|
United States22883 Posts
On August 05 2010 12:25 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. The only difference between a republic and a direct democracy is that a republic is composed of direct democracies. If the people are unfit to make legislation, democratic government of any kind will inevitably fail. Hardly true at all. You can be fit to choose legislators without actually being able to legislate. That's like saying the GM of a basketball team must be equally capable as the players he signs, in order to properly identify their talent.
[edit] Granted that it sounds like you're supporting a form of republicanism which basically hands dictatorial power to an unelected branch of government, so it wouldn't fail in that case.
I understand the value of bureaucracy. At times unelected power is troubling, but at times it's also what's best. The same is true for elected officials.
|
On August 05 2010 07:27 koOl wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:24 L wrote:On August 05 2010 07:19 TOloseGT wrote:
Abortion and gay marriage do not follow the same vein, so I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion of limiting the rights of a minority group. How don't they? There's social utility in being able to kill pre-birth children, which is the only reason its tolerable. The question in the current instance then because whether or not restricting marriage to heterosexual couples has a social utility, which is quite debatable from both sides. because the rights of a freaking potato dont matter
hahaha post of the century. I just hope the pro-life freaks don't try to ban jacking off on the grounds that killing sperm that never had a chance to find and egg kills human life. I would be a very sad panda 
|
On August 05 2010 12:44 LF9 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:27 koOl wrote:On August 05 2010 07:24 L wrote:On August 05 2010 07:19 TOloseGT wrote:
Abortion and gay marriage do not follow the same vein, so I don't see how that's relevant to the discussion of limiting the rights of a minority group. How don't they? There's social utility in being able to kill pre-birth children, which is the only reason its tolerable. The question in the current instance then because whether or not restricting marriage to heterosexual couples has a social utility, which is quite debatable from both sides. because the rights of a freaking potato dont matter hahaha post of the century. I just hope the pro-life freaks don't try to ban jacking off on the grounds that killing sperm that never had a chance to find and egg kills human life. I would be a very sad panda
Why stop there! Going into the sun kills skin cells. ALWAYS WEAR A BURQA.
|
well im glad this passed but the first thing that came to my mind was that goddamn auto tune the news song -.-'' stuck in my head
|
On August 05 2010 10:23 ghrur wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 10:11 kzn wrote: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.
I should also point out that divorce and remarriage happens. Divorce creates instability in the household, but we allow couples to remarry and have non-biological parents look after children. So marriage isn't about a couple creating a child.
|
On November 05 2008 05:35 micronesia wrote:
I'm not even up on the issue, but based on what you said, I'm concerned that marriage is considered an issue of religion even though it has many legal ramifications (taxation, etc)
These concerns are well founded. Marriage is an issue of religion -- for both sides.
|
On August 05 2010 13:41 Mortality wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 05:35 micronesia wrote:
I'm not even up on the issue, but based on what you said, I'm concerned that marriage is considered an issue of religion even though it has many legal ramifications (taxation, etc) These concerns are well founded. Marriage is an issue of religion -- for both sides.
?
People with no religion get married. I am a person with no religion who supports gay marriage (or, more accurately, elimination of government marriage, but greater equity is the next best thing). Unless you're pulling that tiresome "LOLZ all beliefs are religion" rhetorical game, I don't understand what you mean.
|
On August 05 2010 13:41 Mortality wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 05:35 micronesia wrote:
I'm not even up on the issue, but based on what you said, I'm concerned that marriage is considered an issue of religion even though it has many legal ramifications (taxation, etc) These concerns are well founded. Marriage is an issue of religion -- for both sides.
Marriage is not a religious thing, sorry. It's a state thing. When they provide rights to certain people, its a STATE thing. I refuse to believe christianity or any other stuff gives me my rights, its the state, not some church.
|
Mystlord
United States10264 Posts
On August 05 2010 13:41 Mortality wrote:Show nested quote +On November 05 2008 05:35 micronesia wrote:
I'm not even up on the issue, but based on what you said, I'm concerned that marriage is considered an issue of religion even though it has many legal ramifications (taxation, etc) These concerns are well founded. Marriage is an issue of religion -- for both sides.
Marriage isn't considered an issue of religion in terms of law. What we're talking about here is completely separate from a "Christian" definition from marriage. It's been established numerous times in US law.
|
On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out.
Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters.
gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others.
Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you.
Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate.
|
I think its silly that religious people are trying to act like they have full jurisdiction over marriage. Marriage may have began religious, but its selfish to say that it isn't all a part of various aspects of culture, too.
A straight couple who isn't religious will want to get married. Why? In addition to all the financial benefits, raising children as two parents with the same last name just feels more right. Additionally, our culture has come to see marriage as a sign of commitment and a celebration of love. Why can't the concept of marriage also be "the property" of other cultures? It just doesn't seem right that religious people seem to want to claim ownership of marriage. It may have originated as a religious ceremony, but its somewhat condescending to say that it isn't just as important of a thing to many non-religious people. Not to mention all the various ways that marriage has changed over the years...
All I'm saying is that religious people need to be willing to share the concept of marriage. They can have their definition of it, but they need to realize that a whole lot of other non-religious people appreciate it just as much, but with a different meaning. Its unfair and ridiculous to act like religious people hold the ownership of marriage.
|
I'm not convinced of the idea that gay marriage doesn't affect me personally. It affects the culture as a whole. The culture as a whole has an effect on me, my kids, my grandkids, and etc. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, it is certainly a tough issue.
|
On August 05 2010 15:09 Mohdoo wrote:
Marriage may have began religious
but it almost certainly did not
|
On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate.
... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin.
As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion.
edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice.
|
On August 05 2010 15:29 d_so wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 14:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:On August 05 2010 12:30 d_so wrote:On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. yes. it's why i fear for california and am happy to have moved out. Every post I have read of your has angered me beyond what words can describe. You attempt to articulate yourself and justify oppressing other human beings. It is honestly one of the most appalling things I have ever read. When I read you talking about the "morality" of the issue it is the most irritating thing. Morality is such a vague personally defined notion that you should not cast onto others. I could hypothetically think its immoral to be black or Jewish, as unreasonable as either of those are. I swear to god, I don't see how you can try to be so rationale in your posts (mainly referring to the 08 ones) and then just ignore it when it matters. gay marriage quite simply does not effect you on a personal level. So its fine. You think its morally wrong, and you can sit in your corner and scuff about that all you want, but you damn sure should never allow your personal beliefs to infringe on the lives of others. Whether its a choice or not is not fucking up to you. Edit: And for the record, Gay marriage does not effect me so I don't really care that much about it because that is only logical. The thing that really pisses me off is such a level of ignorance and intolerance that you and other close minded individuals and institutions perpetuate. ... i'm sorry if the OP made you mad, but the reason I fear for californa is not cuz of gay marriage or even gays, but just the idea that a majority vote is enough to constitute change in laws, otherwise known as the power of the majority. Context yo. Nor do I hate gays; one of my best and closest friends is gay, just because my morals tell me something is wrong doesn't mean it overrules the actual person. You should watch Kenshin. As for morals, I have my own set of morals and you have yours. However, I don't believe my morals should be law. This is why I'm against prop 8 and always have been, as evidenced by the OP; I don't believe my morals supersede others, and it makes no sense to use the law to enforce religion. edit: in other words you've made a strawman, and not once but twice.
Are you trying to argue that if a bunch of people agree on the same injustice that it makes it alright? That doesn't seem fair. That is like saying slavery was alright until the majority decided otherwise. Did I misread what you said? You voiced your opinion and your feeling on morality by decided that your view of right and wrong was more important than another persons freedom? I misread your post. But I will leave my mistake here.
You say you are against prop 8, by that do you mean you are against its existence or you are for gay marriage? From what I can tell its that you are against its existence. However a lot of your posts referred to gay marriage being wrong and shouldn't exist for religious/moral reasons X/Y.
Edit: Rurouni Kenshin? Otherwise I haven't watched any other show with the same character name.
|
On August 05 2010 15:22 StarMasterX wrote:
I'm not convinced of the idea that gay marriage doesn't affect me personally. It affects the culture as a whole. The culture as a whole has an effect on me, my kids, my grandkids, and etc. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, it is certainly a tough issue.
Why shouldn't it affect our culture? Isn't it a positive thing for a culture to teach its people to be accepting of others' lifestyles and to avoid discriminating? Isn't that one of the founding principles of this country?
|
On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:
Majority vote referendums make a mockery out of republicanism.
The judiciary also has a role in protecting minorities. If you truly think majority population votes should be able to establish laws, then women still wouldn't be able to vote, jim crow laws would still exist, etc. The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy.
Yes.
I'm pleased and interested to see where this leads.
|
On August 05 2010 12:25 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 12:16 Jibba wrote:The fact of the matter is that the general population is unfit to make legislation, which is exactly why we have a republic and not a direct democracy. The only difference between a republic and a direct democracy is that a republic is composed of direct democracies. If the people are unfit to make legislation, democratic government of any kind will inevitably fail. [edit] Granted that it sounds like you're supporting a form of republicanism which basically hands dictatorial power to an unelected branch of government, so it wouldn't fail in that case.
You even edited your post and it still doesn't make any goddamn sense.
|
I spent the better part of 2008 and 500$ of my own money fighting to overturn Prop 8. I knocked on doors to tell people why they should not pass Prop. 8, due to it violating the 14th amendment, taking rights away from minorities, and it not even affecting their lives at all. I was called a fag-enabler and every other derogatory name under the sun. I was informed that God's will was immutable and that I was going to hell. I watched and silently raged as millions of dollars flowed into California to support discrimination, some of it from my own family members. I had my election night buzz killed, as a scarce 45 minutes after President Obama was elected, Proposition 8 was declared to be law. I have spent years of my life fighting to prevent this law from passing, and to get it overturned once it did. I watched my friend consider killing herself because she had to cancel her December wedding due to Proposition 8 passing. I have seen the pain on the faces of countless gays and lesbians because they were second-class citizens under state law. I have lost all faith in religion whatsoever, and most of my faith in humanity and it's ability to feel compassion. Throughout this all, I have kept fighting.
Why? I am a straight male, this does not affect me. It would be so easy to give it all up and go play Starcraft 2 until my fingers fell off, or just do anything else. But every time I think of quitting this fight, I remember the pain my close friend went through, all because of discrimination. I remember the pain of our family friends who had to live through the 60s and 70s, all because of discrimination. I remember the pain of the people I worked with today, all because of discrimination. And I keep fighting.
Today has vindicated the last 3 years of my life. You have no idea how fucking happy this makes me.
But the fight isn't over yet.
|
Marriage predates Christianity, and it's a means of identifying which man a woman belongs to. The fact that it takes the form of monogamy in civil societies is simply acknowledging the problem of greed and jealousy - wealthy and powerful men take multiple wives when allowed, while poorer men compete and the losers are jealous. Laws upholding marriage protect the haves from the jealous have-nots. This "man is wolf to man" situation is cleansed by religion's euphemisms of "commitment" and "fidelity," as well as an appeal to "true" love and "deep" partnership.
We do have religion to thank for introducing a metaphysical pain for immorality, but the assumption that MF love is the only moral choice is simply unsound and I can offer counterarguments to this assumption.
I believe in polyamory or nothing at all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
