|
On August 05 2010 10:02 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 10:00 TOloseGT wrote:On August 05 2010 09:56 kzn wrote:On August 05 2010 09:54 FabledIntegral wrote:On August 05 2010 09:53 kzn wrote:On August 05 2010 09:48 neohero9 wrote:On August 05 2010 09:06 Captain Peabody wrote:
The US government has no right under any circumstances to overturn a state constitution, unless it specifically breaks the Bill of Rights. It does. It denies homosexual couples equal protection under federal law. Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that the voter-approved ban, known as Proposition 8, violates due process and equal-protection rights under the U.S. Constitution.
...
"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians. The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples," Walker wrote.
The judge added in the conclusion of the 136-page opinion: "Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." Gigantic win for the proponents of rationality. Well, except for the massive point raised in the OP that marriage isn't a right. Well from what you quoted they never claim it is...? Try again. "Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians." [edit] And I have to laugh at people pretending the Bill of Rights or the Constitution are remotely rational. Is believing marriage is still an "extension of the religious faith" is any more rational? Should atheists be denied marriage on the basis of that? I'm not claiming either side is more "rational" about it. But when there are people on this page who are laughing at the idea that you can legislate morality, and pretending that a claim like what I quoted is grounded in rational thought, I can't help but laugh. There is absolutely nothing rational in 90% of the bullshit that is spouted in support of either side of this argument. Its just people flinging opinions back and forth like monkeys flinging shit. [edit] And given I actually believe marriage, strictly, remains a religious institution - yes, if a church doesn't want to marry atheists, they can go ahead and tell atheists to fuck off. There's this retarded insistence by people to combine the symbolic institution of marriage with the institution that the government creates, when they're not the same thing at all.
If its strictly a religious institution, partnership and ideal, then it shouldn't have certain laws and freedoms attached to it that domestic partnership does not. That's the underlying problem here. By denying marriage to gays, and by not allowing domestic partnerships to enjoy the same legal benefits and standards (or creating some new non-religious legal equivalent of marriage), you're infringing on their rights.
The right to equal protection under law.
|
On August 05 2010 10:17 ghrur wrote:
Now, about that bullshit. It might be opinion, but it's opinion that matters since it usually deals with the opinion of a judge. You might say, THAT'S BULLSHIT! A JUDGE'S OPINION SHOULDN'T MATTER! But a judge's opinion does anyway in our laws as they decide the interpretation of our laws and its constitutionality.
That's not actually a matter of opinion. It's sure turned out that way, mostly because of fucktarded Presidents picking justices who agree with them on "important" issues, but a basic english teacher could do the job of a supreme court justice better than most of those idiots.
The judicial branch was never supposed to involve opinion. It was supposed to involve strict textualist application of the constitution. Opinion has no place in anything where people cant vote.
As for Prop 8's constitutionality, it's currently been deemed unconstitutional. In other words, it violates our 14th amendment of equal protection under the law. This means it's no longer dealing with our "bullshit debates," but rather it's dealing with the laws that could affect the course of a nation.
It might have been deemed as such by a judge (or even by a majority of judges), but they're wrong. This is not a matter of opinion.
And the "shit" being thrown around is rational to the throwers IMO.
Of course it is. Most people think they're above average in intelligence. Most people think most of what they believe is rational, and most of the time, they're wrong.
You can't say what is or isn't rational like it's an objective stance.
I absolutely can.
I can argue whether or not it's rational for Koreans to like SC:BW that much, but I can't argue that I have an opposable thumb.
You can't actually argue the first point either, honestly.
|
On August 05 2010 10:11 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 10:04 slowzerg wrote:On August 05 2010 10:02 kzn wrote:
There is absolutely nothing rational in 90% of the bullshit that is spouted in support of either side of this argument. Its just people flinging opinions back and forth like monkeys flinging shit. Which arguments, specifically, in favor of allowing gay marriage are bullshit? They're overwhelmingly legit aside from a few duds that aren't central to the argument. Well, pretty much every argument that implies gay marriages are or would be identical to straight marriages, in direct contravention of basic facts of biology. "Equal protection under the law" doesn't mean "oh fuck if we give person X right A we have to give person Y right A". It means that the procedure by which we decide to give a person right A must remain the same as it is applied to all people. I've tried this argument before and I just got a bunch of shit flung at me there too but whatever, here we go: Let us assume, for now, that the government offers tax incentives to married couples purely to incentivize marriages, and thus to incentivize childbearing. We can argue about whether or not tax benefits should attach at birth or marriage or whatever, but thats not really relevant. The point is, the government doesn't give a flying fuck if you want to symbolically declare your love for a man, a woman, a cat, or anything else. They only care if it impacts something that matters to them, like the continued existence of a population. So they say "hey, married couples produce more well adjusted children, lets make more people get married by basically giving them money". And behold, we have the government institution of marriage, which has nothing to do with the symbolic institution. Now, gay people come along and demand to be allowed to marry. What are they actually demanding? Two very separate things. They are demanding, perhaps, to be allowed to symbolically declare their love for each other - which is retarded, because they already are allowed to. Thus, what they are in fact demanding is the money attached to the government institution of marriage. In quite strict terms, they haven't even come close to demonstrating they have a "right" to that money. It is quite possible that they do have a right to money, perhaps even an identical amount of money - but it is not known, and it is not obvious.
But your assumption is wrong in this scenario. The government doesn't give tax benefits to incentivize marriage. They do so to make sure the next generation of children grow up in an economically stable household. This helps to ensure that the next generation of children are more productive and psychologically stable, so the nation can continue to grow. Now, if we switch that assumption from:
The government incentivizes marriage to incentivize childbearing
to
The government incentivizes marriage to incentivize stable households for children
and we show that:
gay couples can indeed provide just as stable households without any psychological side-effects
then indeed gay couples should have the same "right" to that money because they can produce the same positive effects as heterosexuals.
|
On August 05 2010 10:20 Bibdy wrote:
If its strictly a religious institution, partnership and ideal, then it shouldn't have certain laws and freedoms attached to it that domestic partnership does not. That's the underlying problem here. By denying marriage to gays, and by not allowing domestic partnerships to enjoy the same legal benefits and standards (or creating some new non-religious legal equivalent of marriage), you're infringing on their rights.
This is precisely why I said it was retarded to conflate the religious institution and the government institution.
But you're still wrong. A domestic partnership does not have any right to the same legal benefits and standards of a marriage by default. The marriage never had a "right" to those benefits either - it gets those benefits because it provides a service to the state. If the domestic partnership provides those services, then it too deserves benefits - but if not, it absolutely does not.
|
On August 05 2010 10:23 ghrur wrote:
But your assumption is wrong in this scenario. The government doesn't give tax benefits to incentivize marriage. They do so to make sure the next generation of children grow up in an economically stable household. This helps to ensure that the next generation of children are more productive and psychologically stable, so the nation can continue to grow. Now, if we switch that assumption from:
The government incentivizes marriage to incentivize childbearing
to
The government incentivizes marriage to incentivize stable households for children
and we show that:
gay couples can indeed provide just as stable households without any psychological side-effects
then indeed gay couples should have the same "right" to that money because they can produce the same positive effects as heterosexuals.
Well, yes, if you show that.
And thats the thing - it hasn't been shown to everyone's satisfaction (certainly not to mine). And when it hasn't been shown, the argument becomes an opinion-flinging contest again, because people are divided on whether to err on the side of "liberty" and give everyone the rights until they are proven not to deserve them versus erring on the side of caution and not giving out rights until they are proven to deserve them.
And they absolutely do want to incentivize childbirth, its just not the only thing they want to incentivize.
|
On August 05 2010 10:27 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 10:23 ghrur wrote:
But your assumption is wrong in this scenario. The government doesn't give tax benefits to incentivize marriage. They do so to make sure the next generation of children grow up in an economically stable household. This helps to ensure that the next generation of children are more productive and psychologically stable, so the nation can continue to grow. Now, if we switch that assumption from:
The government incentivizes marriage to incentivize childbearing
to
The government incentivizes marriage to incentivize stable households for children
and we show that:
gay couples can indeed provide just as stable households without any psychological side-effects
then indeed gay couples should have the same "right" to that money because they can produce the same positive effects as heterosexuals. Well, yes, if you show that. And thats the thing - it hasn't been shown to everyone's satisfaction (certainly not to mine). And when it hasn't been shown, the argument becomes an opinion-flinging contest again, because people are divided on whether to err on the side of "liberty" and give everyone the rights until they are proven not to deserve them versus erring on the side of caution and not giving out rights until they are proven to deserve them. And they absolutely do want to incentivize childbirth, its just not the only thing they want to incentivize.
Should we check to make sure men aren't firing blanks before we let them get married?
|
On August 05 2010 10:23 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 10:17 ghrur wrote:
Now, about that bullshit. It might be opinion, but it's opinion that matters since it usually deals with the opinion of a judge. You might say, THAT'S BULLSHIT! A JUDGE'S OPINION SHOULDN'T MATTER! But a judge's opinion does anyway in our laws as they decide the interpretation of our laws and its constitutionality. That's not actually a matter of opinion. It's sure turned out that way, mostly because of fucktarded Presidents picking justices who agree with them on "important" issues, but a basic english teacher could do the job of a supreme court justice better than most of those idiots. The judicial branch was never supposed to involve opinion. It was supposed to involve strict textualist application of the constitution. Opinion has no place in anything where people cant vote. Show nested quote +As for Prop 8's constitutionality, it's currently been deemed unconstitutional. In other words, it violates our 14th amendment of equal protection under the law. This means it's no longer dealing with our "bullshit debates," but rather it's dealing with the laws that could affect the course of a nation. It might have been deemed as such by a judge (or even by a majority of judges), but they're wrong. This is not a matter of opinion.Of course it is. Most people think they're above average in intelligence. Most people think most of what they believe is rational, and most of the time, they're wrong. I absolutely can. Show nested quote +I can argue whether or not it's rational for Koreans to like SC:BW that much, but I can't argue that I have an opposable thumb. You can't actually argue the first point either, honestly.
Wait, what? I mean the bolded part. How can it not be a matter of opinion? I mean, how do you objectively prove that you are correct and they are wrong without the use of interpretations? I really don't understand what you mean by that part.
And I'd really like you to prove where exactly people are wrong in their rationale. I mean, can you prove that they're irrational? or that their arguments are irrational? Because if so, I'd love to see how you do it.
And yes, yes I can. But I'd rather not argue that here. 
|
On August 05 2010 10:28 Romantic wrote:
Should we check to make sure men aren't firing blanks before we let them get married?
In my opinion? Yes.
But then again, you have to look at whether or not it makes any practical sense to do so. Perhaps the cost of such checks would end up costing more than the "wasted" money lost in benefits to barren marriages.
In which case, again, it becomes a matter of opinion. Do we strictly enforce on principle, or do we enforce with a view to practical concerns?
|
That is completely wrong. I refer you to Article 6 of the Constitution.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Any law of the Federal government created within it's legitimate purview supersedes any state law to the contrary.
Indeed, you are correct, and I should rephrase what I was saying. The Congress has the right to pass a law making gay marriage legal everywhere. However, the courts have no right to nullify a state constitution on grounds of unconstitutionality unless it specifically contradicts the parts of the Constitution that apply to the states. No other part of the Constitution besides the general authority it gives the federal government over state ones, the Bill of Rights (AFTER the Civil War and the 14th amendment extension of these rules to the state governments; before this, state governments were free to not follow the Bill of Rights at all), and some of the later amendments has any bearing on state governments; it all concerns congress and the powers of the Federal Government. So the only way for a court to invalidate a state constitution is for that court to argue that it contradicts these amendments or breaks a federal law; and indeed this is how the court decision was decided. And, again, there is nothing in these amendments that would make homosexual marriage a right.
There is simply no right to marry found in the Constitution.
And denying gay marriage does not involving not giving people equal protection under the law; homosexual persons are still free to enter into marriage contracts with members of the opposite sex, in the same way as anyone else. They are treated the same as anyone else under the law, which is what equality under the law means.
Now, this is not necessarily a condemnation; there are all kinds of things that people do that are not specifically licensed and endorsed by the state...and the state is under no obligation to endorse those things merely because they endorse some other things. The fact that the government does not endorse my status as a steak-lover is not an opprobrium on steak; and if the government were to endorse seafood and give people who ate it special benefits, they would be under no obligation to do the same for me and other beef-eaters. If they did not, this would not mean that I was not receiving equal protection under the law.
If the appeal does eventually make it to the Supreme Court, it's very likely to be overturned, I think...and rightly.
|
On August 05 2010 10:11 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 10:04 slowzerg wrote:On August 05 2010 10:02 kzn wrote:
There is absolutely nothing rational in 90% of the bullshit that is spouted in support of either side of this argument. Its just people flinging opinions back and forth like monkeys flinging shit. Which arguments, specifically, in favor of allowing gay marriage are bullshit? They're overwhelmingly legit aside from a few duds that aren't central to the argument. Well, pretty much every argument that implies gay marriages are or would be identical to straight marriages, in direct contravention of basic facts of biology. "Equal protection under the law" doesn't mean "oh fuck if we give person X right A we have to give person Y right A". It means that the procedure by which we decide to give a person right A must remain the same as it is applied to all people. I've tried this argument before and I just got a bunch of shit flung at me there too but whatever, here we go: Let us assume, for now, that the government offers tax incentives to married couples purely to incentivize marriages, and thus to incentivize childbearing. We can argue about whether or not tax benefits should attach at birth or marriage or whatever, but thats not really relevant. The point is, the government doesn't give a flying fuck if you want to symbolically declare your love for a man, a woman, a cat, or anything else. They only care if it impacts something that matters to them, like the continued existence of a population. So they say "hey, married couples produce more well adjusted children, lets make more people get married by basically giving them money". And behold, we have the government institution of marriage, which has nothing to do with the symbolic institution. Now, gay people come along and demand to be allowed to marry. What are they actually demanding? Two very separate things. They are demanding, perhaps, to be allowed to symbolically declare their love for each other - which is retarded, because they already are allowed to. Thus, what they are in fact demanding is the money attached to the government institution of marriage. In quite strict terms, they haven't even come close to demonstrating they have a "right" to that money. It is quite possible that they do have a right to money, perhaps even an identical amount of money - but it is not known, and it is not obvious.
I'm going to have to reject your assumption (assumptions are the basis of most logical fallacies) that tax incentives for marriage are related to childbirth. It is perfectly OK to have children outside of marriage and not to have children in marriage. There are specific, separate tax breaks regarding children.
Personally, I believe that the incentive of "raising more children" argument for denying gay marriage is ridiculous. First of all, I doubt gay people would have more children anyways if they couldn't get married. Secondly, the world is currently overpopulated and a reduction in population is of superior benefit than an increase in population.
|
On August 05 2010 10:30 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 10:28 Romantic wrote:
Should we check to make sure men aren't firing blanks before we let them get married? In my opinion? Yes. But then again, you have to look at whether or not it makes any practical sense to do so. Perhaps the cost of such checks would end up costing more than the "wasted" money lost in benefits to barren marriages. In which case, again, it becomes a matter of opinion. Do we strictly enforce on principle, or do we enforce with a view to practical concerns?
el oh el.
Why stop there? Let's stop people with easily passable genetic disorders from getting married too.
|
Wait, what? I mean the bolded part. How can it not be a matter of opinion? I mean, how do you objectively prove that you are correct and they are wrong without the use of interpretations? I really don't understand what you mean by that part.
And I'd really like you to prove where exactly people are wrong in their rationale. I mean, can you prove that they're irrational? or that their arguments are irrational? Because if so, I'd love to see how you do it.
And yes, yes I can. But I'd rather not argue that here.
You seem to have no idea what the word interpretation is. Legal documents are designed to be as clear as possible, and are not in general very open to interpretation. But even if they were, some interpretations are objectively wrong, and some objectively correct, or at least closer to correct than others.
Merely because The Cat in the Hat is open to interpretation does not mean that my interpretation that it's really a coded message from aliens is just as good as the one that says its a children's story about a "trickster" cat.
|
On August 05 2010 10:25 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 10:20 Bibdy wrote:
If its strictly a religious institution, partnership and ideal, then it shouldn't have certain laws and freedoms attached to it that domestic partnership does not. That's the underlying problem here. By denying marriage to gays, and by not allowing domestic partnerships to enjoy the same legal benefits and standards (or creating some new non-religious legal equivalent of marriage), you're infringing on their rights. This is precisely why I said it was retarded to conflate the religious institution and the government institution. But you're still wrong. A domestic partnership does not have any right to the same legal benefits and standards of a marriage by default. The marriage never had a "right" to those benefits either - it gets those benefits because it provides a service to the state. If the domestic partnership provides those services, then it too deserves benefits - but if not, it absolutely does not.
So, in essence, it'd be okay to give marriage to gays when it can be proven that marriage, and the phenomenal divorce rate affecting the well-being of children, does more harm than good?
You make it sound like there's some mad scientist at the top spot 'muahahaha'ing over his fantastic system which turns civilization into a giant breeding pot.
|
Wait, what? I mean the bolded part. How can it not be a matter of opinion? I mean, how do you objectively prove that you are correct and they are wrong without the use of interpretations? I really don't understand what you mean by that part.
Because interpretation has no role in the judicial branch. The judicial branch is supposed to strictly apply the letter of the law. If this is unsatisfactory to the people, they can pass a constitutional amendment, which will then itself be strictly applied.
This nonsense that the majority of the justices spout about finding out what was "intended" is ridiculous. That is not their role.
For instance, let us take Roe v Wade. The majority opinion in Roe v Wade suggests that there is such a thing as a "right to privacy" - when no such right appears anywhere in the Constitution. The opinion is, in this case, flat out wrong. Anyone who disagrees with me on this point is also completely wrong. There is no reason there could not be a right to privacy, but until it appears in the Constitution, it does not exist, as far as the judicial branch is concerned.
And I'd really like you to prove where exactly people are wrong in their rationale. I mean, can you prove that they're irrational? or that their arguments are irrational? Because if so, I'd love to see how you do it.
It is quite hard to prove someone is irrational. That was actually my point. Most actions/decisions that appear to be irrational are actually rational, but merely take place on a "weird" utility scale, where certain costs and benefits are weighted differently. You cannot argue that a given utility scale is rational or irrational, its just opinion.
And yes, yes I can. But I'd rather not argue that here.
Nope. Its an issue of utility scales, not rationality.
Rationality is concerned purely with the making of a decision. You can name any possible decision, and I can provide a situation in which it is rational. Decisions cannot be rendered irrational or rational on the basis of the decision alone.
|
On August 05 2010 10:30 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 10:28 Romantic wrote:
Should we check to make sure men aren't firing blanks before we let them get married? In my opinion? Yes. But then again, you have to look at whether or not it makes any practical sense to do so. Perhaps the cost of such checks would end up costing more than the "wasted" money lost in benefits to barren marriages. In which case, again, it becomes a matter of opinion. Do we strictly enforce on principle, or do we enforce with a view to practical concerns?
I must admit that this is one of the most hilarious opinions I've seen in a long while. Carry on.
|
On August 05 2010 10:33 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 10:30 kzn wrote:On August 05 2010 10:28 Romantic wrote:
Should we check to make sure men aren't firing blanks before we let them get married? In my opinion? Yes. But then again, you have to look at whether or not it makes any practical sense to do so. Perhaps the cost of such checks would end up costing more than the "wasted" money lost in benefits to barren marriages. In which case, again, it becomes a matter of opinion. Do we strictly enforce on principle, or do we enforce with a view to practical concerns? el oh el. Why stop there? Let's stop people with easily passable genetic disorders from getting married too.
Why not?
There's nothing that means this couldn't happen in the US (or any other country, for that matter). It is highly unlikely, but there's nothing intrinsically wrong with it.
Its still opinion, and it always will be.
|
On August 05 2010 10:31 sikyon wrote:
Secondly, the world is currently overpopulated and a reduction in population is of superior benefit than an increase in population.
Gonna have to disagree with you completely here, but thats another thread entirely.
|
On August 05 2010 10:30 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 10:28 Romantic wrote:
Should we check to make sure men aren't firing blanks before we let them get married? In my opinion? Yes. But then again, you have to look at whether or not it makes any practical sense to do so. Perhaps the cost of such checks would end up costing more than the "wasted" money lost in benefits to barren marriages. In which case, again, it becomes a matter of opinion. Do we strictly enforce on principle, or do we enforce with a view to practical concerns? Perhaps it would be easier to move around the tax benefits and declare strictly what they are for? I would be very uncomfortable with the privacy violation of fertility\gender checks (though this is necessary if you want to encourage marriage rather than reward it + firmly stop money from being wasted). There are also some privileges that have nothing to do with taxes that are denied, so from my view it is fairly important something be resolved.
|
On August 05 2010 10:33 Captain Peabody wrote:Show nested quote +Wait, what? I mean the bolded part. How can it not be a matter of opinion? I mean, how do you objectively prove that you are correct and they are wrong without the use of interpretations? I really don't understand what you mean by that part.
And I'd really like you to prove where exactly people are wrong in their rationale. I mean, can you prove that they're irrational? or that their arguments are irrational? Because if so, I'd love to see how you do it.
And yes, yes I can. But I'd rather not argue that here. You seem to have no idea what the word interpretation is. Legal documents are designed to be as clear as possible, and are not in general very open to interpretation. But even if they were, some interpretations are objectively wrong, and some objectively correct, or at least closer to correct than others. Merely because The Cat in the Hat is open to interpretation does not mean that my interpretation that it's really a coded message from aliens is just as good as the one that says its a children's story about a "trickster" cat.
I'm sorry, but I don't see what you're last paragraph has to do with our argument. Nor how it proves my understanding of the word "interpretation" is weak. I never stated all interpretations are equal. I simply stated you can't say that a view point is objectively wrong or objectively irrational. If so, please, give me an example of an opinion being objectively wrong. I agree that some are closer to correct than others, especially since many opinions are more valid than others. But that doesn't make them any more objectively right or wrong.
|
On August 05 2010 10:39 Romantic wrote:
Perhaps it would be easier to move around the tax benefits and declare strictly what they are for?
Most definitely. A great deal has been done wrong with the institution of marriage already.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
