding that a black person is unclean because he is black is an “irrational, prejudicial decision.”

-----

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

I like how you completely ignored the "either type of discrimination can have net good or net bad effects" part.
I didn’t. I agreed a little. If I’m dealing with a white man that means to do me harm and I think he does because I think all white people are evil, my wary attitude may benefit me in my dealings with him. Overall, it’s a bigoted, small-minded view that will probably cause harm, though. I agreed that the other kind of discrimination is neutral…like a hammer.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Condition:

Actually, my interpretation is that domestic violence leads to divorce, not vice versa. In this case preserving marriage is a terrible idea. It's preserving an abusive relationship.
First the Thuryl Act act to preserve marriage; now the Alorel Act (man that has a nice ring!) to build healthy marriages. You two would make the evangelicals proud.

Same-sex unions cannot naturally produce children nor do they make natural use of the sex organs implied by their form. I would argue that these two differences strongly imply that male-female pairing is complementary in ways beyond these two obvious ways (e.g. masculine-feminine personality traits; the differences in male and female thinking), but those two differences suffice to establish fundamental inequality.

I thought you agreed when you said:

quote:
Originally written by Hollow Face:

On nature: Of course genitalia are "designed" for male-female sexual intercourse for impregnation, but design is the wrong word.
That doesn’t necessarily mean that any other pairings or groupings should be treated differently, it just means they are different.

quote:
What's the justification for not allowing it even if it isn't identical to opposite-sex marriage, which I still think it is (or close enough)?
You’d have to ask someone that opposes it. I’m not 100% clear on all of their rationalizations. I think they’re along the lines of immoral, society-eroding, unhealthy, unnatural, etc.

quote:
Except I don't think anyone seriously argues that straight people deserve special consideration. They don't have any unique needs. They don't provide anything unique to society except, broadly, children, and we're not encouraging children here.
You’re equivocating again. Straight people don’t get special consideration over homosexuals any more than people without asthma get special consideration over people with asthma by the city with the smoggy development zone.

quote:
Handicapped spaces. Affirmative action, but that's controversial. Braille on labels. Preventing the blind from driving cars or taking jobs that require vision.
How is any of this illogical, non-merit based discrimination? (Admittedly affirmative action is a gray area because it discriminates based on things like race and sex. But it’s not the same kind of discrimination that says, “All women are dumb.” It logically says, “People from this group merit special treatment because injustice from this government has caused and perpetuated a state of inequality.” Whether you agree with that conclusion or not, it’s quite different.)

----

Kel, what benefit there is to marriage so that the government should protect and encourage it and questions of its usefulness it is an issue that has been raised repeatedly in this discussion. How is showing statistics for its usefulness and benefit equivocation?

And handicapped parking spots are about merit because our society has determined that disabilities merit special consideration.

quote:
"Discriminating in favor of one thing is discriminating against everything else. Discrimination in favor of opposite-sex marriage is discrimination against same sex marriage." You have yet to respond.
For the hundredth time, I agree. If you can’t understand the two different types of discrimination defined and being discussed on this thread then you should really check a dictionary, because there are at least two distinct meanings. Handicapped parking spots and marriage would fall under one and racism and sexism under the other.

-----

quote:
Originally written by Thuryl:

I underestimated just how out of touch with reality Stillness is.
You’re only an illusion in one of my dreams.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #217
EDIT: Seeing this topic, its length, and its starter, I'm very encouraged to see that by this point there's nobody pitching a fit about how gun control would have kept the valiant rent-a-cop from doing the job she was licensed and hired for, and as a consequence the criminal rejected-for-missionary-work homeschooled Christian fundamentalist wouldn't have had *any* bullets in him when he shot himself. So much misinformation we have in this country, and so far it gets.

Outlawing gay marriage is against the First Amendment, interfering as it does with the free exercise of religion. The Unitarians, many pagan groups, the Subgeniuses and other nonce churches (bear in mind America doesn't see fit to legislate the 'seriousness' of a religion, and for good reason), and many Quaker meetings routinely marry gay couples - in the case of the Quakers and the Unitarian Universalists, this is a practice dating back to the turn of the 20th century, so common in the former that a pair of clearly involved persons of the same sex living together were referred to as being in a 'Quaker marriage'.

That's more or less the end of the discussion, from a constitutional law standpoint. Those who think that morality is a sufficient basis have to either reject the Constitution altogether or accept that a document that allows animal sacrifice in religious rituals would be absurd to tolerate prohibition of gay marriage. It's as ridiculous as would be sending anyone serving a wine Eucharist to jail for contributing to the delinquency of minors.

The entire argument about discrimination is mooted by this. I'm going to get into it, but I just want to say up front that your position has no constitutional merit. Without more or less throwing out the free exercise clause, American law doesn't allow for religious discrimination in marriage practices.

Contemplate: lavender marriages are the practice of gay men and lesbian women - friends - marrying each other for the benefits of marriage while dating or engaging in long-term relationships elsewhere. Laws against gay marriage not only encourage that, but taken together with pay discrepancies between men and women and the ubiquity of the double-income household, more or less mandate them for homosexuals. Is this a good thing?

[ Wednesday, December 12, 2007 13:37: Message edited by: Najosz Thjsza Kjras ]
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
? Man, ? Amazing
Member # 5755
Profile #218
quote:
Written in the dictionary of Stillness:
Equivocating, (equivocation) - The act of presenting logical and well thought out arguments which a head in the mud religious person should avoid at all costs to their soul. See Clinton (William Jefferson) for possible methods of determining alternate truths.

So, let's turn the Word of the Day calendar to a fresh page. The very fact that most rational people can see two (or more) sides to a discussion is considered an asset. That is usually the only way to decide which is preferable. What you are attacking is a reasoning process which is carried through to completion by most of the people in this discussion. Most, having reviewed the evidence, have decided that same sex marriages are as valuable as opposite sex marriages, and should be recognized by the state. If you continue using that as an attack, or a reason for disregarding solid reasoning, there really is no point.

Are you capable of only seeing one side?

--------------------
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 #219
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Giving male-female pairing special status over all other relationships is not prejudice because marriage has a stabilizing effect, produces children, provides an ideal environment for raising them, etc., so it has a known, age-old, unique benefit to society.
The fact that opposite-sex marriage does this does not in any show that same-sex marriage does not. Without evidence, we have to choose not to discriminate (because to do otherwise is evidence of prejudice).

--------------------
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 #220
Stillness, your tiresome quoting out of context, turning and twisting other people's thoughts around, and then claiming that everybody agreed on your discourse is really annoying.

If you would just spend a minute's thought over what other people say, much of this endless strand of trying to prove what a bright guy you are could be avoided.

Since you've already heard of semantics, allow me to point out that there are two different meanings of the word discrimination.

One is to do with being able to differentiate between things, e.g. pumpkin pie and sweet potatoe pie. This is however not the meaning we are talking about. This is the one that's good (being able to do that is infact good). But semantically as well as pragmatically it has to be treated as a different word, because it means something entirely different.

I repeat: this is not the meaning we are talking about. To clarify this once more ( I feel I have to do this, lest we suddenly all have agreed that you were right all along):

1. Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice.

2. The ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.

Our discussion is about 1.

The second one is not what we are talking about.
I assume that we can differentiate between males and females (at least I hope so), so I conclude that we can tell same-sex from different-sex marriages. That's meaning 2 right there, pumpkin.

If you don't understand any of this, look it up in a dictionary or a thesaurus (that's by the way not Adam and Eve's steed on which they rode out of Eden).

--------------------
Always be true to yourself - unless you suck
Posts: 183 | Registered: Sunday, March 19 2006 08:00
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #221
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Besides that, all of the privileges of marriage are available to homosexuals if they marry, just like the person that has asthma can get special treatment if he is willing to move into the smoggy development zone.

Whose side are you on, anyway? At any rate, if marriage is supposed to be based on love and/or sex, that's not going to work. If marriage has no such basis, why does same/opposite sex matter at all?

quote:
First the Thuryl Act act to preserve marriage; now the Alorel Act (man that has a nice ring!) to build healthy marriages. You two would make the evangelicals proud.
You're being sarcastic, but I honestly do not understand. Explain, please?

quote:
Same-sex unions cannot naturally produce children nor do they make natural use of the sex organs implied by their form. I would argue that these two differences strongly imply that male-female pairing is complementary in ways beyond these two obvious ways (e.g. masculine-feminine personality traits; the differences in male and female thinking), but those two differences suffice to establish fundamental inequality.
I would argue otherwise. Whoops, we're at an impasse. And since marriage is not about making children, which no longer requires compatible genitalia, this is all besides the point.

quote:
You’d have to ask someone that opposes it. I’m not 100% clear on all of their rationalizations. I think they’re along the lines of immoral, society-eroding, unhealthy, unnatural, etc.
You're just playing devil's advocate here? Well, okay. All of those claims have been disproven, though, except the first, which is entirely a matter of opinion and not a basis for law. Also, since you're apparently not arguing from this position, I have to ask again what's wrong with legalizing same-sex marriage.

quote:
Straight people don’t get special consideration over homosexuals any more than people without asthma get special consideration over people with asthma by the city with the smoggy development zone.
This is your second reference to asthma, and I don't get it. Asthmatics need special consideration for health reasons (which, I might add, I've never gotten nor heard of). What exactly do heterosexuals need special consideration for? It's neither a disability nor a disease to be straight!

Also, your point about merit was misunderstood, but going back to Kel's two kinds of acceptable discrimination, I really think there's only one. Handicapped people don't "merit" special consideration because of any inherent worth in them. Discrimination is acceptable when the good it does outweighs the harm it does. The harm of handicapped parking is negligible. The benefit applies only to a relatively small number of handicapped people, but it's a large benefit to them. So the small benefit weighted against the minute cause means it's good discrimination. Merit has nothing to do with it. Neither does disability per se.

—Alorael, who is block quoting again. Sorry! He won't promise not to do it this time, though.

[ Wednesday, December 12, 2007 13:27: Message edited by: Oracularity ]
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #222
quote:
Originally written by Condition:

Discrimination is acceptable when the good it does outweighs the harm it does.
Yes, this is probably a nicer simplification. It was where I was going first, but I didn't quite end up there for some reason.

It might be worth adding that this is an "if and only if" sort of situation. Discrimination is not acceptable under any other circumstances than when we can say for sure that the good will outweigh the bad.

--------------------
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
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #223
I really love the claim that homosexuality erodes society. Kelandon, have you given him the works yet? You're the classicist here. Regale him with buggery, why don't you.

Long story short: the Roman Empire encompassed an area larger than the modern US, made the Mediterranean into a political lake, and went from victory to victory through 700+ years of man-on-man action. Then lead poisoning weakened the minds of the elite, they took to Christianity and refused to give one another the sausage, and before you could say 'Odoacer', 1000 years of burning cynics, papal orgies, blood libels, aggressively circular logic, and a Children's Crusade. That's what happens if you let go of homosexuality: you lose everything.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 7723
Profile #224
I'm in a rush, but I want to say two things:

"Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice "

Handicapped parking spots is not discrimination - not this definition. Here’s why: All handicapped people have a disability. This is true for every single case. Having a disability merits (not in the sense that it’s earned, but that society says it entitles) special treatment. It’s been discussed, thought over, and legislated because it makes us a kinder society and/or whatever other reasons there are.

If I say I am going to hire a random handicapped person because the disabled have mental strength, that is discrimination – the dumb kind in the definition above. It’s not a reasonable consideration of the actual person’s merit, but a sweeping, illogical, pre-judgment of people based a group. There are mentally unstable disabled people, so it may be true in some cases, but certainly not all.

If you all can’t see the difference between these two, we might as well quit now.

-----

I'm not anti legalization of gay marriage, so please don't ask me why I am. My initial comments and my comments now are regarding the illogical arguments of the secular. So yes, I can see both perspectives, and actually sympathize a bit more with yours after this discussion.
Posts: 701 | Registered: Thursday, November 30 2006 08:00
...b10010b...
Member # 869
Profile Homepage #225
quote:
Originally written by Stillness:

Prejudice implies coming to a conclusion before determining merit (i.e. pre-judging). Giving male-female pairing special status over all other relationships is not prejudice because marriage has a stabilizing effect, produces children, provides an ideal environment for raising them, etc., so it has a known, age-old, unique benefit to society. Not recognizing other groupings in the same way is not like refusing to hire homosexuals. The later is a non-merit based pre-judging, whereas we know that the male-female union has merit. It is a logical flaw to equate them.
The trouble is that merit is in the eye of the beholder. People who discriminate against blacks do so because they genuinely believe that blacks are inferior, after all.

quote:
If I say I am going to hire a random handicapped person because the disabled have mental strength, that is discrimination – the dumb kind in the definition above. It’s not a reasonable consideration of the actual person’s merit, but a sweeping, illogical, pre-judgment of people based a group. There are mentally unstable disabled people, so it may be true in some cases, but certainly not all.

In other words, for discrimination to fit into your "acceptable" category, all members of the group being discriminated against must share some relevant characteristic that no members of the group not being discriminated against possess. No such differentiating characteristic exists in the case of same-sex vs. opposite-sex marriage. (Don't say "the ability to produce children": some heterosexuals are completely infertile, and yet we still let them marry. In fact, we still let a man marry if he was born without a functioning penis, which even blows your "the sexual organs were designed to fit together in such and such a way" argument out of the water.)

[ Wednesday, December 12, 2007 15:29: Message edited by: Thuryl ]

--------------------
The Empire Always Loses: This Time For Sure!
Posts: 9973 | Registered: Saturday, March 30 2002 08:00
Shaper
Member # 6292
Profile #226
The list of statistics on advantages to "marriage" aren't really describing the benefits of marriage, per se. They are describing the advantages of children who grow up with some measure of love, affection, consistency, structure, and boundaries, which they are more likely to get when people love each other enough to create a partnership that persists. "Marriage" is again, an arbitrary construct and term we keep using, but really has no absolute meaning apart from social ceremonies, marriage licenses, and government benefits. Practically speaking, as far as children are concerned, it doesn't matter one bit if the stable people staying together, loving and nurturing the children are "married," male-female, or anything in particular. Love does what it does wherever it does it. It is no respecter or disrespecter of "marriage." It succeeds within it or without it. Again, I'd ask, why does love require a contract? That only makes it look like we are afraid love itself cannot be sufficient to last without external ordinance, social declaration and expectation, benefits, or coercion.

Children grow up "better" where they are loved and see love modeled by their caretakers. That is all that has been demonstrated. Studies have a very hard time teasing out the actual variables they are often measuring, especially when there is a bias toward demonstrating something.

The list demonstrates what I am stating about loving partnership at least as much as it supports what "marriage" does.

-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
Law Bringer
Member # 335
Profile Homepage #227
I'd argue the other way. Individual merit obviously means superior personal qualities from context. The first example has nothing to do with personal qualities, and thus is not based on merit. It's discrimination. The second example is wrong, but if it were true that all handicapped individuals had greater mental strength (whatever that means) and the job requires mental strenght, it's reasonable to hire only handicapped people.

—Alorael, who notes that the latter is only non-discriminatory (or not discriminatory in a bad way) if only handicapped people can do the job. If all handicapped people have this mental strength and 10% of the non-handicapped do, everyone gets a fair chance at the job as long as they have the necessary quality or the situation is bad-discriminatory.
Posts: 14579 | Registered: Saturday, December 1 2001 08:00
Lifecrafter
Member # 6388
Profile #228
I'd argue that the most important conclusion to be derived from 'marriage' and 'stability' research is basically the one that people make jokingly about it: 'Why, if one man and one woman works that much better, think of how well three men, eight women, and a small horse would do!' Silliness aside, that is how the family worked in most parts of the world (with a few minor variations) until the innovation of the nuclear family. The atomization of society into its smallest component parts produced a system in which children are to take moral and intellectual instruction from two adults and only two adults, and at most two adults. The extended family is dead in the US, and that's probably a major part of how deeply warped we've been getting for the last 60 years.
Posts: 794 | Registered: Tuesday, October 11 2005 07:00
Off With Their Heads
Member # 4045
Profile Homepage #229
"Handicapped parking spots is not discrimination - not this definition. Here’s why: All handicapped people have a disability. This is true for every single case. Having a disability merits (not in the sense that it’s earned, but that society says it entitles) special treatment. It’s been discussed, thought over, and legislated because it makes us a kinder society and/or whatever other reasons there are."

"All-white schools is not discrimination - not this definition. Here’s why: All white people are superior. This is true for every single case. Being superior merits (not in the sense that it’s earned, but that society says it entitles) special treatment. It’s been discussed, thought over, and legislated because it makes us a kinder society and/or whatever other reasons there are."

This is simply the point that Thuryl made, but I thought it was worth underscoring. If this argument structure is valid, it leads to unacceptable conclusions.

The flaw in your argument is that it presumes, without providing adequate justification, that society cannot decide to discriminate.

Personally, I'd much rather work with the real (broad) definition of discrimination and not have to risk arguments hinging on the ambiguity in a key term.

[ Wednesday, December 12, 2007 17:40: 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
Agent
Member # 8030
Profile Homepage #230
The whole irony about Stillness arguing about the benefits of marriage is a certain passage from 1 Corinthians.

It basically says that it's better not to marry and it provides reasons why. So there goes his argument on that subject.

--------------------
A Bile Crux
Posts: 1384 | Registered: Tuesday, February 6 2007 08:00

Pages