|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 22 2013 07:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 07:00 Shiori wrote:
All I ask, and all I have ever asked, is for one true, secular argument against permitting same-sex marriage. Just one! It only takes one. And yet nobody ever gives one. I'm for same-sex marriage, but this sounds like a fun challenge. So here goes... If more people want to ban same sex marriage than allow it, we can assume that more people will have an increased level of happiness due to the ban.
Is an increased level of happiness over a period of about a week better than the perpetual gains in happiness we would gain for a subset of the population?
|
Like what about banning sidewalk panhandling (or soemthing similar)?
I don't really know anything about laws against sidewalk panhandling. My cursory Googling of it suggests that the rationale is derived from sidewalks being public property and from the presence of panhandlers serving as an impediment to people trying to travel down said sidewalk. Since the property is owned by the state, for the express purpose of traveling, they can very reasonably seek to limit obstacles on said sidewalks. But then, I don't really know much about these laws, so this is just a speculation.
What about gun control?
I was under the impression that most people argue in favour/against of gun control on the grounds that it poses either a greater or lesser threat to the safety of individuals to have/lack it. In that respect, if it can be shown that permitting people to have guns is unnecessary AND that it puts others at serious risk, then that seems like a good reason not to have them; on the other side of things, if it can be shown that having guns is plausibly necessary and that having them doesn't affect the general safety of the public, then gun control is not justified. I have no idea what Dogville is ><.
Try on ... what society defines as a marriage and as something else is the topic of legislation and not the courts. Should an injured party try his case arguing that he/she was prevented from contractual benefits, welfare benefits, or something else, they may make their case but this is not the case tried before the supreme court (Windsor won her case) (Scalia and Thomas/Roberts). Heck, the federal government passed an Act requiring Utah to change its marriage laws (permitting polygamous marriages or plural marriages) in order to join the Union.
I'm arguing that when such definitions cease to be mere preference for definitions and become very real factors in social mobility, economic security, and the perceived legitimacy of a particular group, legislation isn't going to fix things because a large (perhaps even majority) number of voters being bigoted is the problem. The court, in my estimation, owes it to society to look critically at laws which have exclusionary criteria as a matter of arbitrariness/tradition rather than integral function, which are administered by and acknowledged by the state, and when there is an obvious danger of the legislative process of these laws being founded not on any particular desire for benefit to society qua society, but on an ideological, possibly religiously motivated basis. The crux here is that marriage isn't just something churches do. The state also offers marriages. If gay people want them, it's on the state to give them a good reason as to why they shouldn't be allowed to have them. Tradition isn't a good reason, on its own.
For a slightly federalist angle, maybe if states cannot establish laws on traditional moral or sexual norms (see laws on no-fault divorce, polygamy, alcohol consumption), how can they have laws on incest, prostitution, adultery, fornication, bestiality, obscenity (eg. child porn) and the rest. Majority depriving the minority of their rights to all these and more. I find a lot of hand waving with the homosexual rights crowd ... this is a right and that's not because uhh equality ... this can be a law and that can't because this prevailing sentiment "everyone knows" morality ...
What rights versus equality situations are you talking about? As to the things you mentioned:
1) Incest should absolutely be legal, provided both parties are consenting adults.
2) Prostitution should also be legal, provided it functions like any other profession, and provided the clients and workers are consenting adults.
3) The state should not concern itself with adultery.
4) The state should not concern itself with fornication
5) Bestiality is banned based on a perceived lack of consent on the part of the animal, which makes it a sort of animal cruelty. Whether or not it's true doesn't change that the actual justification is based on consent rather than "ew factor."
6) Child porn is tricky. I'm rather undecided as to whether it should be illegal to see, view, or download child pornography, unless it can be shown that one intends to traffic, market, profit, promote, or otherwise create a larger market for it. It should, of course, be illegal to make and sell on the grounds that minors cannot consent.
I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here. None of the things mentioned have anything to do with "traditional moral or sexual norms" except incidentally. What matters isn't that the conclusion is in keeping with a particular traditional norm, but that the justification is independent of such things. The reason, say, statutory rape, is illegal is because of our laws concerning sexual consent viz. our understanding of psychology and the dynamic between adults and kids, particularly in powerful areas of experience like sexuality. Stigma shouldn't be what drives our laws; having actual good reasons that are consistent with our fundamental principles should drive our laws.
[quote]I'd just like a little circumspection on what is lawful, should there be some states recognizing incestuous marriages and somebody in Congress proposing DOGMA (New Doma) to say which federal benefits apply or how you file taxes if you got married polygamously/incestuously/common law in one state and moved to another where that is not recognized.[/quote
Frankly, I've always rather thought fundamental societal cornerstones like marriage should be federal, since human sexual/romantic bonding isn't particularly unique to Texas over Florida. There's no real reason it should mean anything different, tbh.
|
On July 22 2013 08:39 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 07:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 07:00 Shiori wrote:
All I ask, and all I have ever asked, is for one true, secular argument against permitting same-sex marriage. Just one! It only takes one. And yet nobody ever gives one. I'm for same-sex marriage, but this sounds like a fun challenge. So here goes... If more people want to ban same sex marriage than allow it, we can assume that more people will have an increased level of happiness due to the ban. Is an increased level of happiness over a period of about a week better than the perpetual gains in happiness we would gain for a subset of the population?
Why would the happiness only last a week? People are constantly made unhappy by perceived amoral behavior.
|
On July 22 2013 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 08:39 Jormundr wrote:On July 22 2013 07:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 07:00 Shiori wrote:
All I ask, and all I have ever asked, is for one true, secular argument against permitting same-sex marriage. Just one! It only takes one. And yet nobody ever gives one. I'm for same-sex marriage, but this sounds like a fun challenge. So here goes... If more people want to ban same sex marriage than allow it, we can assume that more people will have an increased level of happiness due to the ban. Is an increased level of happiness over a period of about a week better than the perpetual gains in happiness we would gain for a subset of the population? Why would the happiness only last a week? People are constantly made unhappy by perceived amoral behavior.
Yes, but as norms change so do perceptions. I'm sure there's still plenty of unhappiness about interracial marriage being legal, for example, but much less than there was before, and legalizing it has probably been a catalyst for this change.
|
On July 22 2013 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 08:39 Jormundr wrote:On July 22 2013 07:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 07:00 Shiori wrote:
All I ask, and all I have ever asked, is for one true, secular argument against permitting same-sex marriage. Just one! It only takes one. And yet nobody ever gives one. I'm for same-sex marriage, but this sounds like a fun challenge. So here goes... If more people want to ban same sex marriage than allow it, we can assume that more people will have an increased level of happiness due to the ban. Is an increased level of happiness over a period of about a week better than the perpetual gains in happiness we would gain for a subset of the population? Why would the happiness only last a week? People are constantly made unhappy by perceived amoral behavior.
Most fat christians are not depressed, so I don't think this is necessarily true for a majority of people.
|
On July 22 2013 08:53 Shiori wrote:I don't really know anything about laws against sidewalk panhandling. My cursory Googling of it suggests that the rationale is derived from sidewalks being public property and from the presence of panhandlers serving as an impediment to people trying to travel down said sidewalk. Since the property is owned by the state, for the express purpose of traveling, they can very reasonably seek to limit obstacles on said sidewalks. But then, I don't really know much about these laws, so this is just a speculation. I was under the impression that most people argue in favour/against of gun control on the grounds that it poses either a greater or lesser threat to the safety of individuals to have/lack it. In that respect, if it can be shown that permitting people to have guns is unnecessary AND that it puts others at serious risk, then that seems like a good reason not to have them; on the other side of things, if it can be shown that having guns is plausibly necessary and that having them doesn't affect the general safety of the public, then gun control is not justified. I have no idea what Dogville is ><.
Dogville is a great artsy date movie 
Well, is voting for something because you think it will make you happy valid or not? Yes, sidewalk panhandling is banned for a variety of reasons. But so what? As long as those reasons are valid the law is the law. So if happiness is a valid reason for voting a certain way than the law should be the law.
|
On July 22 2013 08:58 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 08:39 Jormundr wrote:On July 22 2013 07:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 07:00 Shiori wrote:
All I ask, and all I have ever asked, is for one true, secular argument against permitting same-sex marriage. Just one! It only takes one. And yet nobody ever gives one. I'm for same-sex marriage, but this sounds like a fun challenge. So here goes... If more people want to ban same sex marriage than allow it, we can assume that more people will have an increased level of happiness due to the ban. Is an increased level of happiness over a period of about a week better than the perpetual gains in happiness we would gain for a subset of the population? Why would the happiness only last a week? People are constantly made unhappy by perceived amoral behavior. Yes, but as norms change so do perceptions. I'm sure there's still plenty of unhappiness about interracial marriage being legal, for example, but much less than there was before, and legalizing it has probably been a catalyst for this change.
That's true, but that seems speculative. Laws can and do change back and forth, right? As do public perceptions.
On July 22 2013 09:05 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 08:56 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 08:39 Jormundr wrote:On July 22 2013 07:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 07:00 Shiori wrote:
All I ask, and all I have ever asked, is for one true, secular argument against permitting same-sex marriage. Just one! It only takes one. And yet nobody ever gives one. I'm for same-sex marriage, but this sounds like a fun challenge. So here goes... If more people want to ban same sex marriage than allow it, we can assume that more people will have an increased level of happiness due to the ban. Is an increased level of happiness over a period of about a week better than the perpetual gains in happiness we would gain for a subset of the population? Why would the happiness only last a week? People are constantly made unhappy by perceived amoral behavior. Most fat christians are not depressed, so I don't think this is necessarily true for a majority of people.
Really? Aren't you made a bit unhappy every time you see someone litter?
|
On July 22 2013 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 08:53 Shiori wrote:Like what about banning sidewalk panhandling (or soemthing similar)? I don't really know anything about laws against sidewalk panhandling. My cursory Googling of it suggests that the rationale is derived from sidewalks being public property and from the presence of panhandlers serving as an impediment to people trying to travel down said sidewalk. Since the property is owned by the state, for the express purpose of traveling, they can very reasonably seek to limit obstacles on said sidewalks. But then, I don't really know much about these laws, so this is just a speculation. What about gun control? I was under the impression that most people argue in favour/against of gun control on the grounds that it poses either a greater or lesser threat to the safety of individuals to have/lack it. In that respect, if it can be shown that permitting people to have guns is unnecessary AND that it puts others at serious risk, then that seems like a good reason not to have them; on the other side of things, if it can be shown that having guns is plausibly necessary and that having them doesn't affect the general safety of the public, then gun control is not justified. I have no idea what Dogville is ><. Dogville is a great artsy date movie Well, is voting for something because you think it will make you happy valid or not? Yes, sidewalk panhandling is banned for a variety of reasons. But so what? As long as those reasons are valid the law is the law. So if happiness is a valid reason for voting a certain way than the law should be the law.
No.
When you vote on a particular law or representative, you are voting to either give someone the ability to use coercive force on other citizens or voting to directly use coercive force on other citizens. Because of this, you should have a moral obligation to not vote for "what makes you happy", but instead "what respects everyone's rights/what is good for the whole" (which is, of course, vague, but you get the gist of what I mean). You may not like gay marriage/consensual incest/prostitution, but all of these relationships are done by consenting adults, so when you vote against them, unless you have clear evidence that any of these acts somehow raise crime or otherwise directly harm society, you are merely restricting the rights of others to make yourself feel better, and that is simply immoral and selfish.
|
Well, is voting for something because you think it will make you happy valid or not? Yes, sidewalk panhandling is banned for a variety of reasons. But so what? As long as those reasons are valid the law is the law. So if happiness is a valid reason for voting a certain way than the law should be the law.
Depends what you mean by "happy." The happiness has to be contained within my person, and it has to be regulated by my sense of morality. While it would have made me very, very happy to have the more obnoxious/disruptive/untalented students in my highschool calculus class expelled, I wouldn't have been able to justify voting for a rule that did so, because, ultimately, it's not about my convenience only up to the point that my convenience starts fucking over people who don't really deserve to be fucked over. On the other hand, if there were a rule which made it so that if you did very poorly in a class (squeaked by, say) in, say, Grade 9, then in Grade 10 you'd have to drop down to an easier level or appeal to the school and actually show what would be different the next time, then I could totally justify voting for such a thing, because I think it would actually improve matters even if it also makes me happier.
I don't think voting for something that doesn't have any effect on one's sphere of existence in any way, shape or form, and which screws over other people solely for the sake of one's own personal validation, is never justified. It would be one thing if people who think gay marriage is sinful were being told that they weren't allowed to refuse an invitation to a gay wedding, or if their churches were being forced to marry same-sex couples. But they're not. It's a question of whether my personal feelings about a particular category of people enjoying the same benefits I do in a functionally equivalent relationship is enough to prevent that group from enjoying those benefits in the absence of any other reason to prevent them. I'd argue that it isn't. There are people who take offense to immigrants being called "Americans," or to women being in politics. Those people are entitled to take offense to those things. But until they can give something other than their personal desire to not be in the same category as someone else in defense of such positions, we are obliged to refrain from making laws enforcing their view.
In general, though, I don't think happiness is a good justification for voting if happiness = pleasure. In my mind, authentic happiness requires sound moral principles (in a sort of Aristotelian understanding, I guess).
|
On July 22 2013 09:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 08:53 Shiori wrote:Like what about banning sidewalk panhandling (or soemthing similar)? I don't really know anything about laws against sidewalk panhandling. My cursory Googling of it suggests that the rationale is derived from sidewalks being public property and from the presence of panhandlers serving as an impediment to people trying to travel down said sidewalk. Since the property is owned by the state, for the express purpose of traveling, they can very reasonably seek to limit obstacles on said sidewalks. But then, I don't really know much about these laws, so this is just a speculation. What about gun control? I was under the impression that most people argue in favour/against of gun control on the grounds that it poses either a greater or lesser threat to the safety of individuals to have/lack it. In that respect, if it can be shown that permitting people to have guns is unnecessary AND that it puts others at serious risk, then that seems like a good reason not to have them; on the other side of things, if it can be shown that having guns is plausibly necessary and that having them doesn't affect the general safety of the public, then gun control is not justified. I have no idea what Dogville is ><. Dogville is a great artsy date movie Well, is voting for something because you think it will make you happy valid or not? Yes, sidewalk panhandling is banned for a variety of reasons. But so what? As long as those reasons are valid the law is the law. So if happiness is a valid reason for voting a certain way than the law should be the law. No. When you vote on a particular law or representative, you are voting to either give someone the ability to use coercive force on other citizens or voting to directly use coercive force on other citizens. Because of this, you should have a moral obligation to not vote for "what makes you happy", but instead "what respects everyone's rights/what is good for the whole" (which is, of course, vague, but you get the gist of what I mean). You may not like gay marriage/consensual incest/prostitution, but all of these relationships are done by consenting adults, so when you vote against them, unless you have clear evidence that any of these acts somehow raise crime or otherwise directly harm society, you are merely restricting the rights of others to make yourself feel better, and that is simply immoral and selfish.
On July 22 2013 09:18 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +Well, is voting for something because you think it will make you happy valid or not? Yes, sidewalk panhandling is banned for a variety of reasons. But so what? As long as those reasons are valid the law is the law. So if happiness is a valid reason for voting a certain way than the law should be the law. Depends what you mean by "happy." The happiness has to be contained within my person, and it has to be regulated by my sense of morality. While it would have made me very, very happy to have the more obnoxious/disruptive/untalented students in my highschool calculus class expelled, I wouldn't have been able to justify voting for a rule that did so, because, ultimately, it's not about my convenience only up to the point that my convenience starts fucking over people who don't really deserve to be fucked over. On the other hand, if there were a rule which made it so that if you did very poorly in a class (squeaked by, say) in, say, Grade 9, then in Grade 10 you'd have to drop down to an easier level or appeal to the school and actually show what would be different the next time, then I could totally justify voting for such a thing, because I think it would actually improve matters even if it also makes me happier. I don't think voting for something that doesn't have any effect on one's sphere of existence in any way, shape or form, and which screws over other people solely for the sake of one's own personal validation, is never justified. It would be one thing if people who think gay marriage is sinful were being told that they weren't allowed to refuse an invitation to a gay wedding, or if their churches were being forced to marry same-sex couples. But they're not. It's a question of whether my personal feelings about a particular category of people enjoying the same benefits I do in a functionally equivalent relationship is enough to prevent that group from enjoying those benefits in the absence of any other reason to prevent them. I'd argue that it isn't. There are people who take offense to immigrants being called "Americans," or to women being in politics. Those people are entitled to take offense to those things. But until they can give something other than their personal desire to not be in the same category as someone else in defense of such positions, we are obliged to refrain from making laws enforcing their view. In general, though, I don't think happiness is a good justification for voting if happiness = pleasure. In my mind, authentic happiness requires sound moral principles (in a sort of Aristotelian understanding, I guess).
But don't I have the right to pursue my own happiness? Yes such a vote can be self-serving, but so can all kinds of votes, and we don't ban people from public votes over conflicts of interest. I mean, same sex couples have the right to vote for same sex marriage out of pure self-interest, right?
|
On July 22 2013 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 09:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 22 2013 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 08:53 Shiori wrote:Like what about banning sidewalk panhandling (or soemthing similar)? I don't really know anything about laws against sidewalk panhandling. My cursory Googling of it suggests that the rationale is derived from sidewalks being public property and from the presence of panhandlers serving as an impediment to people trying to travel down said sidewalk. Since the property is owned by the state, for the express purpose of traveling, they can very reasonably seek to limit obstacles on said sidewalks. But then, I don't really know much about these laws, so this is just a speculation. What about gun control? I was under the impression that most people argue in favour/against of gun control on the grounds that it poses either a greater or lesser threat to the safety of individuals to have/lack it. In that respect, if it can be shown that permitting people to have guns is unnecessary AND that it puts others at serious risk, then that seems like a good reason not to have them; on the other side of things, if it can be shown that having guns is plausibly necessary and that having them doesn't affect the general safety of the public, then gun control is not justified. I have no idea what Dogville is ><. Dogville is a great artsy date movie Well, is voting for something because you think it will make you happy valid or not? Yes, sidewalk panhandling is banned for a variety of reasons. But so what? As long as those reasons are valid the law is the law. So if happiness is a valid reason for voting a certain way than the law should be the law. No. When you vote on a particular law or representative, you are voting to either give someone the ability to use coercive force on other citizens or voting to directly use coercive force on other citizens. Because of this, you should have a moral obligation to not vote for "what makes you happy", but instead "what respects everyone's rights/what is good for the whole" (which is, of course, vague, but you get the gist of what I mean). You may not like gay marriage/consensual incest/prostitution, but all of these relationships are done by consenting adults, so when you vote against them, unless you have clear evidence that any of these acts somehow raise crime or otherwise directly harm society, you are merely restricting the rights of others to make yourself feel better, and that is simply immoral and selfish. Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 09:18 Shiori wrote:Well, is voting for something because you think it will make you happy valid or not? Yes, sidewalk panhandling is banned for a variety of reasons. But so what? As long as those reasons are valid the law is the law. So if happiness is a valid reason for voting a certain way than the law should be the law. Depends what you mean by "happy." The happiness has to be contained within my person, and it has to be regulated by my sense of morality. While it would have made me very, very happy to have the more obnoxious/disruptive/untalented students in my highschool calculus class expelled, I wouldn't have been able to justify voting for a rule that did so, because, ultimately, it's not about my convenience only up to the point that my convenience starts fucking over people who don't really deserve to be fucked over. On the other hand, if there were a rule which made it so that if you did very poorly in a class (squeaked by, say) in, say, Grade 9, then in Grade 10 you'd have to drop down to an easier level or appeal to the school and actually show what would be different the next time, then I could totally justify voting for such a thing, because I think it would actually improve matters even if it also makes me happier. I don't think voting for something that doesn't have any effect on one's sphere of existence in any way, shape or form, and which screws over other people solely for the sake of one's own personal validation, is never justified. It would be one thing if people who think gay marriage is sinful were being told that they weren't allowed to refuse an invitation to a gay wedding, or if their churches were being forced to marry same-sex couples. But they're not. It's a question of whether my personal feelings about a particular category of people enjoying the same benefits I do in a functionally equivalent relationship is enough to prevent that group from enjoying those benefits in the absence of any other reason to prevent them. I'd argue that it isn't. There are people who take offense to immigrants being called "Americans," or to women being in politics. Those people are entitled to take offense to those things. But until they can give something other than their personal desire to not be in the same category as someone else in defense of such positions, we are obliged to refrain from making laws enforcing their view. In general, though, I don't think happiness is a good justification for voting if happiness = pleasure. In my mind, authentic happiness requires sound moral principles (in a sort of Aristotelian understanding, I guess). But don't I have the right to pursue my own happiness? Yes such a vote can be self-serving, but so can all kinds of votes, and we don't ban people from public votes over conflicts of interest. I mean, same sex couples have the right to vote for same sex marriage out of pure self-interest, right?
if your right to pursue happiness is in conflict with the fundamentel right of others, then no,
you should not necessarily be able to exercise this "right".
|
On July 22 2013 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 09:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 22 2013 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 08:53 Shiori wrote:Like what about banning sidewalk panhandling (or soemthing similar)? I don't really know anything about laws against sidewalk panhandling. My cursory Googling of it suggests that the rationale is derived from sidewalks being public property and from the presence of panhandlers serving as an impediment to people trying to travel down said sidewalk. Since the property is owned by the state, for the express purpose of traveling, they can very reasonably seek to limit obstacles on said sidewalks. But then, I don't really know much about these laws, so this is just a speculation. What about gun control? I was under the impression that most people argue in favour/against of gun control on the grounds that it poses either a greater or lesser threat to the safety of individuals to have/lack it. In that respect, if it can be shown that permitting people to have guns is unnecessary AND that it puts others at serious risk, then that seems like a good reason not to have them; on the other side of things, if it can be shown that having guns is plausibly necessary and that having them doesn't affect the general safety of the public, then gun control is not justified. I have no idea what Dogville is ><. Dogville is a great artsy date movie Well, is voting for something because you think it will make you happy valid or not? Yes, sidewalk panhandling is banned for a variety of reasons. But so what? As long as those reasons are valid the law is the law. So if happiness is a valid reason for voting a certain way than the law should be the law. No. When you vote on a particular law or representative, you are voting to either give someone the ability to use coercive force on other citizens or voting to directly use coercive force on other citizens. Because of this, you should have a moral obligation to not vote for "what makes you happy", but instead "what respects everyone's rights/what is good for the whole" (which is, of course, vague, but you get the gist of what I mean). You may not like gay marriage/consensual incest/prostitution, but all of these relationships are done by consenting adults, so when you vote against them, unless you have clear evidence that any of these acts somehow raise crime or otherwise directly harm society, you are merely restricting the rights of others to make yourself feel better, and that is simply immoral and selfish. Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 09:18 Shiori wrote:Well, is voting for something because you think it will make you happy valid or not? Yes, sidewalk panhandling is banned for a variety of reasons. But so what? As long as those reasons are valid the law is the law. So if happiness is a valid reason for voting a certain way than the law should be the law. Depends what you mean by "happy." The happiness has to be contained within my person, and it has to be regulated by my sense of morality. While it would have made me very, very happy to have the more obnoxious/disruptive/untalented students in my highschool calculus class expelled, I wouldn't have been able to justify voting for a rule that did so, because, ultimately, it's not about my convenience only up to the point that my convenience starts fucking over people who don't really deserve to be fucked over. On the other hand, if there were a rule which made it so that if you did very poorly in a class (squeaked by, say) in, say, Grade 9, then in Grade 10 you'd have to drop down to an easier level or appeal to the school and actually show what would be different the next time, then I could totally justify voting for such a thing, because I think it would actually improve matters even if it also makes me happier. I don't think voting for something that doesn't have any effect on one's sphere of existence in any way, shape or form, and which screws over other people solely for the sake of one's own personal validation, is never justified. It would be one thing if people who think gay marriage is sinful were being told that they weren't allowed to refuse an invitation to a gay wedding, or if their churches were being forced to marry same-sex couples. But they're not. It's a question of whether my personal feelings about a particular category of people enjoying the same benefits I do in a functionally equivalent relationship is enough to prevent that group from enjoying those benefits in the absence of any other reason to prevent them. I'd argue that it isn't. There are people who take offense to immigrants being called "Americans," or to women being in politics. Those people are entitled to take offense to those things. But until they can give something other than their personal desire to not be in the same category as someone else in defense of such positions, we are obliged to refrain from making laws enforcing their view. In general, though, I don't think happiness is a good justification for voting if happiness = pleasure. In my mind, authentic happiness requires sound moral principles (in a sort of Aristotelian understanding, I guess). But don't I have the right to pursue my own happiness? Yes such a vote can be self-serving, but so can all kinds of votes, and we don't ban people from public votes over conflicts of interest. I mean, same sex couples have the right to vote for same sex marriage out of pure self-interest, right?
If it helps you but doesn't hurt anyone, then you can do whatever. Even though that's not ideal reasoning for lawmaking.
|
On July 22 2013 09:47 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 09:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 22 2013 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 08:53 Shiori wrote:Like what about banning sidewalk panhandling (or soemthing similar)? I don't really know anything about laws against sidewalk panhandling. My cursory Googling of it suggests that the rationale is derived from sidewalks being public property and from the presence of panhandlers serving as an impediment to people trying to travel down said sidewalk. Since the property is owned by the state, for the express purpose of traveling, they can very reasonably seek to limit obstacles on said sidewalks. But then, I don't really know much about these laws, so this is just a speculation. What about gun control? I was under the impression that most people argue in favour/against of gun control on the grounds that it poses either a greater or lesser threat to the safety of individuals to have/lack it. In that respect, if it can be shown that permitting people to have guns is unnecessary AND that it puts others at serious risk, then that seems like a good reason not to have them; on the other side of things, if it can be shown that having guns is plausibly necessary and that having them doesn't affect the general safety of the public, then gun control is not justified. I have no idea what Dogville is ><. Dogville is a great artsy date movie Well, is voting for something because you think it will make you happy valid or not? Yes, sidewalk panhandling is banned for a variety of reasons. But so what? As long as those reasons are valid the law is the law. So if happiness is a valid reason for voting a certain way than the law should be the law. No. When you vote on a particular law or representative, you are voting to either give someone the ability to use coercive force on other citizens or voting to directly use coercive force on other citizens. Because of this, you should have a moral obligation to not vote for "what makes you happy", but instead "what respects everyone's rights/what is good for the whole" (which is, of course, vague, but you get the gist of what I mean). You may not like gay marriage/consensual incest/prostitution, but all of these relationships are done by consenting adults, so when you vote against them, unless you have clear evidence that any of these acts somehow raise crime or otherwise directly harm society, you are merely restricting the rights of others to make yourself feel better, and that is simply immoral and selfish. On July 22 2013 09:18 Shiori wrote:Well, is voting for something because you think it will make you happy valid or not? Yes, sidewalk panhandling is banned for a variety of reasons. But so what? As long as those reasons are valid the law is the law. So if happiness is a valid reason for voting a certain way than the law should be the law. Depends what you mean by "happy." The happiness has to be contained within my person, and it has to be regulated by my sense of morality. While it would have made me very, very happy to have the more obnoxious/disruptive/untalented students in my highschool calculus class expelled, I wouldn't have been able to justify voting for a rule that did so, because, ultimately, it's not about my convenience only up to the point that my convenience starts fucking over people who don't really deserve to be fucked over. On the other hand, if there were a rule which made it so that if you did very poorly in a class (squeaked by, say) in, say, Grade 9, then in Grade 10 you'd have to drop down to an easier level or appeal to the school and actually show what would be different the next time, then I could totally justify voting for such a thing, because I think it would actually improve matters even if it also makes me happier. I don't think voting for something that doesn't have any effect on one's sphere of existence in any way, shape or form, and which screws over other people solely for the sake of one's own personal validation, is never justified. It would be one thing if people who think gay marriage is sinful were being told that they weren't allowed to refuse an invitation to a gay wedding, or if their churches were being forced to marry same-sex couples. But they're not. It's a question of whether my personal feelings about a particular category of people enjoying the same benefits I do in a functionally equivalent relationship is enough to prevent that group from enjoying those benefits in the absence of any other reason to prevent them. I'd argue that it isn't. There are people who take offense to immigrants being called "Americans," or to women being in politics. Those people are entitled to take offense to those things. But until they can give something other than their personal desire to not be in the same category as someone else in defense of such positions, we are obliged to refrain from making laws enforcing their view. In general, though, I don't think happiness is a good justification for voting if happiness = pleasure. In my mind, authentic happiness requires sound moral principles (in a sort of Aristotelian understanding, I guess). But don't I have the right to pursue my own happiness? Yes such a vote can be self-serving, but so can all kinds of votes, and we don't ban people from public votes over conflicts of interest. I mean, same sex couples have the right to vote for same sex marriage out of pure self-interest, right? if your right to pursue happiness is in conflict with the fundamentel right of others, then no, you should not necessarily be able to exercise this "right".
Well that certainly makes sense, but who gets to decide what the fundamental rights are?
On July 22 2013 09:53 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 22 2013 09:32 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 09:17 Stratos_speAr wrote:On July 22 2013 09:06 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On July 22 2013 08:53 Shiori wrote:Like what about banning sidewalk panhandling (or soemthing similar)? I don't really know anything about laws against sidewalk panhandling. My cursory Googling of it suggests that the rationale is derived from sidewalks being public property and from the presence of panhandlers serving as an impediment to people trying to travel down said sidewalk. Since the property is owned by the state, for the express purpose of traveling, they can very reasonably seek to limit obstacles on said sidewalks. But then, I don't really know much about these laws, so this is just a speculation. What about gun control? I was under the impression that most people argue in favour/against of gun control on the grounds that it poses either a greater or lesser threat to the safety of individuals to have/lack it. In that respect, if it can be shown that permitting people to have guns is unnecessary AND that it puts others at serious risk, then that seems like a good reason not to have them; on the other side of things, if it can be shown that having guns is plausibly necessary and that having them doesn't affect the general safety of the public, then gun control is not justified. I have no idea what Dogville is ><. Dogville is a great artsy date movie Well, is voting for something because you think it will make you happy valid or not? Yes, sidewalk panhandling is banned for a variety of reasons. But so what? As long as those reasons are valid the law is the law. So if happiness is a valid reason for voting a certain way than the law should be the law. No. When you vote on a particular law or representative, you are voting to either give someone the ability to use coercive force on other citizens or voting to directly use coercive force on other citizens. Because of this, you should have a moral obligation to not vote for "what makes you happy", but instead "what respects everyone's rights/what is good for the whole" (which is, of course, vague, but you get the gist of what I mean). You may not like gay marriage/consensual incest/prostitution, but all of these relationships are done by consenting adults, so when you vote against them, unless you have clear evidence that any of these acts somehow raise crime or otherwise directly harm society, you are merely restricting the rights of others to make yourself feel better, and that is simply immoral and selfish. On July 22 2013 09:18 Shiori wrote:Well, is voting for something because you think it will make you happy valid or not? Yes, sidewalk panhandling is banned for a variety of reasons. But so what? As long as those reasons are valid the law is the law. So if happiness is a valid reason for voting a certain way than the law should be the law. Depends what you mean by "happy." The happiness has to be contained within my person, and it has to be regulated by my sense of morality. While it would have made me very, very happy to have the more obnoxious/disruptive/untalented students in my highschool calculus class expelled, I wouldn't have been able to justify voting for a rule that did so, because, ultimately, it's not about my convenience only up to the point that my convenience starts fucking over people who don't really deserve to be fucked over. On the other hand, if there were a rule which made it so that if you did very poorly in a class (squeaked by, say) in, say, Grade 9, then in Grade 10 you'd have to drop down to an easier level or appeal to the school and actually show what would be different the next time, then I could totally justify voting for such a thing, because I think it would actually improve matters even if it also makes me happier. I don't think voting for something that doesn't have any effect on one's sphere of existence in any way, shape or form, and which screws over other people solely for the sake of one's own personal validation, is never justified. It would be one thing if people who think gay marriage is sinful were being told that they weren't allowed to refuse an invitation to a gay wedding, or if their churches were being forced to marry same-sex couples. But they're not. It's a question of whether my personal feelings about a particular category of people enjoying the same benefits I do in a functionally equivalent relationship is enough to prevent that group from enjoying those benefits in the absence of any other reason to prevent them. I'd argue that it isn't. There are people who take offense to immigrants being called "Americans," or to women being in politics. Those people are entitled to take offense to those things. But until they can give something other than their personal desire to not be in the same category as someone else in defense of such positions, we are obliged to refrain from making laws enforcing their view. In general, though, I don't think happiness is a good justification for voting if happiness = pleasure. In my mind, authentic happiness requires sound moral principles (in a sort of Aristotelian understanding, I guess). But don't I have the right to pursue my own happiness? Yes such a vote can be self-serving, but so can all kinds of votes, and we don't ban people from public votes over conflicts of interest. I mean, same sex couples have the right to vote for same sex marriage out of pure self-interest, right? If it helps you but doesn't hurt anyone, then you can do whatever. Even though that's not ideal reasoning for lawmaking.
I think you are underestimating how important something like happiness is.
But let me try a different route. I want to kick a puppy. Why should the law tell me I can't? Because it's immoral? Why should the law tell me what I cannot do with my own foot when it doesn't hurt another person.
|
WASHINGTON — Drawing renewed attention to the economy, President Barack Obama will return this week to an Illinois college where he once spelled out a vision for an expanded and strengthened middle class as a freshman U.S. senator, long before the Great Recession would test his presidency.
The address Wednesday at Knox College in Galesburg, Ill., will be the first in a new series of economic speeches that White House aides say Obama intends to deliver over the next several weeks ahead of key budget deadlines in the fall. A new fiscal year begins in October, and the government will soon hit its borrowing limit.
The speech comes just a week before Congress is scheduled to leave for its monthlong August recess and is designed to build public pressure on lawmakers in hopes of averting the showdowns over taxes and spending that have characterized past budget debates.
In his economic pitch, Obama will talk about efforts to expand manufacturing, sign up the uninsured for health care coverage, revitalize the housing industry and broaden educational opportunities for preschoolers and college students. He will also promote the economic benefits of an immigration overhaul.
The White House is promoting the speech as part of an arc of economic messages from the president that began at Knox College in 2005, when Obama was in his first year in the Senate. Since then, Obama has sought to raise the profile of his economic agenda with periodic speeches, including one at Georgetown University in Washington in 2009 and one in Osawatomie, Kan., in 2011. The White House posted a video highlighting Obama's previous economic addresses.
The president will also speak Wednesday at the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg, Mo.
Source
|
But let me try a different route. I want to kick a puppy. Why should the law tell me I can't? Because it's immoral? Why should the law tell me what I cannot do with my own foot when it doesn't hurt another person.
Given that animals are sentient, it seems that we should avoid inflicting pain on them for no particular reason. I'm not much of an animal rights guy, though, so I'm not exactly going to be advocating jail time for kicking puppies.
I think you're equivocating between happiness and transitory pleasure. Regardless, you are entitled to some level of security and respect; if you feel pleasure from inflicting pain on others, then you're out of luck, because we take it as axiomatic that every person has a fundamental right to life, which then extends to a right of relational liberty. In that respect, you can do whatever you want until it starts screwing with someone else's rights.
All that aside, though, people aren't voting against same-sex marriage because it makes them "happy." They're making a categorical moral assertion as to its objective wrongness. That means that other people should be able to evaluate their arguments, since they themselves are asserting that it's not a matter of subjective feeling.
who gets to decide what the fundamental rights are?
Nobody really disagrees very much on what the fundamental rights are. They disagree on what these fundamental rights imply.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
i'm just waiting for someone to troll scalia thomas etc by offering this scenario:
Le Sacred Founding Fathers repudiates originalism
as an organicly certified originalist, what do.
it will be called the great scalia paradox
|
On July 22 2013 08:53 Shiori wrote:I don't really know anything about laws against sidewalk panhandling. My cursory Googling of it suggests that the rationale is derived from sidewalks being public property and from the presence of panhandlers serving as an impediment to people trying to travel down said sidewalk. Since the property is owned by the state, for the express purpose of traveling, they can very reasonably seek to limit obstacles on said sidewalks. But then, I don't really know much about these laws, so this is just a speculation. I was under the impression that most people argue in favour/against of gun control on the grounds that it poses either a greater or lesser threat to the safety of individuals to have/lack it. In that respect, if it can be shown that permitting people to have guns is unnecessary AND that it puts others at serious risk, then that seems like a good reason not to have them; on the other side of things, if it can be shown that having guns is plausibly necessary and that having them doesn't affect the general safety of the public, then gun control is not justified. I have no idea what Dogville is ><. Show nested quote +Try on ... what society defines as a marriage and as something else is the topic of legislation and not the courts. Should an injured party try his case arguing that he/she was prevented from contractual benefits, welfare benefits, or something else, they may make their case but this is not the case tried before the supreme court (Windsor won her case) (Scalia and Thomas/Roberts). Heck, the federal government passed an Act requiring Utah to change its marriage laws (permitting polygamous marriages or plural marriages) in order to join the Union.
I'm arguing that when such definitions cease to be mere preference for definitions and become very real factors in social mobility, economic security, and the perceived legitimacy of a particular group, legislation isn't going to fix things because a large (perhaps even majority) number of voters being bigoted is the problem. The court, in my estimation, owes it to society to look critically at laws which have exclusionary criteria as a matter of arbitrariness/tradition rather than integral function, which are administered by and acknowledged by the state, and when there is an obvious danger of the legislative process of these laws being founded not on any particular desire for benefit to society qua society, but on an ideological, possibly religiously motivated basis. The crux here is that marriage isn't just something churches do. The state also offers marriages. If gay people want them, it's on the state to give them a good reason as to why they shouldn't be allowed to have them. Tradition isn't a good reason, on its own. Show nested quote +For a slightly federalist angle, maybe if states cannot establish laws on traditional moral or sexual norms (see laws on no-fault divorce, polygamy, alcohol consumption), how can they have laws on incest, prostitution, adultery, fornication, bestiality, obscenity (eg. child porn) and the rest. Majority depriving the minority of their rights to all these and more. I find a lot of hand waving with the homosexual rights crowd ... this is a right and that's not because uhh equality ... this can be a law and that can't because this prevailing sentiment "everyone knows" morality ... What rights versus equality situations are you talking about? As to the things you mentioned: 1) Incest should absolutely be legal, provided both parties are consenting adults. 2) Prostitution should also be legal, provided it functions like any other profession, and provided the clients and workers are consenting adults. 3) The state should not concern itself with adultery. 4) The state should not concern itself with fornication 5) Bestiality is banned based on a perceived lack of consent on the part of the animal, which makes it a sort of animal cruelty. Whether or not it's true doesn't change that the actual justification is based on consent rather than "ew factor." 6) Child porn is tricky. I'm rather undecided as to whether it should be illegal to see, view, or download child pornography, unless it can be shown that one intends to traffic, market, profit, promote, or otherwise create a larger market for it. It should, of course, be illegal to make and sell on the grounds that minors cannot consent. I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here. None of the things mentioned have anything to do with "traditional moral or sexual norms" except incidentally. What matters isn't that the conclusion is in keeping with a particular traditional norm, but that the justification is independent of such things. The reason, say, statutory rape, is illegal is because of our laws concerning sexual consent viz. our understanding of psychology and the dynamic between adults and kids, particularly in powerful areas of experience like sexuality. Stigma shouldn't be what drives our laws; having actual good reasons that are consistent with our fundamental principles should drive our laws. Show nested quote +I'd just like a little circumspection on what is lawful, should there be some states recognizing incestuous marriages and somebody in Congress proposing DOGMA (New Doma) to say which federal benefits apply or how you file taxes if you got married polygamously/incestuously/common law in one state and moved to another where that is not recognized. Frankly, I've always rather thought fundamental societal cornerstones like marriage should be federal, since human sexual/romantic bonding isn't particularly unique to Texas over Florida. There's no real reason it should mean anything different, tbh.
I'm no fan of restricting marriage, but you can't just say xx should be legal (that is illegal) in a constitutionality argument.
|
On July 22 2013 10:17 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +But let me try a different route. I want to kick a puppy. Why should the law tell me I can't? Because it's immoral? Why should the law tell me what I cannot do with my own foot when it doesn't hurt another person. Given that animals are sentient, it seems that we should avoid inflicting pain on them for no particular reason. I'm not much of an animal rights guy, though, so I'm not exactly going to be advocating jail time for kicking puppies. I think you're equivocating between happiness and transitory pleasure. Regardless, you are entitled to some level of security and respect; if you feel pleasure from inflicting pain on others, then you're out of luck, because we take it as axiomatic that every person has a fundamental right to life, which then extends to a right of relational liberty. In that respect, you can do whatever you want until it starts screwing with someone else's rights. All that aside, though, people aren't voting against same-sex marriage because it makes them "happy." They're making a categorical moral assertion as to its objective wrongness. That means that other people should be able to evaluate their arguments, since they themselves are asserting that it's not a matter of subjective feeling.
My original statement assumed that could be used as a reasonable proxy for happiness. Is that wrong? If so we can end my argument right there. But I think, ultimately, that if you vote for something you think that the thing in question is good, and therefore seeing it pass will make you happy.
Nobody really disagrees very much on what the fundamental rights are. They disagree on what these fundamental rights imply.
I'm not sure what the distinction there is...
|
My original statement assumed that could be used as a reasonable proxy for happiness. Is that wrong? If so we can end my argument right there. But I think, ultimately, that if you vote for something you think that the thing in question is good, and therefore seeing it pass will make you happy.
The problem is that when one says "I want to do X because it makes me happy" they mean it makes them experience pleasure, or comfort, or some positive emotion that is, generally, self-oriented. If you vote for something that affects, say, illegal immigrants, it makes you "happy" in the sense that you know you did the right thing, but not in the sense that you're doing it because you wish to experience happiness and are therefore chasing it like some sort of drug.
I'm not sure what the distinction there is...
Everyone agrees that people have a fundamental right to life. Not everyone agrees as to whether, say, sentencing murderers to death, is forbidden or prescribed by that general axiom.
|
I'm arguing that when such definitions cease to be mere preference for definitions and become very real factors in social mobility, economic security, and the perceived legitimacy of a particular group, legislation isn't going to fix things because a large (perhaps even majority) number of voters being bigoted is the problem. The court, in my estimation, owes it to society to look critically at laws which have exclusionary criteria as a matter of arbitrariness/tradition rather than integral function, which are administered by and acknowledged by the state, and when there is an obvious danger of the legislative process of these laws being founded not on any particular desire for benefit to society qua society, but on an ideological, possibly religiously motivated basis. The crux here is that marriage isn't just something churches do. The state also offers marriages. If gay people want them, it's on the state to give them a good reason as to why they shouldn't be allowed to have them. Tradition isn't a good reason, on its own.
I'm supposed to trust you, a very rationale adult, to be God and King of which definitions are preferences and which are real factors, the President of which definitions affect or don't affect group legitimacy, social mobility, and economic security. Those must be wrested from legislatures and laid at the feat of the Supreme Court they appoint justices on.
Great. I'm a big fan of rule by the minority with the expressed goodwill of finding out what times the majority are right, which times it doesn't really matter one way or another, and which times the majority are utterly, cruely wrong. Well, because a large (perhaps even majority) number of voters being bigoted is the problem.
Heck, I really like pointing out that your opponents are bigoted. Objective fact, am I right? Not only are they bigoted, they're in the majority, and it is up to your minority to force your will on the majority until they either become unbigoted are die. A government by the minority, of the minority, and for Everyone! Where do I get in line to vote on the morality czar, or court ... or is this one appointed by another court?
We can't trust bigoted people to vote in this new power to govern society on their behalf. Would you like the current supreme court, maybe the current faculty of Harvard, or Obama to do this? I mean, the current courts are merely appointees by those in political power ... or can we trust a majority of those in political power to appoint fair courts to do it's owed good? I mean, a large (perhaps even majority) number of voters being bigoted is the problem. . So I'd like your angels sent from above to "look critically at laws" and decide what qualifies as "exclusionary criteria." Please, on such diverse topics as recent California decisions to allow gender questioning elementary and high school students to choose the bathrooms and sports teams of their choice. I've seen a lot of 5-4 decisions lately on this nation's supreme court. Does that mean you have a great reserve of trust in that last guy? I mean, you criticize the arbitrary nature of laws, how is your way any better and less arbitrary? I wonder if the second you put on black robes and swear on your chest you leave the realm of people appointed by politically elected people appointed by possibly bigoted others? You are too willing to deprive topics from the realm of legislation by representatives of the people vulnerable to ousting.
The court, in my estimation, owes it to society to look critically at laws which have exclusionary criteria as a matter of arbitrariness/tradition rather than integral function, which are administered by and acknowledged by the state, and when there is an obvious danger of the legislative process of these laws being founded not on any particular desire for benefit to society qua society, but on an ideological, possibly religiously motivated basis. The crux here is that marriage isn't just something churches do. The state also offers marriages. If gay people want them, it's on the state to give them a good reason as to why they shouldn't be allowed to have them. Tradition isn't a good reason, on its own.
Already having covered what I find objectionable at your court's burdens, let me cover the rest of this. You simply make the case that the legislative process of these laws must serve society. Who decides whether your 9 member panel (or another number) is making a decision that benefits society or is making its decisions on religious bases. Courts have previously held that slavery is just fine, separate schools and bathrooms is peachy, and dismissed lawsuits from minorities. They stand no morally greater than a legislature, only less likely to leave before extreme age and less accountable for their actions. Roberts was troubled about whether Congress's penalty sold as a penalty could be interpreted as a tax for the power question and a penalty for purposes of the anti-injunction act and its reported he reversed opinion very near to the ruling. You're just fine defeating that act of Congress on one man? A government by the people is not served by relegating increased power to an elected for life branch in social issues to decide what's good for society. It must weigh it against an agreed upon rubric of measure passed by the people (Its representatives in the states signed on to the Constitution). Furthermore, you are no less in danger of a tyranny of one minority against others, as the broad power to decide how to fulfill its duty owed to society is not subject to anything besides their own conscience.
Secondly, I don't know where you're coming from to say, "If gay people want them, it's on the state to give them a good reason as to why they shouldn't be allowed to have them." Who determines what a good reason is? You've already ruled out polling, and by proxy, the people's representatives in state and federal systems. A majority of Californians voted that having marriage defined as a man-woman marriage, and presumably they can't be trusted to say they had a good reason. How do you appoint individuals that aren't elected politicians in legislatures to determine what good reasons exist to deny petitions? Can a 14 year old petition the courts instead of trying to petition elected politicians that his 13 year old lover can marry him and have kids? How about his dad or mom in an incestuous marriage?
Show nested quote +For a slightly federalist angle, maybe if states cannot establish laws on traditional moral or sexual norms (see laws on no-fault divorce, polygamy, alcohol consumption), how can they have laws on incest, prostitution, adultery, fornication, bestiality, obscenity (eg. child porn) and the rest. Majority depriving the minority of their rights to all these and more. I find a lot of hand waving with the homosexual rights crowd ... this is a right and that's not because uhh equality ... this can be a law and that can't because this prevailing sentiment "everyone knows" morality ... What rights versus equality situations are you talking about? As to the things you mentioned: 1) Incest should absolutely be legal, provided both parties are consenting adults. 2) Prostitution should also be legal, provided it functions like any other profession, and provided the clients and workers are consenting adults. 3) The state should not concern itself with adultery. 4) The state should not concern itself with fornication 5) Bestiality is banned based on a perceived lack of consent on the part of the animal, which makes it a sort of animal cruelty. Whether or not it's true doesn't change that the actual justification is based on consent rather than "ew factor." 6) Child porn is tricky. I'm rather undecided as to whether it should be illegal to see, view, or download child pornography, unless it can be shown that one intends to traffic, market, profit, promote, or otherwise create a larger market for it. It should, of course, be illegal to make and sell on the grounds that minors cannot consent.
I see you failed to get my point. Please do me the honor of looking at
For a slightly federalist angle, maybe if states cannot establish laws on traditional moral or sexual norms (see laws on no-fault divorce, polygamy, alcohol consumption), how can they have laws on incest, prostitution, adultery, fornication, bestiality, obscenity (eg. child porn) and the rest.
States already are heavily involved in perpetuating traditional and sexual norms. They don't commission studies to see what was a fundamentally good thing for a society, or just grew up in tradition, or whether that tradition was or wasn't rooted in sexism or anything else. They set laws legal marriage ages, they determine that polygamy is illegal, that the alcohol age is this or that. This is historical fact and the present way of doing business. Yet when we get to your "court owes" areas, you arbitrarily decide that that is the point where we wrest that power away from legislatures and hand it to the courts and the courts only. You say incest should be legal, and should the legislature decide that, the courts, or you in a written letter to the governor? I mean, I don't see the supreme court or circuit courts of appeals hearing incest cases and ruling in favor? Or rather, should a vocal minority of activists get the right to decide which social issue the court decides which way when.
You pick up the yardstick and put gay marriage on one side and the rest on the other. You apparently know when definitions go too far, but have no clue why the solution is court judgement and not legislative judgment. Granted, I'd like your judicial angels to go out and organize society for us. I'd be by your side firing the legislature, since why could representatives from bigots be trusted to write tax law or foreign policy? You still do not know why incest should be legal, prostitution should be legal, gay marriage should be legal, but the state shouldn't be in the business of adultery, fornication, bestiality. All these things the courts owe society are in no way guaranteed to do society good, and likewise the Congress. Removing laws from the people's representatives and giving them to the courts is no way to preserve minority rights, only the courts deciding cases on the basis of a people's Constitution will keep it a Democracy and not an oligarchy.
I'm arguing that when such definitions cease to be mere preference for definitions and become very real factors in social mobility, economic security, and the perceived legitimacy of a particular group, legislation isn't going to fix things because a large (perhaps even majority) number of voters being bigoted is the problem. The court, in my estimation, owes it to society to look critically at laws which have exclusionary criteria as a matter of arbitrariness/tradition rather than integral function, which are administered by and acknowledged by the state, and when there is an obvious danger of the legislative process of these laws being founded not on any particular desire for benefit to society qua society, but on an ideological, possibly religiously motivated basis.
The more I look back on this the more I think you're trolling me. The Congress passes the law, the President signs the law, and he sends it over to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court looks to see if it affects social mobility, economic security, or perceived legitimacy of any group, and then sees if it contains any exclusionary criteria that might be arbitrary or part of tradition rather than integral function, and then votes it into the books. The court owes it to society to look at laws and its measure of estimation is solely whether they think it was written to benefit society? God, check those atheist/agnostic cards from the judges at the court steps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
