|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 7:49 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| As to your second point, I grew up in the south, I don't think public discussion can handle this matter everywhere. The south couldn't handle not having slaves, couldn't handle desegregation, couldn't handle inter-racial marriages, etc. etc. I think history has shown in many cases that it was ultimately a good thing that courts forced the south to do certain things that they were unwilling to do. |
I think you're misspeaking here, equivocating between "handling" and "achieving the outcome certain parties want." Just because a given society doesn't swiftly achieve the standard, politically-correct "solution" to a particular topic, that doesn't mean it hasn't been handled. I mean, I obviously support interracial marriage, but the idea that the entire world needs to be forced to accept it, even against their will, does not strike me as reasonable. There's room in this world for diversity of thought and value, doubly so in a place like America where you can move between the states with no trouble. |
I'm not. In the South, violence has historically been used to maintain a certain accepted order. This was what the KKK did, when schools were desegregated, there needed to be military protection, in my town I saw the one openly gay person get abused constantly, including physically. The state I grew up in, NC, is passing laws allowing judges to stop doing marriages for religious purposes (god forbid if a judge used sharia law as a justification for not marrying someone- I'd love to see the reaction). I don't consider that handled. I don't buy the idea that you can move between states without trouble, again saying that as someone who grew up in the south. You do not pick where you are born, moving is a risky venture unless you have some means or skill or education, plus a move cuts you off from potential networks of support that you could have locally. Also, I am not sure that the whole idea of self-selecting to ideologically pure states is a good thing, and if anything it would exacerbate the partisan trend already going strong.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I think the interest is that this kind of bond happens the be the best one for producing healthy social outcomes in general, and producing healthy development for children in particular. |
How does it produce healthy collective social outcomes in general in any way other than producing circumstances optimal for rearing children, thought? If catman (I wouldn't usually use a poster as an example, but he did decide to make a thread about it, so it's clearly common knowledge) is single forever, for example, the consequences of that are his to bear and his alone. It's only if he were to have a child that it really becomes a collective matter; the social benefit of strong, united families in this generation is first and foremost the positive influence it has on the next, isn't it? If we were struck by a plague of mass infertility and assured to be the last generation, the societal (as opposed to individual) benefit of enduring relationships would seem to me to be zero. |
So take this as something from someone who is still pretty newly wed rather than a social scientist, but I would venture to guess that strong marriages in general produce a greater commitment to certain values that benefit society as a whole. I.e. after my marriage I developed a much stronger interest in becoming productive and much less interest in going to bars. Also, it provides a greater support network for individuals, so that ideally they would not have to depend on the state for resources- i.e. if I lose my job, but my wife is working then I don't fall into poverty, or even if she is not working than I can turn to her family for help as well as my own family. Good marriage is even linked to better health outcomes- http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/marriage-and-mens-health (which means society has less of a health care burden). This is all just off the top of my head, but I think that focusing on the child raising part might not actually be the best thing for the child raising part, meaning that a couple that focuses on the need to have a strong bond for each other and then extends it to the child will be in a better position to raise the child than a couple that puts the child first without the strong foundation between each other already established, if that makes sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I'm not. In the South, violence has historically been used to maintain a certain accepted order. |
Of course state-action in response to violence, or even the thread of violence, is reasonable. Let's not move from a question of whether the courts should force society to adopt a certain conception of marriage, to a question of whether the state should prevent individuals from harming one another. The two are fundamentally separate, even if they might at times rise in response to similar issues. I think I made a similar point with regards to Russia: the question of whether they are enforcing their laws and defending their citizens from violence is one matter, and the question of their law regarding public promotion of homosexuality is another.
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, I am not sure that the whole idea of self-selecting to ideologically pure states is a good thing, and if anything it would exacerbate the partisan trend already going strong. |
The underlying principle you're suggesting here, perhaps not intentionally, is that diversity of thought is unacceptable. Partisan rancor does not evolve out of mere disagreement; people disagree reasonably all the time in life. Partisan rancor is engineered. Giving people some space in which to genuinely express themselves and their values would, I would think, make it harder rather than easier to engineer said rancor. Obviously, there's a line, but making that line more restrictive than human welfare requires seems conducive to breeding hate. You need only look at the state of your homeland to see the logical conclusion of the methodology you're defending.
| Fox wrote: |
So take this as something from someone who is still pretty newly wed rather than a social scientist, but I would venture to guess that strong marriages in general produce a greater commitment to certain values that benefit society as a whole. I.e. after my marriage I developed a much stronger interest in becoming productive and much less interest in going to bars. |
On the one hand, I think that's true. On the other hand, if you're not going to reproduce, you going to bars really isn't a big deal for the rest of us. Individually, I think it's fair to suggest you might benefit from this whether you're going to reproduce or not, but that's only an issue for society collectively if you think people should be saved from themselves (in which case, slippery slope to drug war?).
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, it provides a greater support network for individuals, so that ideally they would not have to depend on the state for resources- i.e. if I lose my job, but my wife is working then I don't fall into poverty, or even if she is not working than I can turn to her family for help as well as my own family. |
On the other hand, this isn't as clear. Remember, most divorces are initiated by women, and a man even earning less than his wife (to say nothing of losing his job outright) could well make divorce more likely. Whether or not non-reproductive couples marrying benefits society might be up for question, but there's no doubt that divorce costs social resources, if only court and lawyer time. But, but, if we were to move back from the casual divorce model, then this could be a good point: a stable family unit which was strongly discouraged from divorcing seems to me like it could have the effect you describe here. It would be interesting to consider if we could really turn back the clock in this regard in response to one issue surrounding marriage (divorce) but not another (heterosexual reproductive focus). I'm not so sure, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.
Well, with regards to this topic at hand, I'd be looking at the ambivalent information listed under the "Same-sex couples" heading in the article you posted, but it's not conclusive one way or the other.
| Leon wrote: |
| This is all just off the top of my head, but I think that focusing on the child raising part might not actually be the best thing for the child raising part, meaning that a couple that focuses on the need to have a strong bond for each other and then extends it to the child will be in a better position to raise the child than a couple that puts the child first without the strong foundation between each other already established, if that makes sense. |
It makes sense in a "happiness paradox" sort of way, but I don't see anything mutually exclusive about the two reinforcing one another: having a strong bond making one more interested in parenthood, and parenthood giving one a greater interest in a strong bond. This particular point is a hard one to reason regarding, because it's pretty easy to reason your way to either conclusion I think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 3:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I'm not. In the South, violence has historically been used to maintain a certain accepted order. |
Of course state-action in response to violence, or even the thread of violence, is reasonable. Let's not move from a question of whether the courts should force society to adopt a certain conception of marriage, to a question of whether the state should prevent individuals from harming one another. The two are fundamentally separate, even if they might at times rise in response to similar issues. I think I made a similar point with regards to Russia: the question of whether they are enforcing their laws and defending their citizens from violence is one matter, and the question of their law regarding public promotion of homosexuality is another.
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, I am not sure that the whole idea of self-selecting to ideologically pure states is a good thing, and if anything it would exacerbate the partisan trend already going strong. |
The underlying principle you're suggesting here, perhaps not intentionally, is that diversity of thought is unacceptable. Partisan rancor does not evolve out of mere disagreement; people disagree reasonably all the time in life. Partisan rancor is engineered. Giving people some space in which to genuinely express themselves and their values would, I would think, make it harder rather than easier to engineer said rancor. Obviously, there's a line, but making that line more restrictive than human welfare requires seems conducive to breeding hate. You need only look at the state of your homeland to see the logical conclusion of the methodology you're defending. |
What methodology am I defending? People on all sides have space to express their values, and do so constantly. In the U.S. states do not have unlimited power, and I see no need to allow that to change. You and I may agree that the Supreme Court has been interpreting their mandate rather liberally (not in the political sense of the word) lately, but I think having states pick and chose which federal law to follow would be disastrous, especially since states tend to try and chose not to follow laws enacted to protect minorities. I think the state has a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of people born a certain way, which is different than say picking an ideology in later life. I am not a democracy, majority rules, absolutist.
| Fox wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
So take this as something from someone who is still pretty newly wed rather than a social scientist, but I would venture to guess that strong marriages in general produce a greater commitment to certain values that benefit society as a whole. I.e. after my marriage I developed a much stronger interest in becoming productive and much less interest in going to bars. |
On the one hand, I think that's true. On the other hand, if you're not going to reproduce, you going to bars really isn't a big deal for the rest of us. Individually, I think it's fair to suggest you might benefit from this whether you're going to reproduce or not, but that's only an issue for society collectively if you think people should be saved from themselves (in which case, slippery slope to drug war?). |
No, I'm talking big picture societal interest here. Society benefits when more people chose to be productive, my individual anecdote was just used to demonstrate what I guess to be a wider trend. Which, I believe, being responsible for someone else would lead to people in general picking more productive lifestyles, rather than sloth, self destruction, or crime. I could be wrong about this, and I do not think marriage alone is enough, but the quality of the marriage would be key.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Also, it provides a greater support network for individuals, so that ideally they would not have to depend on the state for resources- i.e. if I lose my job, but my wife is working then I don't fall into poverty, or even if she is not working than I can turn to her family for help as well as my own family. |
On the other hand, this isn't as clear. Remember, most divorces are initiated by women, and a man even earning less than his wife (to say nothing of losing his job outright) could well make divorce more likely. Whether or not non-reproductive couples marrying benefits society might be up for question, but there's no doubt that divorce costs social resources, if only court and lawyer time. But, but, if we were to move back from the casual divorce model, then this could be a good point: a stable family unit which was strongly discouraged from divorcing seems to me like it could have the effect you describe here. It would be interesting to consider if we could really turn back the clock in this regard in response to one issue surrounding marriage (divorce) but not another (heterosexual reproductive focus). I'm not so sure, but I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. |
I'm not sure either how it would be achieved, but I do believe it would be very positive. My guess is that while the law has a role, culture would have a bigger one. Maybe a cultural rethinking of appropriate reasons for divorce, because while some are clearly appropriate (abuse, cheating, etc.), some should not be so easy.
| Fox wrote: |
Well, with regards to this topic at hand, I'd be looking at the ambivalent information listed under the "Same-sex couples" heading in the article you posted, but it's not conclusive one way or the other. |
I saw that. There might be new studies, but it is hard to know until it has been around a bit longer. I see no reason why the same mechanics would not work.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| This is all just off the top of my head, but I think that focusing on the child raising part might not actually be the best thing for the child raising part, meaning that a couple that focuses on the need to have a strong bond for each other and then extends it to the child will be in a better position to raise the child than a couple that puts the child first without the strong foundation between each other already established, if that makes sense. |
It makes sense in a "happiness paradox" sort of way, but I don't see anything mutually exclusive about the two reinforcing one another: having a strong bond making one more interested in parenthood, and parenthood giving one a greater interest in a strong bond. This particular point is a hard one to reason regarding, because it's pretty easy to reason your way to either conclusion I think. |
I think what I am saying is that the bond should come before the kid, and the mentality of staying together for the kids is admirable, but less effective than staying together because of the strength of the bond and working out differences because of that. From what I have seen, kids are perceptive of when their parents are hostile towards each other, and that can have negative effects on development. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
What methodology am I defending? People on all sides have space to express their values, and do so constantly. |
When the courts step in and force a particular conception of marriage upon society by straight fiat, no, the people involved do not have space to express their values, at least not meaningfully. You seem to be defending such court rulings here.
| Leon wrote: |
| I am not a democracy, majority rules, absolutist. |
Well, neither am I, as is evinced by the fact that I've acknowledged court action has its place, and even gave examples of that place in a context relevant to the topic at hand. It's not a question of whether we are democracy "absolutists," it is a question of whether we will allow any meaningful diversity of thought at all. When a matter is handled by court fiat, the answer is no, we will not. When a matter is handled by state governments, the answer is yes, we will. Surely you can at least see some reasoning in the suggestion that an issue as deeply cultural as marriage might be better handled by the latter than the former?
| Leon wrote: |
I saw that. There might be new studies, but it is hard to know until it has been around a bit longer. I see no reason why the same mechanics would not work. |
Assuming they'd work is assuming homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are fundamentally identical, which, in the context of a discussion about those marriages, kind of verges on begging the question. For example, I've seen articles suggesting that domestic abuse within lesbian relationships may be more prevalent than in the general population. Are these articles correct? I can't possibly know, and the doubt I have towards them is exactly why I refuse to get into some article-posting pissing match with catman on such matters, but I also don't know that they aren't correct. What I do know is this: the majority of heterosexual couples who choose to marry do so expecting to reproduce in a natural fashion, and that is not something any homosexual couple can truly expect or anticipate (and no, I don't think adoption is emotionally or psychologically the same as birth). That alone implies the strong possibility of difference. It doesn't necessitate it, especially on an individual level, but it should give us pause in assuming.
| Leon wrote: |
| I think what I am saying is that the bond should come before the kid, and the mentality of staying together for the kids is admirable, but less effective than staying together because of the strength of the bond and working out differences because of that. From what I have seen, kids are perceptive of when their parents are hostile towards each other, and that can have negative effects on development. |
I agree that a bond should be in place before any child is born, and I'd also agree that relying only upon children as a motivating factor for staying together would be sub-optimal. I thought I was fairly careful to emphasize that, trying to draw a distinction between the individual bond as the primary concern, and the individual bond and the children being mutually-supplementary. Wanting to have children is a great reason to look for someone with whom to bond in the first place, and an additional (not only, additional) motivating factor to help encourage us to face up to and overcome the challenges which can arise in any relationship. It's no coincidence, after all, that many of the factors which might make another person attractive as a mate are factors which make them good reproductive partners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coltronator
Joined: 04 Dec 2013
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
When the courts step in and force a particular conception of segregation upon society by straight fiat, no, the people involved do not have space to express their values, at least not meaningfully. You seem to be defending such court rulings here.
Of course people are defending such rulings. It was how the system was designed. If you want the court to have a different job then use the system to amend the constitution.[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
What methodology am I defending? People on all sides have space to express their values, and do so constantly. |
When the courts step in and force a particular conception of marriage upon society by straight fiat, no, the people involved do not have space to express their values, at least not meaningfully. You seem to be defending such court rulings here. |
I suppose it depends on whether or not you believe the ruling is constitutional. I've already said that I believe that the 14th amendment equal protection reading is plausible, but not the dignity aspect. I'm not wedded to the religious conception of marriage, and considering that we are not a theocracy, it seems that the government, state or federal, has no reason to be either. Churches or other places are allowed to discriminate (I'm using this word in a neutral sense) when it comes to choosing which marriages to perform. The only thing that has changed is that the state now has to offer the same legal benefits to hetro-homo marriages. When I was younger, I went to a southern baptist church that performed non-legally binding gay marriages (yes, this is not common). The marriages that were performed there have not changed, only that now these people, after doing some paper work, get some extra legal rights.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I am not a democracy, majority rules, absolutist. |
Well, neither am I, as is evinced by the fact that I've acknowledged court action has its place, and even gave examples of that place in a context relevant to the topic at hand. It's not a question of whether we are democracy "absolutists," it is a question of whether we will allow any meaningful diversity of thought at all. When a matter is handled by court fiat, the answer is no, we will not. When a matter is handled by state governments, the answer is yes, we will. Surely you can at least see some reasoning in the suggestion that an issue as deeply cultural as marriage might be better handled by the latter than the former? |
Of course, I see that. Ireland is a better example. I do not buy the idea that there is no diversity of thought allowed. The cultural and religious meanings of marriage are still very much up for debate.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I saw that. There might be new studies, but it is hard to know until it has been around a bit longer. I see no reason why the same mechanics would not work. |
Assuming they'd work is assuming homosexual marriage and heterosexual marriage are fundamentally identical, which, in the context of a discussion about those marriages, kind of verges on begging the question. For example, I've seen articles suggesting that domestic abuse within lesbian relationships may be more prevalent than in the general population. Are these articles correct? I can't possibly know, and the doubt I have towards them is exactly why I refuse to get into some article-posting pissing match with catman on such matters, but I also don't know that they aren't correct. What I do know is this: the majority of heterosexual couples who choose to marry do so expecting to reproduce in a natural fashion, and that is not something any homosexual couple can truly expect or anticipate (and no, I don't think adoption is emotionally or psychologically the same as birth). That alone implies the strong possibility of difference. It doesn't necessitate it, especially on an individual level, but it should give us pause in assuming. |
From my understanding, loneliness is actually very unhealthy. I understand the difference between having children and not having it, but I am saying that I think that is not the most important factor for the health benefits (acknowledging that I am far from sure). Having children is great, but they live with you, in America, for around 18 years. Sure, they will probably visit, but in many cases not so often. I think it is different than having a life long partner, especially in old age. I don't have kids yet, so maybe I am missing something. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Coltronator wrote: |
| When the courts step in and force a particular conception of segregation upon society by straight fiat, no, the people involved do not have space to express their values, at least not meaningfully. You seem to be defending such court rulings here. |
You are utilizing this rhetorical tactic against the wrong person: I have no problem agreeing that the way in which the Supreme Court handled segregation was also problematic.
| Coltronator wrote: |
| Of course people are defending such rulings. It was how the system was designed. If you want the court to have a different job then use the system to amend the constitution.[/b] |
The court was not designed to dictate cultural norms by fiat, no. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
I'm not wedded to the religious conception of marriage, and considering that we are not a theocracy, it seems that the government, state or federal, has no reason to be either. Churches or other places are allowed to discriminate (I'm using this word in a neutral sense) when it comes to choosing which marriages to perform. The only thing that has changed is that the state now has to offer the same legal benefits to hetro-homo marriages.
...
Of course, I see that. Ireland is a better example. I do not buy the idea that there is no diversity of thought allowed. The cultural and religious meanings of marriage are still very much up for debate. |
Law infests everything it touches; drags everything down to its standard. Like you said: "the state now has to offer" homosexual marriage, and the state represents us all, so this is something in which all are involved, like it or not. How can that not have a cultural impact? Quite some time back I remember proposing a resolution to this matter wherein the state simply ceased to offer or acknowledge marriage at all, leaving it entirely to cultural and religious institutions, and offering instead contractual access to legal benefits to any consenting group of adults, with no judgment regarding the familial or sexual relationship between them. Taking that approach might have left room for meaningful debate regarding "cultural and religious meanings of marriage," since whatever one group concluded, other groups would have been free to reject, but with the law still proclaiming its stance upon the matter, such concerns are reduced to fringe issues. Legislation and governance is one of the primary means of real debate about issues like these, and that means has been cut off here, along with the validity they grant in the minds of the common man.
| Leon wrote: |
| Having children is great, but they live with you, in America, for around 18 years. Sure, they will probably visit, but in many cases not so often. I think it is different than having a life long partner, especially in old age. I don't have kids yet, so maybe I am missing something. |
The only thing I'll say with regards to this is that you should keep in mind just how most grandparents feel about their grandchildren. The family line does not stop at one's own children, and having grandchildren out there in the world, even if one doesn't necessarily see them as much as one might like, seems to provide a certain joy and vitality to the elderly. I'm sure you'll appreciate studies like this which suggest grandparents can derive real health benefit outcomes by spending time caring for their grandchildren. More anecdotally, I know that my own parents absolutely adore my children, and that my own grandparents always seemed extremely glad when we were around to visit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
I'm not wedded to the religious conception of marriage, and considering that we are not a theocracy, it seems that the government, state or federal, has no reason to be either. Churches or other places are allowed to discriminate (I'm using this word in a neutral sense) when it comes to choosing which marriages to perform. The only thing that has changed is that the state now has to offer the same legal benefits to hetro-homo marriages.
...
Of course, I see that. Ireland is a better example. I do not buy the idea that there is no diversity of thought allowed. The cultural and religious meanings of marriage are still very much up for debate. |
Law infests everything it touches; drags everything down to its standard. Like you said: "the state now has to offer" homosexual marriage, and the state represents us all, so this is something in which all are involved, like it or not. How can that not have a cultural impact? Quite some time back I remember proposing a resolution to this matter wherein the state simply ceased to offer or acknowledge marriage at all, leaving it entirely to cultural and religious institutions, and offering instead contractual access to legal benefits to any consenting group of adults, with no judgment regarding the familial or sexual relationship between them. Taking that approach might have left room for meaningful debate regarding "cultural and religious meanings of marriage," since whatever one group concluded, other groups would have been free to reject, but with the law still proclaiming its stance upon the matter, such concerns are reduced to fringe issues. Legislation and governance is one of the primary means of real debate about issues like these, and that means has been cut off here, along with the validity they grant in the minds of the common man. |
Different groups will still have different conceptions of marriage, and different institutions will have different standards. If these groups feel strongly enough to challenge this norm, then they can struggle through it. The religious institutions will not have to change their practices or traditions, although it is true that gay marriage will probably be accepted more and more overtime in part because of this ruling, and in part because of the aging out of the core opponents to it. If these groups institutions and cultures and traditions are so weak that this law makes them crumble without actually forcing them to change anything than perhaps the law is just an easy excuse. Part of the reason this change was even possible was that there were groups that were dedicated to changing the debate, and they were successful in the face of daunting odds. I'm not sure what meaningful debate was actually happening about the issue beyond using it as a partisan tool to distract from issues that actually matter in America.
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Having children is great, but they live with you, in America, for around 18 years. Sure, they will probably visit, but in many cases not so often. I think it is different than having a life long partner, especially in old age. I don't have kids yet, so maybe I am missing something. |
The only thing I'll say with regards to this is that you should keep in mind just how most grandparents feel about their grandchildren. The family line does not stop at one's own children, and having grandchildren out there in the world, even if one doesn't necessarily see them as much as one might like, seems to provide a certain joy and vitality to the elderly. I'm sure you'll appreciate studies like this which suggest grandparents can derive real health benefit outcomes by spending time caring for their grandchildren. More anecdotally, I know that my own parents absolutely adore my children, and that my own grandparents always seemed extremely glad when we were around to visit. |
Of course, I'm sure that this is true, but again, I do not think it is comparable to a life long partner that one sees on a steady, daily, basis. To be honest, I do not feel like going off on this tangent anymore, because until I have children I do not think I am actually qualified to make these kinds of guesses, and I suspect that might change the way I feel about it, but am not sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Part of the reason this change was even possible was that there were groups that were dedicated to changing the debate, and they were successful in the face of daunting odds. I'm not sure what meaningful debate was actually happening about the issue beyond using it as a partisan tool to distract from issues that actually matter in America. |
Given.a number of states, and even countries, affected change on this issue through debated, legislative means, I do not understand how you can suggest no meaningful debate was occurring? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Part of the reason this change was even possible was that there were groups that were dedicated to changing the debate, and they were successful in the face of daunting odds. I'm not sure what meaningful debate was actually happening about the issue beyond using it as a partisan tool to distract from issues that actually matter in America. |
Given.a number of states, and even countries, affected change on this issue through debated, legislative means, I do not understand how you can suggest no meaningful debate was occurring? |
You are right, I misspoke. I do think politicians use gay marriage and other social issues to distract from more important issues and as an easy way to get votes. I do think that people who cheer this ruling, need to keep in mind the citizens united ruling that was far more transformative before the cheerleader the courts actions. I think the debate on the courts actions is much more meaningful than the debate on gay marriage- even if I do think the 14th amendment ruling was correct, as it was in Loving vs Virginia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
radcon
Joined: 23 May 2011
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Coltronator
Joined: 04 Dec 2013
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 20, 2015 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Fox I wasn't agreeing with you. I was going far past the goal post and in absurdity territory with my post. I hope you were too with your later agreement with my satire.
By the way yes it is designed to do that. It was designed to fight back against the majority, history and change both cultural and technological if laws started infringing on constitutional rights. They decide what it means because their job is to interpret it. If others don't like it then their job is to work towards amending it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 26, 2015 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Democrats want a non-discrimination bill to protect LGBT in housing and employment. Republicans want a religious-liberty and first amendment protection regime for churches and other organizations that do not want to have to perform gay weddings. In a reasonably working system, both might get their wishes.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/the-next-big-fight-for-gay-rights/399488/
| Quote: |
| The more politically-savvy move that Republicans could make is one that Representative Charlie Dent, a more centrist member from Pennsylvania, floated to his colleagues last week. Dent’s still-in-the-works proposal would combine a more limited religious-freedom bill with expanded LGBT non-discrimination protections for employment and housing. “This opens up a can of worms, and Congress needs to show it can do two things at once: protect religious freedoms and provide legal protections for nondiscrimination,” Dent told The New York Times. Splitting the difference might be too much for the House’s hardline conservatives, and gay-rights advocates might have little reason to compromise after winning such a decisive marriage victory in court, particularly heading into the 2016 presidential campaign. |
Such a bill would make sense and represent real compromise. I also believe it will not pass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Plain Meaning
Joined: 18 Oct 2014
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Politico: It’s Time to Legalize Polygamy
| Quote: |
[W]elcome to the exciting new world of the slippery slope. With the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling this Friday legalizing same sex marriage in all 50 states, social liberalism has achieved one of its central goals. A right seemingly unthinkable two decades ago has now been broadly applied to a whole new class of citizens. Following on the rejection of interracial marriage bans in the 20th Century, the Supreme Court decision clearly shows that marriage should be a broadly applicable right—one that forces the government to recognize, as Friday’s decision said, a private couple’s “love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice and family.”
. . .
[T]he moral reasoning behind society’s rejection of polygamy remains just as uncomfortable and legally weak as same-sex marriage opposition was until recently.
That’s one reason why progressives who reject the case for legal polygamy often don’t really appear to have their hearts in it. They seem uncomfortable voicing their objections, clearly unused to being in the position of rejecting the appeals of those who would codify non-traditional relationships in law. They are, without exception, accepting of the right of consenting adults to engage in whatever sexual and romantic relationships they choose, but oppose the formal, legal recognition of those relationships. They’re trapped, I suspect, in prior opposition that they voiced from a standpoint of political pragmatism in order to advance the cause of gay marriage.
In doing so, they do real harm to real people. Marriage is not just a formal codification of informal relationships. It’s also a defensive system designed to protect the interests of people whose material, economic and emotional security depends on the marriage in question. If my liberal friends recognize the legitimacy of free people who choose to form romantic partnerships with multiple partners, how can they deny them the right to the legal protections marriage affords?
Polyamory is a fact . People are living in group relationships today. The question is not whether they will continue on in those relationships. The question is whether we will grant to them the same basic recognition we grant to other adults: that love makes marriage, and that the right to marry is exactly that, a right. |
How do we fight polygamy? I'm serious. I think Kennedy's jurisprudence is bad, and I have said so myself. I think there are plenty of grounds to oppose polygamy; for one, the Federal government need not extend government benefits to a couple that comprises more than two people.
I think the worst thing that opponents of plural marriage can do in this instance, and that includes myself, is sponsor state legislation specifically affirming that marriage is an institution between two people. Let's avoid doing that! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
