Congratulations Obama and the Dems / Wednesday Open Thread
You did well. Use your power wisely. You have it all.
Edit by stinerman:
The Republicans may have dodged a bullet in the Senate races. Coleman looks like he's going to be in a recount situation with Franken in MN. Smith is up in OR, and even Ted Stevens might end up winning in AK.
Submitted by Ender on Tue, 2008-11-04 23:53
Comments :
Thanks Ender
We will make sure Obama and the Dem majorities concentrate on things that contribute to the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of all people, not on their own political careers. They need to concentrate on the things that will benefit all of America, not on blue-bar pet causes or paying back political favors from blue-bar interest groups. I think Obama gets it, I'm a little more skeptical of Congress though.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I was consoling a distraught Republican friend today...
I told him that there's a good chance, IMO, that Obama will not be nearly as "liberal" as Republicans fear. I expect Obama's true colors and motives to come forth in his first 90 days.
Yes, Obama will do things that Democrats want. Yes, he will move to raise taxes on top earners. Yes, he will attempt some sort of health care reform...and so on.
But I told him that he will clash a bit with Reid/Pelosi (assuming they stay in power). He will not be as liberal as they are or want him to be. His Chicago School-esque roots in new economic research will prevent him from doing doing many well-intentioned but stupidly destructive things that the further Left of Congress will want. He will be a bit like Clinton in this respect...only better.
Unfortunately for Obama, circumstances are more dire and he is not entering a period of eminent recovery like Bill did. His options will be more limited and his margin for error smaller. He could do a lot wrong but very little right in a proactive sense. I think he will stay toward erring on the side of caution and toning down the impulses. I think he will generally leave the protectionist "fair trade" crowd unsatisfied and may get heat if things do not go well in that respect as the spin meisters....both Left and Right...try to pin any trade-related problems on his inaction or lack of dumb policies.
Expect a surpising veto against the Democratic majority on economic matters before June. Nonethless, I think another worthless stimulus package will not see the veto pen. But the bigger matters are on the banking crisis. A few moves against centralization will calm a lot of nerves.
Ah, how "a propos"...
Megan McArdle says it's 1929...not 1932
.
Birds of a feather flock together...
;)
For a guy who claims to not like to discuss the Depression...
...this sure is a poke at the Hornet's nest! ;-)
I wholeheartedly disagree with McArdle. She starts with a strawman:
Then she claims that something cannot be argued against--
Then proceeds to argue for that thing that cannot be argued against, implicitly proving that the point can be argued.
Of course it can at least be argued that a different President could have made a positive difference starting in 1930! I mean, isn't it Megan McArdle and her contemporaries that tell us what an awful and damaging policy the Smoot Hawley tariff were? For jsut one example, I agree with the libertarian-leaning economists that those tariffs probably did significant damage to the economy, and now they are telling me that I can't argue that a President who may very well not gone down that path could not possibly made a significant difference?
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I'm not talking about....just bringing up an article that
does.
As for disagreeing with McArdle, well, that's to be expected. But I don't think she is wrong in her timeline.
Yes, Smoot-Hawley was horrible. Can't say for sure what FDR would have done. BUT, the bottom line is that monetary and banking took a long time to reset and start a recovery. The avalanche that started after 1929 did noty bottom out until 1932....something I've mentionned before.
McArdle mentionning the good timing of FDR's entry at this bottoming out point is a pretty well agreed upon point in economic history...if not in disney-land high school history classes. Even my leftward history professors were pretty much about the same on these points.
To me, your contrarian stance shows you see more potential possibilities on this precise matter becsuse you don't give full credit to the true nature of the problem...and thus, are willing to leave more possibility to the altering actions of a hypothetical FDR in 1930 as very influential to the point of drastically changing the timeline of 1930-1932 for the better.
Your position requires the plausibility of the President as central "controlling" figure during the economy's decent during the years after the crash in 1929. I don't. It was a train wreck that could only be made worse...not better. That;s the difference.
I think you've got it about right on most of this
I don't see much clashing with Reid/Pelosi however. They are not leaders, they are followers, but followers with a keen sense of the direction of political winds. They won't have to put a finger in the air to figure out which way the wind is blowing, and so we will see Democratic leadership in both houses falling all over each other to align themselves with Barack Obama. I expect no vetoes anytime soon.
I wish that Dick Durbin was Senate leader. He does not have the hint of corruption that Harry Reid has about him, he is a fine Senator, one of my favorite speakers, and he is a longtime friend and ally of Obama and I think they'd make a good team. Reid has had a difficult and thankless job as Senate Leader the past two years, and I think he gets probably a little more disdain thrown his way than he deserves, but in all fairness, I just do not think he has done a good job. If Reid stays on as leader, and I believe he will, he needs to step up.
On the House side, I really do not have a replacement for Nancy Pelosi in mind. Nancy Pelosi is not my kind of legislator and never will be in that she is politics-first, issues second. Realistically, though, I think that it is highly unlikely that anybody who is not a fierce partisan would even want a leadership position in the house. So, I'm fine with Nancy, but she needs to keep it positive. With the huge margin the Democrats have in the House, there are no excuses and nobody to blame.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
ok, well, we now know that
ok, well, we now know that it's possible for an African-American to get elected president, but thank God we still have enough bigotry, superstition and general idiocy in America that gays are still denied equal marriage rights and most Americans wouldn't even consider voting for an atheist for president (based on recent polls). At least we still have that to pat ourselves on the back for. Dog bless America!*
* oops, that's my selective dyslexia acting up again.
It does temper the enthusiasm a bit
On a personal note to pico, if you are reading this: I know that you know that your marriage is as real as anyone's, but I just want to say that I know it is real, too, and there are lots of us out here who know that. In particular, younger generations seem to get it, so there is plenty of hope for the future. It pains me to see the government taking away anyone's inalienable rights, but it will not last.
In the meantime, if this results in anything so crass as the nullification of existing marriages, I can tell you truthfully that Cape Cod is a beautiful place to live! I imagine you have friends and family out there on the left coast, and moving may not really be an option. I just want to express my support. Namasté.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Ditto
It pains me deeply to see this perversion of justice. I prey it will not stand.
to pico and life partner, with much love and compassion.
May your relationship thrive in spite of the gross intolerance of the few.
To those that are intolerant, we will defeat you!
I'm only half stupid
Yes, it's a real tragedy that
Yes, it's a real tragedy that people don't recognize that people have a right to be called something by the government that they are not.
Oh, John Mark. You are so
Oh, John Mark. You are so reasonable and rational on matters that don't involve The Big G.
I don't want to go through this whole debate again, but what it boils down to is that, if government provides a right to legally-recognized marriage, then any consensing adult should have an equal right to marry any another consenting adult without the government doing a genitalia check. I'm not making a constitutional argument (although I think a very good one can be made), nor am I making an argument of judiciary over legislatures as the branch to decide this matter (although I think a very good argument can be made there, too), I'm just saying it's outrageous, stupid, ignorant, etc. for people to oppose equal marriage rights for gay couples.
Say what you want, but, as thorough debate on the subject always reveals, opposition is really all about a desire to discourage homosexuality and/or to assert some moral superiority of one's own ways and thinking, and/or to promote one's religion, and to use the state to do all of the above by denying equal rights to gays. Opponents throw out one ostensible, front argument after another (e.g., some danger to heterosexual marriage and, in turn, to children, or some economic argument related to tax policy, or whatever), but when they are taken away one by one, they still oppose it, and they struggle to keep grasping at some straw as a rationale rather than just admitting their true rationale, which is what I've just stated.
I don't want to go through
The government provides rights? That just might be a key to our difference on this issue. I believe rights exist regardless of government. I also believe Marriage can exist regardless of government. The arguements of those who argue for the rights of gays to have marriage, seem to assume that there can be no marriage if the government doesn't call it marriage - as though the government speaks marriage into existence.
The government provides
I highly doubt that's a key to our difference on this issue. The focus on the word "rights" can be an irrelevant distraction. If you want me to substitute "equal opportunity", fine. It's not critical to the point, my argument, or the issue. The point is simply that if the government provides the opportunity for people to have legally-recognized marriage to any two consenting adults, it should provide the same opportunity to any other two consenting adults, regardless of whether their genitalia is the same or different, unless perhaps there is some very clear and extremely strong compelling societal interest in the state imposing deliberate discrimination (e.g., perhaps, if it is or were clear that siblings by birth would be extremely likely to produce children with birth-defects, perhaps that could be a basis for denying siblings the opportunity to enter into legally-recognized marriage). Call it equal rights as I do, or call it equal treatment or equal opportunity or refer to the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment as far as a constitutional argument, but no matter what you call it, it comes down to the state not discriminating against people for reasons having nothing to do with anything other than superstition (a.k.a. religion) and/or bigotry and/or gross ignorance.
If you're saying that government should get out of the marriage business, ok. But if you're saying that if the choice is -- as it realistically is, at least for the foreseeable future -- between (1) government enabling one person to enter into legally-recognized marriage with Bob and denying a second person that opportunity, with the difference being just that the first person has a vagina and the second has a penis, or (2) government not discriminating between the two, #2 is clearly the moral option. Do you agree or not?
[edit below]
As a note, decades ago when anti-miscegenation laws precluded/criminalized legally-recognized marriage between a black person and a white person, saying ONLY that the government should not be in the marriage business would have been a wholly inadequate manner of addressing the issue, a moral cop-out. The same applies to equal marriage rights/opportunity/access for gays today.
The government can't
The government can't discriminate by calling something what it is. Marriage is the union between a man and a woman - whatever good or bad that union involves it deserves to be called what it is, because it is what it is, also something that is not marriage, a gay relationship deserves to be called what it is ( not marriage), because that's what it is. Nobody has a right for the government to call themselves something they are not.
Why? if the government is involved in something they should not be involved, wouldn't it make sense to get them out of it, instead of expanding the scope of government to be fair.
The government can't
And it used to be legally defined in some U.S. states as the union between a man and a woman of the same race. Does that mean anti-miscegenation laws weren't discriminatory? Or are you now going to say that the word marriage has tradionally been thought of as between man and woman (or multiple women) and not as much within the same "race"? If so, that's just yet another lame argument from the tool box of diversionary arguments of opponents to equal rights/opportunity/access. Just because an institution has traditionally been limited on some basis is not an argument that continuing that restriction and denying access to it by others is not discriminatory.
That was a total dodge. I asked you a very clear question. (1) If you are limited, at least for the foreseeable future, to a choice between two options -- government discrimination based on race or genitalia vs. non-discrimination -- which do you choose? And if instead of equal marriage rights/opportunity/access for gays we were debating and voting on the elimination of anti-miscegenation laws that precluded interracial marriage, (2) which side would you be on, and (3) which way would you vote? Or would you decline to vote to extend access to legally-recognized marriage to interracial couples simply on the basis that you prefer that government not be in the marriage business at all?
Please, answers, no dodges.
[edit]
Oh, and by the way, the implication of your "expanding the scope of government" argument seems to be that extending the same rights/opportunity/access to legally-recognized marriage to gays would make it substantially less likely that we would get government out of marriage altogether and/or that it would likely substantially push back such a date. That is a dubious premise, and certainly a very weak basis on which to have government discriminate in the meantime on a matter so important to a large number of people (even if a small portion of the population). And the same points would have applied to the anti-miscegenation laws.
If you are limited, at least
I choose to make a difference on the basis of genitalia ( Oh and as a side note, most girls I've seen looked a lot better than just a guy with different genatalia. :-) ), at least on the basis of what I called the couple since I don't think it's possible to discriminate by calling things their correct names, but you certainly can by calling them the wrong one. I think the government can avoid making a social statement by not defining marriage wrong, and it's not discrimnatory.
I do not really think that marriage ever really meant the union between two people of the same race - yes there were laws to that effect, but that doesn't mean it had that meaning. Therefore, it would be discrimnatory to not call a mixed racial marriage what it was, based on race. I would be for legal mixed-race marriages.
I would probably vote for legalization of mixed marriage, though if anyone was putting forth the idea of getting out of marriage I would certainly consider it.
Well, predictably, we're in
Well, predictably, we're in silly territory and there's no way out. Sorry, I think I'll stop here rather than going through yet another long, completely unproductive and exchange with someone with your position on this issue in which the person grasps at one straw after another and tries to spin whatever can possibly be spun, all to avoid just saying that he wants to discourage homosexuality and encourage more people to find The Big G and The Big J.
Oh, but since I said I'd answer your previous question, I will, for whatever that will be worth, which will be exactly zip.
Maybe someday you'll see the light and oppose immorality even when your religious doctrine (or at least your interpretation thereof) encourages it. (Of course, you probably see "immorality encouraged by your religious doctrine" as a contradiction in terms, which, of course, is the problem, and which is an immoral approach to morality on your part).
Well, this is a step in the right direction ...
You seem to have a lot of those and with a lot of different people. Hint: look for the common denominator in these cases.
Now, if we could just get you to STFU before even your first post on any given topic that would be REAL progress.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4GR, you are just an idiot. I
GR, you are just an idiot. I know that's a rules violation, but sometimes it just must be said. And although John Mark has a blind spot, on secular matters he is highly rational and intelligent, engages in good faith, and is one of my favorite people with whom to discuss/debate issues -- in other words, pretty much the opposite of you in every sense. So please don't put yourself in the same boat as John. You're practically of a different species. John is an intelligent, thoughtful person who actually listens and responds rationally to others' arguments (other than the extent to which religion gets in the way), whereas you are just a loud-mouthed, two-bit moron who can manage to type.
Unnecessary, I know
But I can't let this go by without adding the quite obvious "in your opinion" qualifier.
Look I've never denied that religion influences me
However, I don't oppose gay marriage because I think the government should encourage people to come to Christ. I think the government should stay nuetral in matter relating to people's relationship. However, when the government starts to change important words with sacred meanings, than I don't think the government is being nuetral.
One more question for you, if you really think the semantics of the issue is silly, why don't you support dropping the fight for calling it marriage, and just fight for civil unions and get it passed earlier.
Well, I would prefer civil
Well, I would prefer civil unions to nothing, just as I would prefer the right to enter into civil unions for interracial couples in the age and states of anti-miscegenation laws, and just as I would if there were no legal status for, say, Jewish couples or black couples. Do you not see that this argument of yours (like some of the others) would apply equally to someone defending such discriminatory laws? Would you say to someone who was fighting for the right of interracial couples or Jewish couples or black couples to enter into legal marriage that they should just settle for "civil unions" even if that provided the same legal benefits?
You can answer those questions if you wish, or not. I don't care, because this is pointless, as always. The arguments (or at least most of them) presented by folks with your position are not your real arguments, and the arguments you present are easily knocked down, one after another after another, but it never achieves an admission that it's really all about promoting one's religion and discouraging "sin", even though that's what it's really all about.
If Marriage actually meant "
If Marriage actually meant " A union between a two people of the same race", than I don't see why any bi-racial couple would want the government to call them married. You could certainly argue rightly that the government should not give benefits to such narrowly defined relationship, but I don't see why anyone would want to biracial couple would want to be called married if that's what married meant. However, I don't think marriage trullly ever meant that, I think it was probably always conceptually possible for a biracial couple to get married, however, I think the idea that a gay relationship even by definition could be marriage is rather new.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've all
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we've all heard what I call "the Webster defense" from the Preservation of Current Definitions Action League. Yes, I know that what has all you guys so worked up is the objectional prospect of the evolution of a word.
Not that the "marriage" definition is anything but a diversionary side-show, but:
So the definition of marriage DOES currently include a pledged union of a same-sex couple. I suppose now you'll say (correctly, but irrelevantly) that this definition reflects a recent change (an evolution, if you'll pardon that sacrilegious word), begging the question of "So what? -- doesn't that mean that government would NOT be changing the definition of the word, which is your argument (however silly, irrelevant and diversionary that argument is anyway) ?" Also, suppose you were frozen right now and unfrozen and awoken in what seems like the next moment to you, and you learn that gay couples have been getting married without legal recognition for the past 200 years, and the word "marriage" is commonly and per all dictionaries still including the pledged union of same-sex couples, and you further learn that there was debate (and ballot measures and legislative fights) over whether or not to extend legal marriage to same-sex couples. What would your position be, for or against, and why? What if they have been entering into legally-recognized marriages for the past 200 years and the debate was over whether or not to go back to restricting that institution to opposite-sex couples -- what would your position be, for or against, and why?
Just for the heck of it, let me ask you to spell out, openly and frankly (no spin or modification try to make it palatable to a wider audience), what concerns you about gays getting equal marriage rights/opportunity/access and why do you highly (?) prefer instead that only heterosexual couples be allowed to enter into legally-recognized marriage (if you are limited to that choice, rather than a third option of government getting out of "marriage" altogether). And please, take it to the bottom line, "Ultimately, what is the harm that I think will (or could) occur?" question, if necessary by asking yourself "Why?" a few times. Don't stop with some bland statement of principle about the appropriate role of government or even with the argument that you think extending legal marriage to gays would constitute some endorsement of the practice of homosexuality; take it to the bottom line: What is the harm to don't want to occur? It's fewer people finding your god, isn't it? Isn't that really the bottom-line reason why you'd hate to see gay couples gain access to the institution of legal marriage (assuming you'd hate to see that -- meaning you'd think it was a very bad thing)?
Well, I only have time to respond to the first part right now
I will try to answer you answer some of your questions later. But for now, why is it that on the one hand you claim noone claims about the term, yet you're apparently willilng to slow down the fight for gay "rights" by not giving up on the term.
+3
Nailed him. If he was truly worried about the rights of the people involved, why wouldn't he accept proposals which actually address the rights issue and abandon the demand for the use of a specific term? I looks to me like BR is just arguing to argue and doesn't really seek to address the rights of the people involved.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Simple
Because the "right" in question is not tax benefits, hospital visitations, inheritance, or whatever. The right in question is simply to be able to marry the person you love. That the state attaches a bunch of incidental rights to that main right is really beside the point.
Edit: If there is a church that is willing to marry two members of the same sex, what right does the government have to prevent that?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
If there is a church that is
No one is talking about the government preventing any house of worship from doing anything. That's not what we're talking about.
Perhaps
And I added that as an afterthought. Maybe a not well-thought out or well-worded afterthought, but...
It seems to me that if the whole argument boils down to the "definition" of marriage, and the government is choosing a definition that promotes some religious views, while nullifying others, then we have a bit of a problem. I am basically thinking out loud here (or whatever the written equivalent of that would be). I'm not sure I've ever heard this sort of separation-of-church-and-state argument before, and I wanted to see what kind of responses it might get.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Well, if that is the case ...
Then the whole matter is much ado about nothing.
These people can follow whatever ceremony they care to and call themselve married today. There is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing that.
But when pressed on the matter, the reasons cited for why it needs to be addressed the conversation invariably returns to "tax benefits, hospital visitations, inheritance, or whatever."
Don't get me wrong here, I have no problem giving individuals who don't fit the traditional use of the term "married" these governmental advantages in the form of civil unions ... I just object to changing the millenia old meaning of the existing term.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Then it just seems petty
If your whole objection is changing the meaning of a term, yet you have no problem with anyone who wants to calling themselves married, then you seem to be contradicting yourself. Is it "just a word" that can mean whatever you want it to, or is it a sacrosanct definition that can never change? Is it the government's obligation to protect the meaning of a term?
I guess I can (somewhat) understand your objection to changing the meaning of a term, but how you can use that alone to justify the government refusing to recognize a certain class of marriage is beyond me. You seriously believe that your desire to maintain a definition of a word trumps someone else's desire to have what is one of the most important aspects of their life recognized by their governement? That is one of the most selfish, uncompassionate, and petty things I have ever heard.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
yet you have no problem with
I didn't actually say I don't object, did I? I haven't really said one way or the other. The bottom line is I can object until I am blue in the face if I want, but given that we live in the USA my objecting is rather moot. It stops no one. Hence your objections are, as I said, much ado about nothing. Unless you care to publicly admit that my opinion is worth something ... :)
This is an unfair characterization of what I said. And the mischaracterization centers around what you mean by "recognize a certain class of marriage." I have already said that I support giving the affected groups the "substance" they claim they want under the term civil union. I claim that IS "recognizing a certain class of marriage." In fact I even give that class of marriage a name, civil unions.
Ditto above. I support having "what is one of the most important aspects of their life recognized by their governement". I just want to call it civil union. How is that selfish? I favor giving them the substance in full. How is demanding that the term change meaning NOT being "selfish, uncompassionate, and petty" on your part?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4How is demanding that the
If you can demonstrate some reasonable harm caused from changing the meaning of the term, then you might have a point.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Depends on the definition of the word "harm".
In this particular instance mine includes the "psychological pain and suffering" cause by having your traditional beliefs and values forcibly changed.
What does your's include?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meh
How the government defines marriage does not force you to change your beliefs and values.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Yes, but the standard was "reasonable harm"
The end of slavery and the end of segregation would have caused "harm" by your definition, but not "reasonable harm" in that the harm cannot reasonably be attributed to the change in the law that caused the harm, but rather should be attributed to the unjust situation perpetuatded by the harmed themselves.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
SL, you really should be more
SL, you really should be more precise in your language. People like GR are perfectly capable of misunderstanding this issue and/or putting forth bogus arguments without any help.
It's not a matter of "the" right in question. There are practical concerns AND the right simply to be treated equally (when there is no very compelling, very strong, overriding societal/state interest to discriminate), rather than being denied a legal label that conveys some status in society. (And no, GR and others, I'm not saying government is obligated to provide status to people; I'm saying that government should not discriminate for the purpose of implying an inferior status.)
And as far as the practical concens, not only is there a substantial discrepancy between the current situation for gay couples vs. those for married (heterosexual) couples in terms of economic and other benefits -- which could theoretically be resolved via "civil unions" -- but a legitimate argument can be made that in practice, the only way to provide and guarantee equal benefits/rights is to extend the same institution (marriage) rather than creating another one.
And that's your strawman, not mine.
How is using the term civil union implying an inferrior status? By my definition on the substance it is not inferior anywhere except in your mind. I support giving them the exact same legal rights under the term civil union. I the real world lexicon "exact same" is NOT a synonym for "inferior". Only in yours.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Set theory
The governmental institution known as "marriage" is a civil union. But the institution you are putting forth would be a civil union that is not a marriage. If one set wholly includes a second set, but the second set does not wholly include the first, they are not equivalent.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
SL, he's just going to say
SL, he's just going to say that "not equivalent" doesn't mean one is better than the other, and/or that more (a broader scope) doesn't necessarily mean better. It's a waste of time to try to sort this out with GR. The guy is a total tool, and some of the stuff you're saying is, frankly, feeding him and setting him up.
First of all, that we are talking about equal access to the same institution rather than discrimination. Secondly, the fact is that legal "marriage" does bring a certain status in our society. Discriminating to deny equal access to this institution -- this legal status by this name -- as a means of implying inferiority or illegitimacy is what is at issue here.
Ha ...
actually, that stuff is exposing the flaws and misonceptions in your positions. :-P
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Quote of character in Take
Quote of character in Take the Money and Run whose thinking could have been based on that of GR:
"Discriminating to deny equal
"Discriminating to deny equal access to this institution -- this legal status by this name -- as a means of implying inferiority or illegitimacy is what is at issue here."
It implies distinction or difference between a relationship between two people of the same sex, and two people of opposite sex, inferiority is only implied to those who allready think of one relationship as being inferior or superior to the other, but than that' s not the government saying one is inferior or one is superior.
Oh, we're way deep into
Oh, we're way deep into silliness now, and perhaps self-delusion (since I'm trying to resist questioning your sincerity and good faith here). And this comment of yours brings us back to one of the questions you still haven't answered: What harm do you seek to avoid that you think would/could occur if gay couples obtain equal legal marriage rights/opportunity/access? Take me through your thinking, step by step, but reaching the bottom line. Please, go ahead.
[edit below]
And if I may help you get in touch with and express your actual reasoning:
You don't want government to treat gay couples equally because in your mind (or at least per your argument) that would constitute some implicit statement that homosexual relationships are equally legitimate and moral and acceptable in our society, as opposed to discriminating against them and denying them the same rights and label, which is an implicit statement by government that homosexual relationships are inferior and/or illegitimate and/or immoral. And you think that government removing that implicit statement of immorality/illegitimacy/immorality will somehow reduce the number of people who adopt and/or maintain the fantasy of your Guy in the Sky, and you (1) feel an obligation to the Guy in the Sky to maximize the number of people who adopt this fantasy and (2) you think that people are much better off with this fantasy than without it.
I don't expect you to say "Yeah, that's exactly it", but yeah, that's highly likely to be pretty much or exactly it.
What harm do you seek to
Well I'll see what I can do with my half fried sleep deprived brain. Part of the problem is that I haven't explored this issue to it's depth. But here goes. I'll start gay relationships are inferior to heterosexual ones. Ultimately, because God says so. However, it doesn't stop there because I don't think God is just arbitrary - so why are gay relationships inferior to the hetero ones. Here's just a few thoughts, the relationships between men and women bring balance between the feminine and the masculine which I imagine can bring intangible benefit to society as a relationship that is mixed like this would provide a balanced approach to life. # 2 ( drum roll please, this is what you've been waiting for) marriage represents God's relationship with his church, gay relationships might distort from that.
Now the first reason of balance might be a good reason to have different treatment ( I think it's likely a very good reason to perfer straight adoption), but the second reason being totally spiritual, is not a good reason for different treatment. However, it's a reason why the government ought to stay nuetral on the issue. And I think the government not changing the term marriage is a good way for the government to stay nuetral.
Even if the relationships were equal I think it would be best for the government to stay out of the arena of cultural ideas and let the best ideas win. The government enters the arena of ideas when it starts changing the definitions of words, I think this is bad even if it's not dealing with marriage.
the relationships between men
Needless to say, it requires a stronger argument than that to justify government discrimination, particularly in a matter so important to the people who would be discriminated against.
What do you mean? (1) Are you saying that extending legal marriage to gays will increase the number of "gay relationships"? (2) What is/are the bottom line harms? That having a gay relationships is a sin, which is bad in itself? That such relationships reduce the quality and/or quantity of (supposed) relationships between individuals and your god, and that such an effect would be wrong because your god supposedly wants/commands that people have a relationship with him and/or because those people will suffer for the lack of such a relationship with your god? Take me a step or two deeper and give me the bottom bottom line.
Leaving aside what I think of that argument overall, it does seem predicated on the premise that the definition of "marriage" does not include same-sex relationships. I've shown you dictionary definitions that do include such relationships, and you said that does not establish what the real definition is, so what would? And if that/those linguistic condition(s) were met, wouldn't that mean that government extending legal marriage to gay couples would no longer constitute/involve changing the definition of a word, but rather would be "neutral", and furthermore, that government officially defining marriage as limited to heterosexuals would be "non-neutral"? And in that case, applying your argument, wouldn't you have to prefer extending legal marriage to gays over limiting it to heterosexuals (preferring government take a "neutral" position), if you were limited to that choice?
John? John? Could you please
John? John? Could you please answer those questions? I see you've continued to engage on this thread, yet you haven't replied here. I haven't been able to get you to answer this question (here or in response to my previous version of essentially the same question earlier on this thread) despite repeated requests. I eagerly await your reply.
.
[double post deleted]
Sorry I saw thought my answer was apparent
No I do not favor extending legal marriage to gays, ( unless you mean, making/keeping it legal for them to be married by their own standard) if the government is going to be in the defining marriage they should not redefine the term.
I guess I read your question too quickly
the real answer is in my second post.
Needless to say, it requires
But I don't think its discriminating to call marriage, marriage. Calling things by their right name is not discrimnatory.
I don't know what all the implications are. But whatever they are the government should remain nuetral, not changing the definitions of important words.
If marriage changes to mean the union between any two people, than yes the governent is right in defining it as such.
I asked you two questions.
I asked you two questions. You seem to have answered the second.
Question #1 was:
And Question #2 was:
Your answer to #2 is "Yes", which means that under the condition that, to your satisfiaction, marriage were defined in our language in a way that includes same-sex couples (explicitly or by default by referring to the union of individuals rather than only to individuals of opposite gender), you would favor extending access to legal marriage to gays over limiting it to heterosexual couples, correct?
If yes (and that certainly does seem to be what your previos "yes" means), then we are back to Question #1, so please answer that one.
Your answer to #2 is "Yes",
Yes if marriage meant gay relationships than the government should define it as such, the government shouldn't change terms. I do tend to think maybe it's not the government's role to define marriage, but if they're going to they shouldn't change the definition.
Widespread usage is what would make me think the meaning of the word had changed. We may be moving in that direction, but were not there yet.
Widespread usage is what
What would be your standard (how "widespread") and how would you know (how could you determine or how could it be sufficiently demonstrated to you) that that standard has been met?
As a note, you're kinda setting up a (convenient) "Catch 22" in that you're saying we shouldn't extend legal marriage to gay couples until people -- on what you consider a "widespread" basis -- think of marriage as inclusive of gay couples, which perhaps is a standard that cannot be met as long as gays are denied access to legal marriage, but we need not focus on that.
Also, if there is/were a country in which:
- the word "marriage" (in English or whatever is the primary native language) is/were defined on a "widespread" basis to include "married" gay couples,
- those gay "marriages" were not legally-recognized marriages, but heterosexual marriages were,
- and there were debate in that country of whether or not to extend access legal marriage to gay couples,
would you prefer that they achieve that change (i.e., that gay couples gain access to legal marriage) over the maintenance of the status quo?
I don't have a hard and fast
I don't have a hard and fast standard of widespread usage, I don't think we've reached it yet. Of course even if it is determined that marriage includes gay marriage, it should be determined what relationships if any warrant recogniton from the government.
Please don't make it like
Please don't make it like pulling teeth to get answers from you. Again, I asked you the following:
There's a yes or no question at the end of that. The answer should generally be along the lines of "yes", "no", "probably, but perhaps not, because of X", "probably not but perhaps, because of because of Y", "it depends on Z", or "I have no idea (hopefully with some elaboration). And remember, answering this question does not require you to "have a hard and fast standard of widespread usage", it just asks you to assume that that standard, whatever it is, that you have set, has been met to your satisfaction.
You've already said that religious reasons alone don't suffice to discriminate, and you've based your entire secular argument on the idea that if government is involved at all in the marriage business, it should express "neutrality" on the matter of gay relationships by (according to your argument) not defining marriage for official, legal purposes in a way that conflicts with the definition of the word. So if the word is defined on a "widespread" basis as including "married" gay couples, wouldn't you have to prefer that access to legal marriage include gay couples rather than government taking an implicit non-neutral position on gay relatinships by excluding them, if it really is government neutrality that you think is the key principle to apply here?
And as for your saying essentially that you don't know what would qualify as "widespread usage" or how you'd know when that standard has been met, that's kind of a lame response when we are talking about a position of yours that harms a great many people and you have based your position on a lack of "widespread usage", which you claim is the key to how a word is defined, as opposed to the dictionary definitions I've provided you. Do you really have no idea what might qualify as "widespread usage" and what the ways could be in which it could be determined to your satisfaction? Here's one: How about a survey conducted by a neutral pollster somewhere where gay couples can get legally married that asks: "Joe and Bob got married through a formal ceremony conducted by a Justice of the Peace and got married officially (obtained a marriage license, etc.) just like all other married couples have. They have not gotten divorced. Are Joe and Bob married, or does the word "married" not apply to them?" And if 30% or more of the people say "Yes, they are married", you have demonstration that a particular standard of "widespread usage" of a definition of "marriage" as inclusive of married same-sex couples has been met. Let's say that standard works for you (or 70% shown by ten surveys by neutral pollsters or whatever). Now, suppose there was debate in that country or state or whatever over whether or not to change the legal definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman. Would you oppose such a change and prefer that legal marriage continue to include same-sex couples?
Please note that I've asked you TWO questions in this comment, one which I'm asking again (the quote) and a second in the paragraph above.
I may have to suspend debate for now
It's crunchtime in school so I may be well to limit myself to less extended and detailed debates.
ok. I hope you'll get back to
ok. I hope you'll get back to this and reply whenever you have a chance, even if it's a few weeks or more from now, because I'd really like to get an answer from you.
Good luck with the school stuff.
Also, if there is/were a
Well I can't give you a yes or no answer on this because I don't know. The government shouldn't declare the gay couples not married. But as to wether the government should give special recognition and benefits to the union, I think the question needs to be asked of why we give such recognition and benefits to hetero couples and whether gays meet those reasons to get such recognition. I tend to think the answer would be that there is no good reason for government to give recognition to personal relationships and that the government should get out the business. but I don't really know for sure.
Government at least couldn't define marriage as just between a man and a woman, that is true. They could make a distinction if they thought that for some reason there's good reason to give the union of man and woman different benefits than that of gay couples, but they shouldn't discriminiate on the use of the name.
That's all for now, I'll try to do more later.
That's all for now, I'll try
Would you like me to hold off on replying until you've had a chance to add more? Whichever you prefer is fine with me.
I dont' care you can resond if you like. NT.
NT.
To my question:So if the
To my question:
You answered:
Let's assume, just arguendo, that:
- benefits are not at issue (let's say government restructures tax benefits, for example, for ALL couples, heterosexual and otherwise, based on their likelihood to raise children, so at least most seniors who get married won't get a tax benefit, or let's say all financial benefits are removed from marriage -- the point is, let's put the issue of benefits aside by assuming that society's practical interests are not at issue here) [edit: or, if you prefer, you can assume that the choice is between "civil unions" or "marriage" for same-sex couples, with the same benefits under either alternative, so that the types and levels of benefits would not be affected by changing from "civil unions" to "marriage"],
- the word "marriage" is defined on a "widespread" basis (per whatever standard you have) as including "married" gay couples
- government getting out of "marriage" completely is not an option and you are limited to the choice of supporting or opposing (or abstaining from -- but please don't pick that option because I'll have to jump up and down pulling on my hair and screaming "Cop-out!") a state ballot measure that would change the legal definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Note that that state's current legal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman is in conflict with the "widespread" definition, and the change in the legal definition would bring the legal definition in line with the "widespread" definition, which I believe is what you are calling government neutrality, the overriding principle you have invoked.
Based on your answer above ("Government at least couldn't define marriage as just between a man and a woman"), it sounds like you are saying that you would support this ballot measure to change the legal definition of marriage from restricted to a man and a woman to including same-sex couples, correct?
Again, leaving aside the matter of benefits (assuming that that is somehow dealt with to your satisfaction based on practical or perhaps even non-practical interests of the state), you have argued that the deciding principle on whether or not to allow same-sex couples to legally marry is that government should be neutral with regard to the definition of "marriage", which you have argued means conforming to the "widespread" definition. In my hypothetical, the current legal definition is not neutral, and the proposed new definition (per the ballot measure) would be neutral, so I don't see a reason (per your argumentation) why you would not support it if you had to choose between the two.
Update 3/18/09 Gay marriage
Update 3/18/09
(emphasis added in both quotes)
Definition of "marriage" on Webster:
Yes, if for some reason the
Yes, if for some reason the government had to legally define marriage, and homosexual relationships fell under the definition of marriage, than I would support the ballot measure calling homosexual relationships marriage. It does seem to me like there always is the option of saying that its best if government doesn't define marriage, but if there wasn't that option than I would support the government calling things what they are, and if that means calling a gay relationship marriage than so be it.
I'm not really sure what role I think government should play in marriage. I think heterosexual relationships are better, but I don't know whether they are such a benefit to society that its right for the government to recognize them. If divorce was harder, the government's involvment might make sense as a force for societal stability, but marriage as it is, I'm not sure government recognition makes any sense.
ok, so your conditions for
ok, so your conditions for supporting such a ballot measure are:
1. "If for some reason the government had to legally define marriage"
2. If "homosexual relationships fell under the definition of marriage"
#1 is a cop-out because, at least for now, the option of government ceasing to legally recognize marriage is implausible, so the only realistic choice at least for now is between restricting it to heterosexual couples or expanding it to gay couples. Of course, anyone is free to then seek a cessation of government recognition of all marriages just as one could seek it now, so #2 is irrelevant on two counts.
#2 brings us back to two questions/points I presented earlier.
First, it begs the question of what you mean by "fell under the definition". I showed you dictionary definitions, and you responded that a dictionary definition doesn't reflect your criterion, which (for some reason) is "widespread usage". You didn't clarify what measure and standard would satisfy that criterion (let alone why it matters). Subsequently I posted (above) an excerpt from an article on Webster's adding to it's definition of marriage the same-sex variety in 2003 "to reflect the popularity of the term "same-sex marriage" in print and common usage". Also, of course, in a couple of states such marriages are already legally recognized. So what measure and standard do you require to satisfy your criterion of "widespread usage"?
Second, are you arguing that legal definitions of terms cannot deviate from definitions reflected in "widespread usage"? If so, isn't that an absurd argument, one at odds with reality and practicality? If not, then why must we impose such a restriction in this case?
I do not see why the
I do not see why the government giving up on defining marriage would be so impossible. They could simply set up the option of civil unions that would apply to any relationships - romantic or otherwise, the government would be blind as to who was entering the relationship, and the definition of marriage would be free from government change.
As to my standards for what I would consider the definition of the word to change I don't know. That's a good question, I just don't have the answer for you yet.
No, but some words really matter. The word 'marriage" has special, even sacred connotations. This in itself I think is an arguement for government exiting the business of defining marriage. I am not entirely convinced the government shouldn't be involved in marriage, but I definitely see good arguements for it. If the government does define the term they should do so correctly, because no injustice can be done by calling things what they are. It is no insult to not call a relationship marriage when it is not marriage.
One other thing
You claim that the government exiting marriage is impossible, and ignore the fact that gay marriage is also currently political impossible. You lost in California of all places. Its legal in MA, which is the most liberal state in the union, but even that was by court mandate was it not?
I do not see why the
I didn't say that government ceasing to legally recognize marriage was "impossible", but we should be able to agree that (1) it is almost completely implausible for the foreseeable future, much less plausible than at least some states recognizing same-sex marriages, which two already do (and the only teeny, tiny chance there is of government getting out of marriage altogether is due, for the most part, to folks who advocate it only to keep those darn gays from getting access to it, not because they object to government legally recognizing marriage per se), and (2) there would be nothing in extending equal access to it to gay couples that would obstruct anyone's ability to advocate government getting out of marriage altogether, so as I said, your argument that maybe you'd prefer government get out of marriage altogether is nothing but an irrelevant (if convenient) cop-out. The bottom line is that people who oppose extending it to gay couples are generally at least ok with government recognizing marriages of heterosexual couples (and most even prefer such recognition), but they object to gay couples having equal access to it, which brings us back to the real matter of why gay couples should be denied equal access to it.
Well, geez, man. You want to deny equal access to an institution (marriage) that has enormously profound, life-affecting impact on the lives of hundreds of thousands (or millions) of people. You say that it's because (1) you object to a legal definition of a term deviating from "widespread usage" (not as a matter of general principle, except, apparently, if a word is "special" and "sacred" [i.e., involves religion], whatever that argument is supposed to mean), and (2) even though dictionaries include marriages of same-sex couples in their definitions of marriage (due to "common usage") and even though some states already legally recognize marriages of same-sex couples, you still say that some criterion of "widespread usage" has not been satisfied. You say that if this criterion were satisfied and you had to choose between government restricting marriage to heterosexual couples vs. allowing equal access to it for gay couples, you would no longer favor denying equal access and would actually favor allowing legally recognized same-sex marriage. Yet you don't have any answer for what would satisfy that criterion??!! Come on, man. That's pretty lame. Surely you can and should think this through, given the impact of this issue on people's lives and the importance of the philosophical principles involved (e.g., equal rights / discrimination). Is it really that hard to come up with an answer? Or is it a question you just don't want to answer, because that may put you in a position of relying only on your irrelevant, cop-out argument that maybe (maybe) government shouldn't be in the marriage business at all (and therefore should not, for some reason, extend marriage to same-sex couples as long as it continues to recognize it for heterosexual couples, whatever the supposed logic of that argument may be).
John, please don't take us in circles. I assume it is due to carelessness rather than deliberate, but come on. I have been trying to discuss the matter of definition of marriage with you (both relevance and criteria/standard), and when presented with evidence that should be satisfactory (dictionary definitions, commentary by Webster that they added it in 2003 due to "the popularity of the term 'same-sex marriage' in print and common usage" and legal recognition in two states), you insist on some criteria ("widespread usage") for which you say you can't offer any standard. Then you circle back to saying essentially "Well, it doesn't meet the definition, so government shouldn't do it". Again, come on, man. You're too smart for that circular stuff (and I'd rather not have to point it out; it's tedious enough dealing in even a straight-forward way with all the bogus, front arguments of opponents of same-sex marriage, whether people are kidding themselves or just trying to fool me and others with the pretense that they have legitimate secular arguments).
Very weak argument. First, again, the plausibility of states now and more in the foreseeable future allowing equal access to marriage for same-sex couples, including by legislation and/or ballot measures, as well as judicial decisions that denying such access is a denial of equal rights (and why exactly doesn't that count?? Did it not count for revocation of anti-miscegenation laws?), is much greater than the plausibility that states will end legally recognized marriage altogether. Second, again, the only small chance of the latter is due to folks who have no problem at all with (and even prefer) legally recognized marriage for heterosexual couples, but only object all of a sudden when there is the prospect of equal access for same-sex couples. Third, again, allowing same-sex couples equal access to legal marriage in no way blocks the pursuit of abolition of legal marriage altogether, so again the question is whether or not, as long as government is recognizing marriages, same-sex couples should have equal access to it or not.
Any chance you'll just admit (to yourself, perhaps, if you're kidding yourself) that you don't really have a legitimate secular argument for opposing equal access to legal marriage for same-sex couples, and that your argument is really, simply, that you just want to discourage homosexuality for religious reasons, and that all the grasping at straws for secular arguments is just cover for your real rationale and motivation?
If not, at least go ahead and give me a standard for meeting your "widespread usage" criterion.
You might also want to make a better, clearer argument for why the legal definition of a term ("marriage") in this case must be limited to the definition reflected in "widespread usage" -- Why it being "special" is an argument for a legal definition needing to conform to the "widespread usage" definition (Aren't there all sorts of legal terms involving very profoundly life-affecting matters that are defined legally differently than they are in common usage? And isn't the concept of legal marriage "special" to the same-sex couples who are trying so hard to gain equal access to it, just as it was for interracial couples who couldn't marry due to anti-miscegenation laws that enjoyed popular support?); And why being "sacred" has anything to do with it, given that we don't live in a theocracy last I checked.
Seems like you are willing to engage on this issue, but consciously or not, you are determined to stick to your opposition to allowing equal access to marriage for same-sex couples, and to continue searching for / clinging to whatever secular arguments you can present. Just wondering, do you feel that God mandates that you maintain that position on this issue? In other words, does it seem even conceivable to you that you could actually openly favor SSM (i.e., if you come to accept my premise that legal recognition of heterosexual marriage is here to stay, at least for the foreseeable future, or that allowing SSM doesn't get in the way of getting rid of all legal marriage altogether, and that "widespread usage" is either an irrelevant criterion or has been satisfied), or does the thought of taking such a position generate some reflexive, determined rejection (and perhaps fear) and a sense of absolute need to find a reason to avoid such a position and advocacy?
You want to deny equal
All I'm arguing for now, is not calling their relationship marriage. I don't see how that in of itself should be life altering. I can see the arguement that this is about equality. I fail to see how its an issue involving freedom. There's nothing gays can't do, simply because the government doesn't call their relationship marriage - there may be benefits they don't get, but that's not what we're discussing.
If marriage means ( which it certainly use to) a union between a man and a woman then there's no reason that homosexuals should covet the term. Let them have their own term for their relationship, and those who think their relationship is special in the same way as marriage can still think that. Nobody deserves to be called something they aren't. This seems to me somewhat like if blacks started to think of the term white as meaning being superior and demanded to be called white. If there's nothing better about being white ( which of course there isn't) then they shouldn't want to be called it. If there's nothing better about marriage than a homosexual relationship then gays shouldn't care about being called married, if there is something better about marriage, than they don't deserve to be called married because marriage is better. It seems pretty simple that everybody deserves to be called what they are - no more no less.
All I'm arguing for now,
John, you are usually a very thoughtful guy, but for some reason you are not really thinking on this issue. Back in the days of anti-miscegenation laws, would you be similarly dismissive of an interracial couple that wanted to have access to the same legal institution of marriage that was available to same-race couples? Would you say, "Hey, it really shouldn't be a big deal to you. You can have 'civil union' and it shouldn't bother you so much that you can't have a legally recognized "marriage" by that name like same-race couples can, so stop whining" ?? Now, please don't go off on the unfortunately common but irrelevant, extraneous (and erroneous) diversion that race isn't the same thing in some way that makes the analogy inapplicable. The point is that it is absurd to be dismissive in the way you've been above.
Geez Louise, John. Give me a break. Because they have historically been denied the opportunity to enter into the same legal institution enjoyed by heterosexual couples, there's no reason for them to want to have equal access to it, and instead should only have access to legal recognition of some other institution that brands their relationship as something different (with the implication that it is fundamentally different and inferior, which is your whole reason for preferring that they be limited to the term "civil union", whether or not you are even admitting it to yourself, let alone to me)?
And if most people thought that marriage was defined as within one's race, you'd say the above to that interracial couple?
Here we go again, circling back to the discussion of definitions that you say you just have no clear idea about, yet base your position on. This is ridiculous, John. Disappointing, to be frank.
That's just silly. And again circles back to the matter of definition of "marriage" -- (1) what your criteria and standard are, and (2) why "widespread usage"that should be relevant. To the first (at least) you have no answer whatsoever, by your own admission, yet you keep circling back to it, even after I've pointed out that you are doing so. Ridiculous. It's like "They don't have the right to be legally recognized as something they are not, and they are not something unless it is defined that way per widespread usage, not that I have any idea what would qualify as widespread usage or why that criterion isn't satisfied by dictionary definitions based on popular, common usage and some state laws, let alone why the legal application of the term should be bounded by the definition per widespread usage, but in summary, they don't have the right to be legally recognized as something they are not."
And the irony here is that YOU are the one who wants to DENY gay couples equal access to legal marriage precisely BECAUSE YOU want the state to imply that their relationship is inferior to heterosexual marriage. Two consensting adults want to get legally married. Both couples have the same essential concept in mind, the same general concept that we all generally think of as "marriage" other than the limitation some apply regarding the gender combination. You say that, if the government is doing this at all, one couple shoud be able to get legally married, and the other should not be able to. The only difference is that one couple is opposite-gender, the other is same-gender. You lay out absurd reasons that you haven't even thought through at all for why the second should be denied equal access to this legal institution, much like an interracial couple decades ago.
Your position and your lack of a sensible, logical rationale for it, are simply immoral, because you are harming people without any apparent reason (that you have stated, at least). Of course, your real, only rationale, whether you admit it even to yourself or not, is because you want to discourage homosexuality, and it's quite possible that in your mind that your position is therefore moral because homosexuality will make someone less likely to accept your Guy in the Sky and receive all the benefits that come with that package, so yadda yadda yadda. But you're not presenting that as your argument, so I don't even have the chance to tell you how repulsive and pathetic I find that rationale (which is based, of course, on the premise that belief in all that stuff about what "God" wants is utterly irrational and harming people based on it is awful and often selfish and immoral).
As much as I tend to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are engaging in good faith, at this point I have serious doubts. You are too smart for this circular argumentation combined with cop-outs. Frankly, I'm done with this unless I see something from you that restores my confidence that you are engaging in good faith and not just wasting my time with the pretense of a sincere, thoughtful discussion. If you are serious, go ahead and give some real, sensible answers to my questions, starting with (1) what your standard really is for "widespread usage", (2) why the legal definition must be restricted to the definition per widespread usage (when plenty of other legal terms involving matters of great importance are not limited in that way), and (3) whether or not you think interracial couples should be satisfied with "civil unions" and denied legal "marriage" if most people prefer that or if most people defined marriage as within the same race (and pleeeease don't tell me that my hypothetical is inherently flawed because people don't define marriage that way).
Again, please either show that you are really thinking and engaging in good faith or let's just stop here and I probably won't ever bother trying to discuss it with you again when the issue comes up and you comment on it (although I may simply comment that I think your arguments are bogus and that I wasn't able to have a sensible, logical discussion with you on the issue). For now, I must say I'm disappointed, since I know your intelligence and thoughtfulness are far above the quality of your comments in this discussion.
First of all, my arguements
First of all, my arguements are honest ones - I'm not arguing in bad faith. You can believe what you want, but I am an honest person. Feel free to leave the conversation when you like, if your goal is to bring me around to your viewpoint on the issue its not likely at least not now. Now for your last questions.
Like I said this is a good question, but I don't have an answer for it. I hope to have some time to consider it within the coming months, as I broaden and deepen my thinking on the issues. I suppose you could argue that being a voting citizen I should have completely thought all of this out, but at least I've thought about the issues about a thousand times more than most of my peers. :-)
Well, I think I've answered this pretty clearly. The one way one can know they are being fair in their definitions is to define correctly.
If marriage trully meant a union between two people of the same race,then I really don't know why any biracial couple would want their relationship called marriage. That said I don't think marriage ever trully had that definition. People thought that such unions should not be recognized as marriage, but that doesn't mean that in general they thought they didn't fit the definition of marriage. Gay marriage is another deal. Because for a long time the very definition of marriage has been a union between a man and a woman.
As to your wanting to bring
As to your wanting to bring this back to religion... I don't think I've hidden the fact that the reason this matters is because of religion - I think i've made clear the connection between religion and this issue in prior conversations. I've been giving reasons why it's fair not to call homosexual relationships marriage, that are not directly tied to religion. But of course, if marriage had no religous significance recognizing gay marriage would be unecessary, but also insignificant. I tend to think homosexuality is something that the government should be neutral on, and the way to be nuetral is to call things what they are.
I give up. And no, obviously
I give up. And no, obviously the problem is NOT that you don't agree with me on the issue. The problem is that your arguments are either absurd, illogical, circular or conspicuously absent (meaning you say you just don't have any answer whatsoever to the ultimate question related to the very foundation of your supposed rationale -- the definition criteria and standard, as well as the relevance thereof -- and no, it shouldn't take "months" to tell me what you qualifies as "widespread usage" and why that criterion and standard should impose a restriction for a legal term; in fact, a few minutes would probably be enough), and all I can conclude, given that you are intelligent and usually (in secular matters) logical, sensible and thoughtful, is that something is preventing you from responding to my questions and arguments in a thoughtful, logical, and sensible way, whether it's deliberate or not.
So I'm done trying to have a real discussion with you on this subject. It seems that you have a firm position in perpetual, determined, unalterable search for a rationale, and if that's the case, I'm wasting my time because you're not really in pursuit of a logical (i.e., internally consistent) position, and you are not allowing us to follow a logical course, because (on some level, conscious or not) you probably sense where it will head: to nothing but the rationale that you oppose SSM because you want to denigrate and discourage homosexuality and homosexual relationships because you think that's what your Guy in the Sky wants you to do.
As an aside, I had to shake my head at your, um, argument that:
Huh? I guess that pretty much sums up the empty, circular nature of your end of this discussion.
As I always say, I like you. But I gotta say, your comments in this exchange have been ridiculous, and that's not something I throw around lightly, particualrly not with you, except perhaps with some of your circular argumentation with regard to religious faith. Again, I don't know if you're deliberately not putting in any reasonable effort to engage in a sensible and logical way or if something else is going on in your head (subconsciously) that is getting in the way, but if you see my friend John who is a strong thinker who discusses/debates secular matters logically and sensibly, please ask him to show up here and comment.
You get what you expect BR.
You get what you expect BR. You expect that any arguement from for not redefining marriage is going to be ridiculous, and therefore, if I argue on that side you find that arguement to be ridiculous. My arguement is incomplete, as I readilly admit, but I fail to see the circular nature of it.
No, not at all. I expect (or
No, not at all. I expect (or at least hope) to get from you logical argumentation, not running around in circles. I find it very hard to believe that you don't see the circular nature of your argumentation per my repeated explanation. Again, you say they don't have a right to have their relationship called something it is not (a word whose definition does not and cannot fit their relationship), you then claim (strangely and dubiously, but conveniently) to have no clue what you mean in terms of fitting the definition -- what it would take to satisfy your criterion and standard for fitting the definition (let alone why your criterion itself is even an appropriate requirement) -- yet you keep circling back to your argument that they have no right to have their relationship called a word whose definition it does not and cannot meet. If you don't still don't see the circular nature of that repeated pattern on your part, and what a ridiculous time-waster it is, I don't think I can explain it to you any more clearly. It's like I'm saying some animal is not a mammal, then telling you I have no idea what qualifies an animal as a mammal, but the bottom line anyway is that the animal is not a mammal.
As a note, it is really silly for you to repeatedly imply that the reason I find your comments/responses/argumentation in this exchange completely inadequate (to put it mildly) is simply because you are not ending up agreeing with me on the issue. You should know by now that I have no problem distinguishing between a lack of agreement vs. lack of logic or other forms of faulty, weak, or absurd argumentation.
No, not at all. I expect (or
Fair enough. You're right that I can't logically make a conclusion on what the government should do inre to defining marriage, untill I decide what criteria should be met to make a correct definition. That said I don't think the point that the government should make its definition of marriage based of what he real meaning of the word is, to be a bad point. I may not be able to draw a conclusion yet from that arguement, but I think its a fair way to decide the issue of how the government defines marriage, or anything for that matter.
Basically I'm saying If A ( "A" being the definition of marriage being the union between a man and a woman) is true, then the government should do B ( "B",being government not calling gay unions marriage), but I don't know how to determine "A", which of course implies that my thoughts on this issue are not settled. You distort what I say into "A" is true, therefore the government should do "B"; I have no way of knowing why "A" is true, but government should definitely do "B", because "A" is true." Of course you're right that that's illogical, but hopefully as I've shown above you can see its not really what I've been saying, or at least what I've been trying to say. I tend to think you twist what . I will admit the second statement is an easy conclusion to come to, and part of the blame lies in my not wording things carefully enough, but then you've got to understand I don't do this for a living. :-)
Well, you are certainly
Well, you are certainly advocating "B" (government denying gay couples equal access to legal marriage). You are basing that position (supposedly) on the premises (1) that "A" (the relationships in question conflicting with some sufficiently widely-used definition of the term "marriage"), and (2) that the legal definition must not conflict with some sufficiently widely-used definition. You haven't presented much of an argument for #2, but leaving that aside, if "A" (#1) is not true, then #2 is moot. It shouldn't be that hard to come up with at least a rough idea of an answer to the definition question (what the criteria and standard should be) on which your entire position on this issue rests* (an issue you've thought about and advocated on many times before, and an issue that affects many people's lives profoundly) so go ahead and give me an answer for the definition question.
No, no distortion that I can see on my end. That is indeed what you did, repeatedly. I realize people make mistakes and even a very intelligent and articulate guy like you can get sloppy, but sometimes sloppy thinking and argumentation come at very "convenient" times, and could be the result of avoidance behavior that is either deliberate or subconscious. And I mean avoidance of a logical, sensible, thoughtful discussion/debate that one senses could lead one to either an uncomfortable conclusion or the need to avoid in even more obvious ways. Sometimes people are kidding others (deliberate avoidance with the pretense of sincere engagement) and sometimes they are kidding themselves (subconscious avoidance, perhaps via allowing themselves to think and speak sloppily rather than making a reasonable effort to apply their brains before and while speaking/responding, which is a different kind of lack of good faith, not necessarily insincerity, but a lack of a reasonable effort).
* "Rests", that is, if we put aside the matter of whether or not legal "marriage" should exist at all, whether or not it is realistic to pursue the abolition of all legal "marriage", and whether or not such a preference has sufficient bearing on the SSM issue to justify opposition to SSM in the meantime.
No, no distortion that I can
Where have I said "A" is true after I said I did not know how to determine "A"? I may lean toward thinking "A" is true, but it seems to me that you've distorted what I've said in making me to have clearly stated the truth of "A".
Every time you circled back
Every time you circled back to saying that they don't have a right to have their relationship called something it is not. Unless every time you said that in your last few comments you meant it just hypothetically -- i.e., IF a legal union of a same-sex couple doesn't fit within the definition(s) of "marriage" -- without intending to imply that premise. If that's what you were doing, there's nothing wrong per se with using such a hypothetical to address the question of appropriateness of that criterion (that the legal definition must not conflict with some sufficiently widely used definition), although you still didn't provide much of an argument for appropriateness. But it's pretty annoying (and circular in its own right) to keep saying that that criterion (fit with a sufficiently widely used definition) is appropriate because if that criterion isn't satisfied, then the criterion for SSM hasn't been satisfied, and it's annoying to keep referring back to even the hypothetical of that criterion not being met without even trying to address what that criterion really is and what it would take to satisfy it (what standard).
Anyway, let's drop the meta discussion. If you want to try to have a real, productive discussion, just address the questions regarding that criterion: how it could be satisfied / what standard; and why that criterion and that standard should be a requirement for this legal definition (when other legal definitions on very important matters are not so limited). And as for the latter, again, if you can picture an America in which the very word "marriage" were "widely defined" as implying only marrying within one's "race", would you really insist on denying a couple access to legal "marriage" just because they were interracial, even though the concept of marriage they have in mind is essentially the same as the concept of marriage held by everyone else? Or for that matter, what if the "widely held" definition were that "marriage" implies a union of people of faith -- would you tell an atheist or agnostic couple that they can enter into a "civil union" but not legal "marriage", even though a legal "marriage" has nothing to do with religion? Same question for if the "widely held" definition was a union of Christians -- would you tell a Jewish couple that they cannot enter into legal "marriage"? In other words, if the essence of the institution is the same -- two consenting adults who want to enter into the same essential concept of a legal and interpersonal relationship as are other legal "marriages" in all ways except for the variable in question (gender combination, religious faith, race, whatever) -- why should that couple be denied access to legal marriage unless, say, 80% of people or more have to view the definition of "marriage" as potentially applying to that relationship for those two people?
I'm probably wasting my time, since, whether you are fully (or at all) aware of it or not, I'm pretty sure you are absolutely determined to oppose SSM and you will grasp whatever you can to serve as a rationale for that a priori, unshakable position, and no matter how many arguments I refute in one way or another, you'll just keep coming up with something, anything to avoid changing your position and to avoid just admitting that your real objection is religious and you have no real secular rationale. But I'd be glad to be surprised.
If your goal is to get me to
If your goal is to get me to reach a particular conclusion right at this time you're probably wasting your time. I also don't expect to change your position. Sometime when I've more fully thought through the issue, maybe I'll even be brave enough to write a diary on the issue here. Then you can read it, and either you will find something worth engaging in, or you'll still be convinced that its absurd, circular logic - either way you'll be dealing with a more comprehensive arguement. What you're looking at now is morethe rough draft of my thinking ( though I disagree that its been illogical), than a solid conclusion - its ideas that I would take into account when forming my opinion, and not the opinion itself. I am fine with such a discussion, but you need not feel that you must participate in it, if you don't like.
Why would two Jews want their relationship called marriage if marriage actually meant a union between two Christians? Same thing goes for your other examples, if marriage meant something like a union between two people of the same race why would a bi-racial couple want to be called married?
First of all, I must say with
First of all, I must say with regard to your first paragraph, blah, blah, blah. You do have a position on the issue: You oppose SSM, right? And you have stated a criterion: you contend that the legal definition of marriage must conform to the definition per "widespread usage", right? And yet when I ask you what you mean by "widespread usage", how that criterion can be satisfied, and why the evidence I've offered so far doesn't suffice, you say you have no answer at all! Nothing! And you imply that you need "months" to think about it before giving some answer, which is utterly ridiculous (as is the "fact" that you have no clue at this point despite that fact that you have considered this issue many times before and have maintained your position based on this supposed rationale all the while!). And that's even leaving aside the other question as to why that general criterion (some sufficiently widespread definition) should be a requirement for the legal definition, and the question of why your particular standard for satisfying that criterion is an appropriate standard.
It's just ridiculous, and indicative of either deliberate or subconscious avoidance of the issue, which, again, is not uncommon for folks with your position, because you have reached your position for religious reasons, you are pretending (either kidding me or kidding yourself, in the latter case being "honest" with me but not "honest" with yourself) that you have a secular rationale that suffices on its own, yet you have no legitimate secular rationale. When that secular rationale is revealed (by me, in this case) as dubious at best, your response is not to really think it through and proceed along a logical, sensible, thoughtful course to whatever position makes sense, but rather to avoid moving along such a course, whether via evasive argumentation or just plain avoiding answering a very answerable question (you've done both here). I don't know whether (or to what extend) you are kidding yourself vs. kidding me, but either way, it is a waste of my time beyond whatever value there is to demonstrating that one or the other is apparently the case.
I say again, if you are serious, go ahead and answer those questions related to the matter of definition. Not only is it hard to believe that you have absolutely no answer right now, but it's absurd for you to contend that you need months or that answering it must wait for an entire diary you write at some point. You are just avoiding the questions, just as you have avoided inconvenient quesitons and arguments that our discussions on this issue have led to in the past.
Uph! Why would an adult black man (no matter how old) want white people to stop calling him and referring to him as "boy" (as was the habit/practice/tradition in the South in the past) and instead refer to him as a "man" even though they define "man" in "widespread usage" as referring only to white men (or at least non-black men). The term "boy" was meant to imply inferiority. In such circumstances, should the legal term be restricted to such a definition of "man", and thus refer to black men as "boys" (and perhaps also treat black men, for legal purposes, as minors).
[edit: And think about it: If the vast majority of Americans (or people in some other country), being Protestants, defined "marriage" as "a Protestant Christian holy union of a couple" and government provided legal recognition of "marriage" for civil purposes (and by extension, social purposes insofar as legal recognition conveys a particular level and type of legitimacy in the sense of "realness"), you would want government to tell Jewish couples and Seventh Day Adventist couples that even though they have entered into the same union conceptually except for the difference in religion, they cannot have their union recognized by the state and by law as "marriage", but are restricted to some other label (e.g., "civil union") that the Protestant folks insist they be limited to in order to convey, via the government and the law, that such unions are illegitimate or at least inferior to Protestant "marriages". And you would say to the Jewish couple or the Seventh Day Adventist couple, "Gee, why would you even want your union to be called 'marriage' when most people -- the Protestant majority -- don't view it as fitting their definition of 'marriage' by virtue of your religion (i.e., your union is the same in all other respects except your religion)? Why shouldn't you be satisfied with being denied the same legal label if most people think it doesn't apply to your relationship? Further, why do you think you have some right to call your union something that they don't think fits?"]
Listen, for now, I'm going to stop trying (in vain) to get you to really think about this matter of the appropriateness of your "definition per widespread usage" criterion as a requirement for legal terminology, as well as trying to get you to even understand why anyone would want to have their union called "marriage" rather than be restricted to some other term for a union that is essentially the same except with regard to the variable in question (gender combination) by people whose entire purpose is to imply inferiority of that union to what they consider "marriage", and ask you, once again, to answer my questions regarding what you really mean by your criterion of "widespread usage".
Let me also ask you this hypothetically: Suppose a poll showed that 95% of Americans believed that the term "marriage" included unions of same-sex couples that are called -- for legal purposes and/or socially -- "marriage". And suppose I'm right that it's unrealistic to think that legal "marriage" will be abolished altogether in the foreseeable future and/or that that objective doesn't make much sense as a rationale for opposing SSM in the meantime (as long as legal "marriage" does continue to exist) because allowing SSM does not make that objective less achievable (in fact, it would make it more achievable because of religious a**holes who will react as you have, being willing to throw out a long-cherished legal institution just to prevent those awful gays from getting equal rights with regard to access to that institution). Given the above hypotheticals, would you advocate for SSM (allowing equal access to legal "marriage" to same-sex couples)?
Remember, address BOTH my hypothetical and the bolded question in the first paragraph if you wish to discuss this seriously.
First of all, I must say
I thought that I've been pretty clear lately that I don't have a firm position. I lean strongly against SSM, and don't see it as likely that I will support it, however, such oppositions could take different forms, or I may even give it up - as unlikely as that may be.
Fine. Your persistence won me over. A word changes meaning at exactly the point when three respected polls shows 62.5% accept the changed form. Seriously I don't know why you think this should be so easy. Its not a math problem, there's no majic number, and there's going to be a definite gray area on this issue. If I think I think about it, I'm sure I can come up with something, but this is drawing a line in the sand not calculating the national debt.
The reason "boy" had a nagative connotation was because it meant not being an adult. Just because people called blacks this, doesn't mean that the word reffered only to blacks. If marriage trully means a union between a man and a woman, than a more apt illustration would be if the black man wanted to be legally called white, because white had connotations of being superior.
If marriage means the union between a man and woman, than the only way that government defining it as such is would be a declaration of other unions as inferior would be if they were inferior, because all the government would be saying is that a union between a man and a woman is marriage. One is free to think that such a union between a man a woman, otherwise known as marriage, is the most sacred union, but the government isn't stating that by calling it marriage, just like the government isn't saying whites are better than blacks, because they call whites, whites, and some people think white means superior.
ok, this is just a waste of
ok, this is just a waste of my time. Done. Maybe I should just stick to discussions of (truly) secular matters with you. You bring your brain to those discussions.
Maybe should just stick with
Maybe should just stick with issues that you agree with me on. It seems anything you disagree with me on, you dismiss as being irrational. Hopefully, you eventually prove me wrong on this, as I've admired your independence of thought on some issues, but its beginning to seem that those who've accused you of not accepting disagreement were right.
That is such a stupid
That is such a stupid statement, so at odds with what a rational observer of my exchanges with you here and elsewhere would conclude, and so at odds with your normal capability and habit of rational thought outside of religious/theological matters, that I have to suspect it's part of the same self-delusional dynamic (assuming you actually believe what you're saying) that has prevented you from engaging sensibly, logically and thoughtfully in this discussion and others on this topic (and on religious/theological matters generally).
To suggest that I am lacking in the ability to distinguish between disagreement and the absence of quality, good-faith engagement is so absurd that it says much more about your mindset than it does about my thinking or conduct.
Relying on a self-delusional device when rational thought on some subject becomes uncomfortable doesn't make you a bad guy (and on balance, I think you're a good person), although it can certainly lead one to an irresponsible and thus immoral approach to issues and thus to immoral advocacy (advocating policies that hurt people unjustifiably), and thus does at least detract from one's goodness (unless one cannot become aware of this self-delusion despite much thought and effort, in which case the person can't be blamed any more than a psychotic can be blamed for decisions he makes based on his firm beliefs). I must say, though, if I may borrow the slogan from the UNCF, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste" (even on selected issues if substantial harm/benefit are at stake). You're an intelligent guy, but you tend to put your brain in a jar when rational thought becomes uncomfortable, meaning when some position of yours is based completely on religious faith and related beliefs (whether you realize it or not, the latter in the case of the SSM issue).
We all have weaknesses and imperfections. And as for fighting through discomfort from some issue to actually think things through rationally and discuss thoughtfully, sensibly, and logically, we are all imperfect. But there are most certainly matters of degree. The contrast between your thoughtfulness, logic, etc. when discussing (truly) secular issues vs. when confronted with a position or argument that conflicts with your religious beliefs just happens to be extreme. Which isn't surprising, given the emotional investment you have in those beliefs, and thus the level and immediacy of discomfort you must experience on some level when an argument presents such a conflict and creates that cognitive dissonance. All I can suggest is that you try, now and over the course of your life, to achieve greater self-awareness regarding this dynamic. Of course, ironically, your reaction may be to reflexively deny all of the above, but perhaps at some point you'll push yourself to give it some serious thought.
Your fundamentally faith based world view is duly acknowledged.
We have already established, BR, that your world view is fundamentally faith based, and therefore irrational. Please stop making references to rationally based statements like you have a leg to stand on in that regards.
Note to both of you:
Why don't you move this over to the left margin?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4GR, we really don't need you
GR, we really don't need you interjecting with your typical silly statements and general stupidity. Funny thing is, I was tempted all along to tell John that when it comes to subjects like this, it's like he takes out his regular (excellent) brain and replaces it with yours, but I thought that it would be inappropriate to refer to you in that way given that you were not a party to the exchange.
In any case, I think John and I are done with this exchange. And the thread is cold anyway, so no biggee re: the left margin; if someone else wishes to follow the only live (or recently deceased) exchange on this thread, keeping it together is probably even preferable. But by all means, if you wish to reply, feel free to do so at the bottom of the page at the left margin -- in fact, I encouarage you to put any other brilliant comments of yours there rather than adjacent to the exchange here! lol
You're not gonna get anywhere arguing the religious angle ...
on its face. It just won't fly. So, for example:
I know that you may believe this but this has no standing within the liberal mindset. So you have to couch it in terms that they can process and accept. One way to do this is to recognize that the liberals will favor science and any argument that does not rely on supernatural beings.
You may see the Bible as God's word, which is fine, but this won't fly with the liberal mindset. But you can see, I assume, that they would be open to the notion that the Bible is really a document written by men based on their learnings about what makes for a good and productive society. Just view the Bible as being rules written by men to help the uneducated to benefits from generations of experience. You don't have to believe this view perosnally, but to make it palatable to the liberals you have to make the appropriate conversion.
So, I would probably avoid the "inferior" angle and verbiage as being unproductively pointy. They (gay relationships) aren't really inferior so much as they aren't optimal from the perspective of providing a benefit to society. Both can be productive, for sure, but history has shown that the family unit works best when it is comprised as being between a man and a woman.
So, from a societal perspective the government has good reason (seeking to promote the most stable society possible) to incentivize the formation of family units which are organized around one man and one woman because history has shown that this is the combination that has provided the most stable societies overall.
Does that mean that a gay couple can't provide a stable environment? Obviously not. But historically speaking societies have generally favored the one man one woman arrangement as being preferred.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I realize the religous angle isn't going to convince anyone
I just used in answering his question of what harm I think having gay relationships confirmed would do. However, as I said I don't even think the religious angle is a reason for why the government should take gay relationships and heterosexual one's, however, it is a reason why the government ought to remain neutral. Of course there's more reason for the government to remain nuetral than the religous angle, and you're right that in trying to persuade liberals it's probably best to stick to that. However, I guess I wasn't really expecting to persuade anyone, just giving a reason for why I see things the way I do.
Fair enough.
n/t
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Leaving aside your
Leaving aside your discouragement of people giving straight, honest answers to straight questions, the argument you put forward -- which is the typical argument -- is not only merely a front argument masquerading as the genuine rationale of your side on this issue, but it is full of so many holes it's ridiculous. Lack of established cause and effect (the latter being any likely substantial negative impact rates of heterosexual marriage); inadequate "compelling interest" to justify government discrimination in this area; implication for marriage rights for infertile or elderly couples or other couples with no intention to have children; etc. Give me a friggin' break.
What's ridiculous is thinking that you can actually argue ...
against established historical fact.
And I am not discouraging people from giving straight answers to straight questions. I am encouraging people to state things in a way that the target audience will be able to understand and accept.
The two versions amount to the same thing, just viewed from different perspectives.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You have your set theory backwards ...
Marriage is a class of civil union, not the other way around. Marriage is defined as that class of civil union which occurs between a man and a woman, as it traditionally has. This should be obvious because we are obviously broadening the scope of such groups. Thus the new term (civil union) must be a superset the existing term (marriage) because it include groups that are NOT covered by the existing term.
UPDATE:
I went back and reread your post again. It is clearly true that the two sets are not equivalent. Marriage only encompasses those civil unions which are between a man and a woman. The wide scoped set, civil unions, can include any number of other groups which don't fall under the definition of marriage.
As long as the "rights and privileges" are set at the "civil union" level (as opposed to the marriage level as the are today) then the rights and privileges being conveyed are exactly equivalent to all groups that fall under the banner "civil union" by definition. It is the definition of those "rights and privileges" that must be kept equal across the groups, not the assignment of specific names.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4"The right in question is
"The right in question is simply to be able to marry the person you love." I don't view the issue as forbiding a couple to marry, it's simply forbidding the governement to call it marriage - the only way this can be considered forbiding a couple to marry is if you think marriage can only exist at the will of government - I tend to think that marriage is a divine institution, that government only recognizes ( rightly or wrongly) I don't think marriage is reliant upon government for it's very existence - as most who argue for gay rights apparently do.
I don't think marriage is
Oh, please. Again, would you say that to an interracial couple in the days of anti-miscegenation laws or to those who wanted to eliminate those laws? It's a matter of EQUAL RIGHTS under the law, equal access to government institutions, legal status (and societal status it can imply), etc., unless there is a very strong case for a great state/societal interest in discriminating. You can't -- or just don't want to, or just won't admit that you can -- get your head around that.
And again, "civil unions" don't necessarily provide and don't guarantee protection of equal practical benefits/rights to the extent that access to the same institution would.
Says who, Mr. Strawman maker ...
And again, "civil unions" don't necessarily provide and don't guarantee protection of equal practical benefits/rights to the extent that access to the same institution would.
There is absolutely no reason that civil unions cannot offer the exact same legal rights as marriage does today. In fact, they could write the legislation exactly like that as far as I am concerned: The newly created civil unions shall convey all the rights and privileges as does marriage between a man and a woman. Summed up in one sentence would be all they would have to say.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Baloney. Regardless of the
Baloney. Regardless of the current language of a particular piece of legislation, obtaining the same legal status -- entering the same legal institution -- is obviously a better guarantee of obtaining and maintaining over time equal rights than the alternative of some different institution.
But sorry, I think I've used up my time limit for responding to an idiot today.
Wow, another acorn for you ...
I agree. So the solution is to coin a new all encompassing term like civil union which can be applied to any groups, not just the existing one which is defined as being between a man and a woman and it called marriage.
Simply create an entirely new term, define it to contain whatever groups you want (including existing groups such as those cureently defined under marriage), and assign rights and privileges at that new level. Problem solved.
That is, of course, unless you are more concerned with the name, i.e. marriage, than you are with the substance, i.e. the "rights and privileges".
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Creating a new term
That is essentially the "government shouldn't be in the marriage business" argument, and I think most of us here agree that that would be an acceptable solution. Unfortunately it doesn't seem very likely. In fact, the whole reason this started was that Prop 8 explicitly defines marriage. And as long as the government is in the business of saying what is a marriage and what isn't, they really should be fair about it.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
And the one way to be fair about a term is to be accurate
Marriage means a union between a man and woman even if that's considered superior to a civil union which could be a union between anybody - it' s not the government who's calling one superior to the other, it's just what people think. However, if the government forcibly changes the meaning than the Government isn't necessarilly being fair since people can associate whatever they do with one term with the other term. If the government doesn't change terms than they leaves ideas people have up to the people and remain nuetral on cultural issues, however if the government changes meaning than it makes a statement that is no longer culturally neutral.
There's nothing unfair about using one term ...
to mean a union between a man and a woman, and a different term to mean a union between some other groups of people.
You fairness argument has no legs.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I wonder
It's possible you might feel differently about what is fair and what is not if you were the one that the government was saying could not marry the person you love.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I'm not saying the government should say you can't marry
I'm saying they shouldn't call you married.
Final words
First, as a quick reply to what you just said: last I checked, you need a marriage liscense to get married, so yes, the government is preventing gays from marrying.
John Mark, at least you have come out (no pun intended!) and said that you think gay relationships are "inferior" to heterosexual relationships. This is at least an understandable (if IMHO completely wrongheaded) justification for why you are opposed to gay marriage. I don't see any major differences (that society should be concerned with) between my marriage to my wife and my friend's marriage to his husband. In fact, their marriage is far superior to many heterosexual marriages that I have seen over the years. And I don't think government should be involved in evaluating the quality of a potential marriage before allowing it to proceed.
GoRight, I can't even begin to fathom how the arguments you have set forth even begin to justify your opposition to gay marriage. How an historic definition of a word somehow makes it okay to continue age-old discrimination is just beyond my comprehension. It would be like refusing to call women, or non-landowners, citizens, because of the historical use of the word citizen.
Not to get personal, but both of your arguments seem to show an astonishing lack of compassion. The very fact that you could ask how a gay person could be harmed by not being allowed to marry, with all the societal and spiritual implications of the union of two individuals and the merging of two families that the word entails, tells me that you have not really thought much about what it is like to be the one discriminated against here. You need an extremely compelling argument to justify that kind of discrimination, and frankly, you've got nothing. Nothing.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Right.
Yea, caving 100% on the substance of the issue is "lacking compassion." Whereas blocking substantive progress by demanding things use a specific word is "showing compassion," I presume. How genuine of you.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't see any major
Good point, but I see that more as a arguement against government's involvment in marriage, than for the government forcibly changing the definition of marriage, and make a cultural statement.
Incest now legal in Calif.!
Do you realize that under California's new definition of 'marriage' it is now legal for a brother to marry his sister, a father to marry his daughter. There is no legal restriction because the definition of marriage has been enshrined in California's constitution as necessitating only man/woman for a government sanctioned marriage to be legal.
Who knew California was that progressive! Or should I say regressive? Going back to the days of Biblical hedonism, when Lot laid with his own daughters.
(No wonder the Mormons spent so much time and money trying to amend California's constitution!)
I'm only half stupid
GoRight, I can't even begin
If citizen actually meant men, at the time they changed it to include women, it would make sense to make a broader term. Asking the government to call gays married is like asking the government to call blacks white,and say that to not do this implies inferiority.
That's really beside the
That's really beside the point, isn't it? And it comes across as yet another diversionary tactic from your side on this issue. (And as a note, applause from that total jack*ss GoRight should, in general, make you question the relevance and soundness of an argument/point)
You may be missing some words or may have made some mistake when you wrote "on the one hand you claim noone claims about the term", so I'm not sure what you're saying.
Anyway...
What is your argument that I am "willing to slow down..etc."? Is arguing that they should get equal marriage rights/opportunity/access slowing down gay rights generally, or even marriage-ish rights in particular? It's plausible, but it's not at all clear that that's the case.
But moreover, again, we're back to one of the questions you don't really answer, the one that applies to so many of your (supposed) arguments: Wouldn't your argument apply equally to a defense of anti-miscegenation laws, or in this case, a criticism of those who advocated for the elimination of those laws (or hypothetically, laws that excluded Jews or blacks or Seventh Day Adventists, etc. from the institution of marriage while giving access to that legal status to, say only Muslims) rather than just seeking the same tax treatment and other benefits of that legal status?
Sure, an argument can be made that it is better to seek some lesser degree of institutionalized, discrimination-based mistreatment if seeking to eliminate it altogether makes it less likely that the smaller degree of injustice and immorality is removed, but to criticize people for saying that a black man should have the same right/access to legal marriage a white woman as does a white man, or that a Christian couple should have the same right as a Muslim couple, and to imply that there is something wrong or suspect with that position because they aren't advocating instead explicitly for ONLY a LIMITED arrangement such as "civil unions" for those Jewish and Christian and interractial couples is just ridiculous. Would you really say the same to advocates in those situations??
John, all your arguments on this issue range from mere front arguments (not your real objection) to irrelevant to some other type of invalid point, despite the fact that you're an intelligent guy, because, like all the others on your side of this issue, you're struggling to find legitimate secular arguments where there are none. We can keep going, but as always, it's going to be tedious and you're not going to simply admit that your position is based entirely on your desire to create/maintain conditions that are more conducive to people coming to your imaginary Guy in the Sky.
Blah blah blah.
Bottom line, by focusing on the term "marriage" rather than the substance "vistiation rights, tax treatment, etc" you are slowing things down by keeping things focused on the irrelevant rather than the relevant if your true concern is the substance.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4As usual, your lack of
As usual, your lack of listening skills, inability or unwillingness to respond directly to clear arguments, general absence of any critical thinking, and mindless repitition of points as if they haven't already been addressed/refuted are all on display.
As I said before, if marriage
As I said before, if marriage actually meant just a relationship, betwen two people of the same race ( and you can add between two Christians...) than i don't see why people who didnt' fall into that category would want to be called married - why does anyone want to be called something they aren't. However, marriage clearly never meant only a relationship between two muslims, and I doubt it ever meant the union between two people of the same race, even there were many people who thought that's the only type of marriage that should take place - they didn't think it was the only marriage that was marriage.
And once again, I'll ask if you think the semantics is just a deversionary tactic, that don't matter, than why don't you drop them. How is it going to hurt gays to not have the government call their relationship marriage.
Grrr...
How is it going to hurt YOU to have the governement call their relationship marriage?
Having one's relationship, based on love and fidelity and a promise made to God, and all that good stuff, NOT be recognized in the same way as another's realtionship DOES hurt.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
It forces me to renounce my traditions ...
In my traditions marriage is between a man and a woman. Forcing me to renounce my beliefs hurts.
(I am making this argument for those who are not here to do so, just for the record.)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Astonishingly lame
That same argument could be used by a racist to demonstrate "harm" from the passage of the Civil Rights Act. I am fairly confident that it holds no water, legally.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
It is only astonishingly lame to you ...
because it is an actual counter to something you considered to be irrefutable. You are entitled to weight this significance of this harm however you want, of course, but so is everyone else. Just because you devalue it does not mean that others have to as well.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4"Having one's relationship,
"Having one's relationship, based on love and fidelity and a promise made to God, and all that good stuff, NOT be recognized in the same way as another's realtionship DOES hurt"
But should the government really have the role of recognizing, love, commitment, and promises made to God. I'm not saying I'm not necessarilly think the government should get out of marriage ( I am sympathetic to the idea), but your ideas certainly seem like reasons the government shouldn't be involved in marriage.
But it is
Maybe the government shouldn't be involved in marriage. But it is. And if it's going to be involved, it must not be discriminatory. And it is.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
So fine, many on my side agree to fix the substance ...
of the issues involved. Let's fix it by giving it a different name and including the other groups under that name.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Which non-RINOs support civil unions?
Of the early frontrunners for 2012, the ones I looked up-- Jindal, Palin, Huckabee, and Romney-- are all against civil unions. My perception was that a Republican who supported civil unions was a turncoat RINO.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
So your perception was wrong.
I'd have thought this would be a familiar feeling for you by now.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4No, judging by the views of Republicans themselves...
I am right. Or at least you offer no argument to the contrary. Again, I challenge you to name off some Republicans whom you consider to be non-RINOs who support civil unions (and I am not talking about those who are against civil unions but are for allowing the states to decide, I am talking about Republicans who actually support the idea of civil unions).
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Judging by the views of Republicans themselves...
I believe that my actual statement was:
I have highlighted the operative part of the statement. It is true that I cannot name anyone (you would consider) prominent in the party that admits to supporting this, but my original statement makes no such claim.
So, in support of my actual claim I offer the following:
I believe that 46% of Republicans supporting either Marriage or Civil Unions justifies my use of "many on my side". Do you disagree?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4All fine and good
But when any Republican in high office goes out on a limb and supports an issue such as civil unions or any other issue that does not align with the orthodox view of the Republican Party platform, they get branded as a RINO-- a process which has happened over and over and which you seem to approve.
The natural extension of your argument is that the rigid non-RINO Republican orthodoxy in Congress which operates in lock-step with the official Republican Party platform is out of touch with the views of self-identifying Republican voters. I think that if you pulled up polls of the views of Republican voters on a whole host of other issues, you'd see the same. But again, whenever a Republican steps out and supports a significant minority of the Republican Party on an issue, they get branded as a turncoat by people like you, and more importantly the big Republican talk show opinion makers like Rush.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Um, it's called the "party platform" for a reason ...
and this would be part of it.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4So, differing from the platform on one issue = RINO status
So, in other words, the ideal Republican legislator in your view and in the view of the party orthodoxy is one that simply regurgitates the platform on every issue. Thanks for confirming this.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I should have thought it was obvious by now ...
given the number of times we have covered the same ground for you.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4How is it going to hurt gays
Once again, same question to you: How would it hurt blacks or Christians if government offered legally-recognized "marriage" to Muslims but not to them?
What if the government gave blacks all the rights and benefits of citizens, but would not offer them the legal term "citizen", offering only the legal status of "civil so-and-so"?
And that's leaving aside the practical matter of the legitimate concern that, short of gaining access to the same legal institution, those equal rights and benefits may not end up being provided and fully protected.
Obviously I never suggested that the term "marriage" didn't matter. Quite the contrary. I don't know why you'd try to slip that one past me. The grasping for straws is proceeding as usual for someone with your position. It's a diversionary tactic because your objection is obviously not driven by some strong desire to prevent definitions of words from evolving (or to reverse the current definition per the dictionaries I've quoted). It's all just silly. Gay couples just want the same access to a legal institution, with the same name, that the government offers heterosexual couples, and you prefer that government discriminate against them for no reason other than your desire for more people to experience the same hallucination of an imaginary Guy in the Sky that you have. All this other stuff is diversionary nonsense, period.
"John, all your arguments on
"John, all your arguments on this issue range from mere front arguments (not your real objection) to irrelevant to some other type of invalid point, despite the fact that you're an intelligent guy, because, like all the others on your side of this issue, you're struggling to find legitimate secular arguments where there are none. We can keep going, but as always, it's going to be tedious and you're not going to simply admit that your position is based entirely on your desire to create/maintain conditions that are more conducive to people coming to your imaginary Guy in the Sky."
Well, if you know me so well, that you know all my motives behind my arguements, and exactly what I'm really thinking. Why don't you produce what I'd say to you if I was really saying what I meant. No reason to argue with me on the surface, when you can get right down to the bottom of my heart and soul and argue with that. It be fun to watch you argue with the real me - I might be able to find out a lot about myself.
Done
Done http://swordscrossed.org/story/20081104/congratulations-obama-and-dems-wednesday-open-thread#comment-100165
(actually, I posted it before I saw your, um, request). And it's not the first time I've laid it out, even on this thread.
As a side note, as you know, I like you and I think you're one of the best people in the blogosphere with whom to discuss/debate matters, notwithstanding the blind spot (etc.) you have when religion/faith touches on something.
Oh, and I will say the
Oh, and I will say the meaning of word marriage is clearly changing, but just because a dictionary shows it as changed doesn't mean it's changed yet.
Is it really all about definitions?
OK, so if "marriage" is legally defined as the union between a man and a woman, and "man" is legally defined as "a human being" (which it is), then presumably it is at least legal for two women to marry. Correct?
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Is it really all about definitions?
As this thread clearly demonstrates, it if wasn't about the definition of the word "marriage" we wouldn't even be discussing this. Why? Because we would have passed civil union legislation long ago and the gay couple would be enjoying the benefits thereof.
I agree to give you everything you seek with the one single caveat that the word "marriage" must continue to refer to a union solely between a man and a woman. This, by definition, makes it "all about the definitions" if you refuse to accept that proposal.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meta on this thread
Why do we let the "perfect" become such a roadblock to the "possible"?
This thread is such a prime example.
Your proposition is valid, GR. It accomplishes the stated objectives of giving gay couples every possible government-granted right that exists. It is the solution that anyone who is concerned about substance would accept.
Why won't the left take it?
Because "you're wrong." It's that damned elitst thing they just cannot get past, nor even see half the time. BR cannot even gracefully grant John Mark the right to hold a different opinion on this, because "religion is irrational" (paraphrasing here, BR).
Like it or not, we are a country comprised of millions of people who may choose to hold beliefs you or I may believe are stupid, ill considered, superstituous, or just plain dumb and vulgar. Our goal as a political body should not be to "correct" all this wrong thinking, but to forge solutions that actually make a substantive difference.
Well, in fact
Civil Unions have been accepted by "the left" in a number of states. They have also been rejected by "the right" in a number of states. So it's not as simple as all that. There is also the federal law (DOMA) which would have to be repealed, or at least seriously altered, as the first step to making GR's proposition valid. That may in fact be a step that will be taken soon. I hope so, but I don't think it will happen without a fight.
There is also the point that the left is not a monolithic entity. There was a really good post yesterday, I think, on Andrew Sullivan's blog that talked a bit about how there is no "central control" over the quest for gay rights. Unfortunately I am unable to connect to the site at the moment, or I'd pull some quotes.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
The art of compromise
I know ;}
But it does seem to me that this issue always boils down to exactly what "the left" (you and BR) and "the right" (GR and John Mark) have been discussing here. And, "the left" as represented by you two has indeed not sought a workable solution, but instead has chosen to fight to "correct" what you perceive to be their irrational/wrong beliefs. Instead of allowing them the freedom to believe as they wish, you seek to change their beliefs, to "educate" them. As if winning and passing a law defining marriage the way you want to is going to change their hearts.
So, I do see the proverbial liberal elitism at play here, in our little microcosm, on this thread. That desire not to seek a workable solution, but to "win" based on some definition of objective and intellectual ideas of right and wrong answers.
I'm not trying to pass value judgments on either side's approach, btw. But as I do tend to support the workable over the ideal, I find the liberal approach as demonstrated in this thread to be lacking in efficacy.
I get what you are saying
In my defense (as a representative of the left), though, this is one of the very very few issues where I do honestly believe that the other side is, in fact, just downright wrong. Heck, most of the time I'll agree to disagree with GR on AGW stuff, and that is an issue which is far more important and personally relevant to me. Maybe I am being pigheaded on this issue, but I feel that I am being justifiably so. ;)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
What are you willing to compromise on?
Would you compromise on other humans being bought & sold as slaves?
Would you compromise a womans right to vote? Own property?
Would you allow others to determine whether or not you could marry whom you chose? Would you compromise there?
All the above are allowed by the fundamental bottom argument of those opposed to gays being able to marry. The Bible allows one to own slaves but frowns on it. The Bible does not recognise a woman having the same rights as a man. She can't vote, she can't own the land. Because it is the Bible and their religion that allows "people of good moral faith" to discriminate against gays being able to marry. And particularly in light of the fact that I have just pointed out that a VAST majority of believers already pick and choose which tenants to obey & which to ignore....I feel that that pretty much eliminates using their religion or their good book as a judgement against others.
A liberal feels the way we do because it isn't your call. It's the individuals call to determine who is the right person for them to marry. And when the "people of good moral faith" object because it is in their faith & good book that it's OK to discriminate against gays....well...they are hypocrites & bigots. I won't pander with a hypocrite nor with a bigot. I won't live my ideals by their standards. They can control their own destiny. They have no right to control anyone elses. That's why liberals feel justified in believing that gays should be able to marry and don't feel the slightest bit immoral about it.
Of course allowing someone to marry doesn't mean
that the government call it marriage. Things can exist without the government speaking it into existence.
Well, then let the government give gays marriage certificates.
and everything will be OK. The world won't end. People will still be able to live their lives with their discriminatory beliefs, they just won't be able to hold those beliefs over others.
Summation of one main arguments agaisnt same-sex marriage
The opposition to same-sex isn't grounded in religion.
They cannot marry because it's not marriage.
It's not marriage because religions never widely held same-sex marriages.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
It's not marriage because
I don't think anybody widely held same-sex marriages.
Than the government makes a
Than the government makes a cultural statement and gives up nuetrality.
Semantics v substance
GoRight's proposal allows gays "to marry" (in quotes because I know it's the contentious word) in every practical, measurable, and legally enforcable sense of the word. And he's not spoken any judgment on their morality. Yet you still feel it necessary to draw a distinction between the blue and red positions. Because the red position "is wrong."
Which is exactly the dynamic I was pointing out. That instead of working towards a solution that is effective and attainable (e.g. the idea of a civil union superset) that would give gay civil unions the same legal status as hetero civil unions, the left prefers to argue about the stupidity / irrationality / "wrongness" of the others' opinion of the term "marriage." Which is what I think you said, so you're agreeing with me, right?
You really are confusing
You really are confusing means and ends. People are fighting for replacing government discrimination with equal treatment under the law (or if one is making a constitutional argument, "equal protection under the law"). Changing attitudes and minds is the means to that end. It would be nice if people weren't jack*sses, but the main goal is the achievement of equal rights. If that is achieved via the courts, or by courageous politicians (or just politicians who found a pro-equal rights position to be a net political gain for them somehow), even if most people still opposed it and preferred government discrimination, that would be far preferable to the status quo, just as civil rights for blacks in the South was the goal. Changing hearts and minds -- reducing bigotry and reducing support for discriminatory policies -- was one of several means to that end (along with pursuing this justice in the courts, where the Constitution is invoked and trumps mob sentiment), but it was not itself the primary end.
No you are not, as I have clearly demonstrated.
I have agreed to concede every substantive legal principal at play here, with the single caveat that the term "marriage" still be defined as the union between a man and a woman. I do not seek to prevent gays from entering into unions with whomever they wish. I do not seek to prevent those unions from enjoying exactly the same treatment (in terms of the rights and privileges conveyed onto them) under the law.
A this point, since you still refuse to accept this compromise position, one can clearly see that you are not truly arguing about equal protection issues, but rather the name that will be applied to these unions. So, in the end, you would obstruct substantive progress towards giving the Gays the Rights and Privileges they seek over the word that is to be applied.
As everyone can see, this is a fabrication. Otherwise you would accept the terms of my compromise position.
Sorry, but that part is unintelligible. If I catch the general drift of it you seem to feel that my proposal is in some way discriminatory against Gays even though they would enjoy literally equal protection under the law ... albeit under a different name than marriage. That, sir, is not discrimination by any definition of the word.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Meta, Freud . . . got a cigar? ;-)
As usual, you express it much more succinctly than I could, but I think maybe we're both missing a key point here.
This issue might be a cover simply for "educating" the (by default) superstitious religious. The supposed concern for the rights of gays could just be an intellectualized excuse for attacking the (perceived) irrationality of religion.
Couple of patterns here that I've noticed in support of this:
The use of biblical references when none were included in the original posts, giving me the impression that it is assumed that all resistance to this idea must be bibically-based:
www.swordscrossed.org/story/20081104/congratulations-obama-and-dems-wednesday-open-thread#comment-100299
.
And the complete absence of an aggressive attempt at re-education when the EXACT idea was put forth by an (assumed) secular liberal:
www.swordscrossed.org/story/20081104/congratulations-obama-and-dems-wednesday-open-thread#comment-100000
Tongue in cheek, of course. Always is ;} And me and this editor haven't made peace yet. My apologies for the awkward links.
I think we are simply at a point where they aren't really
listening. For example, when I concede EVERYTHING with the single exception of the name to be applied to these unions ... they continue to come back with I'm being discriminatory and that they merely want equal protection under the law when I just gave them exactly that.
I just don't get why they are hung up on the term so much.
Thanks for your efforts to help make this distinction clear to them.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Respectfully...
The idea that Brendan put forward is not the EXACT same thing as what GR has proposed, unless I have misinterpreted GR's post. It sounds like GR's suggestion is to create a new governmental institution, which we can call civil unions, while retaining marriage as a governmental institution as well. Presumably civil unions are for anyone who wants them, and marriages are only for heterosexual relationships. Both would have the exact same rights associated with them. Obviously this is a huge improvement over the status quo - I don't think anyone is arguing that it is not.
Brendan suggested the elimination of marriage as a governmental institution, leaving it solely in the realm of a religious institution. All governmental unions would be civil unions. All couples would have access to the exact same governmental institution, regardless of the sex of the partners. Different churches would be able to set their own rules as far as actual marriage is concerned, and the government would stay out of it. I think this is quite possibly the best "compromise" we can have, but I also don't think it would be acceptable to a large portion of the population. I could be wrong, but I think it would be an extremely difficult legislative feat.
Either way, the Defense of Marriage Act would absolutely need to be repealed. I assume that GR would be supportive of that, even though it would go against the Republican Party Platform. But that's what makes him a Maverick!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Leviticus 18:22
If governments and religion never allowed a certain group of people to have the rights of "citizens" then granting citizenship to them would surely be calling those people something they clearly are not.
But not having slaves wasn't the "abomination" of wasting one's seed.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
well said.
well said.
I don't care that much about
I don't care that much about "changing their beliefs" per se, but no, it's not like "compromising" is as reasonable as it usually sounds if what we're talking about is accepting unjustifiable discrimination by our government. As I've said to John Mark, many of the arguments we here opposing granting gays access to the institution of legal marriage could have been (and were) applied to the defense of anti-miscegenation laws, and could be applied to, say, a law that restricts legal marriage to Muslim couples or white couples. Well, you're just gonna have to forgive me for not simply accepting "civil unions" as a "compromise" for interracial couples or for Christian couples or for black or Asian couples. You're using language normally associated with reasonableness, but it is misplaced here.
Why won't the left take it?
Here is the post I was talking about previously:
More here
. It's not a national movement from the left. It is individuals who are being discriminated against, doing what they can do to stop it.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Good point, thanks (n/t)
.
Almost there.
The government shouldn't license a Bat Mitzvah or baptisms either.
Churches/Synagogues/Other religious groups don't decide who gets a Driver's License or who has other legal rights.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Yup. Get government out of marriage, and the issue goes away
Civil unions for everyone as recognized by federal law, for purposes of taxation, inheritance, and so on.
Marriage as recognized by religious institutions of your personal faith.
There are certainly details to be worked out but this seems a reasonable compromise and I know lots of people on both sides of the debate could support it.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Sounds ok to me (and quite
Sounds ok to me (and quite possibly to John Mark, too, although I don't recall from past conversations; perhaps he was even implying that by his comment here).
Rationalizing bigotry doesn't make it any less bigoted.
You also have to realise that in the last 20 years the acceptance of gays being able to marry & divorce just like straights has gone from the 20% range to now the high 40's.
It's only a matter of time before your outdated views get tossed into history's dust bin & it won't come too soon for me.
My hope is that someone challenges the amendment & it gets tossed on being unconstitutional. You can't have the constitution saying distinctly contradictory things within the same document.
It is sad to see someone such
It is sad to see someone such as John Mark, who is intelligent, rational and reasonable in matters secular, and who has a strong moral sensibility and capacity for moral reasoning as long as religious doctrine doesn't screw it all up*, taking such an immoral position in opposing equal marriage rights/opportunity/access for gays.
Although I consider religious faith completeley irrational, downright silly, and something we'd all consider an indication of insanity were it not so widespread, I am NOT among those agnostics/atheists who believe that religion and religious faith clearly have a substantial net negative impact on how humans treat one another. In fact, while I think reasonable people can disagree, my sense is that religion and religious faith have a net positive impact. But on this issue we see an example of how religion inspires and drives immorality -- deliberate harm to and mistreatment of people for no apparent gain.
[edit] There are plenty of examples, from both history and present day, of people believing that acts or practices that we would all consider clearly immoral -- clearly unjustiable, deliberate harm done to people (or animals) -- were justified or even mandated by their religious docrtine. Many "people of faith" respond by arguing that such justifications are based either on supposedly invalid faiths (as opposed to their own -- LOL) or on misinterpretation of scripture/doctrine, but such arguments miss the point entirely. The point is that people have a moral obligation to pull back from the words printed on a page or spoken by some clergyman and ask themselves if a given act or practice is justified or right, considering the harm and benefits involved (along with other moral concepts such as merit vs. compassion). Simply outsourcing their moral reasoning or limiting it strictly to the framework, principles or specific, explicit mandates of religious doctrine is an evasion of moral responsibility, which is itself immoral.
I recall being taught as a child at a religious school how admirable it was that Abraham's faith was so strong that when (in his mind) God told him to kill his infant son, he was willing (eager, actually) to do it. If someone did that today we'd call him insane or evil, and I doubt we'd favor allowing the members of some religion to slaughter their infant children if that's what they said their religion told them to do. And I doubt any of us would claim a moral justification for such an act/practice. Think about it, ye "people of faith".
* Perhaps he'd say, correctly or not, that religious doctrine/faith is the basis for all his moral reasoning, but obviously I don't speak for him.
Well, I think it's sad to see someone so closeminded
that they think any view, but their own is inherently irrational. I'm in favor of allowing anyone to get married ( though I don't believe gays technically can), so it's not as though I'm for restricting them from doing anything. I'm against the government calling their relationship marriage, but how can that be discrimanatory if it's true. Don't things deserve to be called what they are, how can people have a right to be called what they are not? As for the things that go along with marriage, I'm for judging all couples the same - benefits that are not rights ( better taxes whatever it is you get when you get married) are given to couples based on what's in society's interest to give them, as incentives or whatever. Actual rights should be accorded ( entering into agreements, hospital visitation...) any couple, or as far as I can see any triplet, qradruplet, or quintet too - and there's no reason it needs to be a gay relationship either.
This semantic argument is
This semantic argument is such a red herring. As if you and others care so much about the preservation of definitions (and by the way, "marriage" does NOT mean just ONE man, ONE woman -- although I guess folks on your side reply that a polygamous situation involved multiple bilateral marriages, but whatever) that that justifies denying equal rights/opportunity/access to a legal institution to some groups for no real reason. Give me a break, John. Doesn't pass the laugh test.
And feel free to answer my questions (in my other comment).
Etymology look-up
I'm guessing that opposite sex people that want to marry, but wont have kids, cannot "marry"
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
You underestimate the importance of words
What am I denying them. I'm denying the government from calling them married, I fail to see how that is such great opression.
Well, you don't seem to want
Well, you don't seem to want to answer my previous questions (but please do), but wouldn't the point you just made apply to defense of anti-miscegenation laws that precluded/criminalized interracial marriage? Or for that matter to a law that restricted legally-recognized marriage to white people or to Evangelical Christians and denying it to others? After all, if you offer everyone civil unions with the same legal treatment otherwise, no big deal denying them the word "marriage", right?
[edit below]
John, why don't you just say that you think people are much better off if they find God or Jesus or whatever, and that you think that homosexuality makes that less likely for a lot of people, and that you think that extending legally-recognized marriage to gays makes the practice of homosexuality more likely/prevalent or in some other way reduces the number of people who find Mr. G or Mr. J. Then we won't have to go through all this silliness of your trying to present sound secular arguments where there are none for your position. And then I could acknowledge at least your good intentions, although I still will think it is immoral for you to fail to force yourself to be rational in assessing the validity of premises that lead you to support policies that harm people.
Here's a question for you
What about two guys who are buddies, but clearly straight and have a platonic relationship, should they be allowed to get married and reap the benefits?
Are you answering questions
Are you answering questions these days or just asking them? I'll be glad to answer your question, but how about we go in order, ok?
If two guys want to get
If two guys want to get married, they should be able to get married, period. I don't see why the government should make them formally pledge to have sex with each other as a requirement for getting married. And I wouldn't want government to impose that requirement on heterosexual couples either (what about elderly couples, or severely disabled couples who are unable to have sex -- would you want government to deny them the opportunity to legally marry?).
As for benefits, if there are economic benefits tied to marriage and society offers these benefits on the presumption of the likelihood of producing children and raising those children, (1) the argument you may be implying would call for denying those benefits (or marriage itself) to infertile couples or any couples who don't intend to have kids, and (2) you've already said (I think) that you favor extending the same benefits to gay couples via civil unions, so the point is moot.
So then should a brother and sister be able to get married
since marriage doesn't necessarilly mean sex. I'm not really disagreeing on this issue, just wondering.
If government wants to deny
If government wants to deny the right/opportunity to them, it must make a strong case on practical grounds. The burden should be on the government. The default presumption is one of equal rights. And the same applies to their having sex, by the way.
Oh, but sincere
Oh, but sincere congratulations and thanks to the people of california for passing Prop 2!!!
America is still the Greatest Country on the Face of the Planet.
And this was demonstrated clearly by yesterday's historic result. The racial barrier has been breached. Let us hope that an Obama Presidency will work to remove the remaining vestiges of racial bigotry and animus that exist within this country like Affirmative Action and racial tracking and profiling.
The beginning of an historic journey was marked by a white Republican with the Emancipation Proclamation. Let us hope that the end of that journey is marked by a black Democrat having been duly elected to the highest office this nation has to offer.
This is as it should be in the United States of America, the greatest country ever to grace the face of our planet.
Addendum:
And let this historic event serve as a beacon of hope to those disaffected groups who still struggle today that one day, hopefully in the not so distant future, your hopes and dreams too can be fulfilled within this great nation.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Nicely put
We've come a long way, and while we still have far to go, it's entirely appropriate to recognize the progress America has made on racial issues.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Here's part of the rub, though, Brendan:
I think that one of the biggest reason, if not the biggest reason that Barack Obama got elected is not because people love him or his policies, and not necessarily because they've gotten over whatever racial prejudices that they may/may not have had. Imho, Barack's huge victory had a lot to do with the fact that the Republicans have acted so despicably, and that people found McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as his VP running mate sp disgusting that lots and of people jumped ship from the Republican party in droves, as well as having a vast majority of blacks turn out to vote.
and a personal note to pico
I am sorry. I wish the outcome was different.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Ditto
AZ 102, AR 1, CA 8, FL 2 all passed, although CNN still has CA 8 "processing" with 92% in.
There's a lot of work we have to do.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Yep, feel bad about that
It does not appear that most of America has reconciled itself to the idea of gay marriage yet, but I think that time and demographic shifts remain on the side of the advocates of gay marriage.
I see that pico was up late last night on DailyKos, always the voice of reason, putting aside personal disappointment and pointing out that an openly gay man was newly elected to Congress-- that's a first ever.
I think that gay marriage advocates would do well to follow pico's example, rather than lashing out at Prop 8 yes voters (by saying screw you homophobes 
, for instance), because if you let yourself start thinking that more than half the people are inherently bad people, you've lost for good.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
This election was closer than expected
The electoral blowout is because Obama had room for some margin of error -- his leads in battleground states exceeded his leads in national polling. Some of the state level results are razor-thin, or still up in the air.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Happy in Ohio
On the balance, I was very pleased by the way the election turned out in Ohio. It may sound surprising, but I was much more worried about ballot issues than the Presidential elections.
We were able to beat back a referendum sponsored by the payday lenders in large numbers. All payday loans will be limited to $500, a 28% interest rate, and borrowers will have 30 days to repay the loan.
We also voted down a plan to give a particular developer a monopoly enshrined in the constitution to operate a casino in a particular area of the state. I'm for gambling freedom, but not at this expense.
The Democrats picked up OH-01 (western Cincinnati) and may have picked up OH-15 (northern Columbus/suburbs), but that race is still very close. It will come down to provisionals.
How did the election go in your neck of the woods?
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Why re-elect Stevens?
Please tell me that they didn't really support him after his convictions.
I can only guess that people voted for him on the assumption that he will get kicked out of Congress, and Palin will be able to name his replacement.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
that was one of the main GOP justifications
And I am glad he won for that reason.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
That doesn't seem to be the way it works
In Alaska
:
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
so, re-vote with a different Republican
I guess it would have been a real fluke for a Democrat to win. This way, the Republicans get to try again with a different candidate. It seems that the Dem candidate will have the advantage of having just run this campaign, whereas the Repub candidate will have to make himself known (unless he already is known).
Well, it will be a little more entertainment for election watchers...
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
There is speculation...
That if Palin wants to keep herself more in the national spotlight, she will run for this Senate seat! She could conceivably even appoint herself as the interim Senator. How's that for entertainment for election watchers!
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Trig
Nothing good ever happens when Palin name's someone.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Bristol, Piper, Track, Willow, Trig
Lovely children, don't get me wrong, but those are names for horses, not people :-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
And skymutt is what?
You're a personable guy, don't get me wrong, but that's the name for the hind end of a horse, not a person. :-)
(See how the little smiley makes that kind of statement OK?)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4In my defense
Anyone can come up with a silly name once, and my name does not add much gravitas to my blogging I will readily admit, but we're talking about giving your own children horse's names five out of five times for pete's sake ;-)
(for the record, I don't mind any of the kid's names individually too much, but when viewed togehter, they just make me think that Sarah might have watched the Black Staillion a few too many times as a youg girl ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Meh.
There is no defense for this type of pointless attack. Who are you to pass judgement on her kid's names? Besides, I grew up on a horse farm and have been around horses all my life. What makes you think that those are horse names anyway? Bristol is a horse name?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Of course there is no defense for this kind of attack
Why do you think I included the smileys? Don't even make me go back and pull up some of your attacks which you've mitigated with a smiley!
Bristol is not exclusively a horse's name, but it could be a horse's name. By singling out that name though, you implicitly admit that you recognize the inherent horsiness of the other four names-- thanks for proving my point! ;-)
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
I rather like the names Piper and Willow
But then again, it might just be the "hot witch" connotation:
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
OK, fine ...
Not really, but since you insist on pursuing this, please provide something to back up your contention that ANY of these names are "horse names". Do you know of any famous horses which had any of these names?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Horse names
According to this OBVIOUSLY complete list of horse names
, neither Bristol, Track, or Willow are horse names. Piper, alas, is. And Trig is pretty darn close to Trigger.
Personally, I think Willow would make a great name for a horse, Bristol
would be a great place to stable a horse, and Track would be a great place to ride a horse.
:)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
Evidence of at least 7 horses named "willow"
Check out the image in the left part of the page and the caption.
I contend that the list of horse names is indeed not complete, and therefore "Bristol" and "Track" may be omitted in error also :-)
Also I would note that not only can "track" be paired with the word "horse" and have special meaning, but also "horse willow
" is a common forest plant.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Can't argue with that
You have clearly proven the non-comprehensiveness of the list! :)
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
LOL, I have to admit, skymutt, that was a good find ...
send a fool on an errand ... and he might just go! :)
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4You know the drill
Almost any position, no matter how shaky, can be defended with a bit of basic Googling and a willingness to spin the findings.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Wow.
You actually found a bona fide list of horse names. Still, even given its lack of comprehensiveness I feel pretty much vindicated here. It's not like it is a short list.
As for Trig being close to Trigger, meh, it is also close to Trigonometry. Perhaps Palin just had a thing for Isosceles.
I guess I must have to stand corrected on Piper and Willow, though. Still far shart of skymutts claim that they are ALL horse names, though.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I will admit
In terms of the actual names of existing horses, the Palin children's names are apparently not as horsey as I thought they would have been. It may just be that the names are horsey to my ear and my ear alone, and that, as a non-horse person who has never named or been around horses to any great extent, I have stepped out of my core areas of expertise and made an exaggerated claim as to the horsiness of the names to Americans at large.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
lol, good one.
lol, good one.
Congratulations to Barack Obama and his supporters @ SC.
Congratulations to Barack Obama who has made history and proven we are nation that has moved beyond the need for quotas and affirmative action.
Underlying all arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ~M. Friedman
Thanks Red_Wing
I think in the end President Obama will do us all proud.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Um, Red_Wing:
This:
"We're a nation that's moved beyond t he need for quotas and affirmative action?'
is something that I wholeheartedly disagree with. The election of Barack Obama as POTUS will not wipe out centuries of racism and oppression in one shinng moment, or even in our lifetimes, probably. I think there'll always be prejudice in our society and in this world no matter what (i. e. racism, sexism, etc.) which is why the need for quotas and affirmative action for women and non-white minorities is and always will be a necessity.
What a downer DailyKos is
You'd think they could be classy and positive after a big night for Democrats, but you'd be wrong.
Here's the Rec List:
1. A diary pimping a backward looking Krugman column that calls Rove, DeLay, Cheney, etc. "monsters".
Um, Aren't these guys all gone from office (or soon to be gone)?
2. A more thourough examination of the Sarah Palin spending spree on clothing.
Um, didn't Obama already win?
3. Hahahahahahaha at Joe Lieberman.
This entire diary consists of the letters "ha" repeated hundreds of times. Good stuff, huh?
4. Screw you California homophobes.
Is this the way to build toward a win next time?
5. Clammyc dancing in the end zone, "we kicked your a$$".
Whatever happened to class?
6. Some throwaway snark.
The only remotely positive recced diaries are one that thanks Justice Stevens for not retiring under Bush
, and a kind of standard diary summarizing world newspaper headlines of the Obama victory 
, and even there, there's nothing particularly enlightening contained within, and the Stevens one kind of bothered me in that Stevens deserves a little better than to be kind of hustled out the door for younger blood, and if you wanted to pay respect to the man, you might have given him and his career some treatment as something other than a placeholder until Bush left office.
It is really a shockingly sad state of affairs for that site. How embarassing for them. There's a historic win to be celebrated and reflected upon in a respectful way, some losses that need to be reviewed and analyzed, and a whole heck of a lot of work to be done for the good of the country on many many issues, and I see none of that in what the user base over there has chosen to highlight today.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Daily Kos
occupies the gutter of online political thought....along the likes Little Green Footballs and others.
A true embarrassment for any Democrat with a clue.
Disappointing but not unexpected
Hopefully the gloating is temporary, and the thoughtful introspection and analysis will come to the fore.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
You mean, not surprising and totally expected.
It's DailyKOS for goodness sake. That's who they are.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4If I may toot our own collective horn
DKos isn't where you go for "thoughtful introspection", nor is RedState.
You go to Swords Crossed. :-)
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Agreed, allowing that some posters are more "thoughtful"
than others, of course. He he.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Funny. I was over at Free republic & Pammy's Atlas Shruggs
site this morning. They both had multiple threads going about the impending revolution and acting out civil violence.
Yet it's the liberals who are the unAmericans.....go figure.
Did I call anyone unAmerican today?
And especially in this diary?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Well let's admit it
We often fall short of "thoughtful introspection" here on SC too... that's a pretty high bar! I don't ask for that much-- just some relevance, a bit good writing, a considered opinion perhaps, a show of basic humanity here and there, perhaps a dash of humor.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
+5
:)
it's like christmas day
I don't think anyone feels like doing serious blogging the day after the election.
There isn't much to say, really.
In my expert opinion, you should do what I tell you to do.
Nader disappointed me one last time
Despite my support for Nader this election, he often says and does things that upset me or give me pause. As I said previously, my vote for him was more based on a set of ideals rather than a vote for the man himself.
His most recent outburst
will put him on my list for good:
I want my vote back. This is ridiculous.
Hang 'em up, Ralph. You're getting too senile.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
He already was...
:)
Obama already ruining country...
stocks down sharply. Just saying!
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Prop 2 in CA passed easily
as predicted. Bans certain aspects of factory farming (details here
).
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
They went pretty light
Businesses have until 2015 to comply with the law and the max penalty is a $1,000 fine and/or 6 months in jail.
I'd have given them until 2010 and made it a felony.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Baby steps, though... (nt)
.
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
Yeah
I'm from the instant gratification generation.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I read it would cost a penny an egg for the larger cages.
I'd pay an extra penny an egg so a chicken could stand up & stretch it's wings.
And for what it's worth
Since I'm a bit OCD, I tend to notice the "." people use as a placeholder for n/t comments. I might suggest the html code for a non-breaking space:
Click on "Source" and type " " (without the quotes) and you'll get a lot of nothing in the body of your comment.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Socialism, what socialism?
The charge that Democrats are increasingly socialist in nature is just Republican hyperbole, right?
I give you Jim Moran (D-Virginia):
This is the quote I was asking about in the IRC Chat last night.
So according to Jim Moran, I guess, people who acquire wealth are NOT entitled to keep it. That sounds sort of like socialism to me.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4For posterity.
Do you equally dislike "trickle down economics" and "welfare capitalism?"
What about a "negative income tax?"
And Moran is Catholic
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Not sure what these have to do with my comment ...
I love trickle down economics. My livelihood depends on the principle of trickle down economics, and I have been living a comfortable life based on the benefits that trickle down to me.
No idea what you mean by "welfare capitalism", but in general I don't agree with any sort of welfare schemes, public or private, except for the truly needy, of course.
So I guess my answer is, no I do not dislike them equally.
If I understand the concept correctly, I do not favor a negative income tax as this is just hand-out style welfare by another name, and exactly the style of wealth redistribution that Obama is planning.
I'm happy for him. So what?
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4Negative income tax
If we're talking about Milton Friedman's plan, the NIT
just makes all current tax deductions, credits, and adjustments refundable. However, the plan calls for the elimination of all other public assistance (including unemployment, food stamps, etc. and very likely social security and medicare).
This seems to be the way to go for public assistance (although, I'd keep SS and Medicare). However if you believe the government has no business in such affairs, I'd see your point. Although on pragmatic grounds, this is probably as good as a conservative or libertarian could hope to minimize welfare programs.
Wikipedia:
Looks like a winner to me.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I'm assuming you didn't read the link.
By welfare capitalism- I meant the meme of privatized profits, socialized loses.
The Catholic Church came out with a new list of sins, having huge amounts of wealth is one of them and no purchasing power is mentioned. Moran might have a "low" amount of what too rich is.
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Ah, so you are overloading the term?
Welfare capitalism seems to already have a meaning ... which doesn't sound like it coincide with yours. I read this latest comment as a reference to the recent bailouts. I am generally against the bailouts on ideological grounds, but somewhat for them on humanitarian grounds. So I have to admit to being conflicted.
Yea, I actually did read the link and noticed the refernce to excessive wealth being a sin. My indifference was meant to convey that I don't feel constrained by what the Pope has to say, and even IF Moran does I thought a good liberal would try to keep the church separate from the state.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4That makes a difference
I didn't know you were a day trader. I thought you were in software or something.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Cabinet choices
Any thoughts on these possibilities
listed over at HuffPo? I admit I don't know a whole lot about many of the people mentioned, but I think Robert Kennedy as EPA head would be fantastic. Colin Powell as Secretary of Defense would also meet with my approval.
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
I've got one
He can make Ron Paul the Secretary of DHS. :-)
I'm interested in who the Solicitor General will be since I listen to a lot of SCOTUS cases via oyez.org. I'm getting tired of hearing SG Clement's voice.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I got the DHS coming to the skymutt ranch tomorrow
I'm getting interviewed as a reference so that a friend of mine can get a security clearance. Don't ask me why that can't be done over the phone, because I do not know. I figure there's about a 0.1% chance that it's all a trick and I'm about to get hauled off to Gitmo...
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Pshaw
I had to drive to Dublin so that Intravet could have me sign 2 pieces of paper and go to their preferred drug tester place.
They could have mailed/faxed/emailed these docs, and I'd have been happy to pay for my own drug test at a local facility. With gas being what it is these days I'm not so worried about the price, but that trip took up my entire Monday.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
I take it that you have accepted the position in Dublin then?
I might have missed an earlier comment on that. If it's true, then congrats, hope it is the beginning of a rewarding a lucrative path for you.
skymutt: accept no substitutes!
Hell no
I have an interview in Indianapolis tomorrow, which I hope pans out.
I had to get the ball rolling in Dublin just in case.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Pew has called the past two Presidential elections EXACTLY
In 2004, they're final poll was Bush-51, Kerry 48.
The result was Bush-51, Kerry-48.
This year, their final poll was Obama-52, McCain-46.
http://people-press.org/report/468/obama-leads-mccain-in-final-days
Also.... Scott Rasmussen's final poll this year ALSO called it exactly right .... 52-46.
http://rasmussenreports.com
So now we know who to trust in 2012, right? ;-)
Actually.... the average of the final polls was Obama by 7. I'd say that we should all lay off of criticizing the polls anymore. Their science was pretty solid.
I survived the Bush Administration
538 not too shabby either
Tooting their own horn
:
We are the environment. There is no distinction. What we do to the earth we do to ourselves. —David Suzuki
"You have a real problem ... and you have to deal with it."
Obama, McCain Campaigns Both Hacked, Files Compromised
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
"Wasilla hillbillies looting Nieman Marcus"
Via Sullivan
:
I actually have a bit of sympathy for the Palins if this story
is accurate. They are destitute by the standards of most Federal politicians; IIRC, they would qualify for a tax cut under Obama's stated tax plan. And all of a sudden they can spend more on clothes in a few months than what they've earned in income in the last two years.
Money corrupts the best of us, especially when it's someone else's that we're spending.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
You show me 7, I'll show you 8
You linked to the same article I just did :P
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
I noticed
Oddly enough, your link was via /., which I thought was my territory.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
She is
seriously a sociopath.
I'm only half stupid
Just a point for you to consider Mr. OCD ...
Alaska does NOT have hillbillies
.
I'm the Bugs Bunny of Swords Crossed!
-4 Strongly Disagree - 0 Meh - Strongly Agree +4I don't agree with the characterization
Which is why the title is in quotes. It's a quote from the article.
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...
Ralph Nader = total a**
See it with your own eyes
What a frickin' jerk.
I'm only half stupid
Africa is not a country
Palin didn't realize Africa was not a country
and couldn't name all the countries in NAFTA.
While those facts aren't that important, since they can be easily learned, it does show an utter lack of some basic knowledge. What's next, she still doesn't know there are two major sects of Islam?
In our society, people are rewarded for pretending to be certain about things they're clearly not certain about. -- Sam Harris,
Sarah is very good at
her patriotic duty, stimulating the economy by going shopping.
What a gal!
I'm only half stupid
I refuse
to call them anything other than "Sunni" and "Shi'ite" as we learned from Mrs. Harwood.
I fear that my spelling/pronounciation will become as archaic as "Negro" or "Mussulman".
I never broke the law; I am the law! --
George W. BushJudge DreddI'm listening to...