|
Another thing that's confusing when people debate about certain topics (gay marriage being one of them), is the way people speak of rights. As George Carlin said, you don't have any rights. That's just some bullshit somebody sold to you.
So when people talk about "they have the right to marry" "you don't have a right to marry a horse, or someone with the same genitals as you, or a stapler--only someone with opposite genitals who resembles the class of human you could sometimes make babies with, as this is the most popular way and time-tested blah blah blah"--that isn't saying anything, other than "boo ..." or "yay ..."
People talk about rights, and fairness, and deserving, way too liberally. Think a little about what you're really saying.
The U.S. government grants some people rights. That means they promise not to do certain things, and if they do 'em, you can sue 'em, and hopefully, if those judges aren't too corrupt, and you fight through courts for enough years, you can actually try to be compensated for the damages, and have the shit reversed, and ideally, future cases will reflect the newly found truth of the law. Say the constitution says the government won't make a law respecting the establishment of religion (yes I know it actually says congress, but we have taken it to go further than that, so just roll with it unless you want to repeal a whole mass of bullshit and we can debate this later--bottom line is that we act like the government won't help one religion over another, or non-religious over the religious, etc.) Now some states may make laws that seem to fly against this--it's up to you to spend 10 years of your life to win some case, and then after that, all the government magically stops being bad in this one issue, unless they pass a constitutional amendment (which they don't).
So please, when you talk about rights in the gay rights issue, please remember you're only talking about what people could theoretically win in court according to your interpretation of some part of the bill of rights. I am so tired of people thinking "X has a right" means a damn thing morally and spiritually and universally. Obviously this is pure fantasy so please keep your fantasies where they belong--I have a right not to read them, and they are obscene.
Issue two! We also have this principle of "equal protection under the law", in addition to the right to not have government helping, hindering any specific religion (in other words laws need to have secular reasons only, and not specifically aid or harm people based on religion or non-religion).
equal protection under the law means that the government is supposed to give everyone the same chance; we are all equal in the eyes of the law. obviously this doesn't always work that way and maybe those are just some court cases waiting to be won.
to get an idea what i'm talking about take the issues of race and gender (yes, anthropologists, i know that in your world there's no such thing as race only ethnicity. you PC police changed the colloquial terms into jargon and then said that race doesn't exist only ethnicity. sue me, i think we all know what race means.. whether you're zerg, terran, protoss, nerd, etc.)
equal protection means the judge, the police, the laws, won't treat you different because you're black, white, Hindu, Muslim, a woman, a man. you are judged by the content of your character, by your deeds alone.
obviously sometimes this is hazy. you don't choose to be 18 but if you are 18 you're treated different than 17. and you can say, well everyone gets to age, that's just life. well no, some people die before they get to be 21, there's no guarantees. so people with different ages aren't guaranteed equal protection under the law. however, try to treat someone different for being older--if you are giving them money, then that's okay, but if you're asking that they prove they don't suck at driving, then that would be illegal.
point is there's grey area when it comes to equal protection under the law. we agree not to allow race or gender fuck with things, but that age is usually okay.
what about sexuality? can we make a law that says gays must pay more taxes, or that they can't vote, etc.? if not, then why not? i'm not talking morally here, so put away the kleenex. i'm talking, does the u.s. constitution, as it is generally used throughout history by lawyers, judges, etc. (not how YOU or your fantasy heads read it), make such a law illegal?
i think the answer is yes, and that means that people who are saying "you don't have a right to marriage" and "you don't have a right to be gay" are missing the point.
people have been saying in some topics things like "you choose to be gay, it's not like race", trying to say that you can discriminate against gays because they choose to be that way, that it's not the same as discrimination against blacks, because blacks have no choice whether they are black or not--they can't change it.
if gays can change it, sure. that's an issue to debate another day.
but we agree that for some reason you can't discriminate against gays openly. it's just illegal. so this seems to mean we put gays in the "equal protection under the law" camp, that it does count, as far as the law goes, as the same as race. maybe that's because we believe being gay is not something you do, it's something you are--yes, like being black.
maybe there are other reasons, i don't know. but if we agree that gays deserve equal protection under the law (for whatever reason), that means that you can't make a law that says, x can marry their lover, y can't. x gets these rights and privileges and legal abilities regarding their official state-sanctioned lover, y can't. that's discrimination then--it's the law treating people differently based on groups that they aren't supposed to, YES similar to making gays pay double taxes, or hell, putting all gays in jail, or blacks or Muslims. legally, that's what it's like. so unless you want to change the idea of "equal protection under the law", or can somehow be convincing that it doesn't apply to gays, it seems like all these state laws fucking with gay marriage are unconstitutional.
also, do you have a right to be fat?
  
|
I think there's about 5~ active threads/blogs on this subject right now.
|
I'm sure in 50-100 years time, gay marriage will be another one of those countless resolved with issues in the history books where our children and grand children will look back and think granting these rights was the most natural thing in the world to do.
It's inevitable.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On November 07 2008 20:35 LaLuSh wrote:
I'm sure in 50-100 years time, gay marriage will be another one of those countless resolved with issues in the history books where our children and grand children will look back and think granting these rights was the most natural thing in the world to do.
It's inevitable.
Polls in general have shown that people in our demographic (middle class age 16-35 or so) tend to overwhelming think of this whole debacle as a non-issue, and its not until you get to 45+ age range that people really care. So it seems likely that in 100 years people will just laugh at how stupid this is. I haven't looked this up in years so I don't have any sources though so take it with a grain of salt!
|
On November 07 2008 21:23 heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 20:35 LaLuSh wrote:
I'm sure in 50-100 years time, gay marriage will be another one of those countless resolved with issues in the history books where our children and grand children will look back and think granting these rights was the most natural thing in the world to do.
It's inevitable. Polls in general have shown that people in our demographic (middle class age 16-35 or so) tend to overwhelming think of this whole debacle as a non-issue, and its not until you get to 45+ age range that people really care. So it seems likely that in 100 years people will just laugh at how stupid this is. I haven't looked this up in years so I don't have any sources though so take it with a grain of salt!
That's a good point. The superstitious bigots will die off eventually. Just keep feeding their kids the MTV.
|
On November 08 2008 07:15 Suggestion Box wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2008 21:23 heyoka wrote:On November 07 2008 20:35 LaLuSh wrote:
I'm sure in 50-100 years time, gay marriage will be another one of those countless resolved with issues in the history books where our children and grand children will look back and think granting these rights was the most natural thing in the world to do.
It's inevitable. Polls in general have shown that people in our demographic (middle class age 16-35 or so) tend to overwhelming think of this whole debacle as a non-issue, and its not until you get to 45+ age range that people really care. So it seems likely that in 100 years people will just laugh at how stupid this is. I haven't looked this up in years so I don't have any sources though so take it with a grain of salt! That's a good point. The superstitious bigots will die off eventually. Just keep feeding their kids the MTV.
MTV will make them idiots... But at least, more tolerant idiots.
|
That's what I meant. MTV leads them astray, from their bullshit upbringing as superstitious bigots. And that MTV problem, well we will worry about that in 2 generations, when bigotry is a thing of the past, and we are all horribly stupid no matter what we don't believe in.
|
On November 07 2008 19:52 HeadBangaa wrote:
I think there's about 5~ active threads/blogs on this subject right now.
Link to the 5? The one I've seen, is way too big and consists of you trolling people and saying "I already answered that on one of the thirty pages." Sucks please. I'm sorry if I want to respond to something specifically in my blog, rather than read 30 pages only to see whether someone already thinks they answered this. I think the issue is better discussed when the different points are broken down: for one, do gays get equal protection under the law (this is not plain language, this is terminology so if you don't know what it means in a U.S. law context please see wikipedia, google, or w/e). Further points to follow. Lumping all the logical points together only favors people who need things to be confusing in order for their case to hold.
I want people to decide whether they believe equal protection under the law is a good thing, and whether it applies to gays first. Several people are denying gays this status and I don't think they're being clear about it.
|
Here's why prop 8 is completely legal under the EPC
1) Who does prop 8 hurt? Gays.
2) Are we suspicious of this group being disc agst? NO. The only classes we're suspicious of (legal thing here) are race, NO, and alienage.
3) So they get rational basis.
4) Does govt have a legit purpose; one which isn't motivated by hatred. Protecting family structure (note that you can disagree on this all you want, and you can back your disagreement up w/ facts, but that's not good enough, as this std is incredibly deferential).
5) Does govt use rational means. Again, incredibly deferential.
Since yes, legally we're OK.
|
First I want to say I dont care what gays do and i see no reason why they shouldnt be allowed to get married.
maybe there are other reasons, i don't know. but if we agree that gays deserve equal protection under the law (for whatever reason), that means that you can't make a law that says, x can marry their lover, y can't. x gets these rights and privileges and legal abilities regarding their official state-sanctioned lover, y can't. that's discrimination then--it's the law treating people differently based on groups that they aren't supposed to, YES similar to making gays pay double taxes, or hell, putting all gays in jail, or blacks or Muslims.
You are missing a really big point here. It doesn't say anywhere that straight people have the right to marry the person they love, it says a man has the right to marry a woman. Gay people have that right. A gay person is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no law that stops them from doing that. Their rights are no different then straight people's rights. The law does not talk about love at all. Marriage is defined as something a man and a woman can do. ANY man and ANY woman can do this irregardless of their sexual preference. Gay people aren't being excluded.
|
On November 08 2008 08:38 -_- wrote:
Here's why prop 8 is completely legal under the EPC
1) Who does prop 8 hurt? Gays.
2) Are we suspicious of this group being disc agst? NO. The only classes we're suspicious of (legal thing here) are race, NO, and alienage.
3) So they get rational basis.
4) Does govt have a legit purpose; one which isn't motivated by hatred. Protecting family structure (note that you can disagree on this all you want, and you can back your disagreement up w/ facts, but that's not good enough, as this std is incredibly deferential).
5) Does govt use rational means. Again, incredibly deferential.
Since yes, legally we're OK.
"Are we suspicious of this group being discriminated against? No. The only classes we're suspicious of are race, NO, and alienage" -> Can you translate this to English?
So you are saying only race, NO, and alienage get equal protection under the law, anything else is going to be "rational basis", i.e. say we find that gays drive more often, can we make them pay more taxes for cars and roads etc.? I think you're saying that would be constitutional. Can we make laws that specifically tax you for being gay? Because the effect of this marriage thing is akin to that, it's giving people specific benefits ONLY if you are straight. Straight people can marry, gay people can't. Marriage meaning, specific legal abilities, benefits, rights etc. If states can do this can't they also make laws that tax gays a little extra, etc.?
I think if you say homosexuals aren't a group that has equal protection status then that's the go-ahead to put them in separate schools, make them move, tax them to death until they leave, etc. Isn't this the case? If not, then what stops this?
|
On November 08 2008 10:38 Mastermind wrote:First I want to say I dont care what gays do and i see no reason why they shouldnt be allowed to get married. Show nested quote +
maybe there are other reasons, i don't know. but if we agree that gays deserve equal protection under the law (for whatever reason), that means that you can't make a law that says, x can marry their lover, y can't. x gets these rights and privileges and legal abilities regarding their official state-sanctioned lover, y can't. that's discrimination then--it's the law treating people differently based on groups that they aren't supposed to, YES similar to making gays pay double taxes, or hell, putting all gays in jail, or blacks or Muslims.
You are missing a really big point here. It doesn't say anywhere that straight people have the right to marry the person they love, it says a man has the right to marry a woman. Gay people have that right. A gay person is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no law that stops them from doing that. Their rights are no different then straight people's rights. The law does not talk about love at all. Marriage is defined as something a man and a woman can do. ANY man and ANY woman can do this irregardless of their sexual preference. Gay people aren't being excluded.
Good point. Furthermore, the state doesn't even care if people of the opposite sex marry because of love or whatever reason.
The state's primary interest is that heterosexual couples produce the next generation of citizens. There are special laws regarding this institution because it is needed for social stability. Just like there are laws restricting the freedom of minors to engage in various activities.
|
On November 08 2008 13:50 fight_or_flight wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2008 10:38 Mastermind wrote:
maybe there are other reasons, i don't know. but if we agree that gays deserve equal protection under the law (for whatever reason), that means that you can't make a law that says, x can marry their lover, y can't. x gets these rights and privileges and legal abilities regarding their official state-sanctioned lover, y can't. that's discrimination then--it's the law treating people differently based on groups that they aren't supposed to, YES similar to making gays pay double taxes, or hell, putting all gays in jail, or blacks or Muslims.
You are missing a really big point here. It doesn't say anywhere that straight people have the right to marry the person they love, it says a man has the right to marry a woman. Gay people have that right. A gay person is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no law that stops them from doing that. Their rights are no different then straight people's rights. The law does not talk about love at all. Marriage is defined as something a man and a woman can do. ANY man and ANY woman can do this irregardless of their sexual preference. Gay people aren't being excluded. Good point.
No, it's not a good point. Equal protection under the law means you can't make a law that favors one group over another, and if we agree in principle that we can't do this to homosexuals, then granting rights, benefits, tax breaks in such a way that only heterosexuals can get them, clearly is violating this. It doesn't whether there is a "right to marry the person they love" vs "right to marry someone of the opposite sex"--neither is allowed or prohibited in the constitution. The point is that states are effectively making heterosexual-only benefits packages, the clear result being that homosexuals can't achieve these benefits. The issue is whether homosexuals count as a group that deserves equal protection under the law, or if it is okay to target them.
By thinking of more extreme examples it seems to me that not granting them equal protection under law is ridiculous, and so in the case of laws that grant only heterosexuals certain abilities, it is violating the equal protection clause. Think about this: A law that takes away gays ability to vote or own property; or a law that makes heteros pay no taxes. Would this be unconstitutional? I have to think so. And so what is happening is only a smaller execution of the same principle--laws that specifically are helping heterosexuals. It seems to violate equal protection. See OP please.
Furthermore, the state doesn't even care if people of the opposite sex marry because of love or whatever reason.
The state's primary interest is that heterosexual couples produce the next generation of citizens. There are special laws regarding this institution because it is needed for social stability. Just like there are laws restricting the freedom of minors to engage in various activities.
That's ridiculous. There were special laws for slavery too. And segregation. Needed for social stability, maybe even! But our government promises not to be like that. And while it's debatable whether we needed to amend the constitution to make sure it was clear that blacks were covered by equal protection, there is no such complication with homosexuals. Sexuality does not make people any less of a citizen in the eyes of the constitution, obviously.
Anyways, the point of this thread is to discuss whether homosexuals deserve the status of "equal protection under the law"--NOT all this other shit. See OP please. I wasn't "missing a point" about "you have a right to be adam and eve not adam and steve, what don't you get durr."
|
On November 08 2008 10:38 Mastermind wrote:
First I want to say I dont care what gays do and i see no reason why they shouldnt be allowed to get married.
You are missing a really big point here. It doesn't say anywhere that straight people have the right to marry the person they love, it says a man has the right to marry a woman. Gay people have that right. A gay person is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no law that stops them from doing that. Their rights are no different then straight people's rights. The law does not talk about love at all. Marriage is defined as something a man and a woman can do. ANY man and ANY woman can do this irregardless of their sexual preference. Gay people aren't being excluded.
You might as well claim that in a theocracy everybody has equal rights because everybody is allowed to worship the same god.
|
On November 08 2008 20:37 Underwhelmed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 08 2008 10:38 Mastermind wrote:
First I want to say I dont care what gays do and i see no reason why they shouldnt be allowed to get married.
You are missing a really big point here. It doesn't say anywhere that straight people have the right to marry the person they love, it says a man has the right to marry a woman. Gay people have that right. A gay person is allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. There is no law that stops them from doing that. Their rights are no different then straight people's rights. The law does not talk about love at all. Marriage is defined as something a man and a woman can do. ANY man and ANY woman can do this irregardless of their sexual preference. Gay people aren't being excluded.
You might as well claim that in a theocracy everybody has equal rights because everybody is allowed to worship the same god.
Oh snap.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
