Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 299
  1. #161  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    Got it.

    We agreed that all law is by definition discriminatory.

    As it relates to discrimination by status, I am under the impression that it is always about status -- in the sense of meeting or having met the criteria (behavior). I do agree that there are some states that are uncontrollable, and as such are not justifiable as basis of discrimination.

    I am not sure that sexual orientation/practices is one of those uncontrollables.

    And, for the record, whether it is or is not, is not, in my view a reason for us to grant or withhold the right to marry.

    I think they are two separate discussions. I've tried maintain that distinction in the related threads. But as Bheuss (I think) said, it is one thing to be philosophical and theoretical, and it is quite another to deal with real life circumstances.
    Regarding my quote, it doesn't translate well out of context. That message was specifically relating to philosophical discussions having a bearing on real life. And was somewhat tongue in cheek.

    I would like to add that, to me, sexual orientation and sexual practices are two different things. Sexual orientation is not controllable. Sexual practices are controllable.

    What would be a reason to grant the right to marry? I really don't get why this is such an issue for people. Why do you care what I'm doing in my home/bedroom with another consenting adult? I don't care what straight people do. In fact, I don't even want to think about it. Same-sex couples are just as capable of raising families, paying taxes, and participating in a democracy as mixed-sex couples.

    But I do resent not having the choice to take that step if I want to. There is no legal reason for that right to be denied based solely on the gender of the people who choose to exercise the decision to marry. I find the whole discussion more equal to voting issues when only property owners were permitted to vote. Just because I don't own property should not mean I'm denied the benefit of a voice in government. Just because I don't want to marry a woman doesn't mean I should be denied benefits accorded by law. If I choose not to marry at all, that would be different.

    And the huge "interest" in sexual orientation is quite mystifying. I don't even think in terms of sexual orientation when interacting with other people. I don't sit around at work/clubs/restaurants thinking "Why is she looking at me? Is she attracted to me? What if she wants to have sex with me? That's gross. If she doesn't stop looking at me, I'm gonna go crazy."

    Do straight people think like that? None of the straight people I know think that way when they notice a man/woman looking at them. But that's the kid of impression that one can form.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  2. #162  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    ........I am not sure that sexual orientation/practices is one of those uncontrollables......
    I suggest that your "/" is arbitrary, not to say a rhetorical trick. I propose we divide the question.

    Practice is clearly controllable; no one disputes that. Whatever one's orientation, one has clear choices about what to do about it. The choices range from "in the closet," to in "your face." It seems clear that the majority prefers the former and is willing to resort to fear and coercion in order to get it.

    There is not much doubt in your mind about the malleability of your orientation. The only real question in your mind is about the orientation of others. I assert that your doubt, not even the doubt of the majority on whose behalf you argue, is not a sufficient basis for public policy.
  3. #163  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    . . . There is not much doubt in your mind about the malleability of your orientation. The only real question in your mind is about the orientation of others. I assert that your doubt, not even the doubt of the majority on whose behalf you argue, is not a sufficient basis for public policy.
    Excellent point! I think the last sentence sums up the entire argument very nicely and is something I've been struggling to say.

    Very nicely put, WH.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  4. #164  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    ........And the huge "interest" in sexual orientation is quite mystifying. I don't even think in terms of sexual orientation when interacting with other people. I don't sit around at work/clubs/restaurants thinking "Why is she looking at me? Is she attracted to me? What if she wants to have sex with me? That's gross. If she doesn't stop looking at me, I'm gonna go crazy."

    Do straight people think like that?........
    I do not think that most do. It is the control freaks, those who think that is their job to exercise control over others that they do not even exercise over themselves, who do. It is the fearful who do, those who think that the private behavior of a small minority is, somehow or another, going to upset their comfortable world/view.
    Last edited by whmurray; 07/14/2006 at 11:33 AM.
  5. #165  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Of course it helps when it is the other guy's "circumstance" and one does not really have to "deal."
    I understand that today it's the other guy's circumstance, but tomorrow it could very easily be mine.

    Or as one thoughtful contributor put it, I know I have a dog in the game.

    I have thoughts on the topic at hand, but that is not my "dog." My "dog" is that of preseving the rule of law. That principle is so much more important than achieving my preference.
  6. #166  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    There is not much doubt in your mind about the malleability of your orientation. The only real question in your mind is about the orientation of others. I assert that your doubt, not even the doubt of the majority on whose behalf you argue, is not a sufficient basis for public policy.
    What would be the logical outcome of this thought, though? Do we make policy based on everyone's own personal feelings? If so--and pardon me, but this horse just won't die--why not polygamists?
  7. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #167  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    I have thoughts on the topic at hand, but that is not my "dog." My "dog" is that of preseving the rule of law. That principle is so much more important than achieving my preference.
    Thats not what the country's founders wanted. They set up a system that allows us to change the laws that are unfair.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  8. #168  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    Regarding my quote, it doesn't translate well out of context. That message was specifically relating to philosophical discussions having a bearing on real life. And was somewhat tongue in cheek....
    I thought I had adhered to the principle of your comment. I certainly intended to do so. I wanted to show that I understand how amidst pontificating on the rule of law and such there are those of my fellow-citizens whose lives are more directly impacted by the outcome.

    Likewise, I understand while my life may not have immediate impact, ultimately there is impact because of the precedent that is set with each decision. That impacts us all.
  9. #169  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I suggest that your "/" is arbitrary, not to say a rhetorical trick. I propose we divide the question.

    Practice is clearly controllable; no one disputes that. Whatever one's orientation, one has clear choices about what to do about it. The choices range from "in the closet," to in "your face." It seems clear that the majority prefers the former and is willing to resort to fear and coercion in order to get it.

    There is not much doubt in your mind about the malleability of your orientation. The only real question in your mind is about the orientation of others. I assert that your doubt, not even the doubt of the majority on whose behalf you argue, is not a sufficient basis for public policy.
    The "/" was included because this particular thread got its start in a comparision of homosexuality and polygamy. There seems to be general consensus that homosexuality is an orientation and that polygamy is more specifically behavioral in nature.

    I am not certain that either fall in the "uncontrollable" category.
  10. #170  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I suggest that your "/" is arbitrary, not to say a rhetorical trick. I propose we divide the question.

    Practice is clearly controllable; no one disputes that. Whatever one's orientation, one has clear choices about what to do about it. The choices range from "in the closet," to in "your face." It seems clear that the majority prefers the former and is willing to resort to fear and coercion in order to get it.

    There is not much doubt in your mind about the malleability of your orientation. The only real question in your mind is about the orientation of others. I assert that your doubt, not even the doubt of the majority on whose behalf you argue, is not a sufficient basis for public policy.
    On whose behalf do you think me to be arguing?
  11. #171  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Thats not what the country's founders wanted. They set up a system that allows us to change the laws that are unfair.
    It is the founders who prioritized the rule of law--which, in case it is unclear, includes guidance for how to change laws.
  12. #172  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    And the huge "interest" in sexual orientation is quite mystifying. I don't even think in terms of sexual orientation when interacting with other people. I don't sit around at work/clubs/restaurants thinking "Why is she looking at me? Is she attracted to me? What if she wants to have sex with me? That's gross. If she doesn't stop looking at me, I'm gonna go crazy."

    Do straight people think like that? None of the straight people I know think that way when they notice a man/woman looking at them. But that's the kid of impression that one can form.
    With all due respect, it seems like you're linking the opposition to same sex matrimony with homophobia. That, to me, seems a bit like linking the opposition to illegal immigration with racism. You're assuming people don't have a real, practical argument aside from emotion.
  13. #173  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    What would be the logical outcome of this thought, though? Do we make policy based on everyone's own personal feelings?
    I think it argues that we should act moderately, not to say conservatively, and locally. We should prefer strong families to uniformity. Keeping in mind that few things are so difficult to remedy as bad law, we should prefer tolerance and good manners to community standards, community standards to contract, contract to litigation, litigation to legislation, and local legislation to constitutional amendments. Keeping in mind that bad cases make bad law, we should be very careful what we litigate.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    If so--and pardon me, but this horse just won't die--why not polygamists?
    Keeping in mind that the majority believes that associating the two helps them drum up resistance to any change, why not, indeed? As far as I am concerned, whatever interest the state may ever have had in individual living arrangements, has long since evaporated.
  14. #174  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    With all due respect, it seems like you're linking the opposition to same sex matrimony with homophobia. That, to me, seems a bit like linking the opposition to illegal immigration with racism. You're assuming people don't have a real, practical argument aside from emotion.
    Just as slavery and "separate but equal" had no basis in racism?
  15. #175  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    With all due respect, it seems like you're linking the opposition to same sex matrimony with homophobia. That, to me, seems a bit like linking the opposition to illegal immigration with racism. You're assuming people don't have a real, practical argument aside from emotion.
    With all due respect, much of the rhetoric appeals to fear in general and, more specifically, to homophobia and rascism.

    (Please, let us leave immigration and rascism to another thread.)
  16. #176  
    Quote Originally Posted by shopharim
    The "/" was included because this particular thread got its start in a comparision of homosexuality and polygamy. There seems to be general consensus that homosexuality is an orientation and that polygamy is more specifically behavioral in nature.

    I am not certain that either fall in the "uncontrollable" category.
    May one assume that you do not object to the division of the question?
  17. #177  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    With all due respect, much of the rhetoric appeals to fear in general and, more specifically, to homophobia and rascism.
    On which side?

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    (Please, let us leave immigration and rascism to another thread.)
    Well, I'd like to. But, as you can see from the post preceding yours, the issue keeps getting compared to racism.
  18. #178  
    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    I think it argues that we should act moderately, not to say conservatively, and locally. We should prefer strong families to uniformity. Keeping in mind that few things are so difficult to remedy as bad law, we should prefer tolerance and good manners to community standards, community standards to contract, contract to litigation, litigation to legislation, and local legislation to constitutional amendments. Keeping in mind that bad cases make bad law, we should be very careful what we litigate.
    I absolutely could not agree with you more. And well said, I might add.

    Quote Originally Posted by whmurray
    Keeping in mind that the majority believes that associating the two helps them drum up resistance to any change, why not, indeed? As far as I am concerned, whatever interest the state may ever have had in individual living arrangements, has long since evaporated.
    You don't think the state has an interest in family bonds? How far would you take that? Would you say that the state doesn't have an interest in seeing the number of out-of-wedlock pregnancies reduced?
  19. #179  
    Quote Originally Posted by hoovs
    With all due respect, it seems like you're linking the opposition to same sex matrimony with homophobia. That, to me, seems a bit like linking the opposition to illegal immigration with racism. You're assuming people don't have a real, practical argument aside from emotion.
    I believe the homophobia link is implied by the heated rhetoric surrounding the opposition to same sex marriage. If not afraid (phobia) of it, why the opposition?

    Immigration and homosexuality are two different topics, so I really don't see the link nor feel it should be a part of this discussion.
    Brent
    T650 on Sprint's Wireless Wonder
  20. #180  
    Quote Originally Posted by bheuss
    I believe the homophobia link is implied by the heated rhetoric surrounding the opposition to same sex marriage. If not afraid (phobia) of it, why the opposition?

    Immigration and homosexuality are two different topics, so I really don't see the link nor feel it should be a part of this discussion.
    It does seem analogous to me in light of the fact that the "racist" card keeps getting flipped (towards this side of the table, I might add). At any rate, I believe there's a big difference between being "afraid" of homosexuals and being afraid of what a change in marriage laws would say about a society, leaving aside what it might do to that society.
Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 4567891011121314 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions