You are here

Log in or register to post comments
BillB
BillB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: Aug 15 2007 - 2:04pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
.. God(he, she, it or whatever) has never, and will never be a part of the natural world. God was not created, but has always been. The Arrogance of some atheists is appalling.

that Dawkins book is pure shlock.. my 6 year old nephew with autism could provide a more compelling argument.

Sounds like you haven't read it.

If, as you say, God isn't part of the natural world, then we can ignore him/it, right? And if God isn't part of the natural world, then he/it clearly isn't omnipresent. That does still leave some room for a belief in a limited and/or irrelevant god...

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Everything is but a dream within which existence is experienced. There is no provable reality outside the images that dance in our heads. To deny, embrace or ignore this is irrelevant. It simply is.


We collectively got over this little fallacy hundreds of years ago.


Really? Enlighten me, please.

Big question. Little box in which to type.

The philosophy of knowledge is epistemology. It addresses questions such as what can we know and how do we know.

No one knows who first asked these questions and tried to answer them in a rigorous way, but the answers have been recorded since at least Plato.

Descartes, for one, specifically asked the question you pose, Can we know reality from a dream?" For example, if we dream of waking up are we not simply inhabiting an infinite regress?

His answer and further information on arguments from illusion and deception, ordinary doubt, philosophical doubt, a priori knowledge, a posteriori knowledge, theories of perception, etc. are readily available on line if you do a tiny bit of digging.

Wikipedia's page on Epistemology is better than I expected as a very quick, superficial introduction.

Please don't ask the "if a tree falls in the forest . . ." or the "squirrel around the tree" question.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

I tried going to Wikipedia to cherck something you mentioned, and in the first time incriment, my computer got half way there.

In the next time interval, it covered half of the remaining distance.

In the next time interval, it traveled the half of the remaining distance.

But now, it seems no matter how close I get to Wikipedia, I never manage to cover more than half the remaining distance.

Now, here I am an hour later, still not all the way to Wikipedia.

linden518
linden518's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2007 - 5:34am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
To steal from Madonna, I can sum it up for you...

Some boys are idealists, some boys dualists

I think they're o.k.

If they dont give me proper insights

I just walk away

They can argue and they can plead

But they can't see the light, thats right

'cause the boy with the cold hard reality

Is always mister right, cause we are

Living in a material world

And I am a noumenal girl

You know that we are living in a noumenal world

And I am a material girl...

Or something like that.

*(Obtuse joke disclaimer)


LOL! Kant would hate your song.

scottgardner
scottgardner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Apr 11 2008 - 11:35pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Everything is but a dream within which existence is experienced. There is no provable reality outside the images that dance in our heads. To deny, embrace or ignore this is irrelevant. It simply is.


We collectively got over this little fallacy hundreds of years ago.


Really? Enlighten me, please.

Big question. Little box in which to type.

The philosophy of knowledge is epistemology. It addresses questions such as what can we know and how do we know.

No one knows who first asked these questions and tried to answer them in a rigorous way, but the answers have been recorded since at least Plato.

Descartes, for one, specifically asked the question you pose, Can we know reality from a dream?" For example, if we dream of waking up are we not simply inhabiting an infinite regress?

His answer and further information on arguments from illusion and deception, ordinary doubt, philosophical doubt, a priori knowledge, a posteriori knowledge, theories of perception, etc. are readily available on line if you do a tiny bit of digging.

Wikipedia's page on Epistemology is better than I expected as a very quick, superficial introduction.

Please don't ask the "if a tree falls in the forest . . ." or the "squirrel around the tree" question.

The box is getting smaller...

The question is not about whether something is knowable or not. The question is; can knowledge exist without the framework its composed of. Not: "if a tree falls in the forest...", instead; is sound still sound without ears.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
The question is; can knowledge exist without the framework its composed of.

Kind of.

(Obtuse dasein joke.)

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Please don't ask the "if a tree falls in the forest . . ." or the "squirrel around the tree" question.


Quote:
The question is not about whether something is knowable or not. The question is; can knowledge exist without the framework its composed of. Not: "if a tree falls in the forest...", instead; is sound still sound without ears.

ARGH!

He's asking it.

I asked him not to. Nicely.

<headslap>

The Damn Tree Question

Note the nice picture captioned "A tree in the forest"

And leave the squirrel alone.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Kind of.

(Obtuse dasein joke.)

Evil.

Just evil.

scottgardner
scottgardner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Apr 11 2008 - 11:35pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
Please don't ask the "if a tree falls in the forest . . ." or the "squirrel around the tree" question.


Quote:
The question is not about whether something is knowable or not. The question is; can knowledge exist without the framework its composed of. Not: "if a tree falls in the forest...", instead; is sound still sound without ears.

ARGH!

He's asking it.

I asked him not to. Nicely.

<headslap>

The Damn Tree Question

Note the nice picture captioned "A tree in the forest"

And leave the squirrel alone.

The tree argument presupposes that trees exist.

Let me try a different angle:

Imagine a world where blardg is a normal phenomenon and it is perceived by those who possess blardgegs. We can now argue whether or not blardg exists outside of the presence of blardgegs. We can even ponder the experiential reality of those who possess blardgegs.

Now remove the imagination.

Where does that leave the arguments?

Neither blardg nor blardgegs existed before now and they still don

JasonVSerinus
JasonVSerinus's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: Apr 10 2006 - 11:22am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
I believe that Jason and I should be entitled to the same constitutional freedoms and I believe that things which run contrary to the tenets of our society
rvance
rvance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 8 2007 - 9:58am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
The question is; can knowledge exist without the framework its composed of.

Kind of.

(Obtuse dasein joke.)


Thanks Buddha- such great memories of Catholic High School in '69 & '70- reading Reason and Existenz by Jaspers and The Broken Image by Matson. Then bending my perception a little with the help of Leary and Kerouac, Zappa and Traffic, just for starters.

It brought me back to that place when I was 3 or 4 years old, watering the backyard with dancing butterflies and bee- laden flowers in the warm southern California sun. I was struck with a lightning bolt of self-realization- and literally saw the infinite. I dropped the hose, laid down on my back and watched the clouds spin overhead in a blue sky. I grabbed the grass between my fingers, but I could barely hold on to the earth. I've been trying to get back to that glimpse of God ever since.

linden518
linden518's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Dec 12 2007 - 5:34am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Imagine a world where blardg is a normal phenomenon and it is perceived by those who possess blardgegs. We can now argue whether or not blardg exists outside of the presence of blardgegs. We can even ponder the experiential reality of those who possess blardgegs.

Now remove the imagination.

Where does that leave the arguments?

Neither blardg nor blardgegs existed before now and they still don

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
It is not pap Buddha.
Rather than go into this I refer you to Camus, Myth of sissyphus.

The only stance that doesn't require some level of belief is agnosticism.
I think you are letting your emotions get in the way of rational thought.

I think it really boils down to how "atheism" is defined:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

What is a newborn child; atheist, agnostic, theist or gnostic?

Yes, and thank you for that link.
I was using atheism in the more narrow sense.

I would argue that the rejection of theism is an agnostic stance.
To be intellectually consistent one would also reject atheism since neither view can be rationally or scientifically proven. If one is rejecting theism based on our inability to prove a theistic existence.

So, buddha in our perception of reality we might be quite similar.
I "assume" or "suspect" there is no deity but I am unprepared to state that as fact.
But , in quotidian life, one could easily assume I am an atheist.

Catholics have a saying that there is no such thing as an ex catholic , there are only lapsed catholics. I am determined to disprove that on my death bed. :-)

It won't be: "I don't know"

It will be: "I don't give a shit"

scottgardner
scottgardner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Apr 11 2008 - 11:35pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
Imagine a world where blardg is a normal phenomenon and it is perceived by those who possess blardgegs. We can now argue whether or not blardg exists outside of the presence of blardgegs. We can even ponder the experiential reality of those who possess blardgegs.

Now remove the imagination.

Where does that leave the arguments?

Neither blardg nor blardgegs existed before now and they still don

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

I wonder what would happen if you took the red pill AND the blue pill.

Could you be blissfully unaware while fully knowing?

Sounds like a recipe for mother's little helper!

Anyway, Jason, what happened with Prop 8 is actually pretty terrific, in the long haul.

How would Prop 8 have scored in 1970?

Heck, back then, gay people would have voted for it just to make sure they stayed closeted - even in a secret ballot!

Now, almost 50% of people are cool with gay marriage. Dude, that is P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S!

In 1960, black people couldn't own property in Diane Feinsteins CC&R contract.

Interracial marriage was illegal in many states.

Heck, what people did in their bedrooms was legislated!

Black people were systematically denied the right to vote and it took the National Guard to get them to class in college.

Now, things are going so well, black people can actually vote to repress gay marriage. Go figure.

In 1960, a civil union would not have been recognized.

The mayor of San Francisco would certainly not officiate a gay wedding ceremony.

State Supreme Courts would not even consider the issue, let alone vote in favor!

I know, "You've come a long way, baby" may not be encouraging right now, but from my point of view, the world is a much better place than it was only a short time ago.

The day will come when people will chill out further and the glorious era of gay divorce will dawn. (Don't laugh, now. One of my employees is going through the meanest lesbian divorce, ever. Welcome to equality!)

You know the beauty of it, deep down?

It's not that people are charged up about gay marriage, they are becoming bored with the idea. (I mean that in a good way.)

Many people are apathetic. That's the most important part, apathy. Apathy is a friend of change. When a 'radical' idea becomes mundane - - - victory!

More and more people don't care. That's the real victory - people don't give a shit.

Can you believe it? Almost half the voters don't care if gay people get married.

What's better than a strong proponent of gay marriage? Yup, someone who just doesn't care if same sex couples get married.

Beautiful.

So, Jason, I wish you much future apathy from society!

(Hope that made sense, it's Mojito night while I sit in a strange land and listen to "Too Long in Exile" over and over and over.)

scottgardner
scottgardner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Apr 11 2008 - 11:35pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
I wonder what would happen if you took the red pill AND the blue pill.

Could you be blissfully unaware while fully knowing?

Sounds like a recipe for mother's little helper!

"I want a drug that encompasses it *all.* We'll call it "Fukitol." ... "I don't feel anything. I don't care for anything. Fukitol. The closest thing you'll ever be to being in a coma: Fukitol. I'm sitting here in my own dung. Fukitol."
-- Robin Williams

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

rvance
rvance's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: Sep 8 2007 - 9:58am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Many people are apathetic. That's the most important part, apathy. Apathy is a friend of change. When a 'radical' idea becomes mundane - - - victory!

I prefer hatred to apathy.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
OK to see if you're paying attention here is a riddle: Imagine you're in a box with no doors, no windows and no seams of any kind. How do you get out?

I apologize for engaging you. I honestly hoped you would simply do some research. These perceptual issues have been debated for centuries. There is more than enough out there to keep you busy for a lifetime.


Quote:
(no animals were harmed in the making of this post)


Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Jason, I think Buddha is correct. The wheels are in motion and will continue turning. As a country we are not quite ready, but we're close.

I am continually amazed how even the most bigoted often change to accept upon exposure to good people who happen to be gay.

JasonVSerinus
JasonVSerinus's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 3 months ago
Joined: Apr 10 2006 - 11:22am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Jason, I think Buddha is correct. The wheels are in motion and will continue turning. As a country we are not quite ready, but we're close.

I am continually amazed how even the most bigoted often change to accept upon exposure to good people who happen to be gay.

Appreciation to both you and Buddha for your kind words. There are heartening truths in what you speak. The other truth is that this is the first time in the 43 years I've spent working for civil rights that a right I had been granted that should have been mine in the first place has been taken away.

Muchas gracias,
jason

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
...this is the first time in the 43 years I've spent working for civil rights that a right I had been granted that should have been mine in the first place has been taken away.

Maybe someone is already taking action on this, Jason, but a literal reading of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution suggests that Prop 8 would fail in the US Supreme Court: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
...this is the first time in the 43 years I've spent working for civil rights that a right I had been granted that should have been mine in the first place has been taken away.

Maybe someone is already taking action on this, Jason, but a literal reading of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution suggests that Prop 8 would fail in the US Supreme Court: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

Maybe it's time I go out and get me some of that there polygamy.

I asked my wife.

She said, "OK, but only if it's Liz Phair, Tina Fey, Charlize, Bebe Neuwirth, Cokie Roberts (I love Cokie,) or Emmylou Harris."

So, I'm golden! As soon as I can get them all on board, it's smooth sailin' for me.

Anyways....

I look at all this ruckus about gay marriage as just filling in the area under the bell curve. We are arguing about rights for normal people.

If we figure gay marriage potentially applying to, say, 10% of the population, that's well within the bell curve of adult decision making and should be readily accommodated.

In fact, I think there are more gay people in this country than there are atheists, yet I am allowed to marry.

Go figure.

As a further aside, I have no idea why gay people would want to latch on to such a degenerate institution. Heteros have dragged 'marriage' into the dirt with a 50% failure rate, rampant unfaihtfulness, etc...which is all fully legal, protected, and condoned, by the way.

I'd say y'all can do better than 'marriage.'

Grab a new word and then go outperform straight people at upholding the real meaning of the institution. That would teach 'em.

scottgardner
scottgardner's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Apr 11 2008 - 11:35pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Quote:
OK to see if you're paying attention here is a riddle: Imagine you're in a box with no doors, no windows and no seams of any kind. How do you get out?

I apologize for engaging you. I honestly hoped you would simply do some research. These perceptual issues have been debated for centuries. There is more than enough out there to keep you busy for a lifetime.


Quote:
(no animals were harmed in the making of this post)


No worries m8. No apology necessary. I enjoy a good engagement.

I would like to add, though, that I don

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
The other truth is that this is the first time in the 43 years I've spent working for civil rights that a right I had been granted that should have been mine in the first place has been taken away.


This must not only hurt, it must be a bit terrifying.

JA is on target. Gloria Allred and others have already filed cases, partially on equal protection grounds. The difficulty however is that being gay is not a protected class under the US Constitution - at least not yet. This is going to be a tough argument.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
I would like to add, though, that I don
judicata
judicata's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 26 2008 - 11:55am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:

Maybe someone is already taking action on this, Jason, but a literal reading of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution suggests that Prop 8 would fail in the US Supreme Court: "...No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

There are teams of lawyers that have been looking into that for years. The fact is that sexual orientation, as the law stands right now, is not a "suspect class" (like race) under the U.S. Constitution, although it is a suspect class under some State constitutions. Therefore, such laws will be reviewed under a "rational basis" test. When the rational basis test applies, governments are given a LOT of leeway and courts almost always (but not all the time) uphold laws when applying the test. The rational basis test makes good sense on many levels -- otherwise you could challenge (and force a government to justify) nearly any law, no matter how ridiculous the challenge because, if you get creative, you can pretty much allege that any law discriminates against somebody (we don't really want to spend millions in taxpayer dollars for the government litigate whether murder laws are discriminatory against murderers, etc.). The real issue is whether the rational basis test should apply to laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation. Somewhat recently, the Supreme Court has upheld challenges to laws when applying the rational basis test when applying it to sexual orientation (see Romer v. Evans and Lawerence v. Texas - striking down anti-sodomy laws).

State Constitutions can give citizens more protection than the US Constitution -- and the CA Supreme Court held that it did. The problem is that, since prop 8 amends the CA Constitution, you can't really challenge it as violating the constitution (if constitutional amendments are inconsisent with prior amendments or provisions, the later amendment is upheld).

Right now, the challenge to Prop 8 is that, under the California law, it should have had approval of the legislature before going to a vote. I'm not familiar with CA law on this issue, and I have no idea what the chances of success are.

Pretty much anyone will tell you that there is little to no chance of a successful challenge to such laws under the U.S. Constitution - at least at this point.

By the way, I'm not saying this is what the law should be - just what it is.

Also, this post doesn't purport, and is not intended to, provide legal advice to anyone on any matter, in any jurisdiction.

BillB
BillB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: Aug 15 2007 - 2:04pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Banning same-sex marriage is the essence of identifying a group and specifically taking away a right/a legal ability to do something (marry) that all other citizens have.

That is why such "bans" are appalling. If one wants to reach out and specifically take away a right, how about a more rational basis? For instance, take away convicted murderers' ability to marry. Or take away Britney Spears' ability to marry. But nooo....

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Interesting post, Judicata. Thanks.

Question.

How does sexual orientation even get traction with regard to this subject?

If a man and woman want to be conveniently married, but the union is not sexually based, that is allowed; but it would seem to be an issue that undermines the intent of marriage laws. An asexual same sex couple is denied marriage, but an asexual man and woman win the lotto, so to speak.

If we are to discriminate based on sexual orientation by describing marriage as only being valid between a man and woman, could we then insist on 'means testing' those couples to make sure they are, in fact, properly aligned with regard to approved sexual orientation? Would the groom need to prove he is having sex with his wife in order for the marriage to be valid?

Could maybe the state similarly ban marriage between asexual couples?

It seems to me that heteros get a blank "mind your own business" seal of approval about their sexual orientation, but this tacit approval disappears if both partners are noticeably of the same gender.

If gay people desire, you'd think they could raise hell by just having one person sign up as a 'bride,' and another as a 'groom,' and then compel the state to perfrom genetic testing to make sure a marriage is valid.

Perhaps friendly health care professionals could start declaring people 'brides' and 'grooms' based on an 'interview' and 'exam,' and then let the state fall over themselves trying to straighten that out.

dbowker
dbowker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: May 8 2007 - 6:37am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

"Would the groom need to prove he is having sex with his wife in order for the marriage to be valid?"

Actually, in many courts one may sue for divorce for lack of "consummation" or essentially no sex on the part of the spouse. Most countries in fact consider this a valid reason to divorce (of those that allow it).

In the past important arranged marriages had a witness(s) to observe the initial marital consummation just to make sure everything was, ahem, on the up and up.

Jim Tavegia
Jim Tavegia's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 4:27pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Doesn't Dr. Ruth have a website somewhere?

RGibran
RGibran's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 11 months ago
Joined: Oct 11 2005 - 5:50pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Yea, perhaps over there we would eventually get to the real issue...the kids.

RG

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Yes, the kids.

What's up with all these perverted families that produce kids who are choosing to be gay?

Maybe if we introduced criminal penalties for producing gay kids.

The Cheneys produced a lesbian. You'd think we would have heeded the warning.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Nice explanation of the law, much better than my very quick observation.

Apropos also is a fairly recent ruling of a federal district judge sitting in Massachusetts. She ruled that as a matter of law being described as a homosexual cannot constitute libel:

"In this day and age, recent rulings by the Supreme Court and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, undermine any suggestion that a statement implying that an individual is a homosexual is defamatory. In fact, a finding that such a statement is defamatory requires this Court to legitimize the prejudice and bigotry that for too long have plagued the homosexual community."

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
Banning same-sex marriage is the essence of identifying a group and specifically taking away a right/a legal ability to do something (marry) that all other citizens have.

As Res so nicely explained, an Equal Protection analysis is more complicated than simply identifying disparate treatment.

It is easy to make the argument that gays are treated differently. The difficulty is that being gay is not recognized by the Supremes as a protected class, such as race, sex, religion and superannuation (their term).

Adding to the complexity, marriage is an issue of states' rights (states get to define marriage - not the federal government).

Some states do recognize sexual orientation as a protected class, at least statutorily. Minnesota, for example, treats being gay the same as being black in terms of its harassment and discrimination human rights statutes.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
What's up with all these perverted families that produce kids who are choosing to be gay?


And what's wrong with those gays that adopt and can't even convince their own kids to be gay?

Talk about lousy recruiting techniques.

BillB
BillB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: Aug 15 2007 - 2:04pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

I understand the "protected class" thing, and it does seem appropriate that sexual orientation can be recognized as such (and is, in some places and situations). In the Prop 8 case, however, same-sex couples wishing to marry are singled out and the Prop says, hey, you, YOU cannot marry but everyone else can. (yeh, there's a bit of paraphrasing there..)
Now, Irish-American redheads are not a protected class either. But if they were selected as the only folks not allowed to marry, that would be a civil wrong, too. IMHO.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Prop 8 is odd as the CA court held that to discriminate against gays was unconstitutional under that state's constitution as it then stood. Prop 8 amended the CA constitution - making differential treatment of gays no longer unconstitutional Strange stuff, legally.

(Irish Americans would be protected as ethnicity/race is a protected class.)

BillB
BillB's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 months ago
Joined: Aug 15 2007 - 2:04pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Note I said red-headed irish-americans; maybe I should have said red-headed tennis players or something, to make clearer that I'm talking about people who do not have to be a "protected class". Nothing you're saying is wrong but my point is not about the tactical legal approach to dealing w/ Prop 8, it's about the morality of the thing. I contend it's wrong to specify that any subgroup of free American citizens should be denied the right to marry the person they love.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

No argument here.

judicata
judicata's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 26 2008 - 11:55am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Red hair still would probably disproportionately affect one race/ethnicity. That is sometimes enough (although it gets really complicated). But of course you're right - just because something is Constitutionally permissible doesn't make it morally right.

Interestingly, the law doesn't say any one individual can't get married. Anyone can still marry someone of the opposite sex. On the other hand, no one can marry someone of the same sex. Of course, you can phrase it "You can marry anyone you want to, but YOU can't." It just takes a different shape than most discriminatory laws.

And just so we're clear - I'm against Prop 8, and support allowing gay people to marry. Prop 8 probably is not unconstitutional (federal, California's constitution maybe) though. Ideally, people would have been persuaded to vote against it.

judicata
judicata's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Jun 26 2008 - 11:55am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

I know this is topic is more or less dead, but I thought people here would appreciate this commentary by Keith Olberman, although I don't agree 100% with all of his statements and analogies, I do agree with the sentiment:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
I know this is topic is more or less dead, but I thought people here would appreciate this commentary by Keith Olberman, although I don't agree 100% with all of his statements and analogies, I do agree with the sentiment:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27650743/

I was going to post a reference to this, but you beat me to it. Thank you. Keith Olbermann pretty much sums up my own position on this subject.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

jdm56
jdm56's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 5 2005 - 2:03am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

OK, so I'm real late to this party. So sue me.

Gee, what a load of blarney this all is! Homosexuals are being denied their rights? Gee, I think they and I have exactly the same right; which is to marry pretty much any consenting adult of the opposite sex we choose. (To varying degrees, according to which state you happen to be in, we are all barred from marrying someone to whom we are too closely related.) Isn't that the right we're talking about? I have that right. Don't you all?

It seems to me homosexuals want a new right, the right to marry someone of their own gender. As far as I know, no civilized society in history has ever granted that right. And feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, reading this thread I keep seeing people who believe as I do being referred to as bigots. Because I don't believe people should be allowed to marry within their own gender, I'm a bigot? Interesting misuse of the word.

And JVS, exactly what is an "Xtian"? Do you mean "Christian"? Is that so hard to say? Two syllables either way. Is "Xtian" supposed to be some kind of casual disrespect? If so, that's fine. You have the right to say whatever you want, pretty much. Just wondering what the intent was.

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

refreshing change of perspective. I wish more folks that feel this way would speak out.. Im sure there are others here that feel the same way but dont want to be called a bigot...Xtian.. yes, it is casual disrespect.


Quote:
OK, so I'm real late to this party. So sue me.

Gee, what a load of blarney this all is! Homosexuals are being denied their rights? Gee, I think they and I have exactly the same right; which is to marry pretty much any consenting adult of the opposite sex we choose. (To varying degrees, according to which state you happen to be in, we are all barred from marrying someone to whom we are too closely related.) Isn't that the right we're talking about? I have that right. Don't you all?

It seems to me homosexuals want a new right, the right to marry someone of their own gender. As far as I know, no civilized society in history has ever granted that right. And feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, reading this thread I keep seeing people who believe as I do being referred to as bigots. Because I don't believe people should be allowed to marry within their own gender, I'm a bigot? Interesting misuse of the word.

And JVS, exactly what is an "Xtian"? Do you mean "Christian"? Is that so hard to say? Two syllables either way. Is "Xtian" supposed to be some kind of casual disrespect? If so, that's fine. You have the right to say whatever you want, pretty much. Just wondering what the intent was.

Editor
Editor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 9 months ago
Joined: Sep 1 2005 - 8:56am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
I wish more folks that feel this way would speak out.. Im sure there are others here that feel the same way but dont want to be called a bigot...

I don't think it's a bigotry as such, but a puzzlement over why what other adults do is of concern or relevance to you. Gay marriage neither threatens heterosexual marriage or heterosexuals themselves. I could be flippant and say "Against gay marriage? Don't marry someone of the same sex!" but I am interested in hearing the answer to my question why this matters to you, ncdrawl, and the others who feel the way you do.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

dbowker
dbowker's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 1 week ago
Joined: May 8 2007 - 6:37am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

"It seems to me homosexuals want a new right, the right to marry someone of their own gender. As far as I know, no civilized society in history has ever granted that right. And feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. "

I really don't see this as a "refreshing perspective" nor is it factually correct. There are currently four countries that honor full-fledged gay marriage, and SIXTEEN countries that honor same-sex unions. Source Then, from a legal standpoint, prior statutes is not in itself a reason to deny progressive reforms- hence in the last one-hundred years we have: banned child labor, given women the right to vote, banned unfair election discrimination, created laws to protect endangered species, instituted broad rights for workers, created laws to discourage monopolies in business, integrated schools, and allowed multi-racial marriage, just to name a few.

Before these laws were put in to place, many were centuries old norms, some perhaps as old as recorded civilization! But that's the whole point isn't it? That why this country was formed! Progress, reform, betterment of all.

Who ever thought of actually instituting a democratic society based on the (at the time) absurd idea of "All men are created equal"? From that idea, merely an idealistic notion from men who were themselves of a highly educated and elite class, came a light that has led not just our country, but the evolving world of nation for two centuries. What was scary and threatening to much of the world then is taken as the ONLY way to be free today. The nations who fight against those ideals have the painful results to show for it.

Marriage, is not just a personal and religious pact that is shared among friends. It carries with it a cascade of legal and societal rights and privileges. There are few areas of life not dictated by what is, or is not, a legal relationship between a spouse or family member. Inheritance, property ownership, medical rights, child custody, spouse support, taxes ALL are connected to legal marriage. Without it you get nothing. You may as well be a friend from down the street as far as the State is concerned. So, those individuals that are gay and want to declare a lasting and monogamous relationship are NOT asking for a new right. There is nothing new about it. It's just the same right that you and I can enjoy for $25 and a pair of witnesses any day of the week. Why would I think my marriage to my wife would be threatened by someone else's marraige that looks a little different? It makes no sense.

In Massachusetts, where I live, we've had legal gay marriage for a couple of years now and guess what? Society still looks EXACTLY like it did before hand! Wow! Imagine that? No break-down of morality, no kids being "indoctrinated" to "become" gay, as if that were possible, and everything is just fine. It's just now we have a framework for everyone to be legally committed partners and it will cost them dearly if they want to get out of it (we've already had a few gay divorces).

So really- OBJECTIVELY - where is the problem? I don't see it, and to me, it's what our country has always been about: All Persons created equally. The hard work is treating them equally.

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 months 4 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

Great post Doug.

I can't see a counter argument to what you have stated, other than outright bigotry.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh


Quote:
I can't see a counter argument to what you have stated, other than outright bigotry.


While I agree with Doug (and others) that there is nothing scary about gay marriage, it is fair to recognize that for many that oppose gay marriage it is a religious/moral issue.

This isn't bigotry but a different moral code. Consider the the pro-choice/pro-life debate; neither side is "bigoted".

On the other hand, for those that it is not a moral issue I would like to learn the reason for objecting to gay marriage.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: "At Least They Agree on Something?" Pardon my French, but wh

I'm glad this thread still lives. Coincidentally, I was thinking of posting on it myself in the past few days.

As the movie "Milk" came out, it reminded me to re-consider what I said to JVS about 'making progress.'

During Milk's day, California had Prop 6, which was a ballot measure to fire teachers who were discovered to be gay. In fact, it had provisions for requiring the dismissal of anyone who even supported gay rights.

Astoundingly, there were millions of voters who supported such an idea.

So, 30 years ago, we affirmed the right of gay people to work as we straights do, but we still deny them the right to live their private lives like we do.

Maybe that's smaller progress than I thought.

On the bigotry thing. I hope I didn't call anyone that.

I would love to hear how you guys who are opposed to gay marriage feel about why it should not be allowed.

I'm old enough to remember the interracial marriage laws, and heard many of the same arguments about that, back in the day.

I promise not to call anyone a bigot if he will enlighten me as to why gay marriage should not be allowed.

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading