SSM comes in Iowa

[scrappy]

Is this thrown open to everyone or is it some sort of slow-reveal reply to my preceding post?

I don't mean to dismiss you lightly; I thought were had already covered the issue. Your post was all about the word "support," which I already agreed was not adequate to the task.

 

If one doesn't agree with a constitutional right then one doesn't support it. In the passive sense one's support or opposition would be opinion; in the active sense it would be activism.

 

But if someone were to oppose the constitutional rights of another, wouldn't they be in violation of the Pledge of Allegiance? "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which its stands [which means its constitution], one nation, under God [or not], indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

...

 

What is this hive-minded "crowd" you keep talking about?

You seem to be all about words today. Now you're picking at crumbs.

[Sayonara]

I don't mean to dismiss you lightly; I thought were had already covered the issue. Your post was all about the word "support," which I already agreed was not adequate to the task.

I thought as much, but I thought it best to check as there was no real indication either way.

 

But if someone were to oppose the constitutional rights of another, wouldn't they be in violation of the Pledge of Allegiance? "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which its stands [which means its constitution], one nation, under God [or not], indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

I think you could certainly make that argument, yes. But conflating opposition with a lack of active support would be incorrect.

 

You seem to be all about words today. Now you're picking at crumbs.

I don't see how I am picking at crumbs by asking you to account for an entity which one of your specific arguments revolves around.

[Pangloss]

Question: If a church in Iowa refused to marry gay/lesbian people would it be vulnerable to law suits claiming denial of their constitutional rights?

 

Churches are never required by law to marry people, and they can already pick and choose whom they will perform ceremonies for. Try and get married in a Catholic church if you're Jewish and see what happens. Or for that matter Catholic and divorced.

 

Nor does the religious ceremony have any legal standing. You're married when you sign your marriage license with the state, not when the priest says "you may kiss the bride".

 

You should acknowledge that this point has failed.

[scrappy]

Churches are never required by law to marry people, and they can already pick and choose whom they will perform ceremonies for. Try and get married in a Catholic church if you're Jewish and see what happens. Or for that matter Catholic and divorced.

 

Nor does the religious ceremony have any legal standing. You're married when you sign your marriage license with the state, not when the priest says "you may kiss the bride".

All good points.

 

You should acknowledge that this point has failed.

Not yet. According to your position in this debate (or of those who have argued for SSM) there would be no difference if a church segregated its drinking fountains or if it declined to officiate in SSM. Remember? Separate-but-equal is unconstitutional in either case?

[padren]

Not yet. According to your position in this debate (or of those who have argued for SSM) there would be no difference if a church segregated its drinking fountains or if it declined to officiate in SSM. Remember? Separate-but-equal is unconstitutional in either case?

 

There is - churches are not public institutions and (iirc) there is a mountain of case law involving attempts to force churches into other practices that we do accept as their right despite constitutional discrimination. There isn't a mountain of court cases because they don't even make it to that point - they are thrown out before it gets there.

 

Case in point: The Catholic church cannot be sued and forced to ordain a woman as a priest, even though that could be said to be gender discrimination. The case fails because being part of the catholic church is a choice, not a right. Getting married in a church is a choice, not a right. You could call it part of their EULA when joining the church. By the same argument, they do not have to marry people when marrying those people would be against their religion: divorce, gender, faith - all fair game to refuse marriage. I am pretty sure if you go to a church that is tied to KKK/White supremacist religious beliefs you'd be hard pressed to force them to conduct an interracial marriage. Legally you can't - the only way such a verdict could be issued is if the disfavor for supremacists biases judges enough to ignore case law.

 

There is no difference in forcing a church to provide a SSM. If there was such an argument there may actually be a valid argument that SSM would impact the lives of people who disagree with it unfairly. But this isn't even a question - it's defacto dead on arrival, which I hope you can agree with.

[Pangloss]

Not yet. According to your position in this debate (or of those who have argued for SSM) there would be no difference if a church segregated its drinking fountains or if it declined to officiate in SSM. Remember? Separate-but-equal is unconstitutional in either case?

 

It is, and private institutions aren't (generally) allowed to discriminate either, and there is a private thing of value there (to some people).

 

But religious institutions are allowed to discriminate, or Catholic churches wouldn't be able to deny membership to non-Catholics, etc -- if you don't follow their rules, you can't get in, and this is tolerated. Boy Scouts don't get this exception, for example, or formerly all-white country clubs, etc. But churches do. (shrug)

 

Now if you want to talk about challenging that exception, certainly you can do that. I imagine you'd find a lot of support for that argument here.

 

But two wrongs don't make a right. This exception doesn't get YOUR foot in the door, any more than it allows someone to put up "white" and "non-white" drinking fountains.

[Mokele]

If you know of a single case wherein the SSM crowd called for extending marriage rights to polygamists I'd liked learn about it. The fact is there isn't. I'm afraid in your case absence of evidence IS evidence of absence.

 

I was in a poly relationship for several years. Nobody involved was straight, and everyone favored marriage rights regardless of number or sex.

 

In fact, IME, many poly relationships include at least one non-heterosexual relationship, simply due to odds, and I'm aware of far more homosexual-only poly relationships than straight-only (though part of this may be due to the tendency of straight couples interested in non-monogamy to gravitate towards the swinger culture instead).

[scrappy]

...

There is no difference in forcing a church to provide a SSM. If there was such an argument there may actually be a valid argument that SSM would impact the lives of people who disagree with it unfairly. But this isn't even a question - it's defacto dead on arrival, which I hope you can agree with.

OK, DOA. But I'd like to know of a Catholic Church that will marry gay people but not divorced people. This marriage business is becoming a yard sale; all the more reason for the government to get the hell out of it. (So, we're back to that old question again.)

[padren]

OK, DOA. But I'd like to know of a Catholic Church that will marry gay people but not divorced people. This marriage business is becoming a yard sale; all the more reason for the government to get the hell out of it. (So, we're back to that old question again.)

 

I don't know of a Catholic church that will marry gay people but not divorced people, gay marriage is far less tolerated in the catholic church than divorce - but why is that relevant? It seems completely beside the point to me, it's their church and they can do what they want... to each their own and all that.

 

This whole "yard sale" business is precisely why government is getting the hell out of "narrow cultural definitions" and backing off to the point of just determining what legal marriage requirements are, and letting the various subcultures figure out their own wants and needs for their own various ceremonies and whatnot.

[scrappy]

This whole "yard sale" business is precisely why government is getting the hell out of "narrow cultural definitions" and backing off to the point of just determining what legal marriage requirements are, and letting the various subcultures figure out their own wants and needs for their own various ceremonies and whatnot.

Deregulation, that's the answer. Say, wasn't deregulation the fourth pillar of Reaganomics? It won't be long before polygamy, prostitution, and pot are deregulated, owing to this cultural tidal wave of deregulation. It's freedom, brother, ya gotta love it!

[ParanoiA]

The only reason I accept the notion of government in marriage is because we use that institution to dictate rights (like making medical decisions, inheritance, homestead). Otherwise, they should be out completely.

[padren]

Deregulation, that's the answer. Say, wasn't deregulation the fourth pillar of Reaganomics? It won't be long before polygamy, prostitution, and pot are deregulated, owing to this cultural tidal wave of deregulation. It's freedom, brother, ya gotta love it!

 

Social deregulation is not business deregulation. Reagan was not in favor of social deregulation very much from what I can tell. (Not to get too sidetracked)

 

But essentially, yes, social deregulation is good, if you can't demonstrate a good reason for infringing on a person's liberties.

[Mokele]

Oh scrappy? Care to own up to the fact that you were *wrong* about your claim? Or are you just going to just hope the replies bury that?

[mooeypoo]

In less than a month the US has doubled its states' acceptance to SSM. Liberalization all over the place! Could the legalization of polygamy, prostitution, and pot be just around the corner?

And why not? Any of them hurt you, steal or override your rights or personally affect you in any way?

 

In case these are supervised to make sure no one gets hurt (hence, the prostitutes *want* to do this job - and many do, you'd be surprised, choose to earn money on it safely and *willingly*, polygamists do not abuse their wives - and many don't, and pot smokers/users do not abuse anyone else and don't drive - just like alcohol drinkers) then it's not only none of your business, it's also about fairness and equality.

 

How is that, by any means, unconstitutional? How is it, by any means, any of your business?

 

If consensual adults decide to do something that has no effect on other people, that does not hurt others in their society (remember the key word 'consensual'), then how is it any of anyone else's business, really?

 

And if that's your standard, then you should outlaw alcohol, race betting, kickboxing, and about 150 other activities people choose to do.

 

 

In other words: How do you decide what is a "good" activity and what isn't if your ground rules aren't really very consistent?

[iNow]

Or, he could just move to Saudi Arabia.

[scrappy]

But essentially, yes, social deregulation is good, if you can't demonstrate a good reason for infringing on a person's liberties.

Do you mean ALL social deregulation, or just the kinds you support? Polygamy? Prostitution? Pot? Strip poker? And how do you determine if a specific social deregulation does or does not infringe on a person's liberties? How would you know? What about those people who claim (rightly or wrongly, according to the shifting sands of opinion) that SSM affects their liberties? What about John and Jane Smith out in Iowa who worry that SSM will somehow influence their teenagers to try homosexuality? Even if they are off base, according to some, doesn't that count for "infringing of a person's liberties," because it makes those people sad, angry, worrisome or worse?

 

Ah, but let's not bother about Mr. and Mrs. Smith. They don't count anyway. Never in their wildest dreams did they ever think that questioning the marriage between two gay men was somehow wrong or bigoted. So, screw them if they think the meaning of their marriage has been degraded by SSM. It's a new world now in Iowa, and if they feel a loss that they shouldn't feel then it's probably because they're just a couple of sod-sucking farmers who don't know any better.

 

Didn't someone here resurrect that old bumper sticker: "Your rights end where mine begin"?

[iNow]

What about John and Jane Smith out in Iowa who worry that SSM will somehow influence their teenagers to try homosexuality?

 

Even if they are off base, according to some, doesn't that count for "infringing of a person's liberties," because it makes those people sad, angry, worrisome or worse?

No.

 

The harm does not come from the external event, it comes from within themselves. They are self-generating any sadness, anger, or worry. Nobody is imposing it upon them. Further, nobody has a right not to be offended or sad... at least not a constitutionally guaranteed one.

[scrappy]

And why not? Any of them hurt you, steal or override your rights or personally affect you in any way?

 

...

 

In other words: How do you decide what is a "good" activity and what isn't if your ground rules aren't really very consistent?

Who's ground rules? What consistency? If the same-sexers were consistent about their principles regarding marriage why aren't they screaming bloody murder about legalizing polygamy? It's the same principle, isn't it? And the fact that they don't is proof that they are being inconsistent. The same-sexers are just as inconsistent as the dif-sexers in that respect; it's all a matter of where you stand the landscape of opinion.

[ParanoiA]

Do you mean ALL social deregulation, or just the kinds you support? Polygamy? Prostitution? Pot? Strip poker? And how do you determine if a specific social deregulation does or does not infringe on a person's liberties? How would you know? What about those people who claim (rightly or wrongly, according to the shifting sands of opinion) that SSM affects their liberties? What about John and Jane Smith out in Iowa who worry that SSM will somehow influence their teenagers to try homosexuality? Even if they are off base, according to some, doesn't that count for "infringing of a person's liberties," because it makes those people sad, angry, worrisome or worse?

 

Sad, angry, worrisome are not an infringement of rights since they have no right to remain free of those. You don't have a right to not be sad, angy or worrisome. You have no right to do without noise. You have no right to not be embarrassed. You have no right to not be humiliated by the public. You don't have any of those rights so you can't claim they are infringed.

 

You do have a right to be sad, angry, worrisome. We can't stop you. And you can't stop us.

 

All social regulation between consenting adults that does not cause damage to others is unconstitutional, in my opinion. Those are laws we should not accept. As a republic, we should not tolerate it.

 

But since the majority of the country is willfully participating in it, it's difficult to get them to not be hypocrites. Oh well, their time will come. America is set for a lot of darkness, I think. Our people must relearn liberty and its cost. They have forgotten. They use economy, war, and any other exigency to choose security over freedom.

 

They do it by pretending as if their opinion should trump my claim to the bill of rights. You're doing it too. You're pretending as if Mr and Mrs Smith's opinion should matter moreso than my rights. That's how you ignore the rights of a minority. That's how you get 3/5ths of a person. That's how you enslave a people in the face of promoting your own liberty.

 

All humans pursue liberty. But there's two different kinds: one is pursuing liberty for himself and the other is pursuing liberty for all.

 

**** Mr and Mrs smith when they choose liberty for themselves at the expense of someone else.

 

 

You can't support the argument that Mr and Mrs Smith are harmed. You never will. And you can't support the argument that their opinion matters when it harms other's rights. And you never will. We've covered this in two different threads, and tens of posts. You just don't seem to understand the relationship between the Bill of Rights, and democracy.

 

And you're going to keep posting fodder, until you do.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If the same-sexers were consistent about their principles regarding marriage why aren't they screaming bloody murder about legalizing polygamy?

 

If the DOMA crowd were consistent about their principles regarding marriage, then why aren't they banning marriage to dogs and cats? Lamp posts?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

It's the same principle, isn't it? And the fact that they don't is proof that they are being inconsistent. The same-sexers are just as inconsistent as the dif-sexers in that respect; it's all a matter of where you stand the landscape of opinion.

 

This is the same old recycled argument you tried last time. You're trying to muddy up the waters and pretend this all about opinion versus opinion. It's not. It's Rights vs Opinion. Opinion vs opinion that delivers no consequence to anyone's rights, can be decided purely democratically and this would all be over. But it's not. These are opinions that effect the rights of SSM folk, but deliver NO consequence to the rights of the DOMA folk. So it's not a democratic issue. It's a republican one.

[scrappy]

That's how you enslave a people in the face of promoting your own liberty.

Funny, but I don't remember if gays were ever enslaved. If they were, then they deserve reparations, just like the black people. If they weren't then they ought to be spanked for their hyperbole.

 

These are opinions that effect the rights of SSM folk, but deliver NO consequence to the rights of the DOMA folk. So it's not a democratic issue. It's a republican one.

You don't seem to understand that our republic's Constitution begins with the words: "We the people of the United States..."

 

You can't support the argument that Mr and Mrs Smith are harmed.

Yes, I can. I'd call Mr. and Mrs. Smith to the stand for their testimony. If they claimed harm, emotional, whatever harm, why isn't that evidence of harm? Why are they wrong and you're right?

[ParanoiA]

I think scrappy has committed all 38 methods of "How to win an argument when you're losing".

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=39813

 

 

Funny, but I don't remember if gays were ever enslaved. If they were, then they deserve reparations, just like the black people. If they weren't then they ought to be spanked for their hyperbole.

 

Wow, this post is literally only inches away from its context on your monitor, and you STILL can't keep up.

 

You don't seem to understand that our republic's Constitution begins with the words: "We the people of the United States..."

 

Hilarious, you're quoting the constitution. That's the very document you're trying to ignore by promoting Mr and Mrs Smith's opinion over the rights of "them gays". Awesome.

[mooeypoo]

Who's ground rules? What consistency? If the same-sexers were consistent about their principles regarding marriage why aren't they screaming bloody murder about legalizing polygamy?

Some of them do.

 

It's the same principle, isn't it? And the fact that they don't is proof that they are being inconsistent.

No, that's proof that SOME OF THEM are inconsistent. Don't generalize. I didn't speak about anyone other than your opinions, which I've read in this forum. I am not generalizing all those who are against gay marriage or call homosexuals "same sexers", because I didn't hear THEIR opinions. I hear yours. Don't generalize, and don't beat around the bush. I asked you about yours, not about anyone else's.

 

The same-sexers are just as inconsistent as the dif-sexers in that respect; it's all a matter of where you stand the landscape of opinion.

 

And even if you're right and the gay community is wrong about not being consistent, are you really suggesting that two wrongs make a right here? That the idea that the gay community might be inconsistent (generalization, geesh) allows YOU to be inconsistent as well?

 

I had no idea this is how discussions over the constitution, or about freedom or equal rights went.

 

 

"Same Sexers" are as diverse as "Multi Sexers", scrappy. Drop the generalization, you're avoiding my question (I'm starting to get used to it) and not representing your own opinion too well, either.

 

"but they do it first!" is not what I would call a valid logical argument, even if it wasn't so broadly generalized.

 

~moo

[ParanoiA]

And even if you're right and the gay community is wrong about not being consistent, are you really suggesting that two wrongs make a right here? That the idea that the gay community might be inconsistent (generalization, geesh) allows YOU to be inconsistent as well?

 

No, he isn't aiming for that conclusion. He wants this to be all about opinions, where no one has claim to any sort of inequal application of "rights" in order to conclude this is purely a democratic decision: a majority rule. He is purposely obfuscating any points on constitutionality because they ruin his argument.

[mooeypoo]

No, he isn't aiming for that conclusion. He wants this to be all about opinions, where no one has claim to any sort of inequal application of "rights" in order to conclude this is purely a democratic decision: a majority rule. He is purposely obfuscating any points on constitutionality because they ruin his argument.

Right, well, then, be consistent. There are some places in the USA (sadly, in my opinion) that a majority rule would probably result in reinstating slavery, or at least something quite close to it. He should be supporting that, too, if that's his claim.

 

That said, no offense ParanoiA, but I would like to hear about his claim from him, not anyone else, so I won't fall into the same trap of generalizing or misunderstanding the claims that are put forth.

 

I'm waiting for Scrappy to tell me what Scrappy thinks, not what everyone else think Scrappy thinks. I think that's fair, don't you?

 

~moo

[Mokele]

Who's ground rules? What consistency? If the same-sexers were consistent about their principles regarding marriage why aren't they screaming bloody murder about legalizing polygamy? It's the same principle, isn't it? And the fact that they don't is proof that they are being inconsistent. The same-sexers are just as inconsistent as the dif-sexers in that respect; it's all a matter of where you stand the landscape of opinion.

 

Scrappy, your intellectual dishonesty is truly staggering.

 

You've been provided with *FIRST HAND* evidence of same sex relationships which not only support poly, but engage in it, along with data that this actually *not* atypical - IME, many same-sex couples are far less stringent about monogamy than opposite-sex couples.

 

Yet, you continue to trot out the same tired bullshit, assuming that just because there's not a major movement (yet), this somehow evidences a disgust or opposition, rather than just a realistic acknowledgment that the time simply hasn't come yet.

 

 

 

If you aren't going to deal with evidence, you have no place here.