Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Texas Prop 2: What's it do? (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   
Author Topic: Texas Prop 2: What's it do?
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
They intend to deny homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals.
Again, I don't think that can be said will all certainty. It depends, I guess, on what their response would be if it was pointed out to them that familial rights are similar to marriage rights, in many ways, and that this law may invalidate those. If their response is what Zyne said, then I'd agree the proponderance of evidence would point to this being their intention. I have some doubts about their intentions, because they clearly have trouble with the whole concept of English, especially in regards to how to write a law that works.

However, I wasn't saying "this or that is their intention". I was responding to the "challenge":

quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
Oh, I know there are some, but those people aren't the ones out to :defeat" gay marriage. Props like this one make it clear that the agenda of the anti-ssm crowd isn't preserving marriage, its preserving discrimination. Is there any other way to interpret this?

Adam



[ November 08, 2005, 05:08 PM: Message edited by: javelin ]

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Javelin, in that case, I ARGH! in agreement.
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnLocke
Member
Member # 68

 - posted      Profile for JohnLocke   Email JohnLocke   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Its not like amending the United Constitution its far easier. If the majority want it, it will be changed by a new prop.
This does't really dispute my point, Lew.
Posts: 663 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, and for the record, I don't think there is any chance Prop 2 will fail. I think the vote should be 60%, possibly 70% or more, in favor.
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnLocke
Member
Member # 68

 - posted      Profile for JohnLocke   Email JohnLocke   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We ought to view this as a movement that betrays the very foundations upon which it was built.

You tell me how to get wide public support for a measure which intentionally revokes from local municipalities their freedom to explore choices that may suit their own communities.

No subdivision of state? Nothing "similar"?

Sounds like emminent domain to me, except the state is trying to grab your soul instead of your land.

Posts: 663 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Sounds like emminent domain to me, except the state is trying to grab your soul instead of your land.
Now you understand why I'm somewhat obsessed with raising my family somewhere other than here.
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First, let me apologize to Jav and everyone else for my unnecessarily caustic tone yesterday.


I'm sorry.


Now then( [Wink] ) , to clarify my quote from the top of this page (quoted by Jav), what I was frustrated about was how, in many of the SSM debates I have participated in and watched, the anti-ssm contingent has been pushing the line of argument about "changing the definition on marriage". In other words, its not about keeping anything from gays, its just about preserving the meaning of the word marriage. Thus, SSUs are thrown up as a compromise. Its not a compromise I like, but I had basically resigned myself to the fact that gay marriage would need to wait, at least a couple of political generations. Meanwhile, I am comforted by the fact that the opponents of gay marriage at least seem to want to give the gay community something to validate and reward their relationships.

Then I read this prop. Specifically, specifically worded to make any form of SSU illegal in perpetuity. And by the way it seems to have passed this morning. All other reactions aside, it makes it very difficult for me to, in the future, believe any SSM opponent who brings up the SSU option. In Texas, anyway.

quote:
Yes, and I agree it SUCKS BIG TIME - but I DON'T think it's intended to stop, for example, the legal packages I've mentioned - where things like visiting rights, inheritence, etc. are assigned to another person through a series of legally filed documents (not through a state law allowing these things to be packaged).
Think about it - if a judge ruled that this covered those packages, many adult children would be unable to assign those rights to their parents, including ME! Argh! And hell, it would possibly screw up parent/child legal stuff too! I doubt that was the intention

Of course its not intended to stop those things. That would obviously be an unintended consequence. But that is the problem! This law is specifically targeted towards ONE group of people, and explicitly denies them legal benefits. To borrow your bathroom analogy, its like having a mens room and making women go outside. Allowing SSUs would be like haiving a mens room (marriage) and a womens room (SSUs). Still discriminatory, but at least comparable. This law is far more blatant.

I don't think that the "bad discrimination" distinction is a matter of degree, I think its a matter of type. Gendered bathrooms are overwhelmingly approved of by both genders. Its not even clear which gender is the target of discrimination. The situation with both Jim Crow and anti-gay legislation is a majority group discriminating against a minority. The target is clear, and they (obviously) don't like being discriminated against. Since there is no group with any clear and demonstrable grievance in the case of bathrooms, there is no impetus to change the system. The opposite,of course, is true with gay rights. Its a difference of type.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"My rights, your rights, and gay person's rights are exactly the same. Saying that this is exactly like Jim Crow is a joke. There were seperate rules for whites and blacks. Gay and straight people are subject to the same law.
No one can marry anyone else of the same sex.

You may think the current laws are unjust because it doesn't allow people to do something that they were never able to do, but no one is being singled out or discriminated against."

This argument is a waste of space. Its not only ignorant of current events(gay people ARE being singled out. You can tell by the fact that there's so many states out there passing legislation defining marriage as a man and woman in response to the gay rights movement), but its historically ignorant as well. The Jim Crow laws applied to everyone, black or white.

And, of course, the generic argument that "Of course gays have the right to marry. They have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex," is a complete non-starter, and I'd think it wouldn't even appear on these forums anymore.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And, of course, the generic argument that "Of course gays have the right to marry. They have the right to marry a member of the opposite sex," is a complete non-starter, and I'd think it wouldn't even appear on these forums anymore
I didn't bother on this one. I think we should have a year of mandatory gay marriages for every citizen. Then everyone would have the direct experience of what marrying someone you are not oriented towards is like. I wonder how often we would hear this argument after that.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
TX has banned gay marriage.
Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Richard Dey:
TX has banned gay marriage.

I wish I could swear on this forum. If you could hear me now...
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Its not like amending the United Constitution its far easier. If the majority want it, it will be changed by a new prop.
The problem with this idea is that the legislature has to spend political capital to DO anything. So now, not only do you need a majority of people to support civil unions to get them, you need a significant majority to actually care. That's going to take decades probably, given the current atmosphere in the States.

In the meantime, gays in Texas are going to have to deal with the assorted problems of the state not recognizing their relationships.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not just gay marriage, but any form of civil unions, too. [Frown]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wayward Son:
Not just gay marriage, but any form of civil unions, too. [Frown]

And potentially, any contract that assigns legal protection/rights that are included as being part of a marriage contract.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I didn't bother on this one. I think we should have a year of mandatory gay marriages for every citizen. Then everyone would have the direct experience of what marrying someone you are not oriented towards is like. I wonder how often we would hear this argument after that.
Because right now gays are forced at gunpoint to marry women, so it'd be the same thing. Especially since most gays have religious objections to heterosexuality. Right? Oh please.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The hyberbole on both sides of this issue is deafening.
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, everyone.
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Zyne:
Sorry, everyone.

Don't worry - we don't blame you.

Okay, so I better just speak for myself.

Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And potentially, any contract that assigns legal protection/rights that are included as being part of a marriage contract.
Meh, I don't really know that it's quite so bad as all that. I mean, this is what we have courts for, and this passage isn't really that hard to interpret. The question isn't whether a contract assigns similar protections/rights; the question's whether or not the contract is similar in its totality.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Which means that people can't create a contract between them to protect their interests, in the case of, for example, cohabitation, but not go through a marriage ceremony, and expect to have that contract honored by the state.

It also means people can't draw up a contract, and not go through a marriage ceremony, to create for themselves the legal benefits of marriage. One of the strong arguments against gay marriage is that people can draw up a contract between themselves to get many of the benefits and protections of marriage. Now, in texas, they cant' do that.

Dumb dumb dumb.

[ November 09, 2005, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Adam Masterman:
Now then( [Wink] ) , to clarify my quote from the top of this page (quoted by Jav), what I was frustrated about was how, in many of the SSM debates I have participated in and watched, the anti-ssm contingent has been pushing the line of argument about "changing the definition on marriage". In other words, its not about keeping anything from gays, its just about preserving the meaning of the word marriage. Thus, SSUs are thrown up as a compromise. Its not a compromise I like, but I had basically resigned myself to the fact that gay marriage would need to wait, at least a couple of political generations. Meanwhile, I am comforted by the fact that the opponents of gay marriage at least seem to want to give the gay community something to validate and reward their relationships.

Then I read this prop. Specifically, specifically worded to make any form of SSU illegal in perpetuity. And by the way it seems to have passed this morning. All other reactions aside, it makes it very difficult for me to, in the future, believe any SSM opponent who brings up the SSU option.

Then you weren't paying attention to us.

From the beginning, I and others who argue for ssus rather than ssms, have said that that there are MULTIPLE parties in this.

I and other moderates are trying to build a coalition of gay rights advocates and marriage defenders who see compromise as an option.

If moderate marriage defenders can't get a consensus that way, and get ridiculed as homophobes for our efforts, then we'll swing the other way, because our first priority is to defend the word marriage.

Since my first day on this forum, I have repeated that THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPROMISE IS CLOSING. If you see same-sex unions as an acceptable compromise, then speak now or forever hold your peace.

If it's not already too late. [Frown]

[ November 09, 2005, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Zyne
Member
Member # 117

 - posted      Profile for Zyne   Email Zyne   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's clearly closed in Texas.
Posts: 4003 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
A. Alzabo
Member
Member # 1197

 - posted      Profile for A. Alzabo   Email A. Alzabo   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete:
quote:
Since my first day on this forum, I have repeated that THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPROMISE IS CLOSING. If you see same-sex unions as an acceptable compromise, then speak now or forever hold your peace.

I'm pretty sure that I already "agreed" with you on this insofar that I think it would have been better to push for some sort of civil unions exactly like marriage in terms of legal/social benefits, for now, than to push for "marriage".
Posts: 2519 | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JohnLocke
Member
Member # 68

 - posted      Profile for JohnLocke   Email JohnLocke   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pfft.

The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

Posts: 663 | Registered: Oct 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
gay people ARE being singled out. You can tell by the fact that there's so many states out there passing legislation defining marriage as a man and woman in response to the gay rights movement
That's a crock. The Gay rights movement has been around for decades, and the legislation that protects the definition of marriage as a man and woman, only started appearing en masse in 1996, when a rogue federal court in Hawaii dropped the first ssm bomb. Things really started getting crazy after the Goodridge atrocity, a decision that only a Postmodern mother could love, since it keeps the bathwater and tosses out the baby, saying that the purpose of marriage is to commit people to each other, rather than to give children mothers and fathers.

Protecting the definition of marriage is not an assault on gay rights per se. Gay kids need a mom and dad just as much as stright kids do.

But a coalition of nihilists and idealistic fools has managed to persuade conservative America that "gay rights" is the enemy of marriage. Now gays will reap the whirlwind.

Unless moderates can somehow clean this mess up, that is. Moderates ranging from Bush-43 to Clinton-42 recognize that an FMA that allows for same-sex unions, would mollify most conservatives by protecting marriage, while providing the substantive rights that same-sex couples are asking for.

There is no civil right to a word.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by A. Alzabo:
Pete:
quote:
Since my first day on this forum, I have repeated that THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY FOR COMPROMISE IS CLOSING. If you see same-sex unions as an acceptable compromise, then speak now or forever hold your peace.

I'm pretty sure that I already "agreed" with you on this insofar that I think it would have been better to push for some sort of civil unions exactly like marriage in terms of legal/social benefits, for now, than to push for "marriage".
You did, AA. So did Funean, and so did Ricky, and a couple others here.

My position, and the minimum that would mollify the conservatives, would be to absolutely block the culturally distrusted judicial branch from neutering marriage, and to reverse what happened in MA (but leaving in place existing "marriages," in the spirit of the 5th amendment). That requires a federal amendment. SSUs, or RBs, or MMUs or FFUs or other formalized LTSSRs, could be recognized statewise through non-amendment federal legislation (under the full faith and credit clause), but the reality of compromise is that if you're giving me constitutional language, we should encode what you are asking for in the same amendment, to make that part of our compromise.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That's a crock. The Gay rights movement has been around for decades, and the legislation that protects the definition of marriage as a man and woman, only started appearing en masse in 1996"

Right, and when did the SSM movement start? About 1994.

"Things really started getting crazy after the Goodridge atrocity, a decision that only a Postmodern mother could love, since it keeps the bathwater and tosses out the baby, saying that the purpose of marriage is to commit people to each other, rather than to give children mothers and fathers."

You almost got it right, but the "rather than," part makes it all wrong, since goodridge says that the state has an interest in legislating marriage to protect children and provide them with stable homes.

"Protecting the definition of marriage is not an assault on gay rights per se. Gay kids need a mom and dad just as much as stright kids do."

I still dispute "mom and dad" and rather am going to say that all kids need at least one parent who can provide them with an amount of active attention that is age dependant. And its not just gay kids. Its children of gay parents.

"But a coalition of nihilists and idealistic fools has managed to persuade conservative America that "gay rights" is the enemy of marriage. Now gays will reap the whirlwind."

Well, yes, some conservatives and homophobes and certain religious elements have done this. And I'd agree they are idealistic fools. Not sure about nihilists though, since they seem to be arguing for something.

(You see, I am disputing that it is SSM supporters who have convinced conservatives that SSM is the enemy of marriage, and that, rather, it is people like you who have done this, since I contend that the primary opposition to SSM is not from reasoned principle, but from fear or dislike of homosexuality).

"Unless moderates can somehow clean this mess up, that is. Moderates ranging from Bush-43 to Clinton-42 recognize that an FMA that allows for same-sex unions, would mollify most conservatives by protecting marriage, while providing the substantive rights that same-sex couples are asking for."

But NOT provide the same status of citizenship that same sex couples are also asking for.

"There is no civil right to a word."

No, but there is a civil right that all people be treated equally under the law. There is a civil right that we do not divide citizens into classes.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It also means people can't draw up a contract, and not go through a marriage ceremony, to create for themselves the legal benefits of marriage. One of the strong arguments against gay marriage is that people can draw up a contract between themselves to get many of the benefits and protections of marriage. Now, in texas, they cant' do that.

Dumb dumb dumb.

Dumb were people on your side of this issue who decided to paint SSM as an epic struggle for human rights against the forces of evil and oppression instead of seeking common-sense solutions like that you outlined above. Dumb were those on both sides who were too addicted to hyperbole and invective to try to find common ground.

And now, as a result of that idiocy, people in Texas have lost the ability to find a moderate, reasonable solution. Keep trying to ram this agenda down the majority's throat; it's really working wonders for your position so far.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 2450

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter   Email NobleHunter   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete, the problem with an FMA (federal marriage admendment?) is that I doubt the American political process will make a good one. It could turn out like Prop 2 which would be a disaster.

More likely it will just say "marriage is only between a man and a women" which does squat for gay rights. Why? Because it in no one way enforces any kind of seperate but equal arrangement. It allows for civil unions but doesn't necessarily make them equal to marriage. If they're not, then they are unacceptable.

The best admendment would protect gendered marriage AND create unions saying "unions are to be completely identical to marriage except in these respects:" where the exceptions are mostly superficial and address valid issues. I don't think the American political process is capable passing this admentment, it's too nuanced and complex. The Canadian process couldn't, which is why we just went for marriage, it came complete with constitutional protections, no assembly required.

And guess what? I don't think it's fair that a minority has to muck around with the majority's institution just to get its relationship recognized, but I don't see any other viable alternative.

Posts: 2581 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
No, but there is a civil right that all people be treated equally under the law. There is a civil right that we do not divide citizens into classes.
Except for in the case of affirmative action, because then it's okay. Right? You must be impervious to cognitive dissonance. [Razz]
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Dumb were people on your side of this issue who decided to paint SSM as an epic struggle for human rights against the forces of evil and oppression instead of seeking common-sense solutions like that you outlined above."

You know, people were doing this for a long time. As pete pointed out, the gay rights movement isn't new. But pushing for "common sense" soluations got gays no where in terms of having the legal ability to secure the protections of marriage. Of course, I deny that SSM isn't a common sense solution. It just happens to by MY common sense, rather then YOUR common sense.

"Dumb were people on your side of this issue who decided to paint SSM as an epic struggle for human rights against the forces of evil and oppression"

Dumb were the people on your side of this issue who meant that painting SSM as a struggle against the forces of evil and oppression was barely a stretch.

"Dumb were those on both sides who were too addicted to hyperbole and invective to try to find common ground."

Sometimes common ground is a reasonable first step in a long term plan. Bu, even if gays have the right to civil union but not marriage, my position is that we're still creating a class division between gays and straights, so any solution would have to EVENTUALLY either get rid of legal marriage as a legal institution, or give access to same sex couples within that institution.

"And now, as a result of that idiocy, people in Texas have lost the ability to find a moderate, reasonable solution"

I deny that there IS a moderate reasonable solution that doesn't eventually lead to the two positions I state above.

"Keep trying to ram this agenda down the majority's throat; it's really working wonders for your position so far."

It worked for women's rights and black rights.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Except for in the case of affirmative action, because then it's okay. Right? You must be impervious to cognitive dissonance. "

The vast majority of affirmative action "actions" actually force people to be treated equally under the law, and ends the division of classism. In the cases where it doesn't, i can't think of a better way to create a sitution in which blacks and whites are treated equally under the law, and are considered part of the same class.

I've never said affirmative action is GOOD. I've said its the "least bad." In much the same way that a middle-compromise position that eventually leads to equality under the law, for SSM, would be acceptable to me, so to is affirmative action acceptable.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The vast majority of affirmative action "actions" actually force people to be treated equally under the law
Are you being serious here, or is this a joke? Affirmative action treats people unequally under the law in order to "balance out" what its advocates believe to be inequality outside the law. Rules giving preferential treatment to one group over another necessarily constitute unequal treatment. If you think that's justified, that's fine, but let's be honest about what it is we're discussing.

Affirmative action divides people into "classes" based on race (as a result of what you believe to be discrimination), and treats them differently on that basis in order to redress historical and present "wrongs". You can hold that position if you want to, but you don't get to hold it and at the same time insist that every citizen must be treated equally under the law.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
You know, people were doing this for a long time. As pete pointed out, the gay rights movement isn't new. But pushing for "common sense" soluations got gays no where in terms of having the legal ability to secure the protections of marriage.
The majority of protections given by marriage could be secured by other means, and many of those which couldn't are things on which a lot of people like me were/are willing to compromise.

quote:
Of course, I deny that SSM isn't a common sense solution. It just happens to by MY common sense, rather then YOUR common sense.
You think that a pro-SSM position is something that can garner the support of the majority of people in this country in the near future? I certainly don't.

quote:
Dumb were the people on your side of this issue who meant that painting SSM as a struggle against the forces of evil and oppression was barely a stretch.
That certainly isn't most of us, and most of us are tired of being painted that way.

quote:
Sometimes common ground is a reasonable first step in a long term plan. Bu, even if gays have the right to civil union but not marriage, my position is that we're still creating a class division between gays and straights, so any solution would have to EVENTUALLY either get rid of legal marriage as a legal institution, or give access to same sex couples within that institution.
Well, then we'll need to stop calling people "Mr.", "Ms.", and "Mrs." in short order too. If everything has to be gender-neutral, then we'll need to call everyone the same thing. Women need to sign up for the Selective Service, because that sort of classism can't be allowed to remain.

quote:
It worked for women's rights and black rights.
Apples and Gorillas.
Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I didn't bother on this one. I think we should have a year of mandatory gay marriages for every citizen. Then everyone would have the direct experience of what marrying someone you are not oriented towards is like. I wonder how often we would hear this argument after that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because right now gays are forced at gunpoint to marry women, so it'd be the same thing. Especially since most gays have religious objections to heterosexuality. Right? Oh please.

I think this post misses my point. The argument that "gays are allowed to marry women" is thrown out often in a very cavalier fashion. My only point was that, if people actually had the experience of marrying against their inclinations, they might be less likely to blithly assume that this was a real solution. A little bit of empathy would accomplish the same thing, incidentally.

And what do people's religious opinions have to do with anything. A religious opinion is no more valuable than a non-religious one, and I say that as a very religious person. People have objections to the gay lifestyle, true. Personally, I wonder how its any of their business. The fact that they have a religios reason for these objections matters not at all to me, nor should it. Its not like we give church goers more votes than athiests.

Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Apples and Gorillas."

I disagree, which is, probably, at the bottom of our disagreements. It might be cortlands and macintoshes, and we could STRETCH and say cats and dogs.

"Women need to sign up for the Selective Service, because that sort of classism can't be allowed to remain."

I agree. I think that women should be legally required to sign up for selective service, OR, men shouldn't be.

"You think that a pro-SSM position is something that can garner the support of the majority of people in this country in the near future? I certainly don't."

No, but I also don't think that common sense is that common.

"The majority of protections given by marriage could be secured by other means, and many of those which couldn't are things on which a lot of people like me were/are willing to compromise."

I agree. But having some of the protections, through means that existed prior to your movement, doesn't mean you've made any progress securing equal treatment.

"That certainly isn't most of us, and most of us are tired of being painted that way."

I agree that most of you are not evil, but I disagree that any of you are supporting a position that is not a position that continues "oppression" (using the word loosely since it is originall your word).

"Are you being serious here, or is this a joke? Affirmative action treats people unequally under the law in order to "balance out" what its advocates believe to be inequality outside the law. Rules giving preferential treatment to one group over another necessarily constitute unequal treatment. If you think that's justified, that's fine, but let's be honest about what it is we're discussing."

YEs, lets be honest: The vast majority of affirmative actions are things like making sure that advertisements for positions are in newspapers that people from all communities will read, that people aren't prevented from interviewing because of their race, etc.

"Affirmative action divides people into "classes" based on race"

Yes, it does distinguish between races.

"Affirmative action divides people into "classes" based on race (as a result of what you believe to be discrimination), and treats them differently on that basis in order to redress historical and present "wrongs""

Mostly, it doesn't treat them differently. It forces people to treat them the same.

"and treats them differently on that basis in order to redress historical and present "wrongs"""

Great, put those historical wrongs in quotes. Are you prepared to argue slavery and jim crow were not wrongs? If not, get those damn quotes out of there.

"but you don't get to hold it and at the same time insist that every citizen must be treated equally under the law."

Yes I do. If I'm supporting a policy that moves people towards equal treatment under the law, because I believe equal treatment under the law is what we need to have, then I damn well get to argue that we need to treat people equally under the law.

There's no cognotive dissonance because I'm arguing exactly the same thing. I'm arguing we need to move to equal treatment under the law, and it is my position that the unequal treatment under the law because of AA is far less egregious then the unequal treatment that would exist without it, and is therefore a step towards what I am saying should happen.

So yes, I damn well get to make the arguments I'm making.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I think this post misses my point. The argument that "gays are allowed to marry women" is thrown out often in a very cavalier fashion. My only point was that, if people actually had the experience of marrying against their inclinations, they might be less likely to blithly assume that this was a real solution. A little bit of empathy would accomplish the same thing, incidentally.
It's thrown out there as a response to those who object on legal grounds, saying that gays don't have the same legal right straights do. Certainly they may not be in a position where they're equally likely to avail themselves of the rights they have, but to argue that a person from one group has a different set of rights from a person in another is to ignore the reality that both a gay man and a straight man have the right to marry the same people.

The gay man wants to "marry" different people. He wants new "rights" (benefits). He may be right to ask for them, but we shouldn't operate under the pretense that he isn't asking for them.

quote:
I agree. But having some of the protections, through means that existed prior to your movement, doesn't mean you've made any progress securing equal treatment.
Boulderdash. I'd be willing to extend the vast majority of protections/rights/penalties given under marriage to same-sex couples. That would certainly represent "progress" for said couples. So would a lot of people on my side of the aisle. But you guys are so caught up on the terminology that you can't/won't reach over and embrace us. Instead we get called all sorts of wicked names for refusing to call a different thing by the same name. Bloody sad.

quote:
I agree that most of you are not evil, but I disagree that any of you are supporting a position that is not a position that continues "oppression" (using the word loosely since it is originall your word).
Well, no, with due respect it isn't originally my word. It's the word used by your movement to describe what people on my side of the issue are doing, and it's absurd. I bet about 70-80% of people in this country could get together around a common position if asinine terms like that weren't so pervasive. But they are, so we're all screwed.

quote:
Yes, it does distinguish between races.
This is an important statement. What you're saying is that it's legally acceptable for us to divide citizens into classes based upon immutable characterizations if we feel that the alternative is "worse". You might not want to put it that way, but you can't support affirmative action without agreeing with that statement.

quote:
Mostly, it doesn't treat them differently. It forces people to treat them the same.
Let's have a look at affirmative action in college applications. We're both similarly qualified applicants; your SATs are maybe 10 points higher. I'll be the black guy, you can be whitie. If we were the same color, you'd have a small edge and be accepted over me. Since I'm black, I get the spot and you get to find another school. We've just been treated differently on the basis of our respective races than we otherwise would've been. This isn't "treating people the same".

quote:
Great, put those historical wrongs in quotes. Are you prepared to argue slavery and jim crow were not wrongs? If not, get those damn quotes out of there.
No, but I am prepared to argue that the existence of incidental inequality (inequality wherein people are not treated differently under the law but attain disparate socioeconomic status) isn't a positive "wrong" which we should combat by way of governmental policy. So no sir, I shan't get my quotes out of there.

quote:
Yes I do. If I'm supporting a policy that moves people towards equal treatment under the law, because I believe equal treatment under the law is what we need to have, then I damn well get to argue that we need to treat people equally under the law.
Not when you support a policy that treats two individual citizens differently because of their races you don't. I don't give a hoot what the "majority" of affirmative action policies address; the essence of the program is to treat a black guy differently from a white guy in order to "elevate" the black guy from his position of historical oppression. The ends might be equality (parity's a better word for what you're looking for), but the means certainly do entail unequal treatment for people on the basis of race.

My English teacher's son was waitlisted at Princeton. She called to ask the school what his chances of being accepted were, as he would need to enroll in a school fairly soon. At first, the admissions person was unwilling to tell her. After a bit of prodding, the admissions lady confided:

"Well, off the record, you should probably enroll elsewhere. Your son's a white male, and our policy is to give waitlisted minorities and females special consideration."

This is affirmative action in action. It's unequal treatment plain and simple.

Edited for clarity

[ November 09, 2005, 03:47 PM: Message edited by: Paladine ]

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paladine
Member
Member # 1932

 - posted      Profile for Paladine   Email Paladine   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And what do people's religious opinions have to do with anything. A religious opinion is no more valuable than a non-religious one, and I say that as a very religious person.
Religious opinions tend to be more strongly held that non-religious ones. There are exceptions, and it certainly varies with the person, but religious belief is deeper and more personal than many other sorts of belief.

quote:
People have objections to the gay lifestyle, true. Personally, I wonder how its any of their business. The fact that they have a religios reason for these objections matters not at all to me, nor should it. Its not like we give church goers more votes than athiests.
Nope, each atheist and each church-goer receives one vote. There are more church-goers in this country than atheists, however, and the democratic process is going to and should be reflective of that. Shouldn't it?

And yes, when people petition the government for a contract, it does become a public issue. What contracts my government issues to other individuals or entities is damn well my business. What people do in the privacy of their own homes is none of my affair. If they want to get married in private, without any sort of public sanctioning, then they've every right to insist that it's none of my business. Once they make it a public issue, it's a public issue.

Posts: 3235 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

And what do people's religious opinions have to do with anything. A religious opinion is no more valuable than a non-religious one, and I say that as a very religious person. People have objections to the gay lifestyle, true. Personally, I wonder how its any of their business. The fact that they have a religios reason for these objections matters not at all to me, nor should it. Its not like we give church goers more votes than athiests.
Adam

Prosecutor tossing a catholic priest in jail for giving communion wine to a minor:

quote:

And what do people's religious opinions have to do with anything. A religious opinion is no more valuable than a non-religious one, and I say that as a very religious person. People think that taking communion wine is good, true. The fact that they have a religious reason for giving communion wine to a minor matters not at all to me, nor should it. Its not like we give church goers more votes than athiests.


Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Pete, the problem with an FMA (federal marriage admendment?) is that I doubt the American political process will make a good one. It could turn out like Prop 2 which would be a disaster.

More likely it will just say "marriage is only between a man and a women" which does squat for gay rights. Why?

Why? Here's what I'll say: "Because gays stupidly stayed out of the political process that produced it, rather than compromising, until it was too fragging late. That's why."

Is it already too late? Maybe. Maybe not. But if it's not too late now, it will be soon. If you're inclined to cut deals, cut them fast.


quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Because it in no one way enforces any kind of seperate but equal arrangement. It allows for civil unions but doesn't necessarily make them equal to marriage. If they're not, then they are unacceptable.

Apples are not equal to oranges, and plenty of people consider both of them acceptable. They have different social purposes. The only way they could possibly be equal would be if you removed all gendered concepts from marriage, and that's exactly what we are fighting against.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1