Feel free to show how two consenting adults being married is as harmful as letting a 12 year old behind the wheel.
Don’t have to - the fact is that both are areas of public concern that are addressed through very public law. And this isn’t limited to homosexuality, either. Divorce laws have been a subject of considerable debate over the years and have changed in most states many times. Certain heterosexuals are restricted from marrying - close blood relatives come to mind. As noted above, too, current marriage law precludes multiple marriage - there are obviously people in our society that regard this limitation as an unnecessary intrusion on their personal liberty.
So for someone to state on a message board that this particular law is interfering in a solely private matter - well, that’s just flat out wrong. This matter has never been solely private, and we all know it.
And yet there are viable reasons for all these laws that intrude on private lives. Age restrictions are usually due to the immaturity of the individual and complexity or danger of the task. Incest restrictions are due to the harm that can be caused to the offspring.
Where’s the harm that comes from two consenting, adult gay people marrying? All I hear is religious and linguistic excuses. The first one has no business being made policy without better backing than the Bible alone, and the second one, magellan’s favorite, is just so much bullshit that flatly ignores years of linguistic study and the history of the word marriage itself.
Show the harm. Who does it hurt?
I’m not saying there is harm - or good. I’m saying it isn’t a private matter - because marriage isn’t private. Indeed, it is tied up with the state with a massive amount of laws, obligations, and benefits.
Actually, you do. If you feel the need to restrict someones behavior, public or private, you have to show that the restriction is necessary. That’s what freedom is all about. Tell us how anyone, anywhere in the world is hurt by SSM, and you’ll have (at least a little) justification for taking away the freedom for these people to get married.
Why 12-year-old? Why not a 4-year old? :rolleyes:
And that is not what is being discussed here.
My god you’re stupid. Yes, it is. You pointed out those laws and asked why we couldn’t discriminate against gays the same way. I pointed out why.
Show the harm, you bigoted fuck.
Certainly, they have that right. The most fundamental right in our society is the right to shape the laws of our country through free and open elections. This is the definition of a democratic society, after all. Provided sufficient numbers of our population can be convinced to go along with it, we have the right to determine who can be married, who can serve in the military, who can run for office, who can vote, who can own property, who can be property, who gets to live, and who gets to die. Californians were certainly within their rights when they decided to write anti-gay bigotry into our state constitution. And under the same laws that gave them the right to treat us as second-class citizens, we have the right to know who gave money to that campaign, we have the right to publicize that information, and we have the right to tell those people what we think of them. We are, all of us, acting within our rights in this debate. Do you expect any more from us than that? Respect, perhaps, or kindness, or fair play? Sorry, I don’t see those rights written down anywhere. They certainly weren’t on display when Proposition 8 was running its campaign of lies and slander against us. It seems odd to expect them to show up now, all of a sudden.
You have consistently argued on these boards that I do not deserve the same rights you enjoy under the law in this nation. Why on Earth should I give a damn what you think of my principles?
Suck my ass. Then pay me.
Man, you got yourself some powerful dumb. You jump on something with some point you think is Oh-So-Smart. But guess what, it ain’t. And you ain’t. You’re mind has limitations. You can’t follow an argument. I’ve seen this with you time and again. So, I’ll restrict my discussion to those where the chasm that separates is due to position rather than intellect.
You’re just not very bright. You’re not as smart as you think you are. Truly. It might be hard to accept, but the quicker you do the quicker you can find some kind of road for yourself in this life. In the meantime, do me and the world a favor, take a trip to Haiti. But leave the condoms home.
You were doing fine until you, in essence, begged the question byt characterizing those on the other side as bigots. But let’s move on…
Is the question about what is legal, or what should be legal? The first one is easy, just look at the law. In these discussions I’ve been focusing on the second one. Let’s continue…
In this debate there are always going to be arguments from either side that the other side feels is bullshit. This was no different. But that is not the issue, is it. the issue is what you, Miller, think should be done. What is wise. What is fair. Can you not separate what you think the outcome should be from the tactics used to bring them about. You seem to draw a line where the law happens to be. That as long as no laws are broken, all is fair game. Is that right? 'Cause that what I’m getting. Are you really comfortable with that metric? Do you commonly subvert your own principles right/wrong, fairness, to what the law happens to be at a particular moment in time? During my time on these boards, that’s not the impression I’ve had of you.
Now this is just a flat-out wrong. I have consistently been of the opinion that you should enjoy the same legal rights, but that you should not share the term marriage. So all those right’s you want, I’m with you. I simply don’t see you as having a “right” to fuck with that language, ignore centuries of tradition, and insist that I have to allow you to make a fundamental change to society that I, and others, don’t feel is in our best long-term interest. But we’ve discussed all this. What we’re talking about now is you and the degree to which you are allowing your larger principles to fall by the wayside in order to get your way with one particular argument. You certainly have no obligation to give a damn about what I think of your principles. Except, possibly, to the degree that I might be correct in pointing out that you are throwing your own out the window. Even then, feel free to ignore. But it changes the impression as to who you’ve portrayed yourself to be on these boards. I’m sad to see that. While we’ve disagreed on quite a few subjects, I’ve always thought rather highly your intellect and considered you a highly principled guy.
Just to clarify: the point of this particular debate is not the rightness or wrongness of SSM. It is about a particular tactic being employed in the fight. Do you not see that the Miller involved in this thread is unlike the Miller that has posted so often before? Seriously.
How will I live without the approval of such a small mind? I may cry.
You seem to be confused why people would be uncivil when their civil rights are denied them. You vote in favor of Prop 8, or at least support it, and then appear to expect those whose lives have been affected by that vote to treat the issue as academically as you do. And you call me stupid.
Look, there is a fundamental issue here whicih you guys are NEVER going to agree on, so why bother. The issue is: Does approving on legal restrictions of SSM make you a de facto bigot. Personally, yes, I think so. Clearly others do not believe this, and I think they honestly don’t believe it, but I wil judge them as being bigots.
You should probably learn what phrases like, “begging the question” actually mean before you throw them around in casual conversation. Because the bit you quoted up there is not an example of begging the question. You can tell, because the question I’m answering isn’t, “Are these people bigots?” it’s “Do these people have the right to create this law?” The fact that they are bigots has nothing to do with the answer to the second question, so my characterization of them as such is not “begging the question.”
Fairness? Here’s what I think is fair. You mind your business, and I’ll mind my business. That’s fair. Right and wrong? Right is you don’t hurt other people for no reason. Wrong is deliberatly causing other people pain for the hell of it. You want a principle? How about, “All men are created equal?” There’s a pretty good principle for you. But there’s one other thing I believe in: if someone is going to fuck me over, then I’m going to fuck them over right back. And you have royally fucked me over, magellan, you and seven million other Californians.
magellan, YOU ARE A BIGOT. You are perhaps the least objectionable bigot I’ve ever met, but you cannot vote against gay marriage and not be a bigot. The two positions are mutually exclusive. You may, in private, continue in your self-delusion that you really don’t have anything against gay folks, but please stop trying to peddle it on the boards. I’m no longer interested in hearing it.
The most important principle in my life is the ideal that everyone deserves the same rights and protections under the law. There are no more important principles than this. I do, naturally enough, have other principles, subordinate principles, and if it comes to the point where those principles are in conflict with the greater principle, then obviously, something’s going to have to give. But in all honesty, I do not see that happening in this thread. If you can point out where in this thread I’ve argued against a previously espoused principle, I’d be interested to see it.
Sigh. The primary question goes to whether or not those people are bigots. You MUST believe them to be because you have too much invested in it. If they are not, well there goes a big part of your argument down the toilet. So the question of whether or not a SSm opponent is necessarily a bigot is glazed over nice and smooth. Ho conveeeeeenient.
Oh, so whatever anyone wants to do is fine, right? Please. You sound just like some polygamist holed up in some compound. Please, you’ve already brought your moral compass into question, must you do the same with your intellect?
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Bigot, blah, blah, blah. We differ on that, don’t we? And haven’t you noticed. And you put it in caps, why? To try to cause me a little pain. Save your fingers the effort. Miller, the more you type stupidity like this, the more I simply discount anything you have to say. And I’ll share my views it where and when I want. And guess what you ain’t gonna do a fucking thing about it. Except maybe wind yourself up more and lose even more respect. I find it cute that you’re SO threatened that someone who might disagree with you on SSM might NOT be a bigot. And I think it’s hilarious, and sad, that this is your unravelling. maybe you’re not cut out for this gay thing after all. Or maybe you have some affliction degrading you brain. You should get it checked out.
Oh, nice cover. Weaselly, but nice. Some of those synapses are still firing, I see. What I had said was that the person you have portrayed your self as being, the type of person, is in direct and irreconcilable contradiction with your portrait you’ve painted of yourself through your posts. That person was smart, fair, a consistent thinker. This new person, or should I say the person you turn into when you adopt this gay persecution complex persona, not so much. In fact, not at all. That person appeared to have a sense of right and wrong, beyond whatever short-term benefit be gained. But now we have the new " if someone is going to fuck me over, then I’m going to fuck them over right back", ends-justifies-the-means schmuck. I find it hard that you even believe that shit you’ve been spewing in this thread. Maybe you should read it over.
You admitted once that you couldn’t be objective on the SSM issue. I submit to you that your lack of objectivity is causing you to derail. and just to clarify again, the issue here is not SSm itself, it’s the tactics that should be allowed in that pursuance.
As a point of contrast, the most important thing to me as that I act in a manner that is moral and principled. So you go right ahead trying to fix every injustice you see willy-nilly, doing whatever it takes. I’ll be guided by principle. And we’ll see who sleeps better each night.
Also, there’s no apostrophe in “rights”.
Someone who professes such concern for the sanctity of the language should take more care with it, magellan.
Oh yeah, and this. Your insistence otherwise was almost cute for a while, but now it’s tiresome going on tragic.
Thank you for you valuable contribution. I’ll be sure to file it in the appropriate drawer.
Actually, yes. The central tenet to my sense of ethics is that people should be free to do what they want, provided it doesn’t harm anyone else. Where needs are in direct conflict, then the ethical path to take is the one that generates the least amount of harm. This has been my worldview… oh, going on fifteen years now, at least.
I’m not threatened by the possibility that you might not be a bigot. I’m threatened by the fact that you cavalierly voted to deprive me of my rights for, as I’ve said before, the stupidest reason imaginable. Hell, I’m not just threatened by you, I’m fucking terrified by you. Your mind works in a manner that is utterly incomprehensible to me. You do not function by any sort of logic that I can remotely understand. I have literally no idea how you’ll react from one moment to the next. You say today that you think gays should have most rights that straights have, but what about tomorrow? You may very well decide we should be put in camps, because yellow is a color that does not appear on stop signs.
The fact that people like you have the power to determine what rights I may or may not enjoy in this society is the scariest fucking thing I’ve heard in my entire life.
You rewrote our state constitution to specifically discriminate against people like me. I think a bit of a persecution complex is warranted, don’t you?
That aside, I appreciate your total nonspecificity in how what I’m saying now differs from what I’ve said in the past. Good to see you holding true to form. If you suddenly started bringing up concrete facts in one of these discussions, I don’t know how I’d react.
And I’ll point out again that, when these tactics were first employed against marriage supporters, I didn’t complain. Why, then, should I object when they’re used by marriage supporters?
And everything I have argued in this thread is consistent with my moral and ethical principles. If you disagree, I again invite you to demonstrate where I have lapsed.
This is a perfect way to deal with what I’ve been trying to point out to you. You should have complained, and would have been right to, because it was wrong. Do you really think that just because one side does something that the other side is then absolved from any moral responsibility for doing the same thing back? Would you think it okay if blacks started to enslave whites and treat them as chattel? Tit for tat, right? Do you think that if someone kills a family member of mine, that I should be able to kill them? If I recall correctly, you are against even the state doing the killing, is that right?
Let me ask you this, if you were in a court case, and someone on the other side was on the stand and lied, when it became you’re turn to testify under oath, would you lie, too?
I’ll leave it there and see how you answer, particuarly the last item.
See, the difference between all of your examples, and the subject of the OP, is that the things you’re talking about are objectively wrong. There’s nothing wrong with criticizing someone for holding a particular viewpoint. There’s nothing wrong with refusing to do business with someone you find morally repugnant. There’s nothing wrong with telling other people they shouldn’t do business with them, either. None of these are immoral acts. They have never been immoral acts. And they do not suddenly become immoral acts simply because advances in technology make them easier to carry out.
On the subject of retribution in general, I think I should clarify my earlier remarks. I think that civility and morality are separate concepts. If I call you an asshole, I’m being uncivil, but I am not being immoral. They are related, in a general fashion, in that being uncivil without cause is slightly immoral. However, I don’t believe that one is required to remain civil in the face of deliberate insult. You’ve provided an excellent example of this principle in action in your response to Bosstone a few posts back. If someone insults you, you insult them right back. A perfectly moral, ethical response, no?
Well, the passage of Proposition 8 was a giant Fuck You to the gay community. Therefore, I do not believe that the gay community is under any obligation to be civil to people who supported Proposition 8. They are, of course, required to obey the laws regarding property, assault, and harrasment. Boycotting a business because it’s owner gave money to Prop. 8 is uncivil. It’s not nice. But it is an appropriate and proportionate response to the passage of this law. The people who defaced churches, or sent death threats, or physically assaulted Prop. 8 supporters should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, the danger of someone using the list of Prop. 8 donors to commit crimes is minor enough that it does not justify the removal of this list from the public domain, as there remain legitimate uses for such information.
From the linked article
. . . But doesn’t think she should have the rights which he enjoys.
Nice.