[quote]borrek wrote:
A slippery slope is always fallacious.[/quote]
Except in the case of an actual slippery slope where you end up on your ass at the very bottom of it.
My guess is that for every closet homosexual out there, there are two ‘closet philanderers’. I’d wager good money that the majority of the time people say, “Why wouldn’t polygamy be next?”. They are threatening rather than hypothesizing.
Please tell me you are a global warming agnostic/dissenter.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
So, if I’m a trained psychiatrist, that education would be irrelevant to the validity of my(our) argument?[/quote]
Your credentials only matter if you are making an authoritative claim based on expertise in a given subject area, apart from logic, reason, or sharing the authoritative claims of others.
I haven’t done that, so again why are you bringing up my education level?
[quote]And technically, your arguments don’t stand or fall of their own merit, they only stand or fall when you unreasonably tie them to meritorious aspects of race relations and prop them up against examples of bad heterosexual marriage.
[/quote]
I heard an interesting blurb on just that point yesterday. NPR was interviewing the author of a new book, which criticizes various social causes that play the race card in order to generate sympathy. However, when asked about gay marriage, the author specifically excluded this issue from his list of causes deserving criticism. He said that unlike these other causes, gay marriage is directly analogous to the anti-miscegenation laws, and the comparison is in fact valid.
[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
and its clearly something unacceptable for the public to be voting on.
peoples private business is their business not yours. this should not be an issue.
[/quote]
There is one problem with this argument. They are specifically seeking public recognition of their union. They/we/you can live with or join together with anyone you like. What is being attemped here is to force others to recognize the union. This has absolutly nothing to do with private life.
[quote]
I really don’t give a shit who gets married to any number or kind of partner(s). But…when you start arguing about what someone else must regognize as a marriage and all the legal ramifications that come with this, the gays and polygimists really don’t have much of a case. The public decides what they must be forced to recognized.
Frankly, I don’t believe I should be forced to recognize anything but someone else’s natural rights. Unfortunatly we have different regulations and treatments for citizens that fall into any number of classifications.
Maybe it’s gov’t recognition of classification in general that is this issue. Let the free market sort it out. The only hard sell I see here is the classification of someone as a minor or a criminal.
As a side note, it seems IA will soon change it’s constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. It failed to pass recently due to a technicality. They missed some sort of deadline.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
There is one problem with this argument. They are specifically seeking public recognition of their union. [/quote]
Why should I be forced to recognize the heterosexual farces that pass as weddings, like Britney Spears marrying Jason Alexander in Vegas, only to annul the wedding hours later? I don’t support it, I think it devalues marriage as an institution, and yet the marriage is 100% legal.
It’s not about whether or not you or I approve. It’s about whether or not people choose to enter into a mutually binding contract to go through life together as a couple. If they sign the contract, they assume the legal obligations of that contract, regardless of who approves or disapproves.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
There is one problem with this argument. They are specifically seeking public recognition of their union.[/quote]
Let’s not go there. I don’t want to recognize other peoples marriages, whether they are heterosexual or not. I certainly don’t have the right to deny you the right to marry despite my qualms about the farce of an institution.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
dhickey wrote:
There is one problem with this argument. They are specifically seeking public recognition of their union.
Let’s not go there. I don’t want to recognize other peoples marriages, whether they are heterosexual or not. I certainly don’t have the right to deny you the right to marry despite my qualms about the farce of an institution.[/quote]
Why not go there? This is the very heart of the argument.
Gay people can marry now. Others are just not forced recognize the marriage, like they are with “traditional” marriage.
I think the real argument is much deeper than any of the shallow rationalization both sides typically present. To me it is much the same as if fat people wanted to be recognized as handicapped so they can park closer or receive other benefits associated with being handicapped.
What about those that want alcoholism to be defined as a sickness or disease? My mothers has been forced to give a drunk employee a medical leave of absense so she could go on a bender.
Mothers and Fathers are legally due a leave of absense. Why not aunts, uncles, grandmothers and grandfathers? What if they are helping to raise the child in absense of a father?
The point is all of these classifications are 100% arbitrary. How on earth can anyone logically argue whether or not any already arbitrary classification should include them while excluding others? If everyone has a right to be classified as what ever they please, what’s the point of the classification?
The underlying problem is when we are forced to recognize these arbitrary gov’t classifications. These classifications can be and are defined in any way that provides for political expediency and support. Welcome to democracy, ie mob rule.
[quote]dhickey wrote:
How on earth can anyone logically argue whether or not any already arbitrary classification should include them while excluding others?[/quote]
See borrek’s exegesis of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling above for a good discussion of the “similarly situated” standard to which people are held. You can’t claim willy nilly that you want “equal rights” without first demonstrating that you are “similarly situated”.
[quote]forlife wrote:
dhickey wrote:
How on earth can anyone logically argue whether or not any already arbitrary classification should include them while excluding others?
See borrek’s exegesis of the Iowa Supreme Court ruling above for a good discussion of the “similarly situated” standard to which people are held. You can’t claim willy nilly that you want “equal rights” without first demonstrating that you are “similarly situated”.
[/quote]
“Similarly situated” is 100% arbitrary. How can any rational person accept laws are completely arbitrary?
I would take a different approach. Leave public recognition aside.
What are legal benefits that you are denied, by not being legally recognized as married and that have a tangible effect on you life? I am talking about real consequences of your exclusion, not any psychological hoo haa.
If you list them I will comment on what I would do to remedy the injustice.
In that sense, all laws are arbitrary. There are always shades of gray requiring human judgment, which is the point of having a judicial system. It’s not perfect, but is a lot better than having no laws at all.
According to the Office of the General Counsel, there are over 1,000 legal benefits associated with marriage. Examples include immigration, social security survivorship benefits, joint tax filing, hospital/prison visitation, and child custody.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I haven’t done that, so again why are you bringing up my education level?[/quote]
I already answered this, and admitted it was a tangent, your poor understanding and interpretive skills suggest little advanced education or a poor one.
Wow. A guy, on NPR, who can write books. I’d ask about his education or formal training, but as per your above comments, they aren’t relevant to the discussion. I should just accept what he says which, oddly enough, agrees with your stand, based on nothing other than the fact that he can get on public radio, write a book, and, apparently, talk. None of which prevent him, in any way, from being wrong.
Marriage is not a right. Homosexual marriage is not a right. Even in realms where marriage is considered a right, other considerations are laid out specifically and homosexuality is omitted (i.e. the UDRH says ‘[sic] without limit to race, religion, or nationality’. No mention of sexual orientation.). Once again, I’m not de facto against homosexuals getting married, I’m against unreasonable arguments being used to expand the authority of our gov’t and allowing more people to climb aboard an already sinking social institution.
The fact that you think Britney Spears’ marriage is fundamentally flawed and that you still have to stand by and take it, demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of marriage and democracy. The fact that you know Britney Spears’ marriage is wrong and flawed and use it to justify homosexual marriage shows that misunderstanding to be opportunistic rather than omissive and hints at why. That’s not justice, that’s not equality, that’s not civility, it’s just greed.
As a capitalist, I don’t have a problem with greed per se, but, as a scientist, don’t parade it around in sheep’s clothing and, on top that, tell me I have to call it a sheep, it’s not, in any way, in my nature.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
The fact that you think Britney Spears’ marriage is fundamentally flawed and that you still have to stand by and take it, demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of marriage and democracy. The fact that you know Britney Spears’ marriage is wrong and flawed and use it to justify homosexual marriage shows that misunderstanding to be opportunistic rather than omissive and hints at why. That’s not justice, that’s not equality, that’s not civility, it’s just greed.
As a capitalist, I don’t have a problem with greed per se, but, as a scientist, don’t parade it around in sheep’s clothing and, on top that, tell me I have to call it a sheep, it’s not, in any way, in my nature.[/quote]
Greedy bastards want to visit their sick significant others in the hospital, take care of their kids if their significant other passes away, and/or maybe even help with immigration issues… As a scientist, parading your greed around.
btw. You are calling HIM a scientist, right? Please tell me you are one…please. I’m hoping to find someone who is an anomaly to the studies forlife posted before…they seem to have upset some posters so much they’ve even called me a bigot.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
I already answered this[/quote]
No, you haven’t (see below).
Are you misquoting me on purpose, or did you not understand what I wrote? I said a person’s education was relevant when he was using that education to make an authoritative statement. The author did so, and I did not. His education is relevant, and mine is not. Get it?
Because you say so? The Supreme Court disagrees with you, but no doubt your degree and experience on such matters trumps theirs.
I used the example of Britney Spears to show that marriage doesn’t require my approval or your approval in order to be legal and valid.
[quote]forlife wrote:
In that sense, all laws are arbitrary. There are always shades of gray requiring human judgment, which is the point of having a judicial system. It’s not perfect, but is a lot better than having no laws at all.
[/quote]
A majority are. I also view this as a problem. The judicial system should be limited to hearing real world cases and applying existing laws to these cases. Existing laws should be limited to those that protech natural rights of the individual. Not arbitrary at all.
[quote]
According to the Office of the General Counsel, there are over 1,000 legal benefits associated with marriage. Examples include immigration, social security survivorship benefits, joint tax filing, hospital/prison visitation, and child custody.[/quote]
Get rid of them.
[quote]forlife wrote:
dhickey wrote:
There is one problem with this argument. They are specifically seeking public recognition of their union.
Why should I be forced to recognize the heterosexual farces that pass as weddings, like Britney Spears marrying Jason Alexander in Vegas, only to annul the wedding hours later?
[/quote]
You shouldn’t be force to recognize any marriage.
Maybe no marriages should have legal status? Freedom of association.
[quote]
It’s not about whether or not you or I approve. It’s about whether or not people choose to enter into a mutually binding contract to go through life together as a couple. If they sign the contract, they assume the legal obligations of that contract, regardless of who approves or disapproves.[/quote]
100% agree. What does legal recognition of marriage by the state have to do with entering into a binding contract with another human being? Go ahead and enter into the an agreement with the same legal responsibilities and ramifications. If you sign the contract, the state will protect it.
As to forced legal benefits given to married couples by others, get rid of them.
Problem solved for everyone, not just gays.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
Greedy bastards want to visit their sick significant others in the hospital, take care of their kids if their significant other passes away, and/or maybe even help with immigration issues… As a scientist, parading your greed around.[/quote]
Help with immigration issues? My understanding is they want to tie citizenship to homosexual marriage in the same manner it’s tied to heterosexual marriage, which DHS has to guard like a hawk to prevent fraud anyway.
Also, you’ll notice that forlife isn’t arguing about visiting his SO in the hospital, it’s a friend of a guy who knows someone… forlife is just looking to feel better about himself. Additionally, I have yet to see a case of ‘denial of hospital visitation’ that was blatantly directed at someone’s sexual orientation. It’s usually some gray-area second-hand story that represents one out of 100,000,000 hospital visits. The sort of thing where you give someone power of attorney and when it really matters they can’t prove they have power of attorney. As if it were any different if you said they were your brother/sister or son/daughter and couldn’t prove it.
I don’t know that he’s a scientist, I’ve heard claim he has a Ph.D. which he hasn’t outright or otherwise denied so I would suspect it to be true.
I also don’t know which exact studies you are referring to, I may not be the majority, but I most certainly don’t fit the ‘anti-gay’ stereotype, and am hardly an anomaly.
Having briefly perused some of the exchanges in the thread. I do understand the corner you’ve been painted into. It wasn’t too long ago on this board and in general conversation that the word ‘homophobe’ was used as a bona fide trump card against any dissent. Thoughts like, ‘Maybe we shouldn’t allow people who knowingly have AIDS to travel into the country just because they claim to be gay.’ would be met with the homophobe rubber stamp that instantly meant you were; less educated, firmly religious, poor, and, (for whatever bizarre reason) most likely, a closet homosexual yourself.
I freely admit to heterosexism, but to be labeled fearful and irrational solely because you dissented made no sense to me.
[quote]forlife wrote:
The author did so, and I did not. His education is relevant, and mine is not. Get it?[/quote]
He made no claim of authority (rather, your recollection of his elucidations). Writing, speaking, and public radio are no more authoritative or exclusive than internet chat boards.
Not any Supreme Court with jurisdiction in my state and even at that, the popular vote can most certainly overturn it, regardless of the constituency’s experience.
And? This doesn’t refute anything I’ve said. You know it’s a broken institution and you still want to take part in it or the freedom to do so.
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Also, you’ll notice that forlife isn’t arguing about visiting his SO in the hospital, it’s a friend of a guy who knows someone… forlife is just looking to feel better about himself. Additionally, I have yet to see a case of ‘denial of hospital visitation’ that was blatantly directed at someone’s sexual orientation. It’s usually some gray-area second-hand story that represents one out of 100,000,000 hospital visits. The sort of thing where you give someone power of attorney and when it really matters they can’t prove they have power of attorney.[/quote]
Your ad hominem attacks on my motivation don’t further your argument in any way.
I am having lunch today with a friend whose partner of 25 years had a heart attack. Ed and Roland had power of attorney, but despite this the hospital refused Ed the right to visit his partner in the hospital until after Roland’s father arrived to grant permission. This kind of blatant discrimination does happen, which is why legal protections need to be in place for both gay and straight couples.
I mentioned my degree years ago, and haven’t brought it up since then. I’m still trying to figure out why you keep bringing it up, as if it has any relevance to the discussion?
[quote]
btw. You are calling HIM a scientist, right? Please tell me you are one…please. I’m hoping to find someone who is an anomaly to the studies forlife posted before…they seem to have upset some posters so much they’ve even called me a bigot.
I don’t know that he’s a scientist, I’ve heard claim he has a Ph.D. which he hasn’t outright or otherwise denied so I would suspect it to be true.
I also don’t know which exact studies you are referring to, I may not be the majority, but I most certainly don’t fit the ‘anti-gay’ stereotype, and am hardly an anomaly.[/quote]
But you are! At least according to statistics. I’m so excited to have a chance to speak with an educated person “on the other side.” Let’s hope your arguments follow your education…
[quote]lucasa wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
Greedy bastards want to visit their sick significant others in the hospital, take care of their kids if their significant other passes away, and/or maybe even help with immigration issues… As a scientist, parading your greed around.
Help with immigration issues? My understanding is they want to tie citizenship to homosexual marriage in the same manner it’s tied to heterosexual marriage, which DHS has to guard like a hawk to prevent fraud anyway. [/quote]
soooooo…because there is fraud others should be allowed to get married…this doesn’t follow at all. Can you elaborate? It seems this should be a very good reason for a person to support gay marriage: if they want to marry and migrate with their SO.
[quote]
Also, you’ll notice that forlife isn’t arguing about visiting his SO in the hospital, it’s a friend of a guy who knows someone… forlife is just looking to feel better about himself. Additionally, I have yet to see a case of ‘denial of hospital visitation’ that was blatantly directed at someone’s sexual orientation. It’s usually some gray-area second-hand story that represents one out of 100,000,000 hospital visits. The sort of thing where you give someone power of attorney and when it really matters they can’t prove they have power of attorney. As if it were any different if you said they were your brother/sister or son/daughter and couldn’t prove it.[/quote]
So you are doubting this happens…this is somewhat valid, lets see how you respond to forlife’s recent post
[quote]forlife wrote:
Ed and Roland had power of attorney, but despite this the hospital refused Ed the right to visit his partner in the hospital until after Roland’s father arrived to grant permission. This kind of blatant discrimination does happen, which is why legal protections need to be in place for both gay and straight couples.[/quote]
First, I don’t really care about their names, and second, your description demonstrates a clear lack of clarity on your part, Ed and Roland’s part, and/or the hospital’s part.
Saying ‘Ed and Roland had power of attorney’ is like me asking you for a password and you saying ‘open sesame’, sure it’s a password, but it sure as hell ain’t the password. Supposing Ed suffered the heart attack, Roland would have to have either General or Health Care Power of Attorney. Just because they may have granted each other specific power of attorney to pay the mortgage, doesn’t get them into the emergency room together.
This is where I wonder about Ed and Roland’s understanding or the hospital’s. Whomever’s father doesn’t validate/invalidate a power of attorney and the POA isn’t an all access pass. The hospital could, quite easily and validly deny access to the person that arrived first and, as is usually the case, as time went on, the victim gets better and the ease and validity of excluding people from visitation lessens. It’s a medical professional’s judgment call and without a hard quote from the ER/OR doctor/nurse along the lines of ‘he can shove his POA, let the queer wait for his father to get here.’ they’ve hardly got evidence. Unless, the hospital was granting medical decision capacity to the father, which clearly contradicted or otherwise disobeyed the POA.
There don’t need to be legal protections in place for gay or straight couples. As the last sentence of the previous paragraph indicates, they’re already there, that’s what specific, general, and healthcare power of attorney are for. You show the medical professional caring for the ‘victim’ a Health Care POA, the onus is on them to honor it and suffer the legal repercussions of ignoring it.
Gambit asked if I was calling you a scientist, I didn’t bring it up again.
He also asked my education/training/occupation. Despite the fact that the majority of Californians marginally disapprove of it and somehow ‘raging homophobes’ keep ending up in charge of excluding homosexuals from their ‘spouses’ in hospitals. He (maybe) and others seem to be under the impression that everyone who marginally disapproves of homosexuality are poor, uneducated, Christian, etc.
Lastly, if you’d quit arguing like a complete neophyte and discussing topics with the eloquence and insight of Jar Jar Binks (But theyz is having powers of attorney!), I wouldn’t have to doubt your educational status.