EPTProp 8 Passes/Overturned - California Bans/Unbans Gay Marr…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Superiorwolf
United States5509 Posts
| ||
|
Melancholia
United States717 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:30 Captain Peabody wrote: If the appeal does eventually make it to the Supreme Court, it's very likely to be overturned, I think...and rightly. I don't have time for a full response (at work), but saying that it's equal treatment to allow both those who are and are not attracted to the opposite sex to marry only the opposite sex isn't necessarily accurate. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:37 kzn wrote: 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. Gattaca much? Let's forbid people with myopia from marrying as well, perhaps? | ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:40 kzn wrote: Most definitely. A great deal has been done wrong with the institution of marriage already. I'd be confident we could work this one out, were we politicians. Could go down in history books; conservative and left-wing anarchist solve a problem together! | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:45 Elegy wrote: Gattaca much? Let's forbid people with myopia from marrying as well, perhaps? Again, why not? You have yet to present me with an argument. All you're doing is creating a slippery slope hypothesis without even defending the implicit claim that the bottom of that slope is somehow bad. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:47 Romantic wrote: I'd be confident we could work this one out, were we politicians. Could go down in history books; conservative and left-wing anarchist solve a problem together! I'm pretty much a right-wing anarchist so it probably wouldn't be that groundbreaking :p | ||
|
Chriamon
United States886 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:49 kzn wrote: Again, why not? You have yet to present me with an argument. All you're doing is creating a slippery slope hypothesis without even defending the implicit claim that the bottom of that slope is somehow bad. What if those in power decide that blacks cannot marry because they don't want sickle cell to pass on? Or perhaps jews shouldn't marry because of Tay-Sachs and cystic fibrosis. | ||
|
DoctorHelvetica
United States15034 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:30 kzn wrote: 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? It doesn't make any sense. People who are sterile will have relationships and sex regardless of whether they can be married or not. To not allow them marriage is just adding insult to injury. How can disallowing marriage for people unable to biologically procreate possibly improve our society? | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:56 Chriamon wrote: What if those in power decide that blacks cannot marry because they don't want sickle cell to pass on? Or perhaps jews shouldn't marry because of Tay-Sachs. Then the constitution would overturn it. Unless those in power had popular support in making that decision, in which case, again, why not? If it passed, the constitution could say "all blacks are to be shot on sight". There is nothing to prevent this except the votes of the people. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:56 Chriamon wrote: What if those in power decide that blacks cannot marry because they don't want sickle cell to pass on? Or perhaps jews shouldn't marry because of Tay-Sachs and cystic fibrosis. Jews actually have a foundation to screen for the recessive Tay-Sachs (in New York, no less) so that despite inbreeding they avoid passing on double negatives. So yeah, they do that. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:56 DoctorHelvetica wrote: It doesn't make any sense. People who are sterile will have relationships and sex regardless of whether they can be married or not. To not allow them marriage is just adding insult to injury. How can disallowing marriage for people unable to biologically procreate possibly improve our society? I think you're conflating the symbolic institution with the government institution. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
Someone failed basic applied ethics in university, I guess. So in your world, anyone not genetically perfect would be unable to marry? How about reproduce? Would the state forbid the procreation of people with severe genetic disorders? A strong argument can be made for limiting the reproduction of people who carry, say, Huntington's, or Tay-Sachs. But if these severely debilitating diseases are forbidden, how does one draw the line? Is making the reproduction of people who suffer from myopia ethically right? Is it moral to forbid them from the ultimate expression of humanity so their children won't have to wear glasses or contacts? Is that justified in any sense? What's the purpose of denying them to ability to reproduce? Not to mention the ASTOUNDING issues that accompany this. Who pays for genetic testing? Who decides what a disease is? Is homosexuality a disease? According to DSM years ago, it was. Now, it isn't. As much as we'd like to think it is, science is many times NOT objective, especially with regards to how strongly culture influences the perception of disease, mental illness being a HUGE one here. So if you can pay for genetic testing and you clear out, get a clean report card, you can then reproduce. okay, that sounds good. What about the guy next door who can't afford it but is also likely to have a clean genetic report card? There are so many flaws in the maximalist view of eugenics that its beyond the scope of a single post to even bother mentioning them all. Here's another one. What's the point in forbidding people with myopia to reproduce? It's to provide for a better quality of life for their children/potential children, surely. It's so the people that come into the world don't have drawbacks that could have prevented them from being born in the first place. But that's moronic, because there are countless examples of people with severe genetic drawbacks that have lived much more fulfilling and able lives than many of the people who post on this forum and play SC all day. It sounds like this kzn character is your typical right-wing anarchist who has no idea what the world "realism" means, not to mention the ludicrous contradictions in his arguments in this thread compared to his self-avowed anarchist views. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:00 Elegy wrote: Someone failed basic applied ethics in university, I guess. >He thinks ethics are objective So in your world, anyone not genetically perfect would be unable to marry? How about reproduce? Would the state forbid the procreation of people with severe genetic disorders? This isn't an issue of "my world". Everything you have suggested could come to pass in the US that you know and love. It could happen in any democratic society on the planet, if the people wanted it to. [edit] aaaaand the required ad hominem and failure of reading comprehension: It sounds like this kzn character is your typical right-wing anarchist who has no idea what the world "realism" means, not to mention the ludicrous contradictions in his arguments in this thread compared to his self-avowed anarchist views. | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:02 kzn wrote: >He thinks ethics are objective This isn't an issue of "my world". Everything you have suggested could come to pass in the US that you know and love. It could happen in any democratic society on the planet, if the people wanted it to. [edit] aaaaand the required ad hominem and failure of reading comprehension: Just because it "could" happen doesn't mean it should happen, you're not responsive at all to his point. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:04 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Just because it "could" happen doesn't mean it should happen, you're not responsive at all to his point. I'm not responsive to it because he's proving my point with it. I have been saying this whole time that almost this entire argument turns on issues of opinion that are intractable to reasoned argument. He is proving this by talking about what "should" happen, which is precisely that kind of opinion. There is no such thing as what "should" happen. Thats an opinion you hold, one which you cannot defend logically against all alternatives to any reasonable standard. | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On August 05 2010 10:17 keV. wrote: From the tone of your post I would gather that you see polygamists are irrational people. That is an interesting example, considering that Mormons were the largest contributors (by millions) to proposition 8. Its plenty rational for a successful alpha male or female to want to enter into stable relationships with groups of the opposite sex. I do, however, have a problem with the concept that society as a whole can accept such a situation for the moment: doing so typically leaves many young men without any potential mates, which partially explains why extremism is so easy to foster in countries that by most metrics are modern, but practice polygamy. Increased sexual competition leads to higher rates of violence and crime as well, and promotes alternative reproduction strategies like rape. But that's kinda irrelevant, its just to show that logically, the majority of our social movements are not followed as they are set out; they're just pieces of a large cultural tapestry which defines what we consider life in society to be. | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
On August 05 2010 11:08 kzn wrote: I'm not responsive to it because he's proving my point with it. I have been saying this whole time that almost this entire argument turns on issues of opinion that are intractable to reasoned argument. He is proving this by talking about what "should" happen, which is precisely that kind of opinion. There is no such thing as what "should" happen. Thats an opinion you hold, one which you cannot defend logically against all alternatives to any reasonable standard. Moral skepticism sure is lovely. Except "any reasonable standard" is precisely our evaluative mechanism for determining norms of what "ought" or "should" be the case; ie we give reasoned statements supporting our moral claims. The anti-prop 8 sentiment is one based off the natural concepts of equitable persons. See Kant or Cummiskey if you want to see a more fleshed out rationalization for those claims. | ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
There is no such thing as what "should" happen. Thats an opinion you hold, one which you cannot defend logically against all alternatives to any reasonable standard. Wrong again, but you get points for trying. I remember an earlier thread about collateral damage in which I soundly disproved everything kzn said with clear logic, but he conveniently ignored it and instead tried to dispute it on some pathetic ground of definition, something I again disproved and he ignored. I think the best way to "argue" with him is in the same manner, simply by saying something is wrong and then not justifying it, maybe throwing in an incorrectly-used logical fallacy (or correctly used, yet still completely irrelevant to the issue at hand) | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
and LOL @ People holding their opinions as beliefs. Petty. | ||
|
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
| ||
| ||
