The brief continued the efforts by the administration, begun two years ago tomorrow, to persuade the courts to adopt a rigorous test when they judged laws that discriminated against gays and lesbians. Instead of the much more tolerant “rational basis” test, the government has been pressing for what is called “heightened scrutiny.” And Friday’s brief defended that approach energetically.More detail about the argument for heightened scrutiny at the link, and you can read the whole brief here (PDF).
This is the first time the federal government has proposed that constitutional test in a gay rights case before the Supreme Court. The Court itself has never specified just what constitutional standard it will apply in such cases, but it may have to settle that this Term.
The DOMA benefit ban for married same-sex couples, the brief argued, cannot withstand the tougher standard. “This Court,” the brief said, “has understandably reserved the application of heightened scrutiny to a small number of classifications.” While the Court has not yet spelled out its own view of what the test is, the brief said, “under the factors articulated by this Court, such classifications warrant heightened scrutiny.”
There's a second pending Supreme Court case dealing with California's Proposition 8, and although the administration hasn't filed a brief in that case, the brief Windsor refers to Prop 8 as it makes the argument for heightening scrutiny, which — under standard equal protection doctrine — looks at a number of factors including whether a group has been excluded from political power. From the brief:
Although some of the harshest and most overt forms of discrimination against gay and lesbian people have receded, that progress has hardly been uniform (either temporally or geographically), and has in significant respects been the result of judicial enforcement of the Constitution, not political action....The brief cites various recent successful political efforts against same-sex marriage, including this footnoted reference to Prop 8:
[There is no] convincing record of political power rendering protection unnecessary.
By way of example, in May 2008, the California Supreme Court held that the state was constitutionally required to recognize same-sex marriage.... In November 2008, California’s voters passed Proposition 8, which amended the state constitution to restrict marriage to opposite-sex couples.My guess is the Court won't heighten scrutiny, but it will find an equal protection violation in both of the cases. I predict a 6-3 decision.
Posts
137 comments:
......and thus the American Left marches on in an effort to destroy marriage and family.
I predict that this whole mess will have to be undone 30 years from now when the confusing unexpected consequences evidence themselves.
Althouse, tradition exists for reasons that transcend intellectualism. Your insistence that tradition based on human experience has to be defended against your intellect is the problem here.
Your intense intellectualism is what is leading you to make this terrible mistake. Just as you did with feminism. That, along with self-interest, has blinded you.
Issues of benefits and inheritance don't belong in this discussion and can be handled by other means.
I predict that, just as feminism has ultimately turned out to be bad for women, gay marriage will be bad for gays. It will all have to be undone.
You're solving a non-existent problem, Althouse.
So what about the recent DoD decree to offer marriage benefits to couples of the same sex that live together, but not to couples of opposite sexes?
You're solving a non-existent problem, Althouse.
And, creating a new problem that will ultimately be far worse.
Sorry to quote myself.
Plus, there are, and always have been, people of the same sex - probably more women than men, but certainly men also - who find it convenient to share house or apartment, but are in no way sexually attracted to each other.
So, is not this discrimination in favor of the sexually attracted?
Second, in finding that gays and lesbians have been, in the past and currently, the targets of discrimination and have been lacking in political power, Verrilli cited “the recent history of marriage initiatives” — the history of thirty-nine states, including California with Proposition 8, adopting bans on same-sex marriage, either by state laws or constitutional amendments.
It's pretty clear that Polygamists have been in the past targets of discriminiation and lacking in political power. They were literally denied state access unless they gave up their odious marriage practices. So, shouldn't polygamy be allowed under the same basis? Why is Obama and the court not standing for polygamists?
Also i'll note that pedophiles have routinely been disriminated against and have no political power. If you are an open member of NAMBLA how likely is it that you will hold a job in govt or, frankly, anywhere. Those advocating for sex with minors or teens or social pariahs.
So then why isn't the Obama administration standing for pedophiles to right the wrong?
Finally, while it may be true that gays have been discriminated against in general, must it hold that they be allowed to "marry". Since marriage has not defined itself as being between two men, how are they discriminated against? Marriage has not been defined as three or more persons either. So, is that then automatic discrimination towards three or more people who want to get married?
Why are you looking at Obama's briefs?
Thomas will accuse you of jungle fever, which must be like the ultimate sin in his book.
It's funny how he doesn't distinguish between "intellect" and "intellectualism". That's a pretty stupid thing to do. Defending traditions while forbidding any questioning of their purpose is like putting one's head in the sand.
Talk about being blinded...
O Ritmo wrote:
Defending traditions while forbidding any questioning of their purpose is like putting one's head in the sand.
damning traditions while forbidding any questioning of their purposes is similarly putting ones head in the sand.
That should say "So then why isn't the Obama administration standing for pedophiles who want to marry underage children, to right the wrong?".
So too with bigamists, so too with harems, so too with people who want to marry their siblings or parents.
Why isn't Obama and his courts and Althouse standing with them to right the wrong. Since it's quite clear they are being discriminated against. No?
I just don't understand how some here feel they have the right to exclude gays from not only the Declaration-proclaimed right of pursuing happiness, but of the same "marital bliss" that they claim to have. (I use conditional wording here because I wouldn't know and am skeptical of such a thing. But that doesn't mean I think I have the right to deny it to others).
The fact that this directly affects the blog-captain's family might mean that some of the commenters here might want to be nicer in voicing their unconsidered objections. But I guess not everyone can be expected to have a sense of class.
Also, I thought this was a nice quote:
[There is no] convincing record of political power rendering protection unnecessary.
No doubt. People confuse the two so often.
damning traditions while forbidding any questioning of their purposes is similarly putting ones head in the sand.
Question away.
Your problem is you are never satisfied with any reasonable answer to anything, though. That messes up the whole question-answer process.
Ritmo the Retard strikes again!
This time he launches the standard accusation... not caving into the demands of grievance groups means you hate somebody. Note that the fucking moron claims once again to speak for black people, although he doesn't know any. He's always waving that bloody shirt.
Have you met any black people yet? I play from time to time with a black church group. I could find one for you to talk to so that we can fill that gap in your resume.
Maybe you could pay a black person to vouch for the fact that you speak for him.
Wow! So Obamagov not only argues that we should embrace homosexuality, but that we should force people to do so by applying a new, more rigorous legal standard that prevents them from doing otherwise.
Over and above the arguably insidious effect of government sponsored same sex marriage on public health and the institutions of marriage, family and child rearing, tradional opposition is based on an historical unwillingness of people to appear absurd.
Of course, the retention of this inept, celebrity President indicates that fifty-plus per cent of the voting population has embraced absurdity, so why not gay marriage?
Eve created from Adam's rib was an accounting for becoming one flesh.
Marriage has to do with that.
It prefigures a child.
"I predict that, just as feminism has ultimately turned out to be bad for women, gay marriage will be bad for gays. It will all have to be undone."
The whole gay marriage controversy is a reaction to the AIDS epidemic and an attempt to reengineer the male sexual promiscuity by capturing it in a legal invention.
I don't particularly care about the issue although I do fear attempts to punish those who support traditional religions.
The ridiculous Islamophiles on the left have already begun this, especially in Canada. They would be quickly disabused by actual contact with Islam in the wild but, so far, they remain in protected enclaves provided by those they hate.
There used to be a Rent a Black Friend site out there, Ritmo, but it seems to be gone.
Pity. That would have helped you out.
Hagar said...
So what about the recent DoD decree to offer marriage benefits to couples of the same sex that live together, but not to couples of opposite sexes?
It's fucking official hypocrisy...be we already know that.
That is why I don't give a shit.
They're actually filing a brief?
I thought they'd just vote present.
Shouting Thomas said...
I predict that this whole mess will have to be undone 30 years from now when the confusing unexpected consequences evidence themselves.
Just as Germany has found with multi-culti and Holland with prostitution.
Not to mention all those state which have legalized marijuana.
Let's review what it means to hate somebody:
Ritmo the Retard strikes again!
Name-calling.
This time he launches the standard accusation...
Accusations without reading what it is actually being said. i.e. - premature judgment.
...not caving into the demands of grievance groups means you hate somebody. Note that the fucking moron claims once again to speak for black people, although he doesn't know any.
Use of unprompted, vituperative language. More judgment without any evidence. And irrelevant judgment, at that.
He's always waving that bloody shirt.
More accusations.
You seem to have a lot of hatred in you, Thomas. Do you think it does you, or this thread, any good?
The whole gay marriage controversy is a reaction to the AIDS epidemic and an attempt to reengineer the male sexual promiscuity by capturing it in a legal invention.
The myth that gays were a persecuted minority is also a reaction to the AIDS epidemic.
The gambit was to re-engineer our memory of the past and to convince us that "bullying" was responsible for tens of thousands of gay men disappearing from this earth.
In other words, place the blame for the AIDS epidemic on straight men.
There used to be a Rent a Black Friend site out there, Ritmo, but it seems to be gone.
Is that the site you consulted to find a way to beat your chest about organ playing and whatnot?
Hagar said...
Plus, there are, and always have been, people of the same sex - probably more women than men, but certainly men also - who find it convenient to share house or apartment, but are in no way sexually attracted to each other....So, is not this discrimination in favor of the sexually attracted?
Right again, of course it is discrimination. Discrimination is okay if its directed at others, not the protected few.
As I said, I don't give a shit, never have never will.
O Ritmo wrote:
I just don't understand how some here feel they have the right to exclude gays from not only the Declaration-proclaimed right of pursuing happiness, but of the same "marital bliss" that they claim to have. (I use conditional wording here because I wouldn't know and am skeptical of such a thing. But that doesn't mean I think I have the right to deny it to others).
Inherent in your question is your assumption that society has no right to restrict marriage in any way correct? Do polygamists not have the right to pursue happiness? Do those engaged in incestual relationships not have the right to pursue happiness? Do pedophiles not have the right to pursue happiness?
Inherent in your position is the argument that "marital bliss" means whatever the person in a relationship wants it to mean, correct?
You simply don' think that marriage can be defined as anything, or restricted in anyway.
But you're wrong.
Michael K wrote: "The whole gay marriage controversy is a reaction to the AIDS epidemic and an attempt to reengineer the male sexual promiscuity by capturing it in a legal invention."
It is likely intended to divert attention away from the grossly disproportionate incidence of HIV/AIDS among male homosexuals. Or is that what you meant?
Ritmo the Retard, how stupid do you plan to get in this thread? Do you plan to drag out all of your profound PC slogans?
Just wondering.
If you plan to bottom out completely, I might stick around for the show. Otherwise, I've got to rehearse for Mass tomorrow.
Ritmo the Retard, how stupid do you plan to get in this thread?
How hateful do you plan to get, Thomas? And again, is that supposed to convince anyone here that you're capable of being reasoned with?
Laws aren't just about emotionalism, there has to be reason to how they are decided. So maybe this isn't the thread for you.
Anyway, it looks like you want some recognition for playing the organ -- so here you go: Good boy!
No cookies will be sent in the mail to you for that, though. Just want to make sure you know that up-front.
Ritmo the Retard, why would I try to reason with an idiot like you? You're not capable.
You refuse to address the substance of the thread, Hater-in-Chief Thomas.
Ok Here's an argument opposing changing the meaning of marriage.
Is there a difference between a man and a woman who pledge to stay together, create and raise the next generation and any other group of two or more people? Obviously, there is a major difference. That difference has always been called "marriage" and society has always regulated marriage and assisted married couples. But why should society, especially the utilitarian state, do the same (regulate) to any other group of two or more? Or why should the utilitarian state assist by tax breaks, etc. any other group? And if some regulation or assistance is needed, why is the association to be regulated called "marriage"? Where is the similarity?
Put another way: in religious terms there is a non-utilitarian case to be made for marriage vows but in terms of the utilitarian state there is an association presently called marriage which is vastly important to the state and there are other associations which are not important to the state. They aren't the same so they shouldn't have the same name or have the same laws
Too funny! You're off to a good start, Ritmo the Retard.
I'll check back later to see if you've gone completely bonkers. You're usually good for that.
How much more interesting could this thread be if it hadn't immediately dissolved into yet another insult-match between Ritmo and ShoutingT?
Sigh.
Ritmo wrote: The fact that this directly affects the blog-captain's family might mean that some of the commenters here might want to be nicer in voicing their unconsidered objections. But I guess not everyone can be expected to have a sense of class.
But by the same token it might signal her bias towards one side of the argument. Judicial recusal comes to mind.* I realize that this sounds like a "women didn't vote in the 19th Amendent" type of argument but there it is.
________________
*Also mindful that Althouse is not a judge though she does play one from time to time.
Shouting Thomas said...
[Hateful things, hateful things, and more hateful things].
And he avoided the question, as always.
Ritmo, if marriage means something, it doesn't mean EVERYTHING. Therefore, it will have inherent restrictions. For example, age requirements, requirements that people not marry their family members, restrictions that limit a marriage to only being between two people.
Are you opposed to any and all of those? Because, unless you are arguing that marriage literally should be open to anyone and mean whatever the people who want to engage in a relationship want it to mean, then you have to accept the restrictions as imposed by society. What those restrictions are are largely irrelevant. First lets come to terms that society can even impose those restrictions.
Yes?
Ok, then so by what right does society have to deny people the right to pursue happiness? The right to define a social construct or compact or law is an inherent right of society. Doesn't mean I agree with how society so defines that compact, but I at least accept that they have that right.
Otherwise, you would have to make the arguement that marriage could mean "ten people, three of them underage, four of whom are parents of the other six, and one dog and a toaster". why not? Get as absurd as you want about your "definition". Since you are saying there can be no definition.
Lyssa said...
How much more interesting could this thread be if it hadn't immediately dissolved into yet another insult-match between Ritmo and ShoutingT?
What are the elements of table salt in their elemental forms and are they compatible?
Ritmo's very first comment on this thread accuses someone of "looking at Obama's briefs", mentions "jungle fever", and says that failure to distinguish between 'intellect' and 'intellectualism' is "a pretty stupid thing to do", and now he accuses others of having "a lot of hatred" in them? He doesn't seem to realize that any feelings of hatred and contempt directed towards him are richly deserved, as he seems to go out of his way to incur them.
How much more interesting could this thread be if it hadn't immediately dissolved into yet another insult-match between Ritmo and ShoutingT?
I have no interest in avoiding the topic of the thread and promise I won't insultingly accuse you, or anyone else who actually engages it, of being a faux-feminist hell-bent on nothing more than arbitrarily uprooting traditions and catering political hand-outs to special interests, as Shouting T has done, and will always continue to do.
That first bit was a joke, Weevil.
It is less insulting to judge actions than to judge people.
Yes, I think hatred is a better description of obsessions than of single, richly misinterpreted comments.
But judge away.
But by the same token it might signal her bias towards one side of the argument. Judicial recusal comes to mind.
This is too broad to form a meaningful exception. Marriage and exposure to homosexual persons are nearly universal experiences. One might as well recuse oneself from sitting in judgment of any human matter, on the basis of that judge also being a human.
Too bad your unfunny jokes are quite obviously dripping with hatred, Ritmo. The fact is that this would be a better site if every comment you ever made here were to disappear along with every comment referring to them. If you and a few others I could name were (hypothetically) being paid to damage this site by driving away reasonable commenters and attracting unreasonable ones, you would be earning your pay.
He doesn't seem to realize that any feelings of hatred and contempt directed towards him are richly deserved, as he seems to go out of his way to incur them.
Not sure who you're directing that to, but I think from Althouse's POV this is a feature and not a bug because it attracts eyeballs and page views--people love to watch fights.
Obama and all the other advocates of gay marriage like Inga keep saying "gay couples". But why couples? Why not trios?
If the issue is discrimination and pursuit of happiness, then isn't anyone who is denied "marriage" (list off all the restrictions on marriage other than those involving gays for examples) discriminated against definitionally? Is that then a basis to not discriminate? i.e. a father and son are discrminated against under law from marrying, therefore because they are discrminated against, they cannot be denied the right to marry? It's circular logic of idiots. And denying pursuits of happiness is suddenly the basis for not denying a marriage.Apply that to any law udner the sun and see how that logic works.
I like to kill hookers. It makes me happy. The law prevents me from kiling hookers, thus depriving me of my pursuit of happiness. Would you, Ritmo, overturn rules against murder because some psycho feels aggrieved?
Too bad your unfunny jokes are quite obviously dripping with hatred, Ritmo.
This is a bad faith comment, and the rest of it puts on a mask of concern for your own personal enjoyment over a "need" to ensure that no voices dissenting from your own partisan ideology are heard.
This is too broad to form a meaningful exception. Marriage and exposure to homosexual persons are nearly universal experiences.
No. The point was that while everyone may be familiar with the hopes and aspirations of a subset of 3.5% of the population, not everyone has a direct familial bond. And I stated that my argument was no more or less valid than the 19th Amendment one. You could perhaps undermine this by pointing to the judicial make-up of say those judges involved in the Loving v. Virgina case for certain, if you knew that.
O Ritmo wrote:
"I just don't understand how some here feel they have the right to exclude _________ from not only the Declaration-proclaimed right of pursuing happiness, but of the same "marital bliss" that they claim to have. (I use conditional wording here because I wouldn't know and am skeptical of such a thing. But that doesn't mean I think I have the right to deny it to others)."
Take out the word gays from your question and you see how ludicrous your argument is dont' you?
This, by the way, is why things like polygamy and marrying dogs keep getting brought up when it comes to gay marriage proponets. Because you keep arguing LIKE THIS.
So, "gays" is a variable. And lets include all the other restrictions on marriage that we also have. If you plug in those other variables, does your argument still make any sense?
Maybe in the interest of parity you want to be the guy arguing that old pedophiles should have the right to marry the toddler down the street and stand for his rights to happinesss, But unless you do, I would probably try to come up with a better argument that isn't so patently farcical.
I assume the Obama administration's brief in the Supreme Court's DOMA case would have to be something in either a low-rise or a thong?
I don't think that you can really say that there wasn't discrimination against gays in the past. When I was in high school, some 45 years ago, it was thought to be great fun to roll queers on Friday nights. Much better than picking fights with Mexicans, since the latter tended to have a lot of friends, often within shouting distance.
I remember in college, in the late 1960s and early 1970s, coming out, and the gay movement, esp. for guys, was a really big thing, and we went from little tolerance in 1968 to pretty good acceptance in 1972.
Still, today, I don't think that the argument can be made that society really discriminates all that much against gays, except when it comes to gay marriage and DOMA. If you watch much TV, you will likely see a lot more gay characters, gay themes, and gay actors than would be warranted by their percentage in the population - again, though, much more (male) gays, than lesbians.
Still, I think that it is ultimately going to be much harder to allow gay marriage, under Equal Protection, and then continue to forbid plural marriages (and, esp. polygamy). Polygamy has a much stronger historical claim than does gay marriage. The Christian Church apparently didn't really come out against polygamy until several centuries into the Christian era, and it is still well accepted by one of the largest religions in the world (Islam). Gay marriage has never been accepted, until the last decade or two. Homosexuality yes, at times, but never gay marriage. I am still waiting for a credible argument against a slippery slope here.
EDH
You mean in terms of covering the issue at hand?
BTW - not gay here, just somewhat sympathetic to some of the problems. Back domestic partnerships, but still on the fence with gay marriage and polygamy.
LIbertarian case for marriage:
http://www.nationformarriage.org/atf/cf/%7B39d8b5c1-f9fe-48c0-abe6-1029ba77854c%7D/LIBERTARIAN-CASE-FOR-MAN-WOMAN-MARRIAGE.PDF
And for Ritmo, I guess I'd simply say that "the pursuit of happiness is not an absolute" You are free to pursue your happiness so long as your happiness comports with the laws set in society. (many people pursue their happiness despite the laws, which is why many people are now sitting behind bars). You have rights but only to the things you have rights to. Not EVERYTHING.
in the case of marriage, its not a right. But even if we are to assume that it is, your are bound to a marriage that is "defined" as such. And if you don't meet the criterion, then you are restricted.
Polgamists cannot "marry" since marriage is not defined as POLYGAMY.
So too, gays cannot marry because has not meant between two men.
(or three men, or father daughter or old man young boy, or man and dog or what have you).
You can't put square peg into a round hole? WHy can't you? Because one is square and the other is round.
And also, lets be clear, you CAN pursue your happiness even if it isn't sanctioned by society. You just have to do it outside of the law. So, if you want to marry ten people and live in a house, so long as you aren;t petitioning the govt to give all 9 of your spouses the same rights, then you can do so, so long as your relationship doesn't violate some other laws.
But the fact that you do so doesn't necessitate that society must sanction it under law.
If someone writes "This is a bad faith comment" about a comment that he knows is not in fact a bad faith comment, does that make his comment a bad faith comment, or just a pathetic lie? I wrote what I wrote because I believe it to be true. I have never expressed (or felt) any desire to see this comment section echo my own political opinions, and there are posters on the right I would be glad to see go away and never return: 'whoresoftheinternet', to name just one egregious example. What I would like to see here is more intelligent comments from all sides, more honest comments, and a Hell of a lot fewer comment threads where the same bozo posts dozens of dishonest, uninteresting, and abusive comments.
Hint: if you're posting more than 10% of the comments on a thread of any size, you have achieved "club bore" status. As I write this, Ritmo's at 12/47 or more than 25% of the total on this one.
I wrote what I wrote because I believe it to be true.
So did I.
I have never expressed (or felt) any desire to see this comment section echo my own political opinions, and there are posters on the right I would be glad to see go away and never return...
That's not the issue. The issue is, who on the left (or even in the middle) would you care to allow to contribute?
I'll even allow you to choose from non-currently commenting, famous, (fantasy-pundit/pol) personalities.
...if you're posting more than 10% of the comments on a thread of any size...
Thomas had exactly 10 of the first 30 comments, for a whopping 33% of the thread at that point.
But he plays for Team Red so no admonition will be forthcoming from you to him.
Was there a partisan reason for refusing to say anything about this?
Wait, I'm confused. Isn't the DOJ supposed to be defending the law against the challenge?
I take it Ritmo jumps on these threads because his thralls do not want a rational discussion of the topic.
Discuss away, Ed. Name one challenge to or support of the actual content of the original post that I've browbeaten away.
You can't.
The reason for giving tax breaks and protection to hetero-sexual marriages is that one may expect them to result in babies being born and children raised to maturity, which is a good thing for a society that intends to continue to exist and prosper.
Well, I'm halfway through practice, so I thought I'd see if Ritmo the Retard had gone completely bonkers.
As usual, he's gone through the whole act.
First, he's the vicious attack dog, dreaming up the most insane words to put in his opponent's mouth. Then, he quickly disintegrates into the aggrieved, whining victim. People talk mean to him! Imagine!
Oddly, I think the dumb shit is just putting himself out there honestly in all his idiot glory. He really is this stupid.
Now, he's really dribbling. The poor bastard is being censored! Somebody is stopping the whiny little bastard from posting on Althouse!
I'm looking around for the culprit! As soon as I find him, I'll report him to Althouse. This is like OJ looking for his wife's murderer.
The reality is that, if we speak of the "definition" of marriage, than already we admit that polygamists have "real" marriages. That is, if we discuss the situation in Sharia-law countries like Saudi Arabia, we say, "men are permitted to have more than one wife." We don't say, "a man is permitted to have a wife and multiple live-in girlfriends which local law calls 'wives'" - even though, were such a family to come to the U.S., only one of those wives would be legally-recognized.
Fundamentally, we know that gay marriage is something entirely different and radical in a way that polygamy isn't.
Fundamentally, too, marriage may have been motivated by power or family alliances in the past, for the wealthy at least, but it was ultimately all about providing a suitable situation for raising children, and ensuring that the father would shoulder the responsibility of being the provider. (Secondarily, it was about providing care for dependent women, so marrying an elderly widow has always be A-OK.) It's no coincidence that gay marriage is gaining acceptance at the same time as intentionally-childless marriage is becoming increasingly common, as well as intentinally-marriageless parentng. Marriage has been divorced from childrearing and is now all about -- well, listen to the gaymarriage advocates: government benefits, legal recognition as next-of-kin for decision-making, visitation, and inheritance purposes, legal recognition as the 2nd parent to children, and -- the biggie -- mandatory (to some degree) social recognition of the relationship (that is, the expectation that if one is legally married, all one's neighbors will be obliged to be friendly and welcoming and say "your husband" or "your wife" as naturally as with a regular married couple.
So what's the ultimate consequence? Where do we end up with if we head down this path? Because I find it improbable that it leads to more marriage rather than less, if marriage is undertaken to receive benefits rather than as the appropriate next step before starting a family.
Is Shouting Thomas trying to say something?
Poor Ritmo can't even handle basic arithmetic - if simple counting even qualifies as basic arithmetic - in fact, 8 of the first 30 comments are by Shouting Thomas, not 10, while 7 are by Ritmo. Did I criticize Ritmo and not ST because Ritmo's a leftie? Or did I single him out because his very first comment was nothing but insults disguised as stupid jokes, while STs two previous comments were substantive, and he only turned to (quite nasty) insults after Ritmo insulted him? All that means is that Ritmo is not only boring, stupid, and offensive in his own comments, he inspires boring, stupid, and offensive comments in others. He can't really be unaware of that, can he?
Of course my first criticism of Ritmo was for blatant hypocrisy, a charge he can't seem to defend himself against except with lies.
Sorry, Weevil. I used the find function and must have lumped in all the "full-name" references with those that included S. Testosterone as an author.
Those first two comments of his insulted the host by refusing to address the substance of the post while banging on about arbitrary things that are important to lil' ole entitled him!
Anyway, he's back. I leave you to judge for yourself just how much of his "boring, stupid, and offensive comments" he can or should take personal responsibility for - despite how "inspired" he must feel to make "boring, stupid, and offensive comments".
My guess is - none.
Some lesbian in my company wanted our company of supporting this shit.
I was like no way.
Will Ritmo take any credit for knowing how to push Shouting Thomas' buttons and being every-ready to push them, thus lowering the quality of the comment thread by proxy as well as with his own voluminous low-quality comments? All signs point to no. I really do hope he (Ritmo) is being paid to damage this site, because if he's doing it for free, that would be really pathetic.
Oh, Ritmo the Retard isn't pushing my buttons.
I'm sitting here laughing and enjoying insulting the dumb, malicious bastard.
What else can you do with this kind of idiocy? Take it seriously?
Ridiculing Ritmo the Retard is fun.
Will Ritmo take any credit for knowing how to push Shouting Thomas' buttons and being every-ready to push them, thus lowering the quality of the comment thread by proxy as well as with his own voluminous low-quality comments?
I fully admit to not "knowing" how to push much more than diddley squat when it comes to that person. I think he's just obsessed with me.
Since you're a fan of brevity, check out the most successful arbiter of parsimony - Occam's Razor. It says that the simplest explanation tends to be true.
Isn't it simpler to believe that this person is crazy obsessed with me than that I somehow possess special knowledge on how to manipulate a clearly crazed man?
And you also have direct evidence, from me, that this is so.
Believe what you will, though.
S. Testosterone is also, directly attesting to the alternative hypothesis, Professor Weevil.
You never know what a crazy man will do. And apparently, he likes it that way.
It was funny when he got obsessed with Seven Machos. But that didn't stop Seven from pounding his head into the sand, either.
Sympathy for S. Testosterone Shouting Thomas is about as helpful as sympathy for Adam Lanza, et al. It just doesn't make sense.
You never know what a crazy man will do. And apparently, he likes it that way.
Yes! Oooga Booga, Ritmo the Retard.
Oooga Booga!
Is there an equivalent of Godwin's Law for commenters who compare other commenters to mass murderers? There really is no depth to which Ritmo will not sink to draw a reaction. What a total swine he is.
Ritmo, the desire for gays to marry is an extremely recent one. Prior to gays asking to be married do you think there was a rational basis to have marriage codified the way that it was.
And secondly do you think society said "lets stick it to the gays when they ask for marriage 200 years from now" or did gay hatred have nothing to do with promoting hetero marriage?
Shouting,
"Ooga booga"
This would actually be a better place if you would just ignore Ritmo.
He is what he is (in the res ipsa loquitur sense), so most people don't need that explained to them.
Every once in a while, it's useful for someone to respond, just for the benefit of recently-arrived lurkers, but there's no reason that has to be by you.
This would actually be a better place if you would just ignore Ritmo.
Probably. But the ping-ponging back and forth between brutal malice and equally brutal self-pity is too funny.
The kid has it coming. But, I'll try not to be the one to give it to him. With that act, he has to be getting reamed out plenty without my help.
Jane, But young adults have little interest in having children or seeing themselves married, maybe later when they're older and the hook-up pool dries up and the need a companion to look after one another as the age and get ill.
Instead of undefining marriage, why not ban marriage for its historic inequality towards gay couples and call everything civil unions. It seems our general population, does not value or want specific laws that logically connect a child with its mother and father as one family unit. We will still have 'affidavits of paternity' for legal requirements of legal father for children naturally conceived, but affidavits don't support or promote dads living and raising the child along with the mother in the same home.
Society wants 'partnerships' recognized by civil law, not children being raised by its mother and father. Maybe they do, but between cohabitation and divorce the idea we could even make a bump in marriage rates and lower divorce rates is a lost cause that isn't worth even trying.
It's a democracy, and that's is how people see equality under the law. While I still hold equality to be applied differently when it comes to sex. Sex is more then just a partnership, it is directly related to reproduction and the needs and rights of children. Again, people may completely not see or want to see that value and insist the laws shouldn't recognize that value. (too moralizing/judgmental) Still the documentation and evidence that women and children do better with a good husband that is biologically the father is there.
Meanwhile whatever the outcome... I'm bring back the dads.
Rush brought up an article about pedophilia in the guardian about how some (on the left) are pushing for normalization of pedophilia as a norm.
So lets talk pedophilia in the context of marriage and the push for gay marriage. I note we have age restrictions for marriage which are by default discriminatory. They discriminate against people (the pedophiles) who might seek to marry their loves (who happen to be underage). So what is the issue with restricting this love?
Does Ritmo not believe his own words? On what basis are we denying people the ability to pursue their happiness? Are pedophiles not tax payers? Are they not citizens? If you cut them do they not bleed?
IF you deny them the right to marry who they love are you not denying them equality under law, not to mentione being a bigoted doody head?
So why would we deny pedophiles their chance at happiness? Because of the harm to kids. But is that an actual harm, or is that only a social norm pushed by people who want to deny pedophiles their chance at happiness? Around the world you can find people who marry young kids. Are we more restrictive than those countries? I thought we were the land of the free? If you look to religion, one of the prophets from one of the biggest religions in the world (not meitonaing any names) was a pedophile who married a six year old and waited till she menstruated to do the deed (she was 9 at that point). If its good enough for the prophet, why are we so backward?
So continuing on from my post about how those who pledge fidelity and who raise children are different i.e., thos who marry, from every other association between people I now ask - are those who want to marry willing to take on the same financial burdens as a man and a woman who marry? Are they willing, for instance, to agree that they will either have children or they will contribute $20, 000 a year to those who have children and they will put 20 hours a week into helping others? Because those who have children pay into Social Security and they pay Federal, state, local and sales taxes and they ALSO spend at least $20,000 dollars a year on their children and they spend 20 hours a week on them. In the end these children keep society going - any society - so if you want to talk the talk, i.e. marriage, then walk the walk,i.e., put out for society like a married person. If not then don't say to the utilitarian state "I too am married because I love." There is more to marriage than love with respect to society and/or the state If you won't contribute to society as the presently "married" do then don't ask society to say that you are "married". If you don't make that contribution then why say that you are "the same" and why bring a civil rights lawsuit saying you are the same? You aren't the same. That doesn't mean you aren't in love whatever love means. But in a definable way you are not making the contribution to society the "married" make. The next generation will not come from those who sleep with their own sex or with animals or with dolls.
-cont-
In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."
So, you might say that those who oppose marriage with kids are lagging behind history. Clearly it's their own bigotry that is the issue and not pedophilia. So again, why deny kids the right to marry grandpa?
Sarah Goode, honorary research fellow at the University of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological studies on paedophilia in society, says the best current estimate – based on possibly flawed science – is that "one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children".
One in five? That's 20% of the population! far more than the number of gays. So why are we telling 20% of the population they can't marry who they want?
Get this:
But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change".
Eminent researches said as much so it must be true. But if its a sexual orientation unikely to change then its not a choice. How then can we punish pedophiles for behavior that isnt' a choice? Why should the state deny them the right to marry simply because of their sexual orientation?
And if you disagree with any of this, then you are a hateful bigot.
I can always find a study showing the harm of pedophilia is non existent and an advocate who feels they are being discriminated against.
Based on Ritmo's assertion there is no way he can't be for adult - child marriages. Right?
So now let me quote Ritmo's statement back at him and plug in my variable:
I just don't understand how some here feel they have the right to exclude pedophiles and children from not only the Declaration-proclaimed right of pursuing happiness, but of the same "marital bliss" that they claim to have. (I use conditional wording here because I wouldn't know and am skeptical of such a thing. But that doesn't mean I think I have the right to deny it to others).
Do you think thats true or not true, Ritmo? do you have the right to deny pedophiles the right to marry. Because it is happening as we speak and they are being denied the right to marry those who they love. DISCRIMINATION!!!!!!
Or do you want to support the pedophiles cause Ritmo? Marriage equality!
Theres no reason you HAVE to support the status quo position that the state puts out (which only echoes their bigoted world views), if you truly believe what you say.
And that goes for things like bigamy, polygamy, incestual marriages and any other alternative you can think up. Lets lay out the case for why it's ok, and should be permissable and then have Ritmo ask the question as to why anyone has the right to oppose any of it.
But the ping-ponging back and forth between brutal malice...
S. T. is like the angry version of Forrest Gump.
Hunt Brown wrote:
when you speak of pedophilia you are talking about behavior which society has deemed harmful and therefore criminal. since Hardwick homosexuality has not been criminally actionable, so outside of an ad absurdeum argument, the issue of pedophilia doesn't pertain to whether gays should be allowed to marry or if doma is constitutional.
Pedophilia is only relevant in that is is one of the restrictions on marriage (age restrictions). I'm just pointing out how not everyone in fact views pedophilia as a wrong. Perhaps, just as those viewing marriage as between a man and a woman are bigoted, so too are those viewing pedophilia as harmful are bigoted. And you are merely not evolved enough to understand.
Pedophilia is not illegal everywhere. And there is a discrepency about what defines a child many places, and there are discrepencies about what age a child should be able to marry both here and around the world.
I think the youngest age where someone could get married is 14. But if 14, why not 13? Some pre teens are pregnant before they turn 14,clearly they are capable of having sex.
It does pertain to marriage beucase there is a restriction on age. Anyone younger than that set age is discriminated against. Is that set age set becuase there is a definitive harm for people engaging in behavior younger than that age, or is it set by society why thinks (erroneously) that it's harmful. Who are these people?
Hunt Brown, What is marriage and why does it exist? Does it even have a function that makes it essential for the government to acknowledge? There are plenty of single and people who cohabitate without marriage, with and without children. If that wrong and something the government should care about?
Hunt Brown wrote:
if your arguement is that if gays can get married then why can't pedophiles, you might carry it a bit further and ask why you can't marry your dog... and I think the answer is pretty much the same: consent. neither a child nor your dog can consent to marriage and as a society we tend to protect those who cannot consent.
Are kids incapable of consenting, or are we as society telling them that they can't consent? Because I bet there are a lot of kids who can physically say yes to something. Even kids as young as 9. Its just, (to be the devlis advocate) your bigotry that you refuse to hear their voices.
And so what if dogs can't consent to marriage. Dogs can't consent to being adopted either. That doesnt stop me from adopting one. Animals don't consent to not be eaten, yet I still can get a hamburger at McDonalds every day.
The point is, society is setting rules for conduct based on social norms whether you agree with those norms or not. Ritmo seems to be suggesting that such rules cant be set.
Seen in the Dictionary of Abnormal Psychology under 'lack of self-awareness': someone who replies to an accusation of "brutal malice" by saying something brutally malicious.
Actually, JR, if you are a u.s. citizen pedophilia is against the law everywhere... there is a federal law that makes leaving the country to abuse children a crime.
you color the issue as age discrimination, and to a certain extent you are right. we do discriminate against age. we do not let five year old children drive cars, we do not allow seventeen year olds to vote and we don't allow twenty year olds to drink. society places limits on our freedoms for the benefit of all.
if you think that sixteen year olds should be able to get married, well, guess what, they can in most states. if you think ten year olds should be able to consent to sexual congress then you need to write your congressman and see if you can get him or her to sponsor a bill, but it doesn't have spit to do with doma or gay marriage.
It has been conclusively shown that children who do not have a father and a mother present to them and assisting them through life are more likely than not to have trouble. Not that they WILL have trouble - it is more LIKELY - probability So again - how can anyone say that the utilitarian state which forms policies based on probabilities should not discriminate between those who intend to assist children and those who do not?
and ok, how about polygamy and/ incestual marriages.
What is the problem with incest. Lets stipulate that the people involved are the right age. And meet the other requirements for marriage. Why can't they marry? Is it wrong to feel that kids having sex with their parents is wrong bigotry, or the proper response to an unhealthy relationship? shoudl society be neutral on such behavior and grant them a marriage certificate because they love each other?
The only argument I hear, other than that it's icky is that the kids from said relationships would potentially have birth defects. Considering we could simply abort them if that were the case I dont see why that SHOULD be an issue. But even here, that assumes that the couple is heterosexual. What if its a father and a son (who is older than 16). They can't have kids together. What's wrong with them marrying?
Are you going to stand on principle and defend incest? Why not, are they not in love? Do they not have feelings? ARe they not tax payers, or non consenting? Who are we to deny their pursuit of happiness.
Now note that if society legalizing their marriage society is also normalizing incest as a valid and healthy relationship. Should social workers for example let a father son couple adopt a kid?
Note, I'm not saying that gay relationships are as harmful as incestual ones, or even harmful at all, I'm merely taking another restricted marriage and applying Ritmo's standard to it (which also happens to be the standard used by most gay rghts activists).
You should defend incest on the same grounds, or recognize that perhaps the standard being applied isn't as absolute as you think it is.
Zeb Colter couldn't have said it better!
Keep it up...
O Ritmo Segundo said...
Discuss away, Ed. Name one challenge to or support of the actual content of the original post that I've browbeaten away.
The operative word in that statement is "browbeaten".
Not rebutted, but browbeaten.
I'd explain the difference, but I know deaf ears when I encounter them.
Seen in the Dictionary of Abnormal Psychology under "Absence of Self-Awareness, Pathological": someone who replies to an accusation of "brutal malice" by saying something brutally malicious.
Hunt Brown wrote:
you color the issue as age discrimination, and to a certain extent you are right. we do discriminate against age. we do not let five year old children drive cars, we do not allow seventeen year olds to vote and we don't allow twenty year olds to drink. society places limits on our freedoms for the benefit of all.
if you think that sixteen year olds should be able to get married, well, guess what, they can in most states. if you think ten year olds should be able to consent to sexual congress then you need to write your congressman and see if you can get him or her to sponsor a bill, but it doesn't have spit to do with doma or gay marriage.
I am right. it is discrimination. But so what? The point is discrimination does not in and of itself mean that we must allow for things. But that is essentially the primary argument for why gay marriage must be made legal. Because it's discriminatory> Well so is restrictions on incest, polygamy, marrying minors or pets or what have you. What's the difference?
Also, all of those laws against kids being able to do things are social constructs, not necessarly indicators of whether kids can actually do stuff. No ten year old in the world can drive a car? Nowhere? Or are we saying, we dont care if a kid can physically drive a car who's 9, we will simply not give them a license until they meet whatever age requirement is set by the society?
Is that not discriminatory? I thought you were against that stuff.
The voting age is another one. Is no one under the voting age physically capable of pulling a lever and voting for a candidate?
Or is that a decision based on social norms that is IMPOSED on us? If you are ok with such an imposition despite quite clear evidence that people younger than that age are able to vote (but for the bigoted society telling them no) then on what grounds are we suggesting that society can't define marriage to be a certain way, or a speed limit to be a certain way.
For any and every law, those who don't meet the criterion are going to feel discrmininated against, but that discrimination in and of itself is not a reason to over turn a law, is it?
jr: i prefer to set up my own straw men. nonetheless, marriage within one degree of consanguinity is proscribed. I don't see how two adult loving men or women is analgous to a father and his son, gay marriage is not going to lead to sheep lying with dogs and the sun rising in the west.
but consider Woody Allen. He was never married to Mia but he did marry her daughter and that was, by most standards and to use your words, icky. Had he and Mia been married, it would have been incest and criminally actionable. that's just a limit we've seen necessary to protect family units, so that, especially in today's world of extended families, mom and dad aren't constantly worried about what's going on with the children. it is a reasonable restriction, for both biological and social reasons.
and as far as polygamy... as I said before I don't have a problem with it, it was made illegal by a bunch of bible thumpers who didn't like the new religion on the block. it's a stupid, meaningless and easily avoided law.
the question is not whether aunts should mary nieces or if six year olds should enjoy sex with septagenarians, but rather what are the basis for the premise that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?
How about polygamy? Polgyamy is not tied into gay marriage? Seems pretty close to me. Both are restrictions on marriage. Both seek to be made legal which would redefine marriage fundamentally. Both appeals are based on the idea that society is being bigoted in restricting behavior. Both have people in said relationships who purport to love one another. Both are supposedly discriminatory.
In the case of polygamy, a far greater case can be made that there was actual discrimination made in attempting to restrict said marriages. Utah couldn't be a state unless mormons renounced polygamy. Denied access to the Union is a pretty big restriction on behavior.
On what basis then are we not standing for polygamists the same way we are standing for gays?
I'll go one better, gay incestual polygamists? WHy not?
Hunt wrote:
i prefer to set up my own straw men. nonetheless, marriage within one degree of consanguinity is proscribed. I don't see how two adult loving men or women is analgous to a father and his son,
Do you not think fathers can love their sons? Who are you to judge their relationship? Are they not adults? Do they not love? What is your beef, and why are you such a bigot?
Hunt Brown wrote:
it is a reasonable restriction, for both biological and social reasons.
Ah, so if the restriction is reasonable for both biological and social reasons, its ok to deny consenting adults the right to "marry" even though that means that those denied the right will in fact be discriminated against and and lose their rights.
And even if they really really really really love each other.
excuse me, you deleted your comment as I was responding.
voting... I want to be saracastic and say you're absolutely right, we have disenfranchised the Sessame Street contingent and just leave it at that but really, you and I both know that a democracy depends upon an informed vote and we have decided to arbitrarily set the voting age at eighteen, figuring that by then you've got enough smarts to participate in the electoral process. That seems pretty reasonable to me, in fact I might argue that, given the poor state of our educational system, we might want to move the voting age up to twenty-five or thirty.
again, how does age descrimination play into gay marriage or doma?
Hunt Brown wrote:
and as far as polygamy... as I said before I don't have a problem with it, it was made illegal by a bunch of bible thumpers who didn't like the new religion on the block. it's a stupid, meaningless and easily avoided law.
the question is not whether aunts should mary nieces or if six year olds should enjoy sex with septagenarians, but rather what are the basis for the premise that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?
You are picking and choosing who gets the right to marry and who defines what marriage even is based on your own personal choice. Are you not aware that in doing so certain people may not be able to marry the person they love and will have rights denied?
Jr565,
But there men with several girlfriends all having his children. Polygamy is outlawed, but it still happens.
Is not promoting behavior the same as discrimination? Heterosexual behavior and babies happen with or without marriage. Defining homosexual behavior as not apart of marriage public policy is not stating gay people should be imprisoned.
reasonable is the key word. you've yet to show any proof why it is unreasonable to allow gays to get married.
Hunt wrote:
voting... I want to be saracastic and say you're absolutely right, we have disenfranchised the Sessame Street contingent and just leave it at that but really, you and I both know that a democracy depends upon an informed vote and we have decided to arbitrarily set the voting age at eighteen, figuring that by then you've got enough smarts to participate in the electoral process.
I deleted my comment because for some reason it was duplicated.
But at any rate. You are assuming that I have a problem with setting a voting age at 18 or any other number. I don't. My point is that it's society that is setting that age based on social constructs and beliefs , and not based necessarily on the actual ability of people being able to vote. But it is discriminatory. Necessarily. And those who are younger than that age might feel like they are discriminated against despite being perfectly capable of voting.
Can society make such a restriction, based on a logical inference which is based on a social norm, despite the fact that a large chunk of the population will be disenfranchized because of the decision?
Renee wrote:
But there men with several girlfriends all having his children. Polygamy is outlawed, but it still happens.
It does happen. That doesnt mean that society must endorse it as a legal marriage simply because it does.
As I said earlier, there is nothing stopping people from being in polygamous relationships behind closed doors. That is not the same thing as having polygamy be recognized by society as the equivalent of marriage.
Hunt Brown, Was it necessary to use the term 'Bible Thumpers'. Are for gay marriage, simple because many Christians are against it? Is your reasoning based on your own personal ignorance and bigotry?
Polygamy is associated with poor socio-economic outcomes for women around the world. Also with 'extra men' who utilize human trafficking/prostitution because there is no dating pool to find a healthy loving relationship with a wife.
reasonable is the key word. you've yet to show any proof why it is unreasonable to allow gays to get married.
Reasonable is a subjective word, isn't it. What's reasonable to you may not be reasonable to me, is it. And a bigamist or polgamist or a 17 year old denied the right to vote could say that any restrictions on their rights was similarly not reasonable.
Was there a rational basis for marriage to be between a man and a woman, prior to gays wanting to be married? Why is that rational basis no longer valid simply because gays want to get married? was it homophobic to have marriage defined the way that it was prior to gays wanting to be married? Why is it homophobic now?
Renee wrote:
Polygamy is associated with poor socio-economic outcomes for women around the world. Also with 'extra men' who utilize human trafficking/prostitution because there is no dating pool to find a healthy loving relationship with a wife.
All reasonable. But would polygamists say the same? Who is applying the reasonalbe test? And do those objections over ride the notion that polygamists love each other and want to pursue their happiness.
Hunt Brown, Gays can marry. Just someone of the opposite sex, who is an adult and consents. I think you meant to say why can't two people of the same sex can't not married.
Marriage public policy is rooted in that a child can be created from a man and a woman engaged in penal/vaginal sexual intercourse. We can't stop people from screwing around making babies with multiple people, but as a community we promote and protect those who hold to those obligations of creating a stable home.
Even atheist gay invidiuals have a mom and dad.
Sorry for poorly worded comments/double negatives. Constant interuptions from a child.
In Australia the bill allowing same sex marriage was defeated last year in the Federal Parliament, 98-42, with the Prime Minister Julia Gillard voting against it.
Related to jr565 comments at 1.21 PM , are the arguments made in one of the submissions to the enquiry in my country.
Altering the definition of marriage to allow same-sex couples to wed would be the equivalent of defining sheep stations as lighthouses, a Senate committee has been told.
Newcastle University senior law lecturer Neil Foster told the inquiry that any attempt by Parliament to change the nature of marriage by allowing weddings between same-sex partners would be unconstitutional.
''The constitutional power over lighthouses, for example, cannot be used to regulate sheep stations by defining a sheep station as a lighthouse,'' Mr Foster said in his submission.
''The word 'marriage' as used in 1901 and as consistently used in the law ever since is not apt to describe a legal union between two persons of the same gender.''
He said the important features of family life would be undermined by the attempt to give the label marriage to relationships that were ''by their very nature, not designed to promote the birth of children who will be cared for by their biological parents, and which in fact share very few other characteristics of the usual institution.
Hunt Brown wrote:
you and I both know that a democracy depends upon an informed vote and we have decided to arbitrarily set the voting age at eighteen, figuring that by then you've got enough smarts to participate in the electoral process. That seems pretty reasonable to me, in fact I might argue that, given the poor state of our educational system, we might want to move the voting age up to twenty-five or thirty.
You're right. We COULD change the voting age to 25 or 30. Or we could change the voting age to 10. Or we could remove a voting age completely and let anyone vote, even if they are a toddler.
We can do those things. That's the whole point. Society can make those decisions, which are arbitrary to some and discriminatory to those who fall on the wrong side of the decision.
And that applies to drinking ages, voting, and yes, marriage.
Society COULD say polygamy is the norm or incest is the norm. But it hasn't. But what does that mean to those who fall outside the norm. Must their relationship be codified into law simply because it currently isn't (and thus they are being discriminated against). It sounds like that's the basis for most peoples arguments for gay marriage being made legal; because it's discriminatory.
Well, duh. As are age requirements, as are any other requirements for marriage.
My problem with most arguments for gay marriage is they keep using the word CAN'T (as in society CANT restrict gay marriage, as opposed to society SHOULDN"T restrict gay marriage. Of course society can. Society can restrict anything. But should it?
Also can gays even get married? As defined by the standard for marriage, they really can't if they want to marry each other. (because marriage is between a man and a woman and requires a husband and a wife). So, then the question isn't really about allowing gays to marry which is something they can't do under the current definition, but to change the definition to provide a new but similar right.
So far, the vast majority of the arguments made are ones like Ritmo's and Inga's. Appeals to absolutism and arguments that discrimination is absolutely wrong when it comes to marriage, which as I've shown are not valid when it comes to almost all other marriage restrictions.
So isn't it really incumbent on gays to show why marriage should be redefined to include them? As opposed to arguing that anyone who defends marriage as it always has been defined is a bigot who hates gays?
yes, JR, you can disenfranchise individuals. the legal issue regarding gay marriage is simply this: is being homosexual an indelible characteristic? is it like being left handed or blue eyed, black, latino, or any other characteristic that you cannot change, or is it a choice.
if it is a choice then we as a people can enact laws against it. if it is not a choice then we as a society have to allow homosexuals the same rights and priveleges that we allow all member of our society and that includes marriage.
you can believe whichever way you want, but at some time a court will hear evidence and determine one way or the other.
and yes renee, my reasoning is based upon my own ignorance and bigotry. I am sorry I offendedyou were by the bible thumpers, but I kind of see the people who oppressed the mormons as bible thumpers. just a historical thing. I wasn't intending to disparge any living person's religious beliefs, but note I do think the Mayans were a bit out of line too.
there is a difference between a church marriage and a state sanctioned marriage. if your church doesn't want gay marriage they don't have to have gay marriage, but as to the state, it becomes a legal issue and not a belief issue.
I have steaks to grill. have a good night. if anyone can tell me how the supreme court can address the issue of indelible characteristsic in the doma case or the california case I would love to hear it, other than that you need not address any more observations to me as I won't respond.
be well
It has been a struggle to read through this thread. Talk about a conclusion seeking a rationale...wow. But, if nothing else, I am reinforced ion my disposition to not giver shit on the subject. Period.
Ritmo said ...
I think he's just obsessed with me.
Uh, the only person obsessed with you is the one you shave with, or put make up on with, in the mirror.
Hunt Brown asked for a rational reason to deny gay marriage and there it is:
by their very nature, not designed to promote the birth of children who will be cared for by their biological parents, and which in fact share very few other characteristics of the usual institution.
That is really the reason why marriage is defined the way it is and not a refutation of gay marriage per se. Why was marriage prmoted as it was to begin with?Not to hurt gays.
But to promote the birth of children who will be cared for by their biological parents (and not by the state). It's a biological argument.
Gay marriages by and large have little to do with this question. But that is the logical basis by which society promotes marriage, not necessarily why people want to get married.
Hunt wrote:
es, JR, you can disenfranchise individuals. the legal issue regarding gay marriage is simply this: is being homosexual an indelible characteristic? is it like being left handed or blue eyed, black, latino, or any other characteristic that you cannot change, or is it a choice.
Some have argued that pedophilia is an indelible characteristic. i.e. not a choice. What would that mean for whether we should allow adult -children marriages.
My guess is, it wouldn't change your opinion about it.
We should be reminded of the health statistics among the gay community, when they ask more money for health, that they were worse than those for smokers.
I don't know about the U.S. statistics on gay health but I suppose this is universal.
The life of a homosexual male is reduced by up to 20 years and the life of smokers by 7 to 10 years, yet kids are told at school not to smoke.
Because of the these facts I believe a homosexual lifestyle should not be normalized by attributing marriage to it.
Hunt wrote:
there is a difference between a church marriage and a state sanctioned marriage. if your church doesn't want gay marriage they don't have to have gay marriage, but as to the state, it becomes a legal issue and not a belief issue.
But why not for all the other restrictions on marriage. All those restrictions are there because of social beliefs. You acknowledge that is the case for voting. We have a belief that we should set an arbitrary age for an informed electorate. Based on belief.
If you are invalidating belief as a reason to proscribe certain behavior how are you then saying it becomes a legal issue and not a belief issue?
Incest is wrong is a belief isssue. Saying kids are too young to vote or marry is a belief issue. As is saying that polygamists can't "marry". Those same bible thumpers also came up with the voting age remember.
Hunt Brown wrote:
if it is a choice then we as a people can enact laws against it. if it is not a choice then we as a society have to allow homosexuals the same rights and priveleges that we allow all member of our society and that includes marriage.
I don't know that I necessarily agree with this. I think many people who are serial killers probably have no choice in their actions. They are compulsive and act out on some unknown psychology that they can't turn off. And the question of why someone is the way they are whether its choice or not or nature or nurture can't be adequately addressed or answered
Also, kids cant choose to not be kids. Yet we have no problem telling them what they can and can't do.
Shouting Thomas: Ritmo the Retard, how stupid do you plan to get in this thread?
Ritmo: How hateful do you plan to get, Thomas? And again, is that supposed to convince anyone here that you're capable of being reasoned with?
Laws aren't just about emotionalism, there has to be reason to how they are decided. So maybe this isn't the thread for you.
You just proved our point. Didn't you say in your earlier posts that gays should be allowed to marry for reasons of love and commitment. Gays don't need a marriage certificate to be able to do that. The arguments for the protection of the institution of marriage go beyond love.
Actually there is little difference between church marriage and secular marriage, even though one is a belief issue and another is a legal issue.
Both are in the regard in how we value children/life, and that children have the right to be raised by their mother and father. While there are very much spiritual connections to sexuality/life, there are also very much clear objective obligations to the needs of children no matter if you are religious or not.
"Obligation is Objective" "Partrait of a Marriage" was written in the Howard Law Review and cites the New York Court of Appeals case in favor of heterosexual marriage, because it is reasonable to connect heterosexual activity to becoming a parent.
"“[t]he State could reasonably decide that by encouraging opposite-sex couples to marry, thereby assuming legal and financial obligations, the children born from such relationships will have better opportunities to be nurtured and raised by two parents within long-term, committed relationships, which society has traditionally viewed as advantageous for children.”65 "
Is it really that unreasonable to say we should create legal public policy to promote a mother and father raising children, and call the relationship its own name?
How is this unjust discrimination based on orientation, when marriage is based on physical behavior that has the logical presumption that a child can be born from the relationship.
Being a mom and dad are not social structures by some oppressive religion, they're organic biological ones. As a society we can foster them or ignore them. We have been ignoring them for some time. Free will is a bitch at times and we're paying the consequences in our community.
It wouldn't be outrageous or a statement of bigotry for the law to designate that the relationship between a mother and a father to benefit the stability and health for their children as a matter of public policy. This would be done with the legal kinship status of marriage. The term marriage would make the most sense, because almost all cultures and religions without the government public policy use this formation as a way to stabilize the needs of children.
Obama has always been a homophobe, unless he needed some votes.
I am far more comfortable and sympathetic with the idea of gay marriages than Islam or Mormon style polygamy. Too much abuse in polygamist marriages to support it.
I think the best compromise is that two adults can form a legally sanctioned romantic relationship and enjoy all the tax benefits. This also comports with the Western tradition of the two parent households, which is really what it takes to raise children properly.
This encourages even more people to support each other in the western tradition rather than single parents reliant on the dole.
I call it "The waters fine, come on into the pool" approach that respect individual rights, yet recognizes the importance of committed relationships between tow people that also encourages self reliance and the mutual support inherent in a binary romantic bond, as opposed to the promiscuous lifestyle that thrives in the underground gay culture and caused an epidemic that killed far too many people.
We should encourage gay people to join society as committed couples and help move them out of the promiscuous sex ghettos that arose as a response to earlier intolerance and into the mainstream of normal life.
Seen in the Dictionary of Abnormal Psychology under "Absence of Self-Awareness, Pathological": someone who replies to an accusation of "brutal malice" by saying something brutally malicious.
So you're saying that Thomas didn't describe his own actions as those constituting "brutal malice"? Because I thought he did. I mean, it was either that, or the "brutal self-pity" he said that the brutal malice is met with.
Ok, then he is brutally self-pitying. Glad to see you agree.
"So you're saying . . ." No, I'm not, as everyone who can read already knows. Why does Ritmo lie so often and so ineptly?
Even though I spoke out against gay marriag and the arguments most people use to promote gay marriage, I'm actually sympathetic to the idea of gay civil unions. They simply are not marriage, but if for whatever reason gays are denied the ability to see their loved ones in hospitals or whatever it is that they are denied, then society should find a way to allow for that. It's not marriage though.
Though, many of these can be handled by things like wills or streamlining the ability to provide people access to your health care who may not be in your family. (That would be helpful for single people too you know)
its, to a certain degree a difference in semantics. I wouldn't call it marriage though, but that doesn't mean gays couldn't have most of the rights that married couples have.
I am far more comfortable and sympathetic with the idea of gay marriages than Islam or Mormon style polygamy. Too much abuse in polygamist marriages to support it.
well what about the Big Love style polygamy we saw on HBO, that didn't seem that abusive.
You can also find plenty of abuse in traditional marriages, would that invalidate traditional marriage the same way?
Is this the first time a society has normalized evolutionary dysfunction by choice rather than as a matter of corruption which follows from a progressive degeneration in a decadent state?
Unfortunately, this is not limited to men and women who choose a homosexual behavior, but extends to men and women who are nominally heterosexual and seek protection of their degenerate behaviors. It's one thing to normalize evolutionary dysfunction. It's quite another to normalize the elective termination of a human life to preserve one's comfort.
This is how the Left manages its alliances. The common thread is dreams of material, physical, and ego instant gratification, typically through redistributive change, but historically through retributive change.
They are greedy bastards that respect neither human nor civil rights, and certainly not the inconvenient constraints imposed by the natural order, especially the subset described by evolutionary principles.
This particular agenda is more a condemnation of the supporting heterosexual majority, than the confused homosexual minority. The former rejects accountability for their actions when they seek alliance with the latter.
As for equal protection, these people have a selective concern for individual rights. Their record of civil and human rights violations, especially elective abortion of human life, but also denigration of individual dignity, undermines any legitimacy they may otherwise enjoy.
jr565:
And that's the point. It's possible to tolerate some dysfunctional behaviors, including homosexual, but there is no legitimate argument to normalize them.
In the case of homosexual behavior and similar biological dysfunction, it is possible to tolerate them, but since they degrade evolutionary fitness, it is in the best interest of society and humanity to reject their normalization.
It's not that complicated. Human beings have the ability to temporarily override the natural order, but they do not have the ability to escape the consequences of the corruption they embrace.
Unfortunately, as men and women in a decadent state become progressively concerned with enjoying material, physical and ego gratification, the feedback from nature which would normally temper their behavior is consciously ignored. They willfully reject evolutionary fitness in favor of indoctrination, and other leveraging schemes, in order to preserve their hedonistic lifestyle. While their co-conspirators negotiate an alliance, because they are all greedy bastards.
This behavior is not limited to the Left, but it is technically proscribed by the American form of conservatism.
Oh, well. There are many people who lack integrity or seek to exploit others through redistributive or retributive change schemes, and fraud with misrepresentation. While this is prevalent on the Left, it is exceptional on the Right, but both contribute to a progressively dysfunctional state.
It's amazing just how little modern civilization has promoted positive progress. Men and women still bow to their baser nature: a lust for material, physical, and ego gratification.
This is what happens when you give the government the power to define something it should have no part in. It works out for the politicians on both sides because it keeps the country divided and gives them control. We shouldn't be arguing about this. It is a stupid argument. I actually read most of these posts and feel dumber for it. So many straw men and worthless ad homonyms. At the very least this has no place at the federal level.
Please stop letting them control you like this and put the decisions on this where it belongs: with the individual and their consensual associations. If you conservatives can't get over this need to marginalize others and impose your will through government decree democrats will continue to win national elections. Please realize the only things that really matter are you and those you choose to associate with.
"So you're saying . . ." No, I'm not, as everyone who can read already knows. Why does Ritmo lie so often and so ineptly?
I can read, you dildo.
Thomas is referring to our back-and-forth actions as an exchange between being "brutally malicious" and "brutally self-pitying".
Anyone with a brain can see that he means to justify his own "brutal malice" by explaining that he finds it a proper response to one's alleged "brutal self-pity" - I suppose he means my own. "The kid has it coming", he says. This is how he justifies the same "brutal malice" that others urge him to drop. The "brutal malice" that he, himself, perpetuates.
Anyone with a brain can interpret what he meant by that.
You are either one dumb motherfucker or one mendacious one. Try truth and thought, for a change.
Someone who has been accused of 'brutal malice' should probably not reply by calling the accuser a 'dildo'. Only the brutally malicious are so stupid as to confirm an accusation in the very act of denying it.
Someone who derives pleasure from posting thousands of comments on someone else's site that give no pleasure to anyone else should probably not be calling anyone else a 'dildo' in any context - it looks like projection.
And someone who can't see beyond Shouting Thomas' poor choice of metaphor ('ping-ponging' was definitely not the mot juste for what he was describing) to realize that he was quite correctly imputing the alternating "brutal malice" and "brutal self-pity" to Ritmo probably shouldn't be calling someone else a "dumb motherfucker" - that also looks like projection.
Not that I expect any of this to deter Ritmo from his Oedipodean diddling. Only a normal human being would be so deterred.
After reading this thread some more, most of it pure drivel, I have just concluded that I want LBGT folks to have legal "marriage" in IRS terms, especially. You LOSE any potential Head of the Household status, and LOSE nearly or fully 50% of your marginal rate income threshold. A single taxpayer earning about $88K AGI will pay about $1750 more in taxes just for getting married.
There are club dues for being "married" and Uncle Sugar tits collects them. He also discourages benefits, like health care come 2014+...do you seriously expect employers to pay $20K for married coverage versus a $2K penalty?
Step right up now, ya'heah!
We already allow men to have as many wives as they can afford, but they have to have them one at a time. The problem I have with polygamy, is that many of the extra wives apply for benefits as single mothers. I have paid for all of my wives and I think polygamists should pay for all of theirs.
n.n.
I've been reading this article.
http://m.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/02/the-power-of-choosing-resilience/273245/
This is something that has bothered me as teen/college student. As my friends were more open with their homosexuality, the more the subculture sucked them in. As if to make them a little paranoid, that everyone was a bully. For instance the Catholic Church hates gays, despite clear evidence it does not.
As with the marriage issue, if I do not agree with gay marriage I somehow become that jerk in high school who ridicule 'the sissy'.
At the time I knew older gay individuals, who are now close to be elderly. Despite dealing with years of no legal protection, they were/are more comfortable with themselves.
"Sarah Goode, honorary research fellow at the University of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological studies on paedophilia in society, says the best current estimate – based on possibly flawed science – is that "one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children"."
Define children for me in this, or any other nonsense study that says something like this. there are a helluva lot of 16 year old girls out there who physically could pass for 18 or older. And a smaller but significant percentage of 14 year old girls who could. It's not until you talk to them that you realize you're dealing with someone perhaps a bit younger then you thought.
A century and a half ago, those 16 year olds would be married and bearing kids. Today, they are jailbait.
Yes, I can be aroused by any female of any age who looks like she's 18 or older. But if I know they're jailbait, I'm civilized enough to keep my distance. Of course, I'm also married, and keep my distance from any woman I'm not married to... Makes for a safe and happy marriage.
Post a Comment