LA judge upholds state SSM ban
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:42:58 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  LA judge upholds state SSM ban
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5
Author Topic: LA judge upholds state SSM ban  (Read 7355 times)
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: September 12, 2014, 04:11:20 PM »

If you went back to the 1700s and talked about people of different religions marrying because they liked each other or found each other attractive, you would have been considered bonkers.

That isn't even remotely true. Even where there were prohibitions against it, they would have understood exactly why someone would want to marry someone of a different religion based on fondness or attractiveness. It is more our time that doesn't understand them.

There weren't prohibitions against inter-religious marriage. The idea wasn't conceivable. There was no way to get married. If a Jew and a Catholic in Russia in 1790 wanted to marry, who would have conducted it? How would they have registered it? I'm all ears.

There have been interfaith marriages in many places and times across millennia, but perhaps it was not possible in the case you mention given the institutional arrangement of that setting. But the prohibition is implicit is in the refusal of the religions to conduct and sanction such a union is it not?  Cannot a person conceive of something which may not possible in actuality? My impression is that it isn't that it would be considered not a true marriage for two people of different religions to wed, but that a person could not be considered a true follower of their religion if they did so. Perhaps in some theology it would not be considered a true marriage either, but then they probably wouldn't consider it a true marriage if two people married who were both of the same 'false' religion either. 

As for your camera-phone comment, it doesn't work as an analogy because a camera phone at a wedding would not have a meaningful opposite to people in the past. To say "there was no camera phone at a wedding" would not make any more sense than to say "there was a camera phone at a wedding." On the other hand to say "marriage is between a man and a woman" would have made sense regardless of how much sense it would have made sense to say "marriage can be between a man and a man." Ancient peoples created myths and poems and art centered around the idea of marriage as a union between male and female. They didn't do any of that for the non-existence of cell phones.

You would agree that ancient peoples were wrong about their understanding of sexual orientation though?  How does that not invalidate your argument here?
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,664
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: September 12, 2014, 04:23:09 PM »

Concepts of sexual orientation are so culturally specific in any case, but it's not at all clear to me what about my argument would be invalidated. What about sexual orientation do you think is key here?
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: September 12, 2014, 04:33:38 PM »

Concepts of sexual orientation are so culturally specific in any case, but it's not at all clear to me what about my argument would be invalidated. What about sexual orientation do you think is key here?

First off, we're talking about the US anglo-American culture which is relevant to US law.  Right?  What happened in Italy or Russia is not going to have much relevance to US law.

The crux of your argument is that people in the past didn't see fit to let gay people get married, so we don't necessarily even have to consider allowing SSM today because sometimes (why?) law and reason must be trumped by tradition.

To me, that's basically taking a judgment of gay people who you and I would vehemently disagree with when it comes to sexual orientation at total face value.  Just, as we would vehemently disagree with them about the role of women or race or a number of other social issues, we find their opinions about homosexuality to be extremely wrong and horrible in a certain sense.  So, why are we listening to their judgments today when we disagree about the basic assumptions that underpin their reasoning?  We've been over this like 4 times and you refuse to answer, so maybe this is a waste of time, but whatever.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,664
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: September 12, 2014, 10:01:49 PM »

Concepts of sexual orientation are so culturally specific in any case, but it's not at all clear to me what about my argument would be invalidated. What about sexual orientation do you think is key here?

First off, we're talking about the US anglo-American culture which is relevant to US law.  Right?  What happened in Italy or Russia is not going to have much relevance to US law.

The crux of your argument is that people in the past didn't see fit to let gay people get married, so we don't necessarily even have to consider allowing SSM today because sometimes (why?) law and reason must be trumped by tradition.

To me, that's basically taking a judgment of gay people who you and I would vehemently disagree with when it comes to sexual orientation at total face value.  Just, as we would vehemently disagree with them about the role of women or race or a number of other social issues, we find their opinions about homosexuality to be extremely wrong and horrible in a certain sense.  So, why are we listening to their judgments today when we disagree about the basic assumptions that underpin their reasoning?  We've been over this like 4 times and you refuse to answer, so maybe this is a waste of time, but whatever.

I haven't made the argument that same-sex marriage is something that shouldn't even be considered. That would be hypocritical to absurd degree on my part.  What I have been saying is that when it is considered, then tradition, while not necessarily dispositive, is relevant. By all means tradition should be questioned, but we should also allow it to question the assumptions of modernity.  Instead, we have seen courts go out of their way to trash tradition. It is indeed odd, in the Anglo-American context, given that precedent and the common law are nothing if not appeals to tradition.  We wouldn't even care what these people in black robes say were it not for a tradition to do such a thing.

I don't believe that support for same-sex marriage should actually require the demonization of its opponents, denigration and derision of tradition, and having views on sexuality that can be accurately summed up by a Macklemore song.  In the case that it does, I'm afraid that it fails to be something I can support.

You seem to keep coming back to this idea that marriage being defined as a man and a woman depended on certain false views about sexual orientation, but then you seem to say they didn't think about such things, so I'm confused about what you are claiming. I don't see why views about sexual orientation as typically defined are necessarily behind views about marriage, but maybe you can clarify this for me.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: September 12, 2014, 10:29:26 PM »

I haven't made the argument that same-sex marriage is something that shouldn't even be considered. That would be hypocritical to absurd degree on my part.  What I have been saying is that when it is considered, then tradition, while not necessarily dispositive, is relevant. By all means tradition should be questioned, but we should also allow it to question the assumptions of modernity.  Instead, we have seen courts go out of their way to trash tradition. It is indeed odd, in the Anglo-American context, given that precedent and the common law are nothing if not appeals to tradition.  We wouldn't even care what these people in black robes say were it not for a tradition to do such a thing.

The law has to be something though, right?  If there weren't laws, marriage would not exist insofar as we're discussing it here.  And, there are two laws that appear to conflict, these state marriage laws and the 5th/14th Amendments of the Constitution.  So, it's not this weird thing that marriage law is up for grabs in a court.  I don't see how it could be any other way unless you're making an argument against judicial review in general.

I don't believe that support for same-sex marriage should actually require the demonization of its opponents, denigration and derision of tradition, and having views on sexuality that can be accurately summed up by a Macklemore song.  In the case that it does, I'm afraid that it fails to be something I can support.

Who is demonizing people?  Is it demonizing to point out that someone is using bad logic or has a certain set of beliefs?  If that's demonizing, what about the opponents of SSM, aren't they horrendous human beings for how they demonize gay people, torture children and ruin people's lives over sexual orientation?  You would rather be on their side than be on the side of people who make pointed reasoned arguments to change laws?  That's bonkers.

You seem to keep coming back to this idea that marriage being defined as a man and a woman depended on certain false views about sexual orientation, but then you seem to say they didn't think about such things, so I'm confused about what you are claiming. I don't see why views about sexual orientation as typically defined are necessarily behind views about marriage, but maybe you can clarify this for me.

I don't think sexual orientation was even a concept for people in 1800.  As a threshold matter, same-sex marriage never made became an issue because it would be ridiculous considering their beliefs about homosexuality.

So, having opposite sex marriage had no real consideration of whether one-man, one woman was magically perfect for some reason, it was the only option based on the process of elimination.  It's like they had vanilla ice cream in their freezer and nothing else.  You're saying they decided to have vanilla ice cream for dessert because they had this infinite wisdom about selecting ice cream.  Well, if it's the only choice, how much stock do you put in that decision?  Forget why they only had vanilla/opposite sex marriage, if there was no other option given their baseline assumptions in their metaphorical freezer of gender-gender pairs, what is the logic behind venerating that decision?  This is about categories at the end of the day.  If they had one option to fit in the box, of course they picked the one option.  Today, logic and experience present us with multiple categories of who could be a married couple. 
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,664
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: September 12, 2014, 11:28:04 PM »

You are right, it is not a weird thing that marriage law ends up in court. The problem I have is with the argumentation being made. I am open to the idea that there is an argument a court could make declaring same-sex marriage to be valid that I would find convincing. I've been trying to think of it and I haven't gotten there.  Perhaps it exists already and I haven't read it, but the general trend has been to depend heavily on arguments that say that appeals to tradition are irrational and any opposition amounts to nothing more than bigotry.

Who is demonizing people, you ask?  It certainly seems that you are demonizing opponents of SSM as a group in what you just said. Given the discrimination and bullying that sadly still exists in our society, it is understandable, but neither accurate nor helpful to do so.

I think that experience is a good argument for same-sex marriage, given the fact that people have formed relationships patterned after marriage whether they are recognized by the state or not. I don't see any reason why logic alone would dictate that same-sex marriage would be allowed. I
think it is worth asking in your parable why there was vanilla ice cream in the freezer in the first place. I don't think we can assume it was merely accidental.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: September 13, 2014, 12:05:55 AM »

You are right, it is not a weird thing that marriage law ends up in court. The problem I have is with the argumentation being made. I am open to the idea that there is an argument a court could make declaring same-sex marriage to be valid that I would find convincing. I've been trying to think of it and I haven't gotten there.  Perhaps it exists already and I haven't read it, but the general trend has been to depend heavily on arguments that say that appeals to tradition are irrational and any opposition amounts to nothing more than bigotry.

Who is demonizing people, you ask?  It certainly seems that you are demonizing opponents of SSM as a group in what you just said. Given the discrimination and bullying that sadly still exists in our society, it is understandable, but neither accurate nor helpful to do so.

I think that experience is a good argument for same-sex marriage, given the fact that people have formed relationships patterned after marriage whether they are recognized by the state or not. I don't see any reason why logic alone would dictate that same-sex marriage would be allowed. I
think it is worth asking in your parable why there was vanilla ice cream in the freezer in the first place. I don't think we can assume it was merely accidental.

There are plenty of arguments for allowing same-sex marriage.  You would agree.  My original point is that there are no coherent arguments against it except those premised upon either religion or homophobia.

You're saying there might be or least we can't assume there aren't.  Well, you can maybe me to death, but you have produced any of these arguments.  You can always say, well, maybe there are good arguments in favor of my position.  It's a lame argument and you can return to it in a long-winded fashion, it's still lame.  Then you tell me, "Or, at least it's mean to these opponents of same-sex marriage to call them homophobes."  To me, it's not mean to call a homophobe a homophobe, particularly in the context where homophobes murder and attack gay people and influence our government and our society.  And, this is about challenging a law that's on the books in some US states.  These opponents of same-sex marriage aren't these poor, disenfranchised little waifs, they're people demanding that a law be kept on the books for everyone.  If you enter the public debate like that, you're fair game for rational argument. 

Now, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're wrong, maybe we're both wrong.  Sure, buddy.  But, as to the original point, you can't defend your argument at all.  You maybe-d around.  You said "tradition!" enough times to be cast as Tevye in a production of "Fiddler on the Roof."  You don't have any arguments, I suppose because you don't think that public policy needs to be supported by any rational arguments or reasons or principles.  I guess that makes you a conservative defending same-sex marriage as before you Somalians defended female genital mutilation and Aztecs defended human sacrifice.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,664
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: September 13, 2014, 12:25:00 AM »

No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: September 13, 2014, 01:32:53 AM »
« Edited: September 13, 2014, 01:34:37 AM by bedstuy »

No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.

You: I'm not sure you should be allowed to get married.
Me: Why?
You: Someone else thinks you shouldn't.
Me:  Why is that?
You:  A reason, it might be a good reason.  Also, they're from a long time ago so they're automatically right.
Me:  Ok...
You:  Stop expecting people to have reasons for things!  It's mean!
Me: ...
You:  Maybe I'm right, sometimes there's a new thing and it's not a good thing.
Me: ...
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: September 13, 2014, 12:09:32 PM »

No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.

You: I'm not sure you should be allowed to get married.
Me: Why?
You: Someone else thinks you shouldn't.
Me:  Why is that?
You:  A reason, it might be a good reason.  Also, they're from a long time ago so they're automatically right.
Me:  Ok...
You:  Stop expecting people to have reasons for things!  It's mean!
Me: ...
You:  Maybe I'm right, sometimes there's a new thing and it's not a good thing.
Me: ...

"muh tradition"

There's a reason the courts continually throw out these bans time after time. There's simply no logical reason for or societal interest in banning gay marriage. Writing long winded posts about how those who oppose gay marriage are the TRUE victims and how muh tradition should inform our current views is stupid. Yes, gay marriage was banned for 99% of recorded human history. Women were also considered property for 98% of recorded human history. Indeed shua, surely our ancestors had a grand overarching purpose (NOT based on ignorance and bigotry, 4realz) for making women property, and if not adopt that view, we should certainly respect it.
Logged
Cassius
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,591


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: September 13, 2014, 12:20:37 PM »

No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.

You: I'm not sure you should be allowed to get married.
Me: Why?
You: Someone else thinks you shouldn't.
Me:  Why is that?
You:  A reason, it might be a good reason.  Also, they're from a long time ago so they're automatically right.
Me:  Ok...
You:  Stop expecting people to have reasons for things!  It's mean!
Me: ...
You:  Maybe I'm right, sometimes there's a new thing and it's not a good thing.
Me: ...

"muh tradition"

There's a reason the courts continually throw out these bans time after time. There's simply no logical reason for or societal interest in banning gay marriage. Writing long winded posts about how those who oppose gay marriage are the TRUE victims and how muh tradition should inform our current views is stupid. Yes, gay marriage was banned for 99% of recorded human history. Women were also considered property for 98% of recorded human history. Indeed shua, surely our ancestors had a grand overarching purpose (NOT based on ignorance and bigotry, 4realz) for making women property, and if not adopt that view, we should certainly respect it.

The reason why courts, in the last couple of years in particular, have started throwing out bans on gay marriage is simply because its not the done thing, socially speaking, to uphold them anymore. Had someone brought a challenge to court demanding the legalisation of gay marriage in 1984 or 1994, they would have been laughed out of the building. Now, the majority of the population (and, crucially, the people the help mould the opinions of the majority of the population), have shifted from the position of 'meh, keep it illegal, its pretty strange', to that of 'meh, feck it, let them marry'. The arguments have not changed one iota (although the pro-gay marriage advocates have put a considerably more emotional slant on their arguments in recent years it seems); the opinions of the majority have, and the courts are now reflecting those changes. So, no, there's no 'logic hole', in the anti-gay marriage arguments, those arguments are simply unfashionable nowadays.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,664
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: September 13, 2014, 12:25:43 PM »

No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.

You: I'm not sure you should be allowed to get married.
Me: Why?
You: Someone else thinks you shouldn't.
Me:  Why is that?
You:  A reason, it might be a good reason.  Also, they're from a long time ago so they're automatically right.
Me:  Ok...
You:  Stop expecting people to have reasons for things!  It's mean!
Me: ...
You:  Maybe I'm right, sometimes there's a new thing and it's not a good thing.
Me: ...

"Gay people should be married because homophobes are homophobes. It's airtight reasoning. They didn't in the past because of they hated gays. Okay not really, they weren't thinking about it. No, yes it was because of bigotry. Or not. They were just stupid and irrational. Not like me, I'm super smart. No really, I really am. Maybe sexual orientation something 14th amendment something logic something human sacrifice."

see I can play that game too.
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: September 13, 2014, 12:36:53 PM »
« Edited: September 13, 2014, 12:39:26 PM by IceSpear »

No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.

You: I'm not sure you should be allowed to get married.
Me: Why?
You: Someone else thinks you shouldn't.
Me:  Why is that?
You:  A reason, it might be a good reason.  Also, they're from a long time ago so they're automatically right.
Me:  Ok...
You:  Stop expecting people to have reasons for things!  It's mean!
Me: ...
You:  Maybe I'm right, sometimes there's a new thing and it's not a good thing.
Me: ...

"Gay people should be married because homophobes are homophobes. It's airtight reasoning. They didn't in the past because of they hated gays. Okay not really, they weren't thinking about it. No, yes it was because of bigotry. Or not. They were just stupid and irrational. Not like me, I'm super smart. No really, I really am. Maybe sexual orientation something 14th amendment something logic something human sacrifice."

see I can play that game too.

You didn't respond to whether or not you respect the view that women are property. What about that blacks are inherently inferior to whites? You shouldn't dismiss these ideas so easily you know, they were held for 99% of human history. It seems awfully pretentious of you to assume you know better than the longstanding traditions of our ancestors.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: September 13, 2014, 12:46:56 PM »

No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.

You: I'm not sure you should be allowed to get married.
Me: Why?
You: Someone else thinks you shouldn't.
Me:  Why is that?
You:  A reason, it might be a good reason.  Also, they're from a long time ago so they're automatically right.
Me:  Ok...
You:  Stop expecting people to have reasons for things!  It's mean!
Me: ...
You:  Maybe I'm right, sometimes there's a new thing and it's not a good thing.
Me: ...

"Gay people should be married because homophobes are homophobes. It's airtight reasoning. They didn't in the past because of they hated gays. Okay not really, they weren't thinking about it. No, yes it was because of bigotry. Or not. They were just stupid and irrational. Not like me, I'm super smart. No really, I really am. Maybe sexual orientation something 14th amendment something logic something human sacrifice."

see I can play that game too.

You can't play the game of coming up with reasons that you hold your position. 

No, but I will say that going in to change a culture without taking the time to understand it has always worked out splendidly.

You: I'm not sure you should be allowed to get married.
Me: Why?
You: Someone else thinks you shouldn't.
Me:  Why is that?
You:  A reason, it might be a good reason.  Also, they're from a long time ago so they're automatically right.
Me:  Ok...
You:  Stop expecting people to have reasons for things!  It's mean!
Me: ...
You:  Maybe I'm right, sometimes there's a new thing and it's not a good thing.
Me: ...

"muh tradition"

There's a reason the courts continually throw out these bans time after time. There's simply no logical reason for or societal interest in banning gay marriage. Writing long winded posts about how those who oppose gay marriage are the TRUE victims and how muh tradition should inform our current views is stupid. Yes, gay marriage was banned for 99% of recorded human history. Women were also considered property for 98% of recorded human history. Indeed shua, surely our ancestors had a grand overarching purpose (NOT based on ignorance and bigotry, 4realz) for making women property, and if not adopt that view, we should certainly respect it.

The reason why courts, in the last couple of years in particular, have started throwing out bans on gay marriage is simply because its not the done thing, socially speaking, to uphold them anymore. Had someone brought a challenge to court demanding the legalisation of gay marriage in 1984 or 1994, they would have been laughed out of the building. Now, the majority of the population (and, crucially, the people the help mould the opinions of the majority of the population), have shifted from the position of 'meh, keep it illegal, its pretty strange', to that of 'meh, feck it, let them marry'. The arguments have not changed one iota (although the pro-gay marriage advocates have put a considerably more emotional slant on their arguments in recent years it seems); the opinions of the majority have, and the courts are now reflecting those changes. So, no, there's no 'logic hole', in the anti-gay marriage arguments, those arguments are simply unfashionable nowadays.

In 1984, people openly said that being gay was immoral and detrimental behavior.  Remember, in 1984 the Supreme Court upheld a ban on gay sex.  My point is that once you remove the assumption that being gay is a negative behavior or characteristic and you conceptualize gayness as an orientation, rather than as deviant criminality, you can't justify depriving gay people of the same rights as heteros. 

Look at it this way, once we had the feminist revolution, you couldn't justify depriving women of the same rights and opportunities as men, unless there was a compelling justification related to gender.  Once we had the civil rights revolution, you couldn't justify depriving black people of jobs, housing, educaton, etc.  This is just another social revolution influencing the law because it changes our basic assumptions.  My answer to you is this, stop crying about the law changing unless you can make an argument that the baseline assumptions of 1984 were correct vs. the assumptions of 2014.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,664
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: September 14, 2014, 06:36:59 PM »
« Edited: September 14, 2014, 06:44:15 PM by shua »

You didn't respond to whether or not you respect the view that women are property. What about that blacks are inherently inferior to whites? You shouldn't dismiss these ideas so easily you know, they were held for 99% of human history. It seems awfully pretentious of you to assume you know better than the longstanding traditions of our ancestors.

The premise of your question is incorrect.  Women as property and white supremacy have not historically been near-universals in human societies.  Maybe you can think of a better example?

bedstuy, I have presented you with reasoning as to how tradition can act as a repository of knowledge and you didn't like it one bit.  I presented a few possibilities as to what the functional nature of this knowledge could possibly be in the case of marriage as a gendered institution, or at least might reasonably be thought to be, which you didn't seem to give much consideration. I could present more, but to what end?  What you seem to be looking for is proof that gendered marriage has a utility to the fulfillment of some Hobbesian social contract. I am sorry to disappoint you, but my initial post in this thread should have tipped you off that wasn't forthcoming from me and involved a different kind of reasoning. It is coherent, whether or not it is convincing.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: September 14, 2014, 07:03:22 PM »

bedstuy, I have presented you with reasoning as to how tradition can act as a repository of knowledge and you didn't like it one bit.  I presented a few possibilities as to what the functional nature of this knowledge could possibly be in the case of marriage as a gendered institution, or at least might reasonably be thought to be, which you didn't seem to give much consideration. I could present more, but to what end?  What you seem to be looking for is proof that gendered marriage has a utility to the fulfillment of some Hobbesian social contract. I am sorry to disappoint you, but my initial post in this thread should have tipped you off that wasn't forthcoming from me and involved a different kind of reasoning. It is coherent, whether or not it is convincing.

No, you used a bunch of weasel words because you're too afraid to make an argument because it will sound homophobic and ridiculous.  I really don't know what your argument was because you kept qualifying and maybe-ing and just sort of suggesting what perhaps, maybe, could be the type of idea that would justify a ban on gay marriage.  But, you never actually laid out the principles or ideas based on tradition.  I'm not asking for anything crazy.  Just a reason that's goes beyond, "gay marriage shouldn't be legal because marriage is between one man and one woman."  You can't possibly think that sort of tautology is a justification for anything.

But yes, I remember what you sort of tried to say. 

1.  Gay people can't make babies.

That's true.  But, that's a ridiculous argument considering that marriage does not apply this test to heterosexuals who can't produce children.  And, considering we allow gay adoption, it's certainly anti-child and functionally untrue that gay people don't raise children.

2.  I'm not totally sure, but you said something about a fence and how tradition is magically correct.  I have to assume your argument is that society will agree that homosexuality is immoral in the future and this will be a short period of relative acceptance and freedom for homosexuals.  Is that the crux of the argument?

Listen, if you think being gay is wrong, just say it.  Do you agree with that traditional understanding of homosexuality?  Do you think the traditional understanding of homosexuality deserves respect like the traditional exclusion of gays from this civil right?  So, that point, what about Lawrence v. Texas?
Logged
IceSpear
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,841
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: September 14, 2014, 08:28:24 PM »

You didn't respond to whether or not you respect the view that women are property. What about that blacks are inherently inferior to whites? You shouldn't dismiss these ideas so easily you know, they were held for 99% of human history. It seems awfully pretentious of you to assume you know better than the longstanding traditions of our ancestors.

The premise of your question is incorrect.  Women as property and white supremacy have not historically been near-universals in human societies.  Maybe you can think of a better example?

They kind of have, especially the first one, but whatever. How about slavery? You can't get any more human than that.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,664
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: September 14, 2014, 10:13:35 PM »

You didn't respond to whether or not you respect the view that women are property. What about that blacks are inherently inferior to whites? You shouldn't dismiss these ideas so easily you know, they were held for 99% of human history. It seems awfully pretentious of you to assume you know better than the longstanding traditions of our ancestors.

The premise of your question is incorrect.  Women as property and white supremacy have not historically been near-universals in human societies.  Maybe you can think of a better example?

They kind of have, especially the first one, but whatever. How about slavery? You can't get any more human than that.

I don't believe it can be said that slavery, as widespread as it has been, is a near human universal either. But in any case, while it is immoral I don't think you could call it irrational unless you are using a definition of rationality based on some kind of Natural Law philosophy.   It should be easy to see how slavery might be considered rational in the sense of having a social utility.  If we didn't have a 13th amendment then a law which allowed for slavery might well pass a rational basis review.  It would have indeed been awfully pretentious and incorrect to assume that ending slavery would not come at a cost and cause unforeseen problems, as much as it was right and worth it.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: September 14, 2014, 11:02:56 PM »

Thinking on it some more, it's not so much that traditionally women were viewed as property (tho that view goes a long way to explaining polygynous societies) as that men and women were almost always seen as complementary aspects of humanity in which the sum of two different parts created a whole greater than the two were separately (or which was at least different than).  One simply could not obtain that by uniting two likes.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: September 14, 2014, 11:19:57 PM »

Thinking on it some more, it's not so much that traditionally women were viewed as property (tho that view goes a long way to explaining polygynous societies) as that men and women were almost always seen as complementary aspects of humanity in which the sum of two different parts created a whole greater than the two were separately (or which was at least different than).  One simply could not obtain that by uniting two likes.

This is a ridiculous discussion.  Do you think that the Church of England in the 1700s would approve a marriage between two men, but for, these ideas about how men and women are complementary aspects of humanity?  That's blatantly silly.
Logged
🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸
shua
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,664
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: 1.29, S: -0.70

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: September 14, 2014, 11:33:40 PM »

Thinking on it some more, it's not so much that traditionally women were viewed as property (tho that view goes a long way to explaining polygynous societies) as that men and women were almost always seen as complementary aspects of humanity in which the sum of two different parts created a whole greater than the two were separately (or which was at least different than).  One simply could not obtain that by uniting two likes.

Yes, that's a crucial aspect to this.  If you look at symbology and myth and other cultural expressions surrounding marriage and gender, including the marriage rite itself, this is precisely what you see. 
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: September 15, 2014, 12:20:21 AM »

Thinking on it some more, it's not so much that traditionally women were viewed as property (tho that view goes a long way to explaining polygynous societies) as that men and women were almost always seen as complementary aspects of humanity in which the sum of two different parts created a whole greater than the two were separately (or which was at least different than).  One simply could not obtain that by uniting two likes.

This is a ridiculous discussion.  Do you think that the Church of England in the 1700s would approve a marriage between two men, but for, these ideas about how men and women are complementary aspects of humanity?  That's blatantly silly.

Silly or not, you don't have to look very far in the Bible to see that particular worldview.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Granted, with society generally no longer viewing the sexes as complimentary parts of one whole, neither complete without the other, that particular reason for restricting marriage to a pairing of opposite sexes no longer applies.  Yet to deny that reason was a factor historically is to deny history.  Furthermore, that viewpoint of complementary gender roles was also a reason why homosexuality was often, tho not always, viewed negatively historically by many cultures.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: September 15, 2014, 01:03:50 AM »

Thinking on it some more, it's not so much that traditionally women were viewed as property (tho that view goes a long way to explaining polygynous societies) as that men and women were almost always seen as complementary aspects of humanity in which the sum of two different parts created a whole greater than the two were separately (or which was at least different than).  One simply could not obtain that by uniting two likes.

This is a ridiculous discussion.  Do you think that the Church of England in the 1700s would approve a marriage between two men, but for, these ideas about how men and women are complementary aspects of humanity?  That's blatantly silly.

Silly or not, you don't have to look very far in the Bible to see that particular worldview.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Granted, with society generally no longer viewing the sexes as complimentary parts of one whole, neither complete without the other, that particular reason for restricting marriage to a pairing of opposite sexes no longer applies.  Yet to deny that reason was a factor historically is to deny history.  Furthermore, that viewpoint of complementary gender roles was also a reason why homosexuality was often, tho not always, viewed negatively historically by many cultures.

That's exactly my point.  It's just a tautological argument that basically says gay marriage should be outlawed because two people of the same gender shouldn't get allowed to get married.  We obviously need to revisit how we treat gay people in every area of life now that we've moved on from the tremendous heterosexism of recent history.
Logged
True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)
Ernest
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 42,157
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: September 15, 2014, 01:26:50 AM »

Actually that wasn't your point.  Your point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from homophobia.  My point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from a view of sexual complementariness, which in some instances also led to homophobia.  Where homophobia occurred, it sprang from the same source, yet it was not the reason the law recognized only opposite sex marriage.  It is no coincidence that those who continue to hew to the traditional view of marriage by and large also have held to the view of sexual complementariness.
Logged
bedstuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,526


Political Matrix
E: -1.16, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: September 15, 2014, 01:36:21 AM »

Actually that wasn't your point.  Your point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from homophobia.  My point was that laws banning same sex marriages derived from a view of sexual complementariness, which in some instances also led to homophobia.  Where homophobia occurred, it sprang from the same source, yet it was not the reason the law recognized only opposite sex marriage.  It is no coincidence that those who continue to hew to the traditional view of marriage by and large also have held to the view of sexual complementariness.

No, my point is that the two ideas are inextricably linked vis-a-vis gay people.  Certainly, homosexual rights and the role of homosexuals never got a fair hearing in this historical time period where people created these traditions like marriage and dower and such.  So, surely, you can't take any practice from 1840 as it pertains to gay people in society and just copy-paste it into our society today without a thorough reexamination.  I'm sure you agree.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.082 seconds with 12 queries.