Stop making me cringe!
Heh, just kidding.
*Booga booga booga!
*
I think what Hamlet is saying (and in any event what I believe) is that practically speaking, the only thing that’s going to allow us to distinguish between those two scenarios – court indulges its imagination vs. court demands satisfaction – is whether the court ends up finding a rational basis or not.
Say a state passes a law banning dog ownership. A court might say to itself, well, the state hasn’t officially provided any rational relationship to any legitimate interest here, so we better see if we can think of one. If the court can think of one, presumably, it says so – “the state’s interest could be public safety, and this is rationally related because X, Y, Z.” But if the court attempts to indulge its imagination and still fails to come up with anything, what’s it going to say? “We can think of no rational basis for this law, and the state has failed to provide one.” The teeth show up in the failure of the state to articulate a reason, but only when the court’s imagination isn’t up to the task of rescuing the legislature. It would be very difficult for a court to express a rational basis analysis that strikes down a law without sounding like it’s using teeth.
Well, assuming this thread is winding down with still no answer to the question “Why should we ban SSM?” (phrasing chosen to omit words like “reason”) I look forward to the next round.
The question has been answered here (in part) and elsewhere. I think you meant to type, “I’m unconvinced by the reasons offered.” In which case, we’re in the same boat, so to speak. Maybe similar boats. Passing in opposite directions.
Also I guess that we’re both equally shocked that a thread entitled “Fuck You, Prop 8 Supporters! Also: Fuck You, Dishonest News Media” wouldn’t spark a meaningful discussion.
Not really. Transparently false or outright stupid reasons don’t count. When people ask a question like “Why should we ban SSM”, they are asking for a good reason; one can find a stupid reason to justify anything, after all.
Can’t imagine why hummaseckshuls & their supporters wouldn’t be eager to continue the “meaningful discussion” after the olive branch of Prop 8 was so generously extended to them.
“Hey, let’s have a dialogue about the rights we stripped from you! What? Aw, don’t pout…”
Bullshit answers aren’t adequate answers.
I’m not even a little shocked since despite the title, I think a meaningful discussion did indeed occur. It helped reinforce my suspicion of anti-SSM arguments since despite claims that it should obviously be banned, that the reasoning is solid, that anyone over thirty (my personal favourite claim in this thread) show know the reasons already… I still don’t see why a ban is necessary or desirable or even useful.
Since I’m not particularly pro-homosexual (i.e. I would seek laws favouring homosexuals even if it hurt society in general, or something akin to Affirmative Action for them), I have to figure if you can’t convince me, then your reasons just aren’t that good. Of course, every year that passes since Canada legalized SSM without the resulting social disaster you and others have darkly and vaguely hinted at merely makes it harder for you. By the ten year mark (circa 2015), American objections will seem silly and outdated, like warnings about killer bees.
Ha. I’m not the one whining about not having a discussion. I’m glad to not have the discussion—precisely because of buffoonish comments just like these two. You dopes, and not just you two, fail to see that your reasons are equally insufficient to sway me to your side. Yet, for some reason, I don’t feel the need to disparage those reasons. You two have small, closed minds. You two are two dopes in a pod. The unfortunate thing is that that pod houses much more than you two. So, enjoy your loud and proud, self-important scribbles. I’m sure the many inhabitants in the echo chamber will cheer in chorus. But your reasons have been offered and been found wanting. And, dummy and dummette, the burden is on your side. You want to undo 10,000+ years of plain, common sense that aligns with the natural world, you must bring more than the weak arguments, rants, and whines you’ve served up so far.
You fail to realize that, frankly, we don’t want you on our side, because you and the people like you are little drama queens who want to make the whole marriage equality issue all about you and your beliefs and needs. I have neither time nor inclination to mollycoddle you and hold your hand while you gradually shed the illusion that my rights will somehow destroy Western Civilization.
Ah, you mean those 10,000+ years when marriage consisted of a man and his multiple wives, or a man and his wife and his teenage male lover, or a man and his wife and his mistresses? (And for “wife”, read "chattel whose only real purpose was twofold: to create heirs in the man’s name and to transfer some amount of property from her family to his)
Those 10,000+ years, the vast majority of which did not feature the nuclear family that the anti-equality folks worship so fervently?
Those 10,000+ years of gradually-changing definitions of “marriage”?
Those 10,000+ years?
Is it your opinion that everybody’s common sense is the same in this regard?
Alignment with the natural world seems like a poor argument to me, sitting here on my synthetic material chair typing away at my magical box. Generally, we see pretty fit to augment the natural with abandon. Really, free will pretty much ruins much of what might be our “natural” lifestyles; I can’t speak for you, but as a short-sighted guy who had several fun birth defects beyond that I can’t really speak much for the whole “being left to die/being entirely noncompetitive” business.
You’re not going to get anywhere with this argument. The guy’s entire study of the history of family relationships from either a sociological or a legal perspective apparently consists of watching Leave it To Beaver episodes.
And the reasoning coming from you fails to convince me. But I’m secure enough to not have to jump from there to disparage the reasons themselves, certainly not with a blanket indictment. But you, yes you in particular, along with a few others, have no such calming confidence. I guess I can’t blame you, given that you’re trying to convince the world that up is down.
Yes, those 10,000 years when people were aware that there is a special bond that can happen between a man and a woman that cannot happen between two men or women.
Yes, those same 10,000 years in which there were times that homosexuality and homosexual acts were accepted as part of some humans’ existence and allowances were made for it, yet it was understood that it was unlike—not equal or equivalent to—the bond that can exist between a man and a woman, and not, absurdly, elevated to the same status.
Yeah, those 10,000 years. Because as much marriage over the ages might have had aspects that were less than ideal, they all consisted of man + woman.
You say this with the confident air of someone who is quite familiar with my stance on SS relationships. Yet, the actual content implies you’re talking out of your ass.
Unfortunately for you, it’s content that counts.
No, just that the collective common sense/wisdom of the ages has held the same view. Even during times when homosexuality was accepted.
As far as the rest of your post, I’m surprised you wrote it, Rev, as I’m fairly sure that you know what an excluded middle is.
Thankyou for this.
It encapsulates perfectly the backwards-looking, superstitious worldview that informs your opinions on same-sex marriage. It’s good to know that you have no actual rational basis for your opposition, and that your ideas are rooted in the simplistic and ultimately untenable notion that things should be like this because they’ve always been like this.
This is all very reassuring, because while those who oppose change on the basis of hidebound social conservatism can often delay it, history suggests that time is on the side of the rational.
Could you define “collective” common sense? Do you mean a majority?
So do you, I would have thought. So why the claim simply of alignment with the natural world being something to keep? There’s stuff that’s useful or helpful, and stuff that isn’t. That something is natural is in and of itself neutral.
No, I’m not talking out of my ass. I remember one of those big long threads when I pointed out to you the fact that the legal rules surrounding marriage change frequently. Your response was something along the lines of “as if they change that often.” I’ve got a fucking 500 page book here detailing all the legal changes to marriage in California since statehood, and that’s just a 161 year period.
You’re a fucking ignorant moron who doesn’t know jack shit about marriage and it’s historical evolution.
Heck, the pro-SSM crowd doesn’t need to convert magellan. I figure time itself will do that or, more accurately, people who share magellan’s opinion will die off faster than people who don’t.
I suppose one could modify the question to: “Given that SSM is inevitable, why should we impede it?”