Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Its not, thats my point. We differentiate amongst different groups at different times. Its only what society define as a "right" that is a right. If society says gays dont have the right to marry, they dont.
So society is witholding the right to marry from gays, which is discrimination based on your earlier definition.Otherwise you are stating when blacks couldn't vote they where only being differentiated against? Society said blacks didn't have the right to vote - ergo no discrimination.You are hiding behind semantics.Look at it another way. - We differentiate against young people driving because we believe they are not mature enough to safely handle a car. This is a correct example of differentiation - Society was 'differentiating' against black people by not allowing them to vote because they believed that a black person was less human than a white person. This was eventually deemed unjust and this 'differentiation' was done away with. This is not, nor was it ever, differentiation. It was always discrimination. - Homosexuals are 'differentiated' against by not allowing them to marry because <insert reason here>What ever reason you insert determines whether it is differentiation or discrimination.Still waiting for a non-religous reason...
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 302
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Objection. Please don't speculate on Mr. Shabadoo's mental state. Now then, will you clarify your statement as to your knowledge of the meaning and proper use of the phrase in question. We have evide

I let my attorney do the heavy lifting.

so many fallen brothers.

So society is witholding the right to marry from gays, which is discrimination based on your earlier definition. No, its differentiation, marriage is not a right.Otherwise you are stating when blacks couldn't vote they where only being differentiated against? Society said blacks didn't have the right to vote - ergo no discrimination. CorrectYou are hiding behind semantics. It goes way beyond semantics, it is rooted in my entire view of society and morality. Look at it another way.- We differentiate against young people driving because we believe they are not mature enough to safely handle a car. This is a correct example of differentiation I agree- Society was 'differentiating' against black people by not allowing them to vote because they believed that a black person was less human than a white person. This was eventually deemed unjust and this 'differentiation' was done away with. This is not, nor was it ever, differentiation. It was always discrimination. By your definition, not by mine. - Homosexuals are 'differentiated' against by not allowing them to marry because <insert reason here> There are probably a myriad of reasons, none of which are even necessary. The whim of society is good enough a reason.What ever reason you insert determines whether it is differentiation or discrimination. Just to be sure you get the point, there can never be discrimination, only differentiation, because there is no such thing as endemic "rights".Still waiting for a non-religous reason... Everything about my position is non-religious and consistent with my atheism.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, its differentiation, marriage is not a right.
No, you're exactly wrong. In the Loving vs Virginia Supreme Court decision, the court, in a unanimous decision, wrote : "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"..." Now of course they were talking about male-female marriage, but you're simply mistaken to believe that this country does no consider marriage a "right." It very explicitly does.
Just to be sure you get the point, there can never be discrimination, only differentiation, because there is no such thing as endemic "rights".
This is completely ridiculous. Are you playing Devil's advocate or do you really believe what you just wrote? It's completely irrelevant whether the "rights" of citizens are "endemic," or whether they are defined and granted by the government (it's the latter). The Constitution absolutely grants certain rights to people, and again it's totally immaterial whether they're "endemic" rights. We live in a society which has decided that certain things are inalienable rights. It's perfectly reasonable to argue about who and how those rights apply to people, but to suggest that they don't exist is foolish.
Link to post
Share on other sites
No, you're exactly wrong. In the Loving vs Virginia Supreme Court decision, the court, in a unanimous decision, wrote : "Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man"..." Now of course they were talking about male-female marriage, but you're simply mistaken to believe that this country does no consider marriage a "right." It very explicitly does. This is completely ridiculous. Are you playing Devil's advocate or do you really believe what you just wrote? It's completely irrelevant whether the "rights" of citizens are "endemic," or whether they are defined and granted by the government (it's the latter). The Constitution absolutely grants certain rights to people, and again it's totally immaterial whether they're "endemic" rights. We live in a society which has decided that certain things are inalienable rights. It's perfectly reasonable to argue about who and how those rights apply to people, but to suggest that they don't exist is foolish.
You are the saying the same thing I did, though perhaps not carrying it to its full extent.I didnt say they dont exist, I said they exist only to the extent a society recognizes their existence. The Constitution is a piece of paper that happens to reflect one set of "rights" as codified by one group of people and interpreted by others.Those "rights" are totally irrelevant outside the borders of the US, and if Knickelsberg happens to say that not only isnt marriage a right, but any contract between a man and a woman that purports to bond them for eternity is punishable by death, then a Knicklsbergian couple marries at their own peril.Perhaps you dont like "endemic". There are no "natural rights", "human rights", "inalienable rights" or whatever word you want to use that implies that there is some overriding arbiter besides the society you agree to live under.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are the saying the same thing I did, though perhaps not carrying it to its full extent.I didnt say they dont exist, I said they exist only to the extent a society recognizes their existence. The Constitution is a piece of paper that happens to reflect one set of "rights" as codified by one group of people and interpreted by others.Those "rights" are totally irrelevant outside the borders of the US, and if Knickelsberg happens to say that not only isnt marriage a right, but any contract between a man and a woman that purports to bond them for eternity is punishable by death, then a Knicklsbergian couple marries at their own peril.Perhaps you dont like "endemic". There are no "natural rights", "human rights", "inalienable rights" or whatever word you want to use that implies that there is some overriding arbiter besides the society you agree to live under.
I see what you're saying, but we do live in a society, and that society DID define certain rights that all citizens have, and that society also happened to suggest that those are "inalienable" rights - i.e. should be the right of any person living in a society. Now as you said, that doesn't carry outside our borders and isn't "true" or "correct" by any objective source (since by definition there is no objective source). But it does carry weight within our borders, and when people's defined rights are violated by the law, the Constitution that this country is founded on is not being upheld. And yes, based on the social and political leanings of the country those rights are sometimes re-defined and re-worked. And no, there is nothing in the constitution or in any supreme court case saying that gay marriage is a "right." But the idea that discrimination doesn't exist is wrong. "If society says gays don't have the right to marry, they don't," is an entirely circular argument, since you imply that there should not be a discussion or debate about whether they should have that right or not. They don't have it, so they don't have it, that's that! I fail to see how, philosophically, this is at all different than saying "If society says blacks and whites can't intermarry, well then they can't! It's the law!" Sure, that's all well and good as far as pointing out the obvious, but it omits the idea that the law can change.
Link to post
Share on other sites
"If society says gays don't have the right to marry, they don't," is an entirely circular argument, its not circular, its a tautological.since you imply that there should not be a discussion or debate about whether they should have that right or not. quite the opposite, what ive said implies that discussion is mandatory for something to be (or note be) a right. They don't have it, so they don't have it, that's that! I fail to see how, philosophically, this is at all different than saying "If society says blacks and whites can't intermarry, well then they can't! It's the law!" Agree Sure, that's all well and good as far as pointing out the obvious, but it omits the idea that the law can change. No it doesnt. It anticipates that law WILL change, which is what renders all rights "alienable". Change the constitution and poof, an alienable right is gone.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You are the saying the same thing I did, though perhaps not carrying it to its full extent.I didnt say they dont exist, I said they exist only to the extent a society recognizes their existence. The Constitution is a piece of paper that happens to reflect one set of "rights" as codified by one group of people and interpreted by others.Those "rights" are totally irrelevant outside the borders of the US, and if Knickelsberg happens to say that not only isnt marriage a right, but any contract between a man and a woman that purports to bond them for eternity is punishable by death, then a Knicklsbergian couple marries at their own peril.Perhaps you dont like "endemic". There are no "natural rights", "human rights", "inalienable rights" or whatever word you want to use that implies that there is some overriding arbiter besides the society you agree to live under.
You must know, but its worth pointing out in this discussion that the philosophy of the writers of the constitution was exactly the opposite of what you are saying. The whole point was that there are inalienable human rights that one has just by virtue of being alive; the constitution is not intended to grant us those rights, but to protect those rights from infringement by government. That's why the bill of rights is phrased "congress shall make no law..."; our rights are not granted by the law, they are protected by it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
You must know, but its worth pointing out in this discussion that the philosophy of the writers of the constitution was exactly the opposite of what you are saying. The whole point was that there are inalienable human rights that one has just by virtue of being alive; the constitution is not intended to grant us those rights, but to protect those rights from infringement by government. That's why the bill of rights is phrased "congress shall make no law..."; our rights are not granted by the law, they are protected by it.
Yes, I know.
Link to post
Share on other sites
quite the opposite, what ive said implies that discussion is mandatory for something to be (or note be) a right.
Ok but I don't see how this is related to the discussion. To say it more plainly - I don't see how this is related to the anti-gay-marriage position, which (unless I am way way off) you agree with. Pointing out that the government decides which rights are "intrinsic" so therefore they're not actually intrinsic (but rather decided by the government) doesn't change the way I see the gay marriage issue, and certainly doesn't act as an argument against gay marriage. So, can you tie it all together or is it unrelated?
Link to post
Share on other sites
This is completely ridiculous. Are you playing Devil's advocate or do you really believe what you just wrote? It's completely irrelevant whether the "rights" of citizens are "endemic," or whether they are defined and granted by the government (it's the latter). The Constitution absolutely grants certain rights to people, and again it's totally immaterial whether they're "endemic" rights. We live in a society which has decided that certain things are inalienable rights. It's perfectly reasonable to argue about who and how those rights apply to people, but to suggest that they don't exist is foolish.
i agree. to help you out, some pretty smart dudes wrote this a while back:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.copernicus, it seems, is anti-declaration of independence.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i agree. to help you out, some pretty smart dudes wrote this a while back:We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.copernicus, it seems, is anti-declaration of independence.
i'll have to....agree with...copernicus on this one. (gulp)the universe does not grant us any rights, and the only ones we have are the ones we can forge for ourselves (almost always under the implication of violence for those who would infringe on those rights). its pretty flowery language, but in reality you have no rights except those which you (or by extension your taxpayer hired thugs either wearing green or badges) can force on others. the wording in the declaration of independence is a nice idea to be sure, but one which nature (or reality, or whatever you want to call it) does not seem to go along with.
Link to post
Share on other sites
i'll have to....agree with...copernicus on this one. (gulp)the universe does not grant us any rights, and the only ones we have are the ones we can forge for ourselves (almost always under the implication of violence for those who would infringe on those rights). its pretty flowery language, but in reality you have no rights except those which you (or by extension your taxpayer hired thugs either wearing green or badges) can force on others. the wording in the declaration of independence is a nice idea to be sure, but one which nature (or reality, or whatever you want to call it) does not seem to go along with.
that section of the declaration of independence isn't concerned directly with WHERE we get our rights from, but rather with the idea that rights are not something that arise alongside the phenomenon of governmnet. instead, they are the primary thing that a righteous government ought to fight to defend. copernicus said above that there is no such thing as an endemic right. the document that declared our country separate from england says otherwise, and that's what i was pointing out.whether you guys want to call marriage a right or whatever is still up for debate, i suppose. imo, gay marriage is a battle better fought through civil rights statutes, but before you do that, you have to understand how our country understands the ideas of rights, freedoms, etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok but I don't see how this is related to the discussion. To say it more plainly - I don't see how this is related to the anti-gay-marriage position, which (unless I am way way off) you agree with. Pointing out that the government decides which rights are "intrinsic" so therefore they're not actually intrinsic (but rather decided by the government) doesn't change the way I see the gay marriage issue, and certainly doesn't act as an argument against gay marriage. So, can you tie it all together or is it unrelated?
Its related because it has become a legal issue and legislation defines rights. And no, Im not anti-gay marriage. I couldnt care less whether its called marriage, civil union or banned entirely. There are societies where being gay is a capital offense, and this issue is so trivial in comparison its embarassing how much attention it gets and how much time is wasted on it.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

There was a new large scale twin study on sexual orientation published in Archives of Sexual Behavior this year: Långström et al. Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of sexual behavior (2010) vol. 39 (1) pp. 75-80.This is the largest twin study ever conducted on the issue, and involved almost 4,000 pairs of twins in Sweden. They found that for men, genetic effects explained about 35% of the variance in sexual orientation, while individual-specific environment accounted for the other two-thirds of the variance. In women, only 20% of the variance was explained by genetic factors. I think its pretty clear now that the prevailing view of homosexuality as a characteristic fixed at birth is incorrect. From what I have read about the legal issues surrounding gay marriage, this kind of data is not irrelevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to reality, I've been here waiting.Oh..and welcome to the "You're a homo-phobe" camp too. The other side has no patience for people who don't believe as they believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a new large scale twin study on sexual orientation published in Archives of Sexual Behavior this year: Långström et al. Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of sexual behavior (2010) vol. 39 (1) pp. 75-80.This is the largest twin study ever conducted on the issue, and involved almost 4,000 pairs of twins in Sweden. They found that for men, genetic effects explained about 35% of the variance in sexual orientation, while individual-specific environment accounted for the other two-thirds of the variance. In women, only 20% of the variance was explained by genetic factors. I think its pretty clear now that the prevailing view of homosexuality as a characteristic fixed at birth is incorrect. From what I have read about the legal issues surrounding gay marriage, this kind of data is not irrelevant.
actually, it is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage. even if you choose to be gay, that should not disqualify you from the legal protections of marriage. It has a lot of relevance to tolerance of gays, in general. If this study gains traction, it should be a lovely can of worms.
Link to post
Share on other sites
There was a new large scale twin study on sexual orientation published in Archives of Sexual Behavior this year: Långström et al. Genetic and environmental effects on same-sex sexual behavior: a population study of twins in Sweden. Archives of sexual behavior (2010) vol. 39 (1) pp. 75-80.This is the largest twin study ever conducted on the issue, and involved almost 4,000 pairs of twins in Sweden. They found that for men, genetic effects explained about 35% of the variance in sexual orientation, while individual-specific environment accounted for the other two-thirds of the variance. In women, only 20% of the variance was explained by genetic factors. I think its pretty clear now that the prevailing view of homosexuality as a characteristic fixed at birth is incorrect.
But these results are obvious, right? I mean, there were times when entire cultures practiced homosexuality (Ancient Greece, hellooooo). I certainly believe that culture and society vastly shapes people's sexuality. I think that, without society's implied constraints, we'd see a lot more people who are bisexual.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that, without society's implied constraints, we'd see a lot more people who are bisexual.
If you changed the word people to women, and added the word hot. I don't think you would have much opposition.
Link to post
Share on other sites
If you changed the word people to women, and added the word hot. I don't think you would have much opposition.
gotta take the good with the bad. lemon parties must accompany the hot lesbian action.do NOT google lemon party.
Link to post
Share on other sites
actually, it is irrelevant to the issue of gay marriage. even if you choose to be gay, that should not disqualify you from the legal protections of marriage. It has a lot of relevance to tolerance of gays, in general. If this study gains traction, it should be a lovely can of worms.
I was not commenting on whether it should be relevant. But one reading I made of the legal issue the judge referenced something which had to do with whether or not it was an "inalterable condition" or something like that. I forget the legal term, and I can't find it right now. Still looking though.
But these results are obvious, right? I mean, there were times when entire cultures practiced homosexuality (Ancient Greece, hellooooo). I certainly believe that culture and society vastly shapes people's sexuality. I think that, without society's implied constraints, we'd see a lot more people who are bisexual.
I agree it pretty much has to be this way. But there's a difference between homosexual sexual activity (e.g. jail, ancient greece) and having a gay identity. The prevailing view in our culture seems to be that those with a gay identity have a biological condition.
Link to post
Share on other sites
But there's a difference between homosexual sexual activity (e.g. jail, ancient greece) and having a gay identity. The prevailing view in our culture seems to be that those with a gay identity have a biological condition.
Yeah, that's why I added the bisexual caveat.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not commenting on whether it should be relevant. But one reading I made of the legal issue the judge referenced something which had to do with whether or not it was an "inalterable condition" or something like that. I forget the legal term, and I can't find it right now. Still looking though.
hmmm. Thinking through this, we may some day have a trial where we have to decide what % gayness has to be biologically to count as inalterable.Oy.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...