|
|
Post by Anders on Nov 8, 2008 1:00:00 GMT -8
You cannot legislate morality, Jesse. It doesn't work. I've never understood that argument. Isn't nearly all legislation based on moral arguments? "X is illegal because it's wrong to do X" is a moral argument. The law prohobiting X legislates morality - "Because the rest of us think X is immoral we have made it illegal, so don't do X". I must be missing some part of the argument. |
|
|
|
Post by jbhelfrich on Nov 8, 2008 7:21:57 GMT -8
The point is that you can't bring someone around to a moral point of view by passing a law that forces people to behave consistently with that view. So passing a law that says you can't discriminate against <insert group here> won't make them stop hating that group, even if they comply with the law.
Of course, as the evidence has shown, if you pass the law, eventually enough of them will stop caring.
|
|
|
|
Post by K-Box on Nov 8, 2008 7:48:06 GMT -8
Of course, as the evidence has shown, if you pass the law, eventually enough of them will stop caring. Bingo. It's evolutionary change, rather than revolutionary change. It's kind of like Douglas Adams said - too much perspective can actually be a BAD thing. And right now, we have an emerging, sizable and POWERFULLY motivated demographic of young voters for whom the culture wars of the Baby Boomers are largely IRRELEVANT, precisely because these kids DON'T have enough perspective to understand all those old conflicts and grudges on a personal level. In that sense, their youthful ignorance, of things like how bad racism used to be, is GOOD. The problem with the generations that preceded them, including MINE, is that we were TOO aware of a lot of these racial issues. Sexuality is going to be the same way. We'll have to start by legislating away (as much as we can) the homophobes' "right" to be homophobic, and after a while, their kids and grandkids will grow up in a world in which people aren't even allowed to EXPRESS the same levels of homophobia as their parents and grandparents took for granted, and so, they'll be more inclined to treat gays equally, precisely because they'll have that much LESS experience and awareness of a world in which it was ever considered "okay" to discriminate against gays. No, homophobia will never go away, just as racism is still alive even now, but as with racism, it'll become ever more diminished, generation by generation, until those who openly espouse homophobia are regarded the same way as those who openly espouse racism now - as sad, stupid, worthless fuckers who just need to go ahead and die. Back in the 1960s, fuckers like George Wallace could spew their bullshit and still be considered credible. Now, even the people who ARE racist have to PRETEND that they're not, or they WILL lose their jobs and become social outcasts (unless they live in those increasingly narrow strips of rural America that still act like the Civil War is going on, and even most of those broke overwhelmingly for The Black Guy this year). Bit by bit, we can, and WILL, chip away at the homophobes' "right" to be homophobic, until they either die off or get properly reeducated. |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Nov 8, 2008 10:11:39 GMT -8
Like Kirk (kind of) said, you're not prohibiting a point of view, you're prohibiting a behavior. It's true that you can't use the law to change how people think (at least not directly), but you can use it to change how they act. Whether those actions are based on morals or not doesn't matter, IMO.
|
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Nov 9, 2008 12:40:08 GMT -8
That's kind of the point we're making too, Jard. No, Jesse's saying that because a few high profile cases appear that he personally disagrees with, that this is how people should react. This is right and that's wrong. Period. End of discussion. No other viewpoints need apply. |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Nov 9, 2008 12:49:46 GMT -8
I was working on a long post to argue with you Jard, but then I realized Rogers had said it all first: However, when the Supreme Court struck down the bans against interracial marriage in 1968 through Virginia vs. Loving, SEVENTY-TWO PERCENT of Americans were against interracial marriage. As a matter of fact, approval of interracial marriage in the US didn't cross the positive threshold until -- sweet God -- 1991 These fuckers are wrong, Jard. There are no two ways about it. If we try to win them over, we'll never get anywhere. Sometimes the only way to make progress is to drag them along kicking and screaming. We can't legislate them to a moral position, but that's no reason to base our rules off of a "moral" position that is fundamentally wrong. Screw em. But IS it morally wrong? That's the question none of you seem to be asking. At what point does dragging them kicking and screaming become opression of their beliefs and faith as well? And just because you disagree with them, does that mean they are automatically wrong? I do not condone the words that come out of certain mouths, but I will fight like hell to defend their right to say it. |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Nov 9, 2008 12:51:38 GMT -8
Of course, as the evidence has shown, if you pass the law, eventually enough of them will stop caring. Bingo. It's evolutionary change, rather than revolutionary change. It's kind of like Douglas Adams said - too much perspective can actually be a BAD thing. And right now, we have an emerging, sizable and POWERFULLY motivated demographic of young voters for whom the culture wars of the Baby Boomers are largely IRRELEVANT, precisely because these kids DON'T have enough perspective to understand all those old conflicts and grudges on a personal level. In that sense, their youthful ignorance, of things like how bad racism used to be, is GOOD. The problem with the generations that preceded them, including MINE, is that we were TOO aware of a lot of these racial issues. Sexuality is going to be the same way. We'll have to start by legislating away (as much as we can) the homophobes' "right" to be homophobic, and after a while, their kids and grandkids will grow up in a world in which people aren't even allowed to EXPRESS the same levels of homophobia as their parents and grandparents took for granted, and so, they'll be more inclined to treat gays equally, precisely because they'll have that much LESS experience and awareness of a world in which it was ever considered "okay" to discriminate against gays. No, homophobia will never go away, just as racism is still alive even now, but as with racism, it'll become ever more diminished, generation by generation, until those who openly espouse homophobia are regarded the same way as those who openly espouse racism now - as sad, stupid, worthless fuckers who just need to go ahead and die. Back in the 1960s, fuckers like George Wallace could spew their bullshit and still be considered credible. Now, even the people who ARE racist have to PRETEND that they're not, or they WILL lose their jobs and become social outcasts (unless they live in those increasingly narrow strips of rural America that still act like the Civil War is going on, and even most of those broke overwhelmingly for The Black Guy this year). Bit by bit, we can, and WILL, chip away at the homophobes' "right" to be homophobic, until they either die off or get properly reeducated. Yes. Exactly. very well put. |
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Nov 9, 2008 13:07:08 GMT -8
That's kind of the point we're making too, Jard. No, Jesse's saying that because a few high profile cases appear that he personally disagrees with, that this is how people should react. This is right and that's wrong. Period. End of discussion. No other viewpoints need apply. Well, that's your interpretation of it; my interpretation is that it's an example of a much broader sweep that marriage is NOT sacred in Western culture, at least, not when you consider -a divorce rate >50% -Swingers groups (with married couples) -Open Marriages in general -Polagymy cults -Child Marriages (and let's all thank the Mormons for sponsoring Prop. 8 in Cali, shall we?) -any form of pre-arranged marriage -Mass media's portrayal of marriage (a joke, generally) -Vegas weddings -Cybersex cheating -Serial infidelity -Spousal abuse Hell, I'll even be nice and spot you "Gold digging" and "Hollywood celeb marriages" because those are highly localized anomalies. and as far as "These people are entitled to their beliefs", well, that's great, but in a secular democratic states, their beliefs fucking end right where they impinge on others. Even if you put aside the social factor of gay marriage, which is a not insignificant way of gaining RECOGNITION OF YOUR FUNDAMENTAL HUMANITY, then there are the simple pragmatic factors, dealing with things like power of attorney, visitation rights and oh yeah, insurance issues: In a situation (like the US) where you have companies that will deny benefits for even the slightest infraction, you don't think they are going to give a gay couple extremely shabby treatment? To put it another way: I'll let a KKK member believes that black men are inferior to him, but the minute he tries to practice that belief by putting down another human being? That assclown goes down and he goes down hard. |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Nov 9, 2008 14:50:37 GMT -8
And on the other side of the coin however, and using my immediate family only as an example...
I am the youngest child of ten kids. My father is a widower, my mom a divorcee, they just celebrated their 37th wedding anniversary. My uncle and aunt just celebrated their 52nd wedding anniversary. I have seven sisters, two brothers, and out of all ten of us kids I am the only one to get divorced and not remarried. One sister never did get married. Another sister is a widower after 25 years of marriage. Two other sisters have gotten divorced and remarried, both second marriages have lasted over 25 years at this point. My next eldest sibling, my brother Kelly, just celebrated his 25th wedding anniversary with his wife. I was the best man at the wedding at the age of 15.
My best friend's parents just celebrated their 42nd wedding anniversary. It was not only an inter-racial couple of but an open marriage, until they gave each other a vow of monogamy at their 30th anniversary. My oldest neice, who is two years younger than I am, just celebrated their 10th.
So using my family as an example you can see where statistics do not always provide us an accurate figure of the whole of the population.
But that's not the point.
Marriage is both inherently a civil ceremony and a religious one.
Does a civil union provide a couple, whatever their sexuality, with the same rights and benefits that a married couple recieves under the law in regards to taxes making family decisions for the spouse, etc. And the answer is yes. Yes it does. All except one. The ability to say "We're married." That's it.
But what the argument for gay marriage is saying is that a couple should have the right to say "we're married." And honestly, there's nothing wrong with that desire either.
But what happens at that point is some person of faith steps up and says "No you're not, not in the eyes of my faith."
And what you and everyone else is telling that person at that point is that he does not have the right to believe what he believes. Does not have the right to express that belief, does not have the right to disagree with that person.
And this makes you different from him, how, exactly?
|
|
|
|
Post by michaelpaciocco on Nov 9, 2008 15:07:14 GMT -8
Because in my view, he can still say that they aren't married in the eyes of his faith, but it's about the law.
My arguement has always been: Human beings are crap when it comes to any kind of "Separate but Equal" (See any caste based Society for proof) arrangement. The idea that "hey, Civil Unions and Marriages will be treated as equal in the eyes of the law" is nice, if you believed in the better angels of human nature. I don't. At all.
So yeah, my belief is that "civil unions" and "marriages" will get different treatment in large chunks of the bureaucracy and business of everyday life because by the quantification of difference presumes that they should be treated differently.
I'm not about changing other people's belief, but about other people denying equal rights based on those beliefs.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johann Chua on Nov 9, 2008 20:17:20 GMT -8
My argument has always been: Human beings are crap when it comes to any kind of "Separate but Equal" (See any caste based Society for proof) arrangement. Some self-described feminists want girls-only schools, on the reasoning that being in schools with boys turns girls into subservient women. I wish I were making this up. Given that in the seventies ALL male-only colleges in the Philippines (save the Philippine Military Academy and seminaries) became co-ed, I find that line of thinking very regressive. |
|
|
|
Post by Anders on Nov 9, 2008 21:05:27 GMT -8
And what you and everyone else is telling that person at that point is that he does not have the right to believe what he believes. Does not have the right to express that belief, does not have the right to disagree with that person. No, what we're telling that person is that their religious beliefs do not get to dictate government policy. If they don't want to call this marriage equal to any other marriage, fine. But in the eyes of the law they are the same. Nobody's saying they're not allowed to say those marriages are different. We're just saying they're not given the right to define the word "marriage". There are several religions that make a difference between various kinds of meat, calling some clean and some unclean. That doesn't mean the government has to use the same terminology. |
|
|
|
Post by jensaltmann on Nov 10, 2008 1:32:09 GMT -8
That assclown goes down and he goes down hard. Because he's with the Hammer? And these are not the Hammer? |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Nov 10, 2008 8:32:06 GMT -8
Because in my view, he can still say that they aren't married in the eyes of his faith, but it's about the law. My arguement has always been: Human beings are crap when it comes to any kind of "Separate but Equal" (See any caste based Society for proof) arrangement. The idea that "hey, Civil Unions and Marriages will be treated as equal in the eyes of the law" is nice, if you believed in the better angels of human nature. I don't. At all. So yeah, my belief is that "civil unions" and "marriages" will get different treatment in large chunks of the bureaucracy and business of everyday life because by the quantification of difference presumes that they should be treated differently. I'm not about changing other people's belief, but about other people denying equal rights based on those beliefs. Congratulations, you have something in common with your antagonist now. You're both trying deny someone else's civil rights in order to achieve a goal. He's trying to deny gays the right to marry because he believes it's morally wrong. You're trying to deny him his right to beleive that because it's morally wrong. And technically, by the by, being married by the Justice Of The Peace is a Civil Union, and it's never been disputed before. So what's the difference between a civil union between a homosexual couple and a civil union between a heterosexual couple again? A word. When it's a hetero couple we call it a wedding, and when it's a homosexual couple, we call it a "civil union." Rights and benefits are the same, so... the issue becomes.. what? |
|
|
|
Post by jarddavis on Nov 10, 2008 8:49:31 GMT -8
No, what we're telling that person is that their religious beliefs do not get to dictate government policy. If they don't want to call this marriage equal to any other marriage, fine. But in the eyes of the law they are the same. Nobody's saying they're not allowed to say those marriages are different. We're just saying they're not given the right to define the word "marriage". There are several religions that make a difference between various kinds of meat, calling some clean and some unclean. That doesn't mean the government has to use the same terminology. But you're perfectly willing to let government tell the church what they can and cannot believe, and force churchs into allowing one of their most sacred institutions to be (In their eyes, mind you) corrupted, and then you're wondering why these people fight it with every breath they can? This isn't a black and white issue here. Acceptance isn't going to come through legislation, but through time and evolution. |
|
