[quote]mertdawg wrote:
What right was taken away in 1950? [/quote]
The period of McCarthyism was a dark moment in out history that left some very deep scars, including the removal of the clear line of separation between Church and State that was in the Constitution, with the addition of the “In God we Trust” to our currency and the “… under God” to the PofA.
You might argue that’s not taking away a right, but see it from the point of view of an atheist and you’ll have to at least admit it’s an imposition for atheists, and a step back from the original intents of the founding fathers. One that the liberals are trying to restore and the conservatives are not letting them.
I’m not going to repeat myself more about that. I’ve done that too much already. If you want to know more about my position, and some really good comments on it by Professor X, read it in the “How Do You Define Yourself?” thread.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Huh? Now tell me: why is tolerance - basically, the concept of letting people do whatever they want to do as long as it doesn’t harm anyone else (offense doesn’t count as harm) - letting gays get married, not being judgemental towards people that are not religious, etc. - “theoretical” and “conceptual”?[/quote]
Why doesn’t offense count as harm? Because you assert it? See, it’s just a normative function.
If you use just a harm principle, there are all sorts of things which do not count as harm, per se. For example, why not allow prostitution? In theory, both parties are better off (otherwise, why would they agree to do such a thing?). What if we made it legal to look at already produced child pornography, but not produce any more of it. Nobody is being harmed per se (since there is no additional being done to children). What about allowing strip clubs and sex shops to open up next to schools? That doesn’t have any actual harm.
Well, you say there is a psychological harm or an overall harm to our morals. The same thing could be said by homosexuality. Maybe not from your perspective, but for someone who views homosexuality as bad, it does (as it creates acceptance for a bad thing, just as the things I list above do).
You also mix up the word “tolerance” with “acceptance”. We tolerate a lot of things that bug us. I don’t like people protesting the election or people who cheer for the Green Bay Packers, but I tolerate them. There are other things which we as a society tolerate, but I don’t accept. For example, underage drinking or drug use. We tolerate a certain level of use, but it’s not an idea that we accept (or it would be legal).
Furthermore, you are missing a choice in that list - “endorse”. Why should society have to endorse (i.e. confer benefits in the form of tax breaks, default property rules, etc.) something which many people do not accept. Why should I have to pay for something I don’t necessarily agree with?
Also, you have to look at other perspectives when talking about things. You reference “not being judgmental toward people that are not religious.” Remove the word “not” and replace “religious” with “Christian” How is that statement not equally applicable to today’s left wing?
What “right” are you talking about? Where do you see it in the Constitution?
The word “right” appears a total of 15x’s in the Constitution:
1.) Right of Congress to encourage science (i.e. patents).
2.) Rigth to assemble
3.) Right to bear arms
4.) Right to secure person (search & seizure)
5.) Right to speedy trial
6.) Right to trial by jury
7.) Right of persons to those not listed by Congress.
8.) 3x’s regarding House of Reps in choosing president.
9.) 5x’s regarding voting
And not all of these apply to everyone all of the time (i.e. you do not always have the right to a jury trial).
So WHERE do you see a right of marriage? Where do you see a right to abortion? Where do you see a right to travel? To government benefits? To anything?
I’ll tell you where much of it comes from - “emanations” and “penumbras” of the other rights - collectively known as “substantive due process”.
What is substantive due process? It’s those things a government cannot do.
How is it decided? 5 people in Washington decide it’s a good idea. How anti-democratic can you get? It’s law by judicial decree!
So before you start spouting off about rights protected by the Constitution, look up your facts and get your ducks in a row. Don’t just start claiming things which you just think are there.
You didn’t read my previous post all the way. The desire to help poor people is not “theoretical” - it’s a normative assertion that we should help poor people. The theoretical part of it is that government can do it by putting everyone on an equal playing field. Nature says it can’t happen. It’s why communism works in theory, but not in practice.
[quote]Maybe because the Democrats suck at implementing those ideas? Well, I can give you examples of countries which did a much better job of implementing them. I’ve said multiple times that I don’t think particularly highly of Democrats and I’m not attached to them in any way.
Again, bad implementations in the US don’t make an idea bad or theoretical.
And, by the way, Republicans are equally bad at implementing right-wing ideas, which can easily be verified by George Bush’s inability to curb Government spending to the extent that would be expected from a Right-Wing government…
[/quote]
Why should government decide who they are giving it to - either Republicans or Democrats? They have incentives to only help those who will help them. They also have incentives to make people dependent upon them.
There is something known as agency costs. Basically, it is the added cost that is added on when someone is spending your money. If you put individuals in charge of their money, you can eliminate these costs. While it is true that donating it to groups still leads to these costs (i.e. The Red Cross is still going to be less efficient than direct help), indivduals decide the most efficient way to give the money. This creates competition which encourages groups to be as efficient as possible. Overall, we are better.
Here’s another way of looking at it. I think we can agree that everyone wants to help people at some level. If you say that it is government’s job, we all must go through the monopoly - government. If you put it in the hands of individuals, you put it into a competitive market.
With our mixed system, however, we are still forced to give to the monopoly. Just as a monopoly is concerned with profits, government is going to wring out as much as it can. In government case it may be in the form of working less hard, giving in a way that will maximize personal position (i.e. giving to special interests which help you get elected), or building the coziest work place.
This is true no matter who’s in office. That’s why Republicans are still running up the tab. That is also why many republicans are getting angry with Bush. But one bad choice doesn’t make the other one good. Comparatively, many of us thought that Bush would be better than Kerry. Again, your assertion that “this one is good, this one is bad” is also quite black and white.
And Democrats don’t?!?! How many millions of social programs have we invented? How “remedial” programs, such as affirmative action have been put into place? Yet are we further off?!?!
If you look on past messages you will see a link to a recent study that shows that minorities may actually be WORSE OFF due to affirmative action in law school. What happened when this was brought forth? The author was labeled as a RACIST!
Look at the other things that have occurred in the name of progress. We’ve become so concerned with girls doing well in school that we’ve ignored the fact that BOYS are failing in schools and are being outpaced by girls. Go try to claim that at a NOW rally and your argument will just be labeled as “backlash”.
Republicans bury their heads?! Well democrats deny facts and then use false accsations to discredit and destroy those who disagree with them. Look at Judge Pickering. The NAACP endorsed his nomination and called him a champion of civil rights. Yet because democrats didn’t like a literalist interpretation of the constitution, he was labeled as a racist!
Maybe Republicans bury their heads (which I will not concede to). Well, isn’t burying your head better than denying the truth and quelling dissent by labeling the speech as “hateful”, “racist”, “sexist”, religiously motivated, “intollerant” (gotta love the hypocricy on that one), “backlash”, or any number of the other labels that are put out there.
The difference between us is that I use logic, examples, facts, and other evidence to back up my position. You have just offered examples, unsubstantiated claims and accusations.
Logic, facts, evidence, and acknowledgement of normative positions is not rhetoric.
[quote]hspder wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
What right was taken away in 1950?
The period of McCarthyism was a dark moment in out history that left some very deep scars, including the removal of the clear line of separation between Church and State that was in the Constitution,[/quote] Oh yeah? Find it! Where does it say that? It says that “CONGRESS shall make no law”. This mythical line didn’t even apply to states until the passage of the 14th Amendment in the 1860’s. Also, right around the 1950’s is when the Bible was taken OUT of schools. [quote] with the addition of the “In God we Trust” to our currency and the “… under God” to the PofA.[/quote] Which has been labeled by the Supreme Court as “ceremonial deism” and not an adoption of religion. Also, if you look at history, you find that your position is NOT what the founders/writers of that provision had in mind.
[quote]You might argue that’s not taking away a right, but see it from the point of view of an atheist and you’ll have to at least admit it’s an imposition for atheists,[/quote] And if you see it from a Christian’s point of view, it’s government choosing Atheism over Christianity. This is potentially just as offensive to them as government adopting a Christian position. Why do you get to choose the baseline from which we are to analyze this issue?[quote] and a step back from the original intents of the founding fathers.[/quote] You sir, have no idea what you are talking about. Read history. Look at what was originally intended. As mentioned before, the amendment was only to apply to FEDERAL government, not state and local entities.[quote] One that the liberals are trying to restore and the conservatives are not letting them.[/quote] Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you think that it is CONSERVATIVES who are trying to appoint literalist judges? Because they recognize that the original intent is on THEIR SIDE!
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
Where do you see the phrase “Separation of Church and State” in that sentence?
When does this phrase first appear? In June of 1844 in the Surpeme Court of Louisiana. In that case, it merely said that prior laws adopted from Spain which referred to the Spainish Church were repealed due to the separation of church and state in this country.
When does it first appear in a Supreme Court case? - In a 1943 Dissent! What did the majority hold in that case? That a city could not tax Jehovah Witnesses as it was a violation of their religious rights.
It appeared a couple more times in dissents until 1948, when it finally appeared in a concurrence.
It did not appear in the actual majority court decision until [u]1952!!![/u]
So, when you’re spouting off about rights taken away in the 1950’s you should maybe get your facts down because it is clear you have no idea what you are talking about.
[quote]Cory089 wrote:
So WHERE do you see a right of marriage? Where do you see a right to abortion? Where do you see a right to travel? To government benefits? To anything?
[/quote]
Fine. You win. The body of evidence is indeed overwhelming.
So let me summarize the conclusion of a week’s worth of discussions. It’s Friday after all, time to summarize the week!
We live in a right-wing country, with a right-wing constitution, and a right-wing president and government and we cannot do or approve of anything that offends (and hence psycologically harms) the Christian majority since they’re the majority and over here the majority rules.
All the left-wing Americans must be either delusional, ignorant and/or stupid, and they should live with the fact that they are a minority with no historical basis and shut the freak up or move to Canada. Or The Netherlands, where all that left-wing atheist stuff (abortion, gay marriage, using some drugs) is legal.
Those who insist on publically defending left-wing ideas inside the borders of this Great Country will be punished with insults, as a reminder of how ignorant they must be for being left-wing. They may even be denied the priviledge to cross the street if they insist in not bowing to the greatness of the right-wing majority.
The rest of the World should join us in awe and admiration of the great power that is the USA, and the ones who decide to join us will be rewarded with the blessing of his highness himself, the great leader and representative of all true americans, president George W Bush.
I am now going to proceed and communicate this to the rest of the ignorant San Franciscans who still have an apparently delusional concept of what kind of freedoms they should be allowed in this country.
If I missed anything, please enlighten me and all the other ignorant left-wingers with your clear and unquestionable facts about the laws and history of this country.
And hspder shifts again…no…wait…he’s got a chair!!! Hspder’s got a chair and he’s…I can’t really see what he’s doing with it…Folks, Hspder’s got a chair and he’s sitting down!!! He’s sitting in the chair and he’s doing the Clintonian pout!!! What an uncanny move!!! I never saw it coming! A liberal, soundly defeated, pouting like a little ex-president.
[quote]hspder wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
What right was taken away in 1950?
The period of McCarthyism was a dark moment in out history that left some very deep scars, including the removal of the clear line of separation between Church and State that was in the Constitution, with the addition of the “In God we Trust” to our currency and the “… under God” to the PofA.
You might argue that’s not taking away a right, but see it from the point of view of an atheist and you’ll have to at least admit it’s an imposition for atheists, and a step back from the original intents of the founding fathers. One that the liberals are trying to restore and the conservatives are not letting them.
I’m not going to repeat myself more about that. I’ve done that too much already. If you want to know more about my position, and some really good comments on it by Professor X, read it in the “How Do You Define Yourself?” thread.
[/quote]
I am not an atheist but don’t think that God should be mentioned on public documents, coins, and I don’t really cherish the pledge of allegiance anyway, but I think that when these were added, it came from people saying "hey, this country was founded on Christian principals with the concept that it was guided by God, and people are going to forget that if we don’t re-emphasize it. Also, remember that well into the 1800’s many states set voting standards that you could not vote unless you belonged to one of the main protestant denomonations at the time, and owned property! And states could set voting qualifications. A conservative would say that these past precidents are meaningful and to be respected the liberal would say “fuck historical precidents!” I think that this is where I’m in the middle.
[quote]Cory089 wrote:
Why do you think that it is CONSERVATIVES who are trying to appoint literalist judges? Because they recognize that the original intent is on THEIR SIDE!
[/quote]
Is this supposed to some sort of debate winning point? Guess what, Liberals try to appoint “activist” judges because they recognize that the original intent has flaws. Surprising huh? I assume “original intent” is supposed to single-handedly make your argument. Do you believe that the original consititution was without flaw? I’m pretty sure you don’t, and if anyone has doubts I could post some pretty nasty shit from the original document.
I’ve never seen so many intelligent people base an argument on the fact that someone else wrote it down a long time ago, outside of religion of course.
However, pure conservatism in a practical world is destined to fade away. You can remove an action from the list of laws against God or Nature, but you can’t very easily (if at all) put them back. Eventually, all “original intents” of a set of laws are given exception and we are left having to actually discern right from wrong all by ourselves in the age in which we actually really do live in.
[quote]Moriarty wrote:
Is this supposed to some sort of debate winning point? Guess what, Liberals try to appoint “activist” judges because they recognize that the original intent has flaws. Surprising huh? I assume “original intent” is supposed to single-handedly make your argument. Do you believe that the original consititution was without flaw? I’m pretty sure you don’t, and if anyone has doubts I could post some pretty nasty shit from the original document.[/quote]
What? Name it. Are you talking about the 3/5 provision or about how it allowed the slave trade until 1817? That’s about as bad as it gets. I don’t think that really conts as “pretty nasty shit” if you take it in context.
My comments are not supposed to be some winning point, and that’s what I’ve been trying to say this whole time.
There are no winning points. There are only competing points. The conclusions drawn from these points are either supported or not, and in Hspder’s situation, his points were not supported. In fact, his statements were simply false.
Nor are there two answers. You are not either an activist or an originalist. Nor is a person always consistent on where they stand.
What I have been trying to say this whole time is that things may appear one way or another from one position, but look like quite another if you look at it from someone else’s viewpoint. So while liberals think they are taking the moral highroad, that’s only because they see it under their point of view. The same is true for Republicans. They think that banning gay marriage is the moral highroad because they see the world under their point of view.
Eventually, anything we say can be backed up to normative functions. Sometimes these agree (we all think that killing another human without justification is bad), sometimes they do not (abortion).
You can have two equally thought out and reasoned positions which ultimately come out in different directions. Does this mean that one is right and one is wrong? No. It just means that there are competing normative functions. At that point, if you want to garner support for your desired outcome (say a ban on abortion), you have to convince others that your normative position is better.
The decision between normative functions should be had in the legislature. The judiciary is to interpret these choices. When you are debating between “activism” and “originalist”, what you are really debating is how broadly or narrowly you should interpret those choices.
For example, I say that “equal protection” should be interpreted as it was implimented. Since it is clear that the writers didn’t mean to include something like gay marriage, we should not simply change it and that doing so would be like amending the constitution by judicial decree. If you want it changed, you should amend it acording to its provisions.
The response to that is that “equal protection” was meant to stand for a broader principle that should change over time. Accordingly, not adopting it to today’s situation is the equivalent of amending it.
Now, we debate the merits of that propostion, and so on and so forth.
My comments earlier were meant to point out that comments by Hspder and others were simply assertions of conclusions without any defense. That is just rhetoric and is subject to all sorts of attack. This is especially true when any attempted defense for those positions are incorrect facts.
It seems to me that we have gotten very far off track.
Yes: at least in my formative opinion, conservatives tend to believe that many laws come from a higher authority and bear in themselves some kind of intrinsic value
True: liberals tend to believe that a particular law, intent or precident has no intrinsic value but that all laws are practical. Now my real delimna is that while I believe this to describe Liberalism, it is also about individual freedoms. In other words, a liberal presented with the argument that Homosexuality degrades society (as presented in the study (probably biased) that 85% of homosexual men polled anonymously admitted that they had been molested by a man prior to the age of 16) would say “yes” but the homosexual man who is not a child molester can not be judged on the basis of generic statistics. So the liberal viewpoint would be that law is to provide the greatest common pragmatic (economic/social) good without denying a defined “person” of their absolute rights. Now liberals (historically) have defined persons to meet their agendas, but I also have a problem with how you can argue absolute individual rights of a person outside of the idea of a higher law of some type. There are ways around this such as arguing that granting individuals absolute freedoms gives all individuals peace of mind. I don’t know, I’m looking for comments.
This is probably my best working, formative definition of what defines conservative and liberal philosophies of law.
Interesting: wasn’t the Christian revolution in Judaism based on the principal that (written) laws themselves by nature always overgeneralized and that true morality required dealing with each situation and relationship with a look to the law, but with a critical analysis unique to the situation.
SO, back to the original question, gay marriage, abortion and the poor.
The questions here are
Do individuals have a right to engage in homosexual marriage-a right arising from a higher authority? (most would say no here on both sides)
Does homosexual marriage pragmatically improve society as a whole (I say no. You have to realize how pervasive male on male child molestation is in society, and its clear (though not exclusive) link to homosexuality, BUT I have not heard conservatives argue against gay marriage on the basis of pragmatics rather on the basis of higher law.
THE REAL ISSUE FOR MORAL CONSERVATIVES IS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD BE ILLEGAL IN THE FU**ING FIRST PLACE! If that’s your point of view on this thread, don’t beat around the bush and talk about Gay Marriage and the definition of marriage and its place in natural or divine law!
3)Does condoning homosexual marriage give all individuals peace of mind? In fact, Gay marriage would be a right that all “people” would have in principal, but all in all it probably harms the peace of mind of the majority.
For some reason, the state chose to include the issue of marriage under the umbrella of government. I think a real conservative or liberal would argue that marriage should not exist in legal definition, however it exists because of the CONTEXT of America. Only Conservatives care about context IMO.
I think abortion is wrong. Write to privacy was invented by a liberal supreme court. How can the government protect a right which by its very definition is outside the bounds of government? The government only has authority to regulate public life and actions. Abortion is a public action-this is why the idea that it falls under right to privacy is insane. If it was private, no court could stand to deliniate it.
Problem is, conservatives, because their stuck on the CONTEXT of American law have to hold that abortion should be for the individual states. The whole issue here is most conservatives believe that an unborn child is a human, just as the humans who were dehumanized by Liberal Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, and slaves in America. THATS THE POINT conservatives-Not state rights. Get a constitutional amendment to define Human and the rest is history. Right to privacy is revealed as a joke. Reproductive rights?
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
True: liberals tend to believe that a particular law, intent or precident has no intrinsic value but that all laws are practical. Now my real delimna is that while I believe this to describe Liberalism, it is also about individual freedoms. In other words, a liberal presented with the argument that Homosexuality degrades society (as presented in the study (probably biased) that 85% of homosexual men polled anonymously admitted that they had been molested by a man prior to the age of 16) would say “yes” but the homosexual man who is not a child molester can not be judged on the basis of generic statistics. So the liberal viewpoint would be that law is to provide the greatest common pragmatic (economic/social) good without denying a defined “person” of their absolute rights.[/quote]
All right, mert. This is kinda like saying “well, of all the kids molested by priests, the majority are catholic, so we need to think about how necessary Catholicism is…” I don’t think that homosexuality can be deemed to be detrimental to society in any way. How can it? Have you ever even heard of a fruitcake killing anybody? Where is the so-called “damage” that is caused by queerness? I have a few gay friends, and the only thing they can be said to damage is my friggin’ hearing from their poppy rave music that they blast while I’m trying to concentrate here at work.
I agree. And sometimes, laws outlive their usefulness, don’t they? Slavish obedience to the law has its definite downside. In fact, morality in general (right and wrong) is situational and relative itself.
[quote]The questions here are
Do individuals have a right to engage in homosexual marriage-a right arising from a higher authority? (most would say no here on both sides)[/quote]
Well, according to the liberal as you define it, this question doesn’t even apply. There is no higher authority, remember? And any conservative worth his salt will ask “why change something if there is no perceived benefit as I see it?”
[quote]2) Does homosexual marriage pragmatically improve society as a whole (I say no. You have to realize how pervasive male on male child molestation is in society, and its clear (though not exclusive) link to homosexuality, BUT I have not heard conservatives argue against gay marriage on the basis of pragmatics rather on the basis of higher law.
THE REAL ISSUE FOR MORAL CONSERVATIVES IS THAT HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD BE ILLEGAL IN THE FU**ING FIRST PLACE! If that’s your point of view on this thread, don’t beat around the bush and talk about Gay Marriage and the definition of marriage and its place in natural or divine law![/quote] Of course gay marriage improves society… but in order to see its benefits, you have to not believe that homosexuality is wrong. Anything that doesn’t hurt anybody, and helps some other folks cannot be construed to be anything but helpful in general. The conservatives realize this, and that’s why they attempt to show how gay marriage is damaging to the “institution of marriage” as a whole. You are right in that the vast majority of folks arguing against this thing believing that homosexuality in general is wrong. But this is simple homophobia, so the more enlightened amongst the conservative crowd feel that they have to do better than “because it’s gross to me” or “because Jesus hates fags”. The argument of the damaging effects of gay marriage on society that conservatives have in this issue is short-sighted, fearful, and paranoid. They have rhetoric, while the pro-gay marriage folks have positive results. A quick peek at some of the gay marriage threads we’ve had in recent past will show links to good results from gay married couples raising kids, for example.
And as to your belief in the pervasiveness of child molestation and its clear link to the determinism of homosexuality, I call bullshit. That was some poll. You can look at all the biological differences between the homo- vs. hetero- person, and see it for yourself. Queerness is not caused by being raped by an adult. My pals here didn’t get their love of shopping for boots by being molested. Sorry.
Are you kidding? Of course it doesn’t give most people peace of mind! Most people in this country dislike homosexuality, so seeing a couple of fruitcakes getting married would be alien and unsettling to them. I could even see how some of them might find it insulting to their own marriage that “some faggot sissy-boys want to wear rings like I do, as if that would give them some sense of equality with ME!” I can see how this might be a good argument against gay marriage in that maybe our society isn’t quite ready for something like this. But I say tough… get over yourselves! As you can tell, I’m all for my queer friends getting married… in fact, one of my lesbian buddies here in the hospital has been raising a little girl with her partner (I can’t say “wife” can I?) for about eight years now, and I think it would be cool if they could be officially “married”. But that’s just me. Most people don’t see things my way, and I think it’s a shame. The voters in this country sure told the world how much they like the idea of gay marriage last year, didn’t they?
[quote]4) For some reason, the state chose to include the issue of marriage under the umbrella of government. I think a real conservative or liberal would argue that marriage should not exist in legal definition, however it exists because of the CONTEXT of America. Only Conservatives care about context IMO.[/quote] Marriage IS a governmental issue. There are clearly delineated benefits and differences in the eyes of the law for a married couple vs. an unmarried one.
I see what you’re getting at, but I disagree with abortion being a public action. A woman’s uterus is not in the public domain. The little human growing inside of her is a parasite until he/she is able to survive on his/her own, by definition. If a woman chooses to end her parasitic infestation, that’s HER business, not some politician’s. And government loves to stick its nose in our bedrooms – sodomy laws, anyone? We still have 'em in Florida, and I can’t imagine why they were there in the first place, but hey… I’m weird like that.
[quote]6) Problem is, conservatives, because their stuck on the CONTEXT of American law have to hold that abortion should be for the individual states. The whole issue here is most conservatives believe that an unborn child is a human, just as the humans who were dehumanized by Liberal Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, and slaves in America. THATS THE POINT conservatives-Not state rights. Get a constitutional amendment to define Human and the rest is history. Right to privacy is revealed as a joke. Reproductive rights?
[/quote]
I think that we do have some documentation from the founding fathers concerning the definition of an American in the Declaration of Independence. We are all BORN equal. So an American has to be BORN, in a manner of thinking. I prefer to think that a fetus turns into a citizen when it can survive on its own, and not necessarily be born already, but whatever.
Its not quite parallel, but if 85% of deaths in america were caused by drunk drivers, would we limit the rights of drunk drivers? And a marriage liscense and drivers liscense are constitutionally very similar. Right to work (in that driving is a veritable necessity in most of the country)and right to have a union recognized for tax purposes. Neither one in the constitution but probably second or third tier rights. Also, you can say you have a choice to drive drunk but its also not inherently evil. If no one could die, no problem. Like playing a video game drunk, right.
Here’s the thing. I don’t think a conservative should have the right to argue that homosexuality is detrimental to society.
It’s trying to use a liberal reason for a conservative action because most moral conservatives just believe that its wrong…if it could be proved that no harm came from it a conservative would still say its wrong so don’t get into social pragmatics.
The argument is designed to create an emotional rather than a logical conservative analysis of law.
[quote]I agree. And sometimes, laws outlive their usefulness, don’t they? Slavish obedience to the law has its definite downside. In fact, morality in general (right and wrong) is situational and relative itself.
[/quote]
Yea, but now I see a liberal conflict. You are basically arguing that laws have no “intrinsic” value (good liberal) you can always find a pragmatic social purpose for a good law, and yet monogamous marriage is a Judeo-Christian institution. I would like to do some research on pre-historical human family structure though. The only question for a moral conservative to ask is, does it come from natural or divine law (probably concluding a little of both) and can it every be justified in the case of homosexuality.
The whole question is, does a government have any right to regulate morals as a stand-alone principal?
Conservatives are seeing their dream of a Protestant Utopia shattered and are willing to use bad logic, and use liberal arguments to try to hold on to the dream.
Unlike many conservatives, I believe that homosexuality has a strong genetic link in most cases. Again, the conservative argument that it is not genetically based is an attempt to grab on to anything. It muddies the waters because a moral conservative shouldn’t give a damn whether is is genetic or not but end up fighting that argument tooth and nail-however, the biological and genetic tests that suggested homosexuality had a genetic link were bad science and also muddied the waters. Everyone is born with a brain that responds to basically the same set of arousal cues. These differentiate (starting within maybe a year) but they are influenced by (biochemical) environment and social factors. I don’t know haow many times I can tell you I’ve had a kid in highschool who started to feel that they were gay around 7th or 8th grade, basically developes into a gay person by 10th or 11th grade (finds themself)and then it ends up in some counselling that they were molested by a man during summer camp between 6th and 7th grade. You now, from a liberal point of view it doesn’t matter if its genetic or not.
[quote]3)Does condoning homosexual marriage give all individuals peace of mind? In fact, Gay marriage would be a right that all “people” would have in principal, but all in all it probably harms the peace of mind of the majority.
Are you kidding? Of course it doesn’t give most people peace of mind![/quote]
But the REAL Conservative fear is that the principal of law coming from a higher power will evaporate from America-and it will be lost forever. Unfortunately, conservatives have to face a logical fact that no real interactive government here on earth can hold on to non-pragmatic laws forever. They slowly slip away, one by one. (For theists: sorry that’s the price of original sin). A religious organization should be able to have conservative moral principles. If a gay person wants to be Catholic, and the Catholic Church says acting gay is a sin the the gay person needs to start their own religion, or have their head examined. There are 10,000 protestant denomonations/sects etc in America, all of which have let some conservative moral principles slip away (if not, they’d all believe the same thing, interpret the Bible the same way) American protestantism should be proof to itself that it is part of a broken, fractured, fallen cosmos.
[quote] Marriage IS a governmental issue. There are clearly delineated benefits and differences in the eyes of the law for a married couple vs. an unmarried one.
[/quote]
Wouldn’t it be a lot simpler if we just removed marriage from the scope of the law? Again, conservatives would fear the inevitable slipping away of the blinded concept that America is ruled by God.
A fetus is not a parasite by ANY scientific definition. A parasite is an organism that damages the ability of another organism to (ultimately) reproduce. Thats the eco-biological end. Don’t mix scientific and social definitions please. If a fetus is harmful to the mother, than anyone walking by a pregnant woman should be morally bound to try to save her from this parasite. If she doesn’t want to have a parasite removed from her, she’s crazy and you owe it to her to help her anyway. Also, if a person intentionally kills a fetus inside another person, what are they guilty of? Nothing according to you-they helped her. She might not even win a civil suit. By definition, a doctor who performs an abortion is a parasite. He/she benifits from preventing another from passing on their genetic material. How is a 2 year old different? Can they take care of themselves? Do they parasitize based on your definition?
The only question in my mind is which argument has more support: 1) That a fetus is a person in the eyes of American law or that 2) personhood (not citizenship) starts at birth. I would like to see arguments on both sides here.
[quote]I think that we do have some documentation from the founding fathers concerning the definition of an American in the Declaration of Independence. We are all BORN equal. So an American has to be BORN, in a manner of thinking. I prefer to think that a fetus turns into a citizen when it can survive on its own, and not necessarily be born already, but whatever.
[/quote]
That’s argument #1. Anyone want to tear into that one?
I support gay marriage for a variety of reasons. I understand though that there is reservation against gay marriage as it challenges our understanding of family structures; even the religious argument, is in my view (as an atheist) a valid one, as it is an expression of strong moral values and beliefs. I question the science though brought into the discussion - especially the 85% claim as it is not reflected in the scientific consent and research results on the topic. Even just a very brief research on the web can thwart that argument:
"Sexual Orientation
Until the mid 80s, homosexuality was listed in textbooks as a paraphilia or sexual deviation. At that time a sexual disorder was defined as any condition that impaired affectional and sexual relations between a man and a woman; therefore, homosexuality was a disorder. Presently, homosexuality or bisexuality is no longer considered a psychological disorder. Orientation was noted in the DSM-III as ?ego-dystonic homosexuality?, suggesting that if the orientation causes stress, confusion, interpersonal conflict, anxiety or depression, it becomes a therapeutic issue. The DSM-IV dropped this category.
Sexual preference ranges from exclusively heterosexual (0) to exclusively homosexual (7) on a seven point scale devised by Alfred Kinsey. Bisexuals would be a 3 on the scale.
Etiology: Theory One: fetal hormones in the womb create a strong predisposition to sexual orientation, leaving later pathways to be discovered. Those pathways will include:
Parental influences
Role models
Pubertal hormones
Content of late childhood play
Fantasies and dreams
Early sexual experiences
Theory Two: the brains of gay males are anatomically different; gay men have the medial anterior hypothalamus area of the brain (implicated in male sexual behavior) much smaller than straight men. The size of this area of the brain is influenced by hormone production in the first trimester of fetal development.
Theory Three: Heritability seems to increase the possibility of male and female homosexuality, based on identical twin, fraternal twin and sibling studies, by a factor between three and four." http://facultyfp.salisbury.edu/iewhite/Sexual%20Disorders.htm
While this article mentions role models and early experiences as involved factors it does not support a molestation or seduction theory.
What is quite clear from the literature is also that most abuse actually happens within families or among aquaintances - no one calls for the disolving of families, but it is indeed where a lot of abuse happens.
“Behavioral sexologists observed from studies of mating in animals that, while there are widely diverse and sometimes highly colourful courtship rituals, there are also commonalities between species. There is first and foremost a sexual preference for a certain category of sex object that is relatively fixed and constant. In mammals, the erotically preferred (in other words, most arousing) sex object is usually within the same species and of the opposite sex.” http://www.athabascau.ca/courses/crjs/360/lecture2.html
I really liked that one as it - in a very dry manner puts away the concept that homosexuality is “unnatural”.
“Homosexuals are no more promiscuous or predatory than heterosexuals” Gay Mental Health
This is a bit of an opinionated piece I thought, but it should help with further reading on the subject; and I can understand the author being pissed of a bit by the myth of seduction/molestation still being around. With probably the media to blame, as can be seen from “THE PERPETUATION OF PREJUDICE IN REPORTING
ON GAYS AND LESBIANS, Time and Newsweek:
The First Fifty Years” Harvard Kennedy School | Harvard Kennedy School
(Just browsed that one, but it should be an interesting read).
Fazit: A lively discussion on gay marriage and even an honest decision not to support it on a variety of grounds in my opinion is acceptable - but there is no scientific base “against” homosexuality in general.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
All right, mert. This is kinda like saying “well, of all the kids molested by priests, the majority are catholic, so we need to think about how necessary Catholicism is…”
[/quote]
I don’t think you would get any arguments from the Catholic boys Choir!
mertdawg and lothario: Good stuff guys, your discussion is going directly to my reference archive. I just wished most political commentators were half as good and civilized as you…
If you don’t mind, I think you can even boil down the question of abortion to even simpler terms that match the different liberal and conservative perspective on this: which is more important: the freedom to choose of the mother or the life of the fetus?
I think your definitions of liberalism and conservatism basically tell us who is going to defend which.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
The only question in my mind is which argument has more support: 1) That a fetus is a person in the eyes of American law or that 2) personhood (not citizenship) starts at birth. I would like to see arguments on both sides here.
I think that we do have some documentation from the founding fathers concerning the definition of an American in the Declaration of Independence. We are all BORN equal. So an American has to be BORN, in a manner of thinking. I prefer to think that a fetus turns into a citizen when it can survive on its own, and not necessarily be born already, but whatever.
That’s argument #1. Anyone want to tear into that one?
[/quote]
However, I’d still like to address your arguments.
Starting with #1:
As a liberal, as you very correctly observed, I’m very pragmatic. So rather than trying to interpret the law - lothario already did that - I’ll look into what actually happens in society.
I’ll use smoking as an example.
In California, you cannot smoke in closed public places. Looking at the discussion that went on about it, the reason that law was passed, was mostly because it was scientifically proven that second hand smoking is bad, so smokers should not be allowed to harm other people. So if you’re caught smoking in a public place, you are asked to stop, or leave, and if you do not comply, you might be fined or even go to jail. In many other states and countries similar laws were passed for the same reasons.
Now, if a child were indeed a person in the eyes of American law, he/she/it should have the same rights?
But he/she/it does not - if a pregnant women is caught smoking in public, in an open space, were ONLY the child is being harmed, can you legally force her to stop? Can you enforce such law, even?
Same thing about driking, and even general nutrition: if you malnourish a kid that is out here, born, or give him alcohol, you’ll be in trouble with social services. But I never saw social services telling a pregnant woman that since she is not feeding the fetus properly, she is proving she’s a bad mother and hence must give the child for adoption.
Saying that protecting a fetus by law is unenforceable is simply sticking your head in the sand: yes, it’s extremely hard to enforce, but it is not impossible.
I know - this is a highly pragmatic argument, but that’s the whole point…
In regards to argument #2, I believe that in order for a life to be a person, by definition it has to be fully independent. Our independence defines us. As long as a fetus is not able to live outside the mother, it cannot be seen as a person.
Finally, I’d like to remind you of another point - how this connects with the left/right-wing principles. As a left-wing liberal, who believes in social regulation by the government, I feel that a) abortion after the 3rd month should only be allowed for medical reasons b) Any women wishing to abort should undergo mandatory psychological counseling for at least two weeks before the abortion and a year after c) The WOMAN doing the abortion should pay 100% for the procedure and the conseling, even if it’s through a very low interest federal loan
Why? Because of the pragmatic view that if we do not properly regulate these things a) people will eventually start abusing the abortion laws (many people will stop using contraceptives) b) tax payers shouldn’t have to pay for somebody else’s elective procedure c) horrific images of aborted fetuses that are older than 3 months can be used by the press and conservative groups to create public insurgence against it d) anyone who wishes to abort needs to heave their head checked in long term for a multitude of reasons I won’t get into and
[quote]makkun wrote:
I support gay marriage for a variety of reasons. I understand though that there is reservation against gay marriage as it challenges our understanding of family structures; [/quote]
Great post, makkun!
You know what? I think we basically need to redefine the state’s part in marriage. Namely what we call it. Government should stick to Civil Unions.
I’ll see if I can explain it, let me know if I was able to:
I do not disagree with the tax aspect of marriage - because as seen in many countries, governments can easily give tax breaks to people that live together, and further breaks to people that have kids. I believe such tax breaks are essential, since living together reduces housing problems, but should be completer gender and hence orientation blind, and not be dependent on marriage - or even civil union.
I do not disagree either with the “contract” part of it. Having some kind of legal contract is essential to provide some kind of security and safety mechanism when two people decide to live together. AKA Civil Unions. But that should be gender/orientation blind, as even Bush agrees.
Why not still have the State performing something legally called marriage?
Because “marriage” is a) an institution of religous origin (the only thing it has “over” civil unions is the religious part!) and b) the way that it is done today, basically a way of the state giving its “blessing” to two people living together and starting a natural family - i.e., having kids of their own. So as long as we have the Government “marrying” people, it’s problematic to separate Church from State!
As you know, I have problems with state-sponsored religious institutions. So I’d be much more confortable if marriage was a thing exclusively done by churches, with the state more generally gender/orientation-blindly recognizing civil unions for tax and contractual (property) purposes, effectively removing any mention of marriage from ANY legal document, and even the constitution.
So, Government unites, Churches marry.
Now, does this means I’m against gay marriage? Not at all. As hypochritical that may sound to some, there are plenty of churches that have deciced to ignore the “homosexuality is an abomination” part of the Bible/Torah and hapilly marry gays. And it’s not my business - or anyone’s business - to judge that.
Except for “moral offense” and the general principle of the “changing” thing that would make conservatives very upset at this proposal, the only people that could be upset because they would no longer be able to get married would be the atheists and agnostics who would refuse to go to church. However, honestly, if an atheist or agnostic sees value in marriage over civil union, I really think that they’re simply lying to themselves about their belief system and need to have their head checked.
Thanks for taking the time to supply evidence. By the way, I was not trying to use the study I recalled to show that homosexuals are more likely to be pedopiliacs at all! I basically described a cause of homosexuality that was partly genetic, partly developmental and partly experiential which tends to be true of just about every trait expressed by just about every organism on earth. The hypothalmus study was not good (statistical) science and people need to be discouraged from pushing through crappy science like that.
Let’s remove marriage from the realm of law, and let the government give tax breaks for anything it wants to that pragmatically improves society. I think some of us on the thread have made progress here. If your an conservative I think if you can accept taxes, you can accept tax breaks, and you can accept that the law concerning them is should be pragmatically based.
Abortion. Good points about smoking and alcohol. I’ll have to think about that, but can’t someone who intentionally kills another’s fetus be charged with murder (or some crime) in most states. Anyone want to look that up. My proposed solution would be that for someone to have an abortion, they have to go to a judge and get an order. That’s it. I’m against abortion morally, but having a court ordered rather than rights based mechanism avoids some legal problems that I think we both can appreciate. Then a Christian who wanted to save the unborn would focus on improving society so that abortion was less likely, or trying to convince individuals one-on-one to act morally as they see it.
Let’s remove marriage from the realm of law, and let the government give tax breaks for anything it wants to that pragmatically improves society.
[/quote]
Yap, that is exactly what I was thinking too.
I believe that’s true, yes. However, that’s very different, because it is very easy to argue that murdering the fetus also causes extreme harm (psychological and maybe also physical) to the mother too. So even if the fetus is not considered a person per se, the mother is also harmed and she is definitely a person. Hence it is a clear crime.
[quote]
My proposed solution would be that for someone to have an abortion, they have to go to a judge and get an order. That’s it. I’m against abortion morally, but having a court ordered rather than rights based mechanism avoids some legal problems that I think we both can appreciate. Then a Christian who wanted to save the unborn would focus on improving society so that abortion was less likely, or trying to convince individuals one-on-one to act morally as they see it.[/quote]
I’d be comfortable with that as long as the judges were picked on the base that they needed to be comfortable with abortion and have no predisposition (moral or otherwise) against or for it. I know, that’s obvious, because they need to remain objective and follow the letter of the law (who would have to have very well defined criteria) but I just wanted to point it out, because it might not be easy to find such judges.
I’ll leave you with a thought:
Forbidding something decreases the control you have over it because it sends it to the underworld, where it’s much harder to enforce. By tolerating something you let it surface and can therefore influence it more directly - and influence is much more powerful than control.
Sorry, I made a mistake. I did origingaly bring up child molestation as a gay on gay issue, but my point was that even if the numbers were true, they should be out of the debate for both groups: Conservatives, because they would be against homosexuality even if there was no such thing as child molestation and liberals because an individuals rights shouldn’t usually be affected by the fact that they fall into a group which has statistical tendancies: however, what about Affirmative Action! Hey!