|
On August 08 2010 15:03 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 07:09 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 07:06 RivetHead wrote:On August 05 2010 06:36 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:19 synapse wrote:On August 05 2010 06:14 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:10 D10 wrote:On August 05 2010 06:08 Gatsbi wrote:On August 05 2010 06:03 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 05:51 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Prop 8 overturned. - CNN
EDIT:
[quote] Aw man.. I'm a strong supporter of Prop 8  ...Why? He believes in the dictatorship of the majority, and think that the minorities desires should be crushed under popular vote, even if they dont directly affect anyones life but theirs Yes I do. Yes, that too. What is the problem here though? They're just my beliefs, you act like yours are something better, its all an opinion. The problem is that legal gay marriage can be beneficial to many couples for [reason reason reason] and would have no effect on your life, yet you choose to support the banning of gay marriage. Don't you see something wrong here? Again, its an OPINION Ya and you really need to take a look at your opinion. If you believe that if a majority of people in a community/state/nation agree on what is right, than that IS right, then you really need think long and hard what that means in the context of history and the nature of morality. If right and wrong is purely defined by majority rule, than morality becomes irrelevant because we already have laws to do that. Something maybe wrong one year and right the next. Ethically, where does that leave us? With jack shit, that's what. What is morality and ethics if not essentially a majority consensus on an expected norm of beliefs and values? Most people want it both ways. They don't believe in absolute truth, yet they also don't believe the majority is correct. How can both of these be wrong at the same time? This is simple logic. Follow me here: If you believe in absolute truth, then it exists outside of us. It is not an opinion. If you believe there is no absolute truth, then it exists within us - yet no one on earth is really satisfied by this answer! If I came up to you while you were eating an orange and, upon seeing it was already peeled, I decided to take it from you for my own consumption, you would immediately object, either through physical aggression or a statement something along the lines of, "Hey! That's not fair!" So I ask, what makes anything fair? Is the answer within yourself? Which means it would have to be within all of us. Or is it outside yourself? Which means the truth can be obtained, wholly, without taint, somehow. You must first answer this question before you can be for or against this ruling. Otherwise, you're just being dishonest to yourself. And if you agree that absolute truth exists, then there is an answer to whether gay marriage is right or wrong, it is not an opinion. If you do not, however, agree there is an absolute truth, you can no longer argue that gay marriage is the right of anyone, because once again, the majority will determine that for themselves, since the majority is always right. pre-edit: Before someone does, you cannot disagree with what I just said. It is purely logical. If you find yourself disagreeing, you may read it until you understand it.
Without other agents (rational beings) there would be no governing morality beyond your own interests. After all, there would be no external agent towards which you commit actions. However, once other such agents are introduced one naturally creates rules. The rules are mutually beneficial: do not steal my property, do not kill me, etc. Unfortunately, there is not always a benefit to following rules--you just want the other person to follow them. Stealing is beneficial to you, so long as the other does not steal back. Thus, a third party is needed to regulate and fairly adjudicate the rules. HOWEVER: original contracts are not made with the third party (the government) but instead with the rest of society. That is why each person should be guaranteed certain rights--because the original agreement is created to establish principles that help each individual, including equality.
That is my subjective truth conclusion. You'll notice the conclusions may not be identical to yours. That's why it's not true that subjective truth conclusions always listen to the majority. Your fatal assumption is that what the majority believes is always what any subjective truth standard collapses to when that is not necessarily true; as autonomous thinking beings we can reach conclusions independent of the majority.
|
On August 08 2010 16:02 Nogardeci89 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 15:35 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 14:53 Nogardeci89 wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. The reason they are making the comparison is because those against gay marriage are bigots. copy paste wikipedia: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The term has evolved to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion in modern English usage. By your definition, everybody involved is a bigot. The gay rallys outside the churches are all bigots. I don't think we can use that word and get anywhere. Let us just please stop throwing that word around and get back to real discussion. not my definition..wikipedia's plus, ive never heard about a gay rally outside a church? source?
There were rallies outside of Mormon churches asking for the church to lose its tax exempt status because of all the money it pumped into a political affair (Prop 8). They weren't necessarily "gay" rallies, but I'm sure a large % of the people were gay.
---
If you guys aren't reading the actual ruling you should, it's chock full of funny stuff. http://www.scribd.com/doc/35374801/Prop-8-Ruling
Blankenhorn testified on cross-examination that studies show children of adoptive parents do as well or better than children of biological parents. Blankenhorn agreed that children raised by same-sex couples would benefit if their parents were permitted to marry. Blankenhorn also testified he wrote and agrees with the statement “I believe that today the principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian persons.In that sense, insofar as we are a nation founded on this principle, we would be more American on the day we permitted same-sex marriage than we were the day before.”
Wait a second! Blankenhorn was actually brought as the "expert" witness for Proponents of Prop 8. LOL. Also I put expert in quotations because his opinions, he is anti-gay marriage, were found to be non-credible and not backed up by any data at all.
|
On August 08 2010 16:04 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 15:57 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 15:36 neohero9 wrote:On August 08 2010 15:29 StarMasterX wrote:
@neohero9 Maybe it wasn't you who were discussing slavery, but I'm pretty sure you compared black+white marriages and many others have compared slavery which cannot be compared. I think that was one of the reasons I got involved in this thread...well that and the idea that this wouldn't affect people which I also find crazy.
But please stop with this "logical fallacy please study" card when you can't respond to a point. Your major claim is that we should change things for "ethical improvement". If you don't see how insane that statement is, you have no business debating anybody. Let us please not turn this into an ethical standards debate and just say we all have different ones.
Just because many people have different standards does not mean they're all right. Ethics is not relative; not to a society, not to an individual. Oh, and ad hominem. Ethics is tough to deal with. And yes I read your previous post dealing with the definition of marriage mostly. I suppose ethical decisions and the definition of marriage are really the 2 key parts of this whole debate which is why it is so difficult to deal with....everybody has different ethical standards and different definitions. As for marriage, I suppose the anti gay marriage side believes that society is better served using the current definition of man+woman or your "classic" definition. Many of them may even feel the "loss" that you spoke of but I can't personally say myself. I would imagine many people with the current belief of marriage as a sacrament will certainly feel a loss. Nevertheless, I'm sorry if I attacked your character in any way. I still feel your earlier statement was insane though. @The guy who posted about bigots By his definition, everybody involved is a bigot. Hostility towards differing religions etc. Hence its better to not use that word at all...or at least come up with a better definition. Society being better served by promoting arbitrary (read: irrational) discrimination is pretty funny.
Eh I dunno...I've heard some arguments. Hell I've also seen some stats from other countries who have already legalized it. Not necessarily promoting irrational discrimination as you put it, but promoting a tradition family culture. But I'm too damn tired to get into that.
Edit: As for the slippery slope people...meh fill in the blanks.
|
On August 08 2010 16:37 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 16:04 neohero9 wrote:On August 08 2010 15:57 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 15:36 neohero9 wrote:On August 08 2010 15:29 StarMasterX wrote:
@neohero9 Maybe it wasn't you who were discussing slavery, but I'm pretty sure you compared black+white marriages and many others have compared slavery which cannot be compared. I think that was one of the reasons I got involved in this thread...well that and the idea that this wouldn't affect people which I also find crazy.
But please stop with this "logical fallacy please study" card when you can't respond to a point. Your major claim is that we should change things for "ethical improvement". If you don't see how insane that statement is, you have no business debating anybody. Let us please not turn this into an ethical standards debate and just say we all have different ones.
Just because many people have different standards does not mean they're all right. Ethics is not relative; not to a society, not to an individual. Oh, and ad hominem. Ethics is tough to deal with. And yes I read your previous post dealing with the definition of marriage mostly. I suppose ethical decisions and the definition of marriage are really the 2 key parts of this whole debate which is why it is so difficult to deal with....everybody has different ethical standards and different definitions. As for marriage, I suppose the anti gay marriage side believes that society is better served using the current definition of man+woman or your "classic" definition. Many of them may even feel the "loss" that you spoke of but I can't personally say myself. I would imagine many people with the current belief of marriage as a sacrament will certainly feel a loss. Nevertheless, I'm sorry if I attacked your character in any way. I still feel your earlier statement was insane though. @The guy who posted about bigots By his definition, everybody involved is a bigot. Hostility towards differing religions etc. Hence its better to not use that word at all...or at least come up with a better definition. Society being better served by promoting arbitrary (read: irrational) discrimination is pretty funny. Eh I dunno...I've heard some arguments. Hell I've also seen some stats from other countries who have already legalized it. Not necessarily promoting irrational discrimination as you put it, but promoting a tradition family culture. But I'm too damn tired to get into that.
I would be very interested in these stats. I have never seen anything that would indicate a negative for society when legalizing gay marriage. Well nothing with actual facts and data that is.
|
The "Slippery Slope" argument against overturning Prop 8 is making me actually laugh, right here in my chair, in my kitchen.
If you are saying Gay Marriage should be prevented so that marriage doesn't "devolve" to Polygamy and Incestuous Marriage, then by the same line of reasoning we could have just prevented Heterosexual marriage, in order to prevent all that follows... Interesting how that works isn't it?
So far the arguments that have been pointing out Equality under the law, Separation of Church and State, and the lack of evidence for legalizing Gay marriage causing harm to anybody, have all been incredibly valid.
You will also notice that the arguments stating that in a Democracy "the majority is always right" are self-defeating. The majority created the courts of law in order to Protect the rights of individuals and everyone underneath basic principles of our law under the Constitution, as well as established case law that was published in order to clarify uncertainties in the Constitution.
As a closing note, I would like to point out the course of Racial Inequality in the history of the US, and where it has led. Gay Marriage seems to follow a mirror path, in such that is has faced oppression from a larger, older, and currently (now and then) in power Majority.
The belief that the masses should be able to deny others from sharing the same rights as the Majority does, simply because they are different in some disagreeable way, is frankly, despicable.
|
If we let women out of the kitchen we'll have to put men in the kitchen. It's a slippery slope.
|
On August 08 2010 17:18 Traveler wrote:
The "Slippery Slope" argument against overturning Prop 8 is making me actually laugh, right here in my chair, in my kitchen.
If you are saying Gay Marriage should be prevented so that marriage doesn't "devolve" to Polygamy and Incestuous Marriage, then by the same line of reasoning we could have just prevented Heterosexual marriage, in order to prevent all that follows... Interesting how that works isn't it?
So far the arguments that have been pointing out Equality under the law, Separation of Church and State, and the lack of evidence for legalizing Gay marriage causing harm to anybody, have all been incredibly valid.
You will also notice that the arguments stating that in a Democracy "the majority is always right" are self-defeating. The majority created the courts of law in order to Protect the rights of individuals and everyone underneath basic principles of our law under the Constitution, as well as established case law that was published in order to clarify uncertainties in the Constitution.
As a closing note, I would like to point out the course of Racial Inequality in the history of the US, and where it has led. Gay Marriage seems to follow a mirror path, in such that is has faced oppression from a larger, older, and currently (now and then) in power Majority.
The belief that the masses should be able to deny others from sharing the same rights as the Majority does, simply because they are different in some disagreeable way, is frankly, despicable.
If we ever meet, I must buy you a beer.
|
On August 08 2010 17:24 neohero9 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 17:18 Traveler wrote:
The "Slippery Slope" argument against overturning Prop 8 is making me actually laugh, right here in my chair, in my kitchen.
If you are saying Gay Marriage should be prevented so that marriage doesn't "devolve" to Polygamy and Incestuous Marriage, then by the same line of reasoning we could have just prevented Heterosexual marriage, in order to prevent all that follows... Interesting how that works isn't it?
So far the arguments that have been pointing out Equality under the law, Separation of Church and State, and the lack of evidence for legalizing Gay marriage causing harm to anybody, have all been incredibly valid.
You will also notice that the arguments stating that in a Democracy "the majority is always right" are self-defeating. The majority created the courts of law in order to Protect the rights of individuals and everyone underneath basic principles of our law under the Constitution, as well as established case law that was published in order to clarify uncertainties in the Constitution.
As a closing note, I would like to point out the course of Racial Inequality in the history of the US, and where it has led. Gay Marriage seems to follow a mirror path, in such that is has faced oppression from a larger, older, and currently (now and then) in power Majority.
The belief that the masses should be able to deny others from sharing the same rights as the Majority does, simply because they are different in some disagreeable way, is frankly, despicable. If we ever meet, I must buy you a beer.
second rounds on me
|
It's hilarious to see the types of people who have so much hate in their hearts that they show up to prevent other people, people they don't know or have any affiliation with, from getting married and living happily, causing nobody any harm at all.
Then you see them in church listening to their pastor talk about forgiveness and the Sermon on the Mount and you just break down crying.
|
On August 08 2010 20:44 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:
Then you see them in church listening to their pastor talk about forgiveness and the Sermon on the Mount and you just break down crying.
Crying from laughter, maybe.
|
On August 08 2010 16:05 GogoKodo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 16:02 Nogardeci89 wrote:On August 08 2010 15:35 StarMasterX wrote:On August 08 2010 14:53 Nogardeci89 wrote:On August 08 2010 13:15 StarMasterX wrote:
And also please stop with the nonsense comparing this to blacks+whites+slavery etc. That is nothing more than a sweeping comparison statement to make those against gay marriage look like bigots. It does nothing to support your argument. The reason they are making the comparison is because those against gay marriage are bigots. copy paste wikipedia: A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The term has evolved to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion in modern English usage. By your definition, everybody involved is a bigot. The gay rallys outside the churches are all bigots. I don't think we can use that word and get anywhere. Let us just please stop throwing that word around and get back to real discussion. not my definition..wikipedia's plus, ive never heard about a gay rally outside a church? source? There were rallies outside of Mormon churches asking for the church to lose its tax exempt status because of all the money it pumped into a political affair (Prop 8). They weren't necessarily "gay" rallies, but I'm sure a large % of the people were gay.
The gays weren't protesting because they were bigoted against the religion. They had a logical reason--that being that the church wanted to legislate their religious beliefs in a secular nation that would harm the gays quality of life.
On August 08 2010 15:57 StarMasterX wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 15:36 neohero9 wrote:On August 08 2010 15:29 StarMasterX wrote:
@neohero9 Maybe it wasn't you who were discussing slavery, but I'm pretty sure you compared black+white marriages and many others have compared slavery which cannot be compared. I think that was one of the reasons I got involved in this thread...well that and the idea that this wouldn't affect people which I also find crazy.
But please stop with this "logical fallacy please study" card when you can't respond to a point. Your major claim is that we should change things for "ethical improvement". If you don't see how insane that statement is, you have no business debating anybody. Let us please not turn this into an ethical standards debate and just say we all have different ones.
Just because many people have different standards does not mean they're all right. Ethics is not relative; not to a society, not to an individual. Oh, and ad hominem. Ethics is tough to deal with. And yes I read your previous post dealing with the definition of marriage mostly. I suppose ethical decisions and the definition of marriage are really the 2 key parts of this whole debate which is why it is so difficult to deal with....everybody has different ethical standards and different definitions. As for marriage, I suppose the anti gay marriage side believes that society is better served using the current definition of man+woman or your "classic" definition. Many of them may even feel the "loss" that you spoke of but I can't personally say myself. I would imagine many people with the current belief of marriage as a sacrament will certainly feel a loss. Nevertheless, I'm sorry if I attacked your character in any way. I still feel your earlier statement was insane though. @The guy who posted about bigots By his definition, everybody involved is a bigot. Hostility towards differing religions etc. Hence its better to not use that word at all...or at least come up with a better definition.
As JAyBo put it on the WOT message board on gamefaqs:
"But really my sincerest condolences go out to all those heterosexual couples who's marriages will be affected by this. I know it's going to be very taxing to create a strong bond based on lame **** like love, sexual attraction, and mutual respect and not on being in a super-exclusionary club. You'll get through this... or divorce immediately like you always have... either one."
|
On August 09 2010 02:35 APurpleCow wrote:
As JAyBo put it on the WOT message board on gamefaqs:
"But really my sincerest condolences go out to all those heterosexual couples who's marriages will be affected by this. I know it's going to be very taxing to create a strong bond based on lame **** like love, sexual attraction, and mutual respect and not on being in a super-exclusionary club. You'll get through this... or divorce immediately like you always have... either one."
One argument I actually heard against gay marriage during the California thing was that it shouldn't be allowed because homosexuals are getting DIVORCED in countries where they have been allowed to get married. As if that is something interesting. I don't know if the guy was trying to say that homosexuals should be held to higher commitment standards or what but there it is.
|
On August 08 2010 16:05 Sight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 15:03 danl9rm wrote:On August 05 2010 07:09 LegendaryZ wrote:On August 05 2010 07:06 RivetHead wrote:On August 05 2010 06:36 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:19 synapse wrote:On August 05 2010 06:14 Diuqil wrote:On August 05 2010 06:10 D10 wrote:On August 05 2010 06:08 Gatsbi wrote:On August 05 2010 06:03 Diuqil wrote:[quote] Aw man.. I'm a strong supporter of Prop 8 ...Why? He believes in the dictatorship of the majority, and think that the minorities desires should be crushed under popular vote, even if they dont directly affect anyones life but theirs Yes I do. Yes, that too. What is the problem here though? They're just my beliefs, you act like yours are something better, its all an opinion. The problem is that legal gay marriage can be beneficial to many couples for [reason reason reason] and would have no effect on your life, yet you choose to support the banning of gay marriage. Don't you see something wrong here? Again, its an OPINION Ya and you really need to take a look at your opinion. If you believe that if a majority of people in a community/state/nation agree on what is right, than that IS right, then you really need think long and hard what that means in the context of history and the nature of morality. If right and wrong is purely defined by majority rule, than morality becomes irrelevant because we already have laws to do that. Something maybe wrong one year and right the next. Ethically, where does that leave us? With jack shit, that's what. What is morality and ethics if not essentially a majority consensus on an expected norm of beliefs and values? Most people want it both ways. They don't believe in absolute truth, yet they also don't believe the majority is correct. How can both of these be wrong at the same time? This is simple logic. Follow me here: If you believe in absolute truth, then it exists outside of us. It is not an opinion. If you believe there is no absolute truth, then it exists within us - yet no one on earth is really satisfied by this answer! If I came up to you while you were eating an orange and, upon seeing it was already peeled, I decided to take it from you for my own consumption, you would immediately object, either through physical aggression or a statement something along the lines of, "Hey! That's not fair!" So I ask, what makes anything fair? Is the answer within yourself? Which means it would have to be within all of us. Or is it outside yourself? Which means the truth can be obtained, wholly, without taint, somehow. You must first answer this question before you can be for or against this ruling. Otherwise, you're just being dishonest to yourself. And if you agree that absolute truth exists, then there is an answer to whether gay marriage is right or wrong, it is not an opinion. If you do not, however, agree there is an absolute truth, you can no longer argue that gay marriage is the right of anyone, because once again, the majority will determine that for themselves, since the majority is always right. pre-edit: Before someone does, you cannot disagree with what I just said. It is purely logical. If you find yourself disagreeing, you may read it until you understand it. Without other agents (rational beings) there would be no governing morality beyond your own interests. After all, there would be no external agent towards which you commit actions. However, once other such agents are introduced one naturally creates rules. The rules are mutually beneficial: do not steal my property, do not kill me, etc. Unfortunately, there is not always a benefit to following rules--you just want the other person to follow them. Stealing is beneficial to you, so long as the other does not steal back. Thus, a third party is needed to regulate and fairly adjudicate the rules. HOWEVER: original contracts are not made with the third party (the government) but instead with the rest of society. That is why each person should be guaranteed certain rights--because the original agreement is created to establish principles that help each individual, including equality. That is my subjective truth conclusion. You'll notice the conclusions may not be identical to yours. That's why it's not true that subjective truth conclusions always listen to the majority. Your fatal assumption is that what the majority believes is always what any subjective truth standard collapses to when that is not necessarily true; as autonomous thinking beings we can reach conclusions independent of the majority.
Good post, thank you for taking the time to respond intelligently.
But, exactly, I absolutely do not believe the majority is always right, I believe quite the opposite. I believe that most usually, the majority is wrong.
When I said "...since the majority is always right." I was referring to people that believe absolute truth doesn't exist. If absolute truth doesn't exist, then people make it up for themselves, and the majority has to be right. If you do not believe in absolute truth but also disagree with the majority, then you are wrong in that instance because the maority fabricate the truth as they go. It is not found; it is made up. Likewise, what is right today can be wrong tomorrow.
But, I must say again, I believe that is... hooey.
|
pre-edit: Before someone does, you cannot disagree with what I just said.
DAMNIT, i guess you win.. should have thought of that
It's pretty amazing that discrimination in this scale this exists.
Those "defend family tradition" blah blah organizations have contributed with another great classical argument for the anti-gay side as well: godwin's law!
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-28-2010/gay-reichs
|
"If you are saying Gay Marriage should be prevented so that marriage doesn't "devolve" to Polygamy and Incestuous Marriage, then by the same line of reasoning we could have just prevented Heterosexual marriage, in order to prevent all that follows... Interesting how that works isn't it?"
Then why not let the people decide which ones are morally acceptable? Why let a judge say "Hetero and homosexual marriages are OK, but polygamous and incestuous ones are wrong"?
|
I guess one thing I haven't seen talked about much is whether or not the fact that the judge who made the ruling is gay had any bearing on the trial:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTL
I wonder what would happen in the media if polygamy was on trial and a polygamist judge ruled that there was a constitutional right to polygamy. Would the media treat it the same as in this case? Or is there a double standard? And should there be a double standard?
|
On August 09 2010 04:02 Savio wrote:I guess one thing I haven't seen talked about much is whether or not the fact that the judge who made the ruling is gay had any bearing on the trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTLI wonder what would happen in the media if polygamy was on trial and a polygamist judge ruled that there was a constitutional right to polygamy. Would the media treat it the same as in this case? Or is there a double standard? And should there be a double standard?
Seriously people would be up in arms if, say, a mormon judge had ruled the other way.
|
On August 09 2010 03:54 jalstar wrote:
"If you are saying Gay Marriage should be prevented so that marriage doesn't "devolve" to Polygamy and Incestuous Marriage, then by the same line of reasoning we could have just prevented Heterosexual marriage, in order to prevent all that follows... Interesting how that works isn't it?"
Then why not let the people decide which ones are morally acceptable? Why let a judge say "Hetero and homosexual marriages are OK, but polygamous and incestuous ones are wrong"?
Because ideally the judge is more informed and more rational than the typical citizen. It's his job to be. Objectivity, however, can be a much harder state to attain; I don't know how the judge's lifestyle affected his decision.
To quote myself: On the one hand, everyone should be allowed to vote, to help choose in what direction the country is heading; on the other hand, there are many voters who I wouldn't trust to choose what's for dinner.
And the old "tyranny of the many" which is part of why we have a republic of representatives instead of a direct democracy.
|
On August 09 2010 03:54 jalstar wrote:
"If you are saying Gay Marriage should be prevented so that marriage doesn't "devolve" to Polygamy and Incestuous Marriage, then by the same line of reasoning we could have just prevented Heterosexual marriage, in order to prevent all that follows... Interesting how that works isn't it?"
Then why not let the people decide which ones are morally acceptable? Why let a judge say "Hetero and homosexual marriages are OK, but polygamous and incestuous ones are wrong"?
???
I see no connection between your statement and the one you're quoting, and if you want an easy demonstration that we shouldn't let the people decide which ones are morally acceptable... interracial marriage used to be illegal.
As for why the state should endorse hetero/homo marriages but not polyamorous or incestuous ones (polygamy is not comparable as it's built on unequal power), there isn't any reason. The state shouldn't be endorsing marriages in the first place, and it's perfectly legal for two adults who are related to live together and fuck and adopt children. The only thing that should not be legal is for them to merge genomes to form a child, because inbreeding is bad for the next generation.
On August 09 2010 04:02 Savio wrote:I guess one thing I haven't seen talked about much is whether or not the fact that the judge who made the ruling is gay had any bearing on the trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTLI wonder what would happen in the media if polygamy was on trial and a polygamist judge ruled that there was a constitutional right to polygamy. Would the media treat it the same as in this case? Or is there a double standard? And should there be a double standard?
I wonder what would happen in the media whenever anything happened ever.
Oh, right, they'd flip their shit.
Anyways, I think a black judge is allowed to weigh in on Jim Crow just as a gay judge is allowed to weigh in homophobic laws and as a human judge is allowed to weigh in on human rights violations.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 09 2010 04:02 Savio wrote:I guess one thing I haven't seen talked about much is whether or not the fact that the judge who made the ruling is gay had any bearing on the trial: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/07/BACF1BT7ON.DTLI wonder what would happen in the media if polygamy was on trial and a polygamist judge ruled that there was a constitutional right to polygamy. Would the media treat it the same as in this case? Or is there a double standard? And should there be a double standard?
For one thing, being gay isn't illegal. Being polygamous is, therefore the judge would have already have committed a crime.
Anyways, I'm sure it affects the judge's decision because I don't believe an objective judiciary is possible, but I'm not sure that it should take much importance, unless the judge were specifically conservative except for that one issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
