 |
| |
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
While we allow single moms to raise kids by themselves, we as a society encourage father-mother families as the best for kids. We also do not encourage raising kids in "gay" families. Allowing gay marriage may signal such an encouragement where no such encouragement is intended. |
As I already noted, unless you can cite studies showing that a rasing a child in a mother father family is better than one with two parents of the same sex, such a policy is nothing more than based on prejudice and imposing religiously based moral views upon others. The studies may show that children are BETTER off being raised in homosexual two parent households for all we know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
CharlesBHoff
|
|
el paso texas
May 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Mordoch, Why does the party who relies on thousands of years of history have to rely on studies? I would think the party proposing a change from the norm should provide the studies.
Who has the burden of proof? The party of change or the party of status quo? |
I believe that the past studies arenot correctly done or the methord use are wrong. Remember when they said eating butter was bad to you because of the polyunsat fat. While they re-exaime the orginate study an found to save money instead of useing real butter they use palm tree oil which isnot eaten or use in any foods eaten by human which mean the orginate study was badly flawed. When they ban that sweetner back in the 1970's because they believe it cause cancer was flaw they where given the rat would haven equall to than person drinking 700 1 liter bottle of diet soda
aday, drinking bottle of string water aday can kill you by causeing cancer.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Mindseye, the critical portion of your post is your statement that you had no "choice." I think that science is beginning to accept that homosexuality is genetic and not a mental disorder. I think this lead to the recent Supreme Court decision ruling unconstitutional laws banning sodomy.
But the fact that such laws existed in the majority of states also illustrates why homosexual marriage is not accepted by most Americans. It will take some time for this attitude to change. If the Supreme Court again forces the issue by decision, this will again become another Roe v. Wade. (I think the Supremes could hold the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional because it impairs the right to travel.)
Also, throughout this thread I have not seen one of the reasons for tax breaks for traditional families. The presumption is that the woman will stay at home to raise the kids and support her husband in his career. This model does not correspond in gay marriages even if gays can raise kids.
While we allow single moms to raise kids by themselves, we as a society encourage father-mother families as the best for kids. We also do not encourage raising kids in "gay" families. Allowing gay marriage may signal such an encouragement where no such encouragement is intended. |
All true. Most Americans, and indeed most people in most of the world, are against homosexual unions (with rare exceptions, such as in certain tribes of New Guinea), but we can also change, and are always in the process of change culturally. We can come to accept that homosexuality is an anomoly and not normal, but also perfectly acceptable.
Its like downs syndrome or any other birth "disorder", its not "normal" (in a evolutionary biological sense), but we can accept them for it.
Edit: I didn't mean "normal" in any subjective way, just that its not the norm.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
JimmyCracksCorn
|
|
Macedonia - Sovereign country north of Greece.
Dec 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
...but I'd like to know what motivates individuals to be hostile to the idea of Gays wearing a marriage ring. |
Cultural conditioning. Its a powerful thing. Humans are designed to soak in culture and behavior... just look at little kids.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
I'm still waiting for Ben Kenobi to respond. Still waiting...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Mordoch, Why does the party who relies on thousands of years of history have to rely on studies? I would think the party proposing a change from the norm should provide the studies.
Who has the burden of proof? The party of change or the party of status quo? |
Conventional wisdom at various times has held that the world is flat and the earth stays in one place while the sun orbits around it. Conventional wisdom also held that maggots spontaniously were generated from rotten meat. Coventional wisdom with "thousands of years of history" is often horrendiously wrong. I might add, that I don't believe there used to be such a concern about the two parent issue in wealthy families since a nursemaid would be raising the child and the child would hardly ever see their parents anyways. You're talking about granting one group rights that another group won't get (or at least taking measures based on one group's behavoir being undesirable) without any concrete logical reason behind such a policy you're looking at a clear cut case of discrimination. When you are the one talking about restricting the ability of individuals to conduct certain behavoir, the burden of proving why this is needed falls on your side, and saying "tradition" doesn't cut it.
Last edited by Mordoch on 01-12-2003 at 08:45
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
 |
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Mordoch - quote:
As I already noted, unless you can cite studies showing that a rasing a child in a mother father family is better than one with two parents of the same sex, such a policy is nothing more than based on prejudice and imposing religiously based moral views upon others. The studies may show that children are BETTER off being raised in homosexual two parent households for all we know. |
I wouldn't doubt for a minute a homosexual child might be better off in a homosexual household simply because of the detachment the child would feel in a heterosexual household, but the converse is also true, a heterosexual child might feel a detachment from the parents in a homosexual household. Then there's the problem of dealing with other kids when they discover mommy and daddy are actually mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy. You can complain about discrimination or bigotry toward homosexuals all you want, but that won't make it disappear. That kid will feel discomfort because of how his peers view his family... And since the vast majority of people (and children) are not homosexual, we don't need any study showing that it is better for a child to grow up in a heterosexual household. It's just common sense...
Mindseye - quote:
Well, since you brought up "other parts of the globe", both China and Europe have far-from-recent traditions of same-sex marriages. |
Oh really? Feel free to post the proof...
quote:
As I have pointed out time and time again, those who speak of "traditional" forms of marriage usually are in fact referring to marriage as practiced in the industrialized west during the latter half of the twentieth century. |
Not me, so since you're quoting me, address what I've said, not what others say. 
quote:
Marriage based primarily on mutual love, between two equal and consenting adults, irrespective of race or religion, isn’t "traditional" marriage. |
Why not? You seem to think marriage in one culture negates traditional marriages everywhere else.
quote:
For example, as recently as 150 years ago a man could marry a 13-year old. |
Every culture has had "age of consent" limitations on the age of the people getting married, the fact life spans were so short and nature's design (puberty) led to marriages between young people is irrelevant, we have our age of consent, they had theirs. Btw, I believe men can still marry ~15 year olds in some states.
quote:
Within living memory a black or Asian man could not marry a white woman. Thank heavens the law broke with these "traditions". |
This was not a tradition, it was a temporary and isolated law. The fact is people of different races have always married even if frowned upon by some people and outlawed in a few states over a few decades.
quote:
You may not feel there is status associated with marriage, but many of those denied the official sanction feel all too keenly the status their relationships are denied. It is very real, I assure you. Being allowed an equal but "second class" form of marriage is, as Andrew Sullivan put it, nothing more than a finer form of discrimination. |
What exactly is it about the word "marriage" that homosexuals need to be identified with? Don't give me that stuff about being a second class citizen, this is about a word and it's definition. If homosexuals were really concerned about a word and the status it conveys, why don't they demand the government call them heterosexuals instead of homosexuals? Oh, because they aren't heterosexuals? Why not? Oh yeah, because words have definitions!!! Aren't homosexuals already accepting a word to describe themselves that sets them apart from most people?
Maybe single people think they're second class citizens too. Maybe they want the status of being "married" even though they aren't, if we're going to re-define "marriage" to include same sex relationships, why not re-define the word to include single people who are merely dating (or not dating)? There is a reason words have definitions... Maybe criminals don't like the status of being criminals, let's just call them "law-abiding" people...
quote:
And if that chorus is composed of a lot more voices than just those of politicians? |
Gee, I don't know. What percentage of the population does it take to re-define a word?
quote:
Seems you are saying that unions between gay people are in some fundamental way different from those of straight people (i.e. they are not red roses, but are, in fact, pigs). |
That "fundamental way" is the word used to describe the union between straight people - "marriage". Do homosexuals want us to call them heterosexual too?
quote:
Beyond legal sanction, how are they so very different? |
"Marriage" is a word to describe a certain type of contract/union between men and women. Homosexuals, by definition, do not fit that description.
quote:
And who is to decide just what is a pig or a red rose? |
People with eyesight?
quote:
Who are you to call a gay person's relationship a "pig" while someone else's is a "red rose"? |
I am me...Would you prefer a black rose and a red rose or will black and red people take offense now?
quote:
Is a gay person's love for their life-mate somehow less worthy than someone else's? |
 PC strikes again, now we have to watch the metaphors we use lest someone read an insult into our choice of words. I was going to ask who you were to assume I meant the homosexual relationship was the pig and not the rose, but what's the point? You seek out insults where none exist so you'd probably object to the metaphor of a red rose too...
quote:
Even if you had used a less offensive choice of terms (a low blow, by the way), the question would be unchanged. |
Why do you find pigs offensive? I like pigs more than red roses and I find your comment offensive. And no, I'm not saying I like homsexuals more than heterosexuals or that I like heterosexuals more than homsexuals, these are metaphors and I was offering an anology (you know...oops...you don't know).
quote:
You mean, just like alternatives to what you call "traditional" marriage existed before current laws "invented" it? |
I meant what I said, here it is again:
"I'm saying these actions existed before politicians passed laws "inventing" them."
I was referring to the concepts of murder and theft and the acts that qualify as murder and theft matching those concepts (if you had read what Ramo and I were debating you would be informed of the context ). You want to transfer that statement to marriage? Fine, the concept of marriage preceded the current laws defining marriage and if the laws don't match the preceding concept, then the laws are a perversion of "tradition" and language.
By just about everyone except for a tiny minority of homosexual activists and their supporters.
quote:
You seem to be terribly selective in the "traditions" you draw upon for this definition. |
Oh really? I can't wait for the proof you have to back that up.
quote:
Just as the "certain kind of situation" you refer to has not always been, as you pointed out, between two people, neither has it always been between two adults, nor has it always been between people of different genders. In the past it was also "traditionally" restricted to people of the same race. Should we continue that tradition? |
Ah, so your accusation of hypocrisy is based on your own unproven assertions about traditional marriages. Nice, I believe that's called "circular" logic. So you believe a law banning asian and black men from marrying white women passed by a tiny minority of the world's population in a tiny geographical area for a tiny part of mankind's history qualifies as a "tradition" that nullifies the rest of the world's traditions? That happens to be your argument...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
Berzerker,
While I'm not sure that I disagree with your points, I do question your motivation.
Even assuming that "marriage" properly means what you say it does, who is being hurt by allowing homosexuals to marry? It doesn't hurt you, it doesn't hurt heterosexual marriage relationships, and since we're speaking hypothetically, no one is getting government benefits anyway.
So again, what is your motivation for not allowing two consenting adults to define a term however they want, in a private contract?
Oh, and you might make an argument that that is all well and good in a hypothetical world, but in the real world, benefits do exist. Don't make that argument. My response will be "Great! This is a way for people to get back some of the money the government took from them!" Again, this doesn't hurt you, because you aren't being forced to pay the benefits - the benefits received are probably much less than the taxes those individuals paid, so it seems to me that from your (our) perspective, allowing homosexual couples to marry and receive economic benefits is a POSITIVE thing, regardless of the historical definition of the term "marriage".
I guess it boils down to this: What do you care?
Same question to BK, by the way.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Mordoch -
I wouldn't doubt for a minute a homosexual child might be better off in a homosexual household simply because of the detachment the child would feel in a heterosexual household, but the converse is also true, a heterosexual child might feel a detachment from the parents in a homosexual household. Then there's the problem of dealing with other kids when they discover mommy and daddy are actually mommy and mommy or daddy and daddy. You can complain about discrimination or bigotry toward homosexuals all you want, but that won't make it disappear. That kid will feel discomfort because of how his peers view his family... And since the vast majority of people (and children) are not homosexual, we don't need any study showing that it is better for a child to grow up in a heterosexual household. It's just common sense...
|
Oh wonderful, since people discriminate against a group, that gives us a reason why we should continue to discriminate against them. That same logic could be used to argue that since people discriminate against African-Americans, we should prohibit them from adopting children to spare any children the potential discrimination they might receive. Incidentally, after the Civil Rights Act was passed, a store owner argued he was not barring African-Americans from his shop due to his prejudice against them, but because his customers were prejudiced against African-Americans and he didn't want to risk harming his business by angering his non-African-American customers. This argument was firmly shot down when it reached the US Supreme Court and they ruled against the store owner, and if a court ever ruled on your argument, I expect the same results would occur. The suggestion is also disturbing since it seems to potentially set up a vicious repeating cycle.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
David - quote:
While I'm not sure that I disagree with your points, I do question your motivation |
I have 2 motivations, 1) preserving the meaning of words. I don't like it when liberals and conservatives re-define freedom to mean whatever they want it to mean, so obviously I don't like it when homosexuals try to re-define "marriage" to mean what they want it to mean. 2) Reducing government intervention in our lives, not increasing it.
quote:
Even assuming that "marriage" properly means what you say it does, who is being hurt by allowing homosexuals to marry? |
No one that I can tell, but people do get hurt when other words are re-defined to mean something else. Blacks were defined as non-people, unborn babies are now defined as non-humans, etc... I want to know why homosexuals have this need to adopt a word referring to a certain kind of heterosexual contract/relationship...
quote:
It doesn't hurt you, it doesn't hurt heterosexual marriage relationships, and since we're speaking hypothetically, no one is getting government benefits anyway. So again, what is your motivation for not allowing two consenting adults to define a term however they want, in a private contract? |
We aren't speaking hypothetically, we are talking about government compelling all of us to accept homosexual unions as "marriages" and there will be benefits involved. You already know my position, government should not be involved with marriage at all except for what happens when a marriage disolves, i.e., custody, inheritance, wills... If homosexuals want to tell us they are "married", who cares? Certainly not me, but they want the law to care. Once the law cares, then every business that affords benefits to married people will be compelled to afford those benefits to homosexuals... I don't even want the laws we have now, so why on Earth would I want those laws expanded based on a politically motivated re-defining of the language?
quote:
Oh, and you might make an argument that that is all well and good in a hypothetical world, but in the real world, benefits do exist. Don't make that argument. My response will be "Great! This is a way for people to get back some of the money the government took from them!" |
It will mean an expansion of government mandated costs onto the private sector which will result in a transfer of wealth from consumers to the political beneficiaries of the law. Every "social" program is a transfer of wealth, even programs we pay into like Social Security and unemployment "insurance".
People die before retiring and the employed pay for the unemployed...
quote:
Again, this doesn't hurt you, because you aren't being forced to pay the benefits - the benefits received are probably much less than the taxes those individuals paid, so it seems to me that from your (our) perspective, allowing homosexual couples to marry and receive economic benefits is a POSITIVE thing, regardless of the historical definition of the term "marriage". |
I don't define words based on who is getting an economic benefit.
quote:
I guess it boils down to this: What do you care? |
I've answered, so what do you care? Freedom? The freedom of homosexuals to have words re-defined to suit themselves? The freedom of homosexuals to have government force the rest of us to accept their relationships as marriages with mandated benefits?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Mordoch - quote:
So, why does this prohibit the state from granting civil unions to everyone and allowing private organizations to come up with their own definitions of marriage? |
The government would have to repeal a bunch of laws then, and that ain't gonna happen nor are homosexuals calling for the repeal of those laws. The primary reason they want the rest of us to recognise their "marriages" is because of those laws...
quote:
It also certainly doesn't explain why homosexuals can't be allowed to have "civil unions" with essentially the same legal rights as marriages. |
Married people shouldn't have those legal "rights" either. I'm not opposed to "civil unions" as long as they make NO demands on other people. I am opposed to re-defining the word "marriage" though...
quote:
Incidentally, sometimes the meaning of words just change. The phrase "gay old time" doesn't have the immediate conotations that were intended when the Flintstones cartoon initially incorperated the words in their theme song! |
Yeah, and people named "Gay" had their name hijacked by homosexuals too. I know the meanings of words can change, so what? I'm not obliged to accept every political pressure group's attempt to re-define words to suit their agenda...
quote:
Oh wonderful, since people discriminate against a group, that gives us a reason why we should continue to discriminate against them. |
That's illogical, I wasn't justifying discrimination, merely pointing out that children can be cruel and no matter what you want or say, children in homosexual households will most likely face ridicule if not worse. You not only claimed we needed studies to know if heterosexual households provided a better environment, you suggested homosexual households might be better. Instead of challenging my refutation, you launched into a meaningless commentary on what life should be like, not what life is like.
quote:
That same logic could be used to argue that since people discriminate against African-Americans, we should prohibit them from adopting children to spare any children the potential discrimination they might receive. |
Hell, even liberals have argued against adoption agencies allowing white people to adopt black children because of the cultural detachment. If there is a white kid and a black kid available for adoption, would you seriously place the white kid with black parents and the black kid with the white parents?
quote:
Incidentally, after the Civil Rights Act was passed, a store owner argued he was not barring African-Americans from his shop due to his prejudice against them, but because his customers were prejudiced against African-Americans and he didn't want to risk harming his business by angering his non-African-American customers. This argument was firmly shot down when it reached the US Supreme Court and they ruled against the store owner, and if a court ever ruled on your argument, I expect the same results would occur. |
So what? The store owner was within his rights to decide who gets to enter his store. And I could care less what the SCOTUS said, they re-define words too whenever it suits them...
quote:
The suggestion is also disturbing since it seems to potentially set up a vicious repeating cycle. |
Unless you plan on taking kids away from people you consider racist and raising them yourself, that cycle is and will be a reality. Of course, even that won't stop the cycle of racism and discrimination. Jesse Jackson said he's more afraid of black men that white men...and he's black! What does that say? Well, discrimination is not entirely irrational or unjustified...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
DD,
quote:
I thought that you didn't like the changes made to the Constitution after the Civil War. |
I'm uncomfortable with the legality of the method of change, not to mention the morality of the US war against the CSA. I'm in no way uncomfortable with banning slavery, or with making statements that slavery is wrong.
Berz,
quote:
1) preserving the meaning of words. I don't like it when liberals and conservatives re-define freedom to mean whatever they want it to mean, so obviously I don't like it when homosexuals try to re-define "marriage" to mean what they want it to mean. |
Sure, but the two are different. When you say "liberals", I think you really mean "government", for all intents and purposes. Two individuals should have the freedom to decide between themselves the meaning of words, so long as their private agreement doesn't hurt anyone (they can't redefine murder and then go out and kill someone, for exmaple).
quote:
2) Reducing government intervention in our lives, not increasing it. |
I'm not sure how allowing two consenting adults to contract freely inreases government intervention.
quote:
No one that I can tell, but people do get hurt when other words are re-defined to mean something else. Blacks were defined as non-people, unborn babies are now defined as non-humans, etc... |
Absolutely. And the problem with this is that the GOVERNMENT decided all of these things. Blacks were defined as, at best, PARTIAL people by the Constitution. If you and I get together and agree that blacks are not human, well and good. Right or wrong, we can decide whatever we want. If we take action against blacks based upon our decision, that's something else entirely.
quote:
I want to know why homosexuals have this need to adopt a word referring to a certain kind of heterosexual contract/relationship... |
Who cares? Marriage contracts are, properly, nothing more than civil contracts between individuals. Let the individuals agree to whatever they want - there's no coercion here. You don't have to say they are married - hell, you don't have to say anyone is married.
quote:
We aren't speaking hypothetically, we are talking about government compelling all of us to accept homosexual unions as "marriages" and there will be benefits involved. You already know my position, government should not be involved with marriage at all except for what happens when a marriage disolves, i.e., custody, inheritance, wills... If homosexuals want to tell us they are "married", who cares? Certainly not me, but they want the law to care. Once the law cares, then every business that affords benefits to married people will be compelled to afford those benefits to homosexuals... I don't even want the laws we have now, so why on Earth would I want those laws expanded based on a politically motivated re-defining of the language? |
So the solution, then, is not to infringe upon the freedom of individuals to contract amongst themselves, but rather to eliminate laws that force businesses to provide benefits. I'm no fan of laws that prevent the private sector from discriminating.
But there is no excuse for arbitrarily restricting consenting adults from contracting together, and citing potential government impositions on freedom is certainly NOT an excuse to impose on freedom in another way.
quote:
It will mean an expansion of government mandated costs onto the private sector which will result in a transfer of wealth from consumers to the political beneficiaries of the law. Every "social" program is a transfer of wealth, even programs we pay into like Social Security and unemployment "insurance". |
I agree. See above. The fact that the potential exists for the government to steal from certain people is not a justification for preventing people from contracting freely. If the government uses their contract as an excuse to steal, that is the fault and moral responsibility of the government, and the government alone.
quote:
I don't define words based on who is getting an economic benefit. |
And no one is asking you to write out the private marriage contracts of other people - that's their business.
quote:
I've answered, so what do you care? Freedom? The freedom of homosexuals to have words re-defined to suit themselves? |
No, the freedom of homosexuals to define words however they choose, in a non-coercive manner.
quote:
The freedom of homosexuals to have government force the rest of us to accept their relationships as marriages with mandated benefits? |
That's a bit of a strawman. There is a disconnect between the freedom of homosexuals to enter into marriage contracts, and government coercion. The two are not related, even if the government says so. But why should you believe the government? The government is the one coercing you, not the homosexuals. And that is the primary difference between the two - homosexual marriage is a non-coercive matter, while government coercion, no matter what the justification, is by definition coercive.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Floyd
|
|
The bottom of a large bottle of beer
Jan 1970
time: 05:32
|
|
As a more complete answer re: motivation, my motivation is the same as when I oppose capital gains taxes. I don't own stock, so the presence or absence of a capital gains tax doesn't make a noticeable impact on me (although certainly there is some, but that isn't the point), yet I still oppose the tax. The reason for this is that I see a restriction of one person's liberty - no matter what the liberty - as a restriction on my liberty. If the government can take away the capital gains of a businessman, then there is no logical reason the government can't take away my car. Put another way, there is no consistent way for me to take the position that it is OK for the government to rob one person, but wrong for the government to rob me.
Same with homosexual marriage. If the government is allowed to restrict the right to contract among homosexuals, then there is no logical way for me to say they can't restrict my right to contract in some other way. I don't see any significant difference in a marriage contract between two men and a contract between me and Bob's Roofing Company. The terms of the contract may be different, but fundamentally, a contract is simply an agreement between two people. I'm not comfortable with the government restricting that right - I'll enter into agreements with whoever I please for whatever I please, and until we start coercing other people in some way, it's none of anyone else's business.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
That's illogical, I wasn't justifying discrimination, merely pointing out that children can be cruel and no matter what you want or say, children in homosexual households will most likely face ridicule if not worse. You not only claimed we needed studies to know if heterosexual households provided a better environment, you suggested homosexual households might be better. Instead of challenging my refutation, you launched into a meaningless commentary on what life should be like, not what life is like. |
Meaningless my ASS! You're arguing because many in society are prejudiced against a group that leaves the government and society free to discriminate further whenever this applies. Does this mean that restarants can have "No Queers allowed" signs if they are worried that their customers might be homophobic and not frequent their shop if they allow gays in? Your principle can be extended in some very disturbing ways, and you need to consider the logical consquences of establishing such a principle when you apply it to a specific issue.
quote:
So what? The store owner was within his rights to decide who gets to enter his store. And I could care less what the SCOTUS said, they re-define words too whenever it suits them... |
Um wow.  Bring back the good old days of segregation. Those stupid colored people are clearly breaking the law by staging sit-ins since this is a whites only resterant. Since the bus service is privately owned and merely contracted to the city, those black people must understand their place and sit in the back of the bus! Private schools can arbitrarily keep colored kids out, and lets extend vouchers why we're at it to everyone so that white people can avoid attending school with those black animals. Regardless of what laws congress or a state passes, they should not be allowed to interfere with these policies that we use to keep those colored folks in their place. I know some people who often dress up in white robes from head to toe who have similar views to yourself. Even if you argue they can only discriminate when they argue it is a business decision, virtually any private business owner can use the excuse of their customer's prejudices to justify their businesses discriminatory policies that are actually in place due to their own bigotry.
quote:
Unless you plan on taking kids away from people you consider racist and raising them yourself, that cycle is and will be a reality. Of course, even that won't stop the cycle of racism and discrimination. Jesse Jackson said he's more afraid of black men that white men...and he's black! What does that say? Well, discrimination is not entirely irrational or unjustified... |
Actually, discouraging gay couples from raising kids would directly contribute to perpetuating the cycle of discrimination. It has been repeatly demonstrated that prejudice is often fostered by ignorance and issolation from a group different than an individual's own. If gay couples could adopt or raise kids through invitro fertilization, those children (who are often likely to grow up as heterosexuals) will be familiar with gay people and are likely to avoid these irrational fears. They could also possibly educate other heterosexual people about homosexuals and dispell the ignorance behind their prejudices. Of course your suggested policy would discourage such a thing from happening and therefore help continue the current cycle of ignorance and discrimination...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
David - quote:
Sure, but the two are different. |
Yes, that's why I said I have 2 reasons.
quote:
When you say "liberals", I think you really mean "government", for all intents and purposes. |
No, I mean liberals. Government is the weapon being used, but those holding the weapon are liberals and conservatives.
quote:
Two individuals should have the freedom to decide between themselves the meaning of words, so long as their private agreement doesn't hurt anyone (they can't redefine murder and then go out and kill someone, for exmaple). |
quote:
I'm not sure how allowing two consenting adults to contract freely inreases government intervention. |
Correct, but once "marriage" is expanded to include homosexual unions, other people will be forced to accept the new definition. Disney expanded it's benefits package to include homosexual unions which is fine with me, but other businesses that haven't followed in Disney's footsteps will be sued for discrimination if they don't. That's just one example...
quote:
So the solution, then, is not to infringe upon the freedom of individuals to contract amongst themselves, but rather to eliminate laws that force businesses to provide benefits. I'm no fan of laws that prevent the private sector from discriminating.
But there is no excuse for arbitrarily restricting consenting adults from contracting together, and citing potential government impositions on freedom is certainly NOT an excuse to impose on freedom in another way. |
But the reality is that homosexuals are not pushing for inclusion into marriage for the sake of being married, there is nothing stopping them from living together and calling their arrangement a marriage now. Their goal is to use government to compel the rest of us to accept their new definition of marriage and open the door to whatever benefits are now given to married people. Your freedom to make contracts cannot oblige the rest of us to accept your desire to re-define words... Consider Aff Action, can a couple white guys get together and agree to a contract which says they are in fact black, not white, to obtain the benefits of AA? What if there were benefits given only to homosexuals and heterosexuals said they will make contracts re-defining the word homosexual to include them? Normally I'd agree with your argument, but there's more to it. This is not about the freedom to make contracts, this is about re-defining words and using government to impose those new definitions on the rest of us...
quote:
If the government uses their contract as an excuse to steal, that is the fault and moral responsibility of the government, and the government alone. |
But those wanting these contracts are motivated by the stealing. They want a cut of the stolen goods...
quote:
And no one is asking you to write out the private marriage contracts of other people - that's their business. |
Not when they can then sue businesses for discrimination based on their contracts.
quote:
No, the freedom of homosexuals to define words however they choose, in a non-coercive manner. |
They can now, but it'll become coercive once they can claim discrimination.
quote:
That's a bit of a strawman. There is a disconnect between the freedom of homosexuals to enter into marriage contracts, and government coercion. The two are not related, even if the government says so. |
But they are related, if a business affords a certain benefits package to married employees, "married" homosexuals can sue to get those benefits. Homosexuals want laws prohibiting employers from firing them, are those laws coercive? Of course, this marriage issue is just another way for homosexuals to employ government force to compel acceptance. I understand the motivation and agree with the goal, I just reject the means. Now, if the government refuses to enforce custody, inheritance and wills involving deceased homosexuals (and I doubt that is the case), then the government should do so. That would be "equal protection", not forcing people to accept someone's desire to re-define a word...
quote:
But why should you believe the government? The government is the one coercing you, not the homosexuals. And that is the primary difference between the two - homosexual marriage is a non-coercive matter, while government coercion, no matter what the justification, is by definition coercive. |
If government coerced me to worship Jesus, the politicians and their supporters would be responsible. "Government" is not trying to compel us to accept a re-definition of "marriage", homosexuals and their supporters are doing that.
quote:
If the government is allowed to restrict the right to contract among homosexuals, then there is no logical way for me to say they can't restrict my right to contract in some other way. |
If you're trying to make a contract that seeks to impose re-defined words on the rest of us, then your contract is no longer between you and another person.
quote:
I don't see any significant difference in a marriage contract between two men and a contract between me and Bob's Roofing Company. The terms of the contract may be different, but fundamentally, a contract is simply an agreement between two people. |
And if that contract says "money" means "root beer", can you and Bob pay creditors in root beer?
Mordoch - quote:
Meaningless my ASS! |
Yes, meaningless. Unless you plan on removing children from parents you deem "racist", you can't prevent children from subjecting those children in homosexual households to ridicule.
quote:
You're arguing because many in society are prejudiced against a group that leaves the government and society free to discriminate further whenever this applies. Does this mean that restarants can have "No Queers allowed" signs if they are worried that their customers might be homophobic and not frequent their shop if they allow gays in? |
Yes, but I'm not sure how a business onwer would know unless homosexuals walk around with signs identifying themselves.
quote:
Your principle can be extended in some very disturbing ways, and you need to consider the logical consquences of establishing such a principle when you apply it to a specific issue. |
Freedom doesn't mean I get to walk into your store if you don't like me.
quote:
Um wow. Bring back the good old days of segregation. Those stupid colored people are clearly breaking the law by staging sit-ins since this is a whites only resterant. |
There should be no laws compelling segregation. You're confusing Jim Crow with freedom, calm down and think before typing.
quote:
Since the bus service is privately owned and merely contracted to the city, those black people must understand their place and sit in the back of the bus! |
The city made the law, not the bus service. It was the bus service that joined with blacks to call for an end to the law when confronted by a boycott.
quote:
Private schools can arbitrarily keep colored kids out, and lets extend vouchers why we're at it to everyone so that white people can avoid attending school with those black animals. |
Private schools are...ahem...private, but I oppose vouchers. Once again you are confusing Jim Crow with the marketplace, no private school would reject black applicants. They exist to make money, not lose money...
quote:
Regardless of what laws congress or a state passes, they should not be allowed to interfere with these policies that we use to keep those colored folks in their place. |
These policies were laws.
quote:
I know some people who often dress up in white robes from head to toe who have similar views to yourself. |
I didn't know there were Casper conventions.
The KKK doesn't have similar views, they want(ed) laws imposing segregation. I don't, I want our freedom respected and the KKK doesn't...
quote:
Even if you argue they can only discriminate when they argue it is a business decision, virtually any private business owner can use the excuse of their customer's prejudices to justify their businesses discriminatory policies that are actually in place due to their own bigotry. |
They don't need an excuse, I believe in freedom and that includes the freedom of association and that includes the freedom to boycott business owners that discriminate. Now, stop being hypocritical, you discriminate all the time between what you like and dis-like. You just don't want others free to do the same.
quote:
Actually, discouraging gay couples from raising kids would directly contribute to perpetuating the cycle of discrimination. |
Oh, you're finally trying to support your argument now? Did you get all that "you ******* racist" nonsense out of your system? Who said homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to raise their kids? As for adoption services, the government shouldn't be involved with that either...
quote:
It has been repeatly demonstrated that prejudice is often fostered by ignorance and issolation from a group different than an individual's own. |
Yeah, people who dislike homosexuals are just ignorant and isolated from the people they don't like. "often" doesn't mean always, most people (in this country anyway) who have a problem with homosexuals formed their opinions from reading the Bible and knowing homosexuals won't convince them that homosexuals are godly people...
quote:
If gay couples could adopt or raise kids through invitro fertilization, those children (who are often likely to grow up as heterosexuals) will be familiar with gay people and are likely to avoid these irrational fears. |
Perhaps, that doesn't negate the emotional trauma they will suffer at the hands of people who don't like homosexuals. And that is the reality we are faced with when debating if children are better off in homosexual or heterosexual households? You do remember what the debate was about, don't you? After disputing that children are better off in heterosexual households, you completely ignored your argument and went off into what is best for homosexuals, not the children. Why did you do that? Yeah, it's for the children.
quote:
They could also possibly educate other heterosexual people about homosexuals and dispell the ignorance behind their prejudices. Of course your suggested policy would discourage such a thing from happening and therefore help continue the current cycle of ignorance and discrimination... |
And intentionally subjecting children to the scorn of their peers to achieve the goal of your social experimentation is immoral. So glad to see you dodge most of my points with your little tantrum about Jim Crow.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
There should be no laws compelling segregation. You're confusing Jim Crow with freedom, calm down and think before typing. |
Think before typing your response. I didn't say that you would be compelling segregation, I said that virtually all aspects of segregation other than voting restrictions could be reimposed by private companies implementing the policies and the city contracting out various services to private companies, such as the busing situation I mentioned.
quote:
Private schools are...ahem...private, but I oppose vouchers. Once again you are confusing Jim Crow with the marketplace, no private school would reject black applicants. They exist to make money, not lose money... |
The marketplace would GUARANTEE that some private schools would exclude colored people in order to cater to white individuals with various degrees of racism. The same principle is true with resterants and even some stores. Many businesses don't need all the market to be sucessful, and many are willing to exclude part of their potential market to gain an edge with the rest. The school might say that their official policy is to exclude people who don't meet their high "admission standards" to make their racism less blatant. In areas where there are few minorities, it is quite possible that all the good schools in the area would be private schools of this type, creating another "seperate but equal" education system. Your suggestion is one of the worst ideas I have heard in years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Mordoch - quote:
Think before typing your response. I didn't say that you would be compelling segregation |
What do you think Jim Crow was all about? Of course it was compelled segregation! Pointing to the results of Jim Crow to indict freedom is illogical...
quote:
I said that virtually all aspects of segregation other than voting restrictions could be reimposed by private companies implementing the policies and the city contracting out various services to private companies, such as the busing situation I mentioned. |
No Mordoch, you didn't say that, you specifically cited what happened under Jim Crow - a set of laws mandating segregation. This was not a result of freedom and the marketplace, it was a result of government. And for you to now suggest Jim Crow could happen without the government shows a weak grasp of human behavior and economics, businesses that behaved that way would be boycotted and they'd lose out to businesses that didn't have these policies. That's why Jim Crow achieved the goals of the segregationists, all businesses were, by law, required to discriminate/segregate. It wouldn't work if every business was free to have it's own policy because those wanting to lose business by discriminating against certain people would achieve their goal and eventually go bankrupt. If Jim Crow was really that popular, the KKK wouldn't have had to go around "enforcing" the policy...
quote:
The marketplace would GUARANTEE that some private schools would exclude colored people in order to cater to white individuals with various degrees of racism. |
Why? It's certainly possible a few schools would be created to cater to racists and suffer the consequences for a while, but so what? Don't racists have a right to seek an education too? There are all black schools and fraternities/sororities, does that bother you? Not me...Not enough to demand laws to force them to integrate...
quote:
The same principle is true with resterants and even some stores. Many businesses don't need all the market to be sucessful, and many are willing to exclude part of their potential market to gain an edge with the rest. |
What edge? You really think the number of people who support segregation outnumber the people who oppose it? If you and I had resturants and I opened my doors to everyone and you excluded blacks, who do you think would win more marketshare?
quote:
The school might say that their official policy is to exclude people who don't meet their high "admission standards" to make their racism less blatant. |
And what happens when it becomes apparent that qualified blacks are excluded? People get pissed off and boycott the school, boycott the graduates, boycott those who continue doing business with the school, and boycott the people who own and run the school. Do you know what happened when the state of Arizona refused to legislate MLK's birthday? The NFL, corporations, and people all across the country threatened a boycott and Arizona backed down. And that was about a holiday!
quote:
In areas where there are few minorities, it is quite possible that all the good schools in the area would be private schools of this type, creating another "seperate but equal" education system. Your suggestion is one of the worst ideas I have heard in years. |
Why? You think white people don't want good public schools now? Oh, that last jab is quite given your proposition that children "may" be better off in homosexual households and that we need studies to find out.
Hell, it wasn't just Jim Crow that was created by government, the conditions that led to Jim Crow were the product of government intervention in freedom - slavery and Civil War! Citing ~3 centuries of government attacks on freedom to indict freedom is illogical...and insulting to those who believe in freedom...
Last edited by Berzerker on 02-12-2003 at 12:16
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mordoch
|
|
Denver, Colorado
Jan 2002
time: 05:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Berzerker
Citing ~3 centuries of government attacks on freedom to indict freedom is illogical...and insulting to those who believe in freedom... |
What you are advocating is the freedom to opress and discriminate against others. That is certainly not what many of us who believe in and support freedom advocate. I'll let others reading this thread now come to their own conclusions regarding your idea and just exactly whose idea is the awful one. (If you're remotely curious, I said that for all we know children may end up statisticly better off coming from gay marriages, not that they would be. Even with what you brought out, it could turn out that dealing with such taunting early in life, makes them more effective and sucessful later on. You can't make assumptions when you are depriving a group of rights, you need to actually examine what happens empirically.)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Berzerker
|
|
topeka, kansas,USA
May 1999
time: 23:32
|
|
Mordoch - quote:
What you are advocating is the freedom to opress and discriminate against others. |
Just freedom, which includes the freedom of association. And yes, this includes the freedom to discriminate and the freedom to boycott discriminators.
quote:
That is certainly not what many of us who believe in and support freedom advocate. |
So you don't discriminate? Tell me about it... We all discriminate everyday...
quote:
I'll let others reading this thread now come to their own conclusions regarding your idea and just exactly whose idea is the awful one. |
Well, I can either believe in freedom or I can simply wait to see what the majority thinks. I've made my choice.
quote:
(If you're remotely curious, I said that for all we know children may end up statisticly better off coming from gay marriages, not that they would be. |
You said we needed studies to determine which household was better and suggested children might be better off in homosexual households. I didn't say you claimed they would be better off... Ned and I pointed what should be obvious but you just ignored our arguments.
quote:
Even with what you brought out, it could turn out that dealing with such taunting early in life, makes them more effective and sucessful later on. |
Well then, homosexuals shouldn't complain about the ridicule and bigotry they face because it might make them better people too...
quote:
You can't make assumptions when you are depriving a group of rights, you need to actually examine what happens empirically.) |
What assumptions?
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
01-12-2003 03:39
|