IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags gay marriage , judicial activism charges

Reply
Old 2nd May 2009, 10:40 AM   #281
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by bruto View Post
This is just not the case. The landmark civil union law in Vermont was legislative. It was prompted by a Supreme Court decision, but the decision did not specify how equal protection should be implemented, and left the mechanism up to the legislature. Civil Union was an entirely legislative invention.
I stand corrected, partially. The court directed the legislature to act. This is something that simply could not have happened in Europe, unless I don't understand their system.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 10:44 AM   #282
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
What I don't get is why some people believe the legalization of gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamis and/or incenstious marriages?
No one believes that. What some of us believe is that if you read the court rulings that have described the right to gay marriage and/or the simpler right to homosexual activity, there is no logical reason to say that the same right would not apply to incestuous marriages and/or activity.

No one expects that any court will discover a right to incestuous marriage, and that is precisely the point. The only thing that distinguishes the case for homosexual marriage from incestuous marriage is that there is no political will to allow incestuous marriages. However, courts aren't really supposed to consider that in their rulings. It's a way of pointing out that the rulings demanding homosexual marriage are what could reasonably be described as "activist" rulings. There exists a political will to create those marriages, and they did. There is no political will to create incestuous marriage, so it doesn't happen.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 2nd May 2009 at 10:47 AM.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 10:48 AM   #283
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
....did Skeptic always make such irrationally stupid arguments, or is this some kind of new development?
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 11:23 AM   #284
Fiona
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,125
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
You asked if the legislature wrote the constitution, and the answer is, sort of. The process of ammending the Constitution is much, much, harder than the process of passing a new statute.
Yes, I know that. It was intended to be so, I believe.

Quote:
The important difference, I think, is that in Europe, a judge makes a ruling that says, "the law says this".
OK.

Quote:
Suppose the legislature is pretty sure the judge got it wrong,
The first redress would not involve the legislature because if the decision is wrong it can be appealed as perverse or on a point of law: as I outlined above

Quote:
or that, perhaps he got it right, but they really didn't want the law to be whatever the judge said it was. What would they do? They would pass a new law that said, "No, really. This is what we meant." In America, that can't happen.
This is the heart of it. In this country you are correct: parliament could indeed change the law. In your country, for most matters, your legislature (state or federal) could do the same. However if the law in question is what the constitution says, then the legislature has a harder process to go through in order to change it. It is not different in kind, so far as I can see. But it is more difficult: and that is how it is supposed to be because your constitutional rights are held to be more fundamental than any legal right in this country. It is my impression that it is deliberately difficult to change the constitution because that is the basis of your freedoms; and they are not to be tampered with lightly or for fashion or temporary political advantage. If I am wrong about that then please disabuse me.

I have said before that this is something about the american system which I admire: and I have been surprised several times because americans do not seem to prize it. Our recent incorporation of european human rights legislation goes some way towards what you already have: I am pleased by this (and ed knows I am not generally in favour of the americanisation of this country: with absolutely no disrespect intended). But all systems do have drawbacks and for you this is one. It is not judge made law, however. Can you see the distinction or have I missed something vital ?

As to your last point: the question makes no sense as phrased because the system is not the same in every country: for example France has a codified legal system rather than one based on common law as yours and mine is very largely: I do not know how to change a French law but their system is very very different

Last edited by Fiona; 2nd May 2009 at 11:25 AM.
Fiona is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 12:31 PM   #285
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
No one believes that. What some of us believe is that if you read the court rulings that have described the right to gay marriage and/or the simpler right to homosexual activity, there is no logical reason to say that the same right would not apply to incestuous marriages and/or activity.
Unfortunately, some people do believe it.

Originally Posted by Skeptic
The "they banned interracial marriage and that was wrong so banning gay marriage is wrong" argument is no argument -- you can use it just as well to discover a "right" to polygamy or incest being recognized as marriage as you can for gay marriage.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...55#post4669555

Originally Posted by Skeptic
The leap from "equal protection of the law" to "gay marriage must be recognized" is a rather large one. The same argument, you would notice, would mean that EVERYBODY'S union with EVERYBODY must be reognized as "marriage" -- including, say, homosexual incestual polygamy.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...54#post4667854

Originally Posted by Skeptic
Why NOT recognize polygamous incest as marriage? Certainly the same -- indeed, the exact same -- arguments apply to recognize it as to recognize gay marriage.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...39#post4666139
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 03:27 PM   #286
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,764
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I stand corrected, partially. The court directed the legislature to act. This is something that simply could not have happened in Europe, unless I don't understand their system.
Thank you, but for the other part, do please research the Connecticut civil union law. I am pretty sure I recall that there was no court case at all on that one, and that it was hailed as a landmark for that reason.

As for Vermont, the court directed the legislature to remedy the inequality, so in a realistic sense, the issue was judicially driven, but in theory, at least, this could have been done through a series of individual provisions, through other partnership arrangements that were not tied directly to sexual partnerships (proposed by the most vehement anti-gay faction later as a way to remove from civil unions the implication of normalizing homosexuality), or even by abolishing the protections granted by civil marriage. In any case, arguing not against you but against Skeptic, the court certainly did not discover a right to gay marriage lurking in the constitution, and never has done.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 09:20 PM   #287
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
Unfortunately, some people do believe it.
I'll let Skeptic correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's a misreading of what he is saying. He doesn't appear to be saying that a court will recognize a right to incestuous marriage. He is saying, as am I, that a failure to do so by the courts is logically inconsistent, because all of the arguments that apply to homosexual marriage also apply to incestuous marriage. There is only one exception. The vast majority of us think that people who want to marry their sisters are weird, icky, people. That is no longer true of homosexuals.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd May 2009, 09:32 PM   #288
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by Fiona View Post
It is my impression that it is deliberately difficult to change the constitution because that is the basis of your freedoms; and they are not to be tampered with lightly or for fashion or temporary political advantage. If I am wrong about that then please disabuse me.
You are not wrong. In fact, you've hit the nail on the head. However, many of us feel that while the legislature cannot tamper lightly with the Constitution, there is no such check on the judicial branch.

The concept of "equal protection" is so broadly applied than it could apply to any perceived injustice, of any sort. The equal protection clause has been widely cited as the key to the elimination of many injustices. Don't forget, though, it was also cited in Bush v. Gore.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 03:25 AM   #289
AWPrime
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,926
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I'll let Skeptic correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's a misreading of what he is saying. He doesn't appear to be saying that a court will recognize a right to incestuous marriage. He is saying, as am I, that a failure to do so by the courts is logically inconsistent, because all of the arguments that apply to homosexual marriage also apply to incestuous marriage.
Such as?
__________________
Sir Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology, to the uninformed observer, is indistinguishable from magic."
c4ts - "Jesus loves the little children, Nice and fat and honey roasted..."
Lancastic = Demonstrative of outstanding personal effort in the exposing of frauds.
Rob Lister - "The enemy of my enemy probably tastes yummy. "
AWPrime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 05:10 AM   #290
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by AWPrime View Post
Such as?
All of them.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 05:15 AM   #291
AWPrime
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,926
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
All of them.
Dodging much?
__________________
Sir Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology, to the uninformed observer, is indistinguishable from magic."
c4ts - "Jesus loves the little children, Nice and fat and honey roasted..."
Lancastic = Demonstrative of outstanding personal effort in the exposing of frauds.
Rob Lister - "The enemy of my enemy probably tastes yummy. "
AWPrime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 05:29 AM   #292
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by AWPrime View Post
Dodging much?
No. All of them. Really. They're in this thread and many others. Strike out "same sex" or any synonym, and put in "incestuous", and the arguments make exactly the same amount of sense.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 05:54 AM   #293
Rasmus
Philosopher
 
Rasmus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,372
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
No. All of them. Really. They're in this thread and many others. Strike out "same sex" or any synonym, and put in "incestuous", and the arguments make exactly the same amount of sense.
most civilised stated recognize the equality of the sexes, i.e. they make laws and practices illegal that discriminate based on gender. (Same as with race, religion, etc.)

If a law allows a man to marry a woman, it must allow a woman to marry a woman.

You can reasonably argue that a law that only allows a person to marry someone of the opposite gender is fair and does not discriminate based on gender.

And you would be right, as long as you don't see a problem with a law that only allows a person to marry someone of, say, the same race or the same religion.

I am not aware of any place that has laws that make discrimination on the basis of "number of people" illegal, hence this argument simply does not work for polygamous relationships.

I am also not aware of any place that has laws that make discrimination on the basis of "biological affinity" illegal, hence this argument does not work for incesteous relationships. (In fact, there could be no laws against incest in such a place to begin with.)
__________________
"Well, the religious community could not just make it up." - JetLeg
Rasmus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 06:02 AM   #294
AWPrime
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,926
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
No. All of them. Really. They're in this thread and many others. Strike out "same sex" or any synonym, and put in "incestuous", and the arguments make exactly the same amount of sense.
Then do so. I will await a post from you in which each one is rewritten.
__________________
Sir Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology, to the uninformed observer, is indistinguishable from magic."
c4ts - "Jesus loves the little children, Nice and fat and honey roasted..."
Lancastic = Demonstrative of outstanding personal effort in the exposing of frauds.
Rob Lister - "The enemy of my enemy probably tastes yummy. "
AWPrime is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 06:43 AM   #295
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
 
bruto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy
Posts: 30,764
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
No. All of them. Really. They're in this thread and many others. Strike out "same sex" or any synonym, and put in "incestuous", and the arguments make exactly the same amount of sense.
I still think you have the cart before the horse here. Your argument makes logical sense, in that if you make any action that is currently illegal legal, then it follows that laws now existing that distinguish between legal and illegal actions would have to be changed. That does not, by itself, mean that changing the law to reflect what is legal will somehow eventually result in the legalization of everything. Any time you change a law like this, an alarmist can strike out some synonym, and replace it with another. That argument can always be applied against the changing of any restriction. Then again, if at some point in the future social standards and underlying laws did change, and incest became as legal and acceptable in the society at large as homosexuality has become now, or as racial mixing before that, then why would it not be logical and correct for marriage laws to change accordingly?

You can lament the decline in society, and the erosion of old standards if you wish, but the problem here is not in how the law works, but in how you view the evolution of our culture. There will always be people who lament the loss of blue laws, poll taxes, sunset towns, anti-birth control laws, exclusive communities, and a whole slew of other once-legal practices that have withered away as our society evolved. It would be a sorry time indeed if our constitutions and our laws were not designed to allow our laws to evolve along with our society.
__________________
I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver)

"There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)
bruto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 07:00 AM   #296
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by Rasmus View Post
most civilised stated recognize the equality of the sexes, i.e. they make laws and practices illegal that discriminate based on gender. (Same as with race, religion, etc.)
I know of at least one, although one could argue about "civilised". In the United States of America, it is permissible for the law to discriminate based on gender. (Example: Laws related to women in combat.)


Quote:
I am not aware of any place that has laws that make discrimination on the basis of "number of people" illegal, hence this argument simply does not work for polygamous relationships.
While other people have applied my argument to polygamy, I haven't, (ETA: lately) and I don't think it works. There's a reason I limit my argument to incestuous relationships.

Quote:
I am also not aware of any place that has laws that make discrimination on the basis of "biological affinity" illegal, hence this argument does not work for incesteous relationships. (In fact, there could be no laws against incest in such a place to begin with.)
There is nothing in the US Constitution, or the constitutions of most states, that prohibit discrimination based on either biological sex or sexual orientation. All such laws are restricted in their application, such as a prohibition on hiring preferences based on sexual orientation.

On the other hand, there is a statement in the Constitution that all citizens are entitled to equal protection of the law. A law that allows you to marry my sister but prevents me from marrying my sister treats you and me differently. Therefore, it is unconstitutional. At least, that seems to be the reasoning applied.

Just to avoid confusion, I want to make my personal position clear. I believe there should be no laws prohibiting incestuous relations. Indeed, I believe that such laws should be considered unconstitutional, using exactly the same reasoning as applied in Lawrence v. Texas. I do not believe that there is a constitutional right to incestuous marriages. For emphasis: sexual relations, yes. Marriage, no. Your milage may vary.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 07:22 AM   #297
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
...all of the arguments that apply to homosexual marriage also apply to incestuous marriage.
Don't you think the government has a compelling interest in preventing incestuous marriage that it doesn't have in preventing homosexual marriage?

The two acts are not equal. Establishing true consent would be harder in an incestuous marriage between a parent and child considering family dynamics, age differences and psychological issues.
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 07:28 AM   #298
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
Don't you think the government has a compelling interest in preventing incestuous marriage that it doesn't have in preventing homosexual marriage?
No.

Quote:
The two acts are not equal. Establishing true consent would be harder in an incestuous marriage between a parent and child considering family dynamics, age differences and psychological issues.
As an adult in full possession of my mental faculties, I would prefer that the government not take it upon itself to decide whether my consent happens to be "true".
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 07:39 AM   #299
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
As an adult in full possession of my mental faculties, I would prefer that the government not take it upon itself to decide whether my consent happens to be "true".
You may very well be an adult in full possession of your mental faculties but could the same assumption be made in an 18 year-old girl marrying her 50 year-old father?

I've always been curious as to why the issue of incestious marriage has become related to gay marriage. What makes people think that gay marriage will lead to incestious marriage when that hasn't been the case with straight marriage, which has been around for thousands of year?
Alt+F4 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 08:17 AM   #300
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by Alt+F4 View Post
You may very well be an adult in full possession of your mental faculties but could the same assumption be made in an 18 year-old girl marrying her 50 year-old father?
Yes. That assumption may or may not be true. It may or may not be true in any contractual situation, or in any sexual situation. I've seen marriages of 20 year old women and forty year old men and I generally shake my head and say that someone will regret that someday, but it's not my place to make that decision. The point of recognizing adulthood is that it confers the right to grant consent.

And keep in mind what I am saying. I think it is perfectly reasonable for the legislature to decide that incestuous marriages will not be recognized by the state. I do not think the constitution grants a right to incestuous marriage. However, if I try to apply the equal protection clause to overturning statutes that refuse to recognize one sort of marriage, I can't see any reason why the equal protection clause confers a right for a man to marry a man, and have that marriage recognzied by the state, but does not confer a right for a man to marry his brother.

Quote:
What makes people think that gay marriage will lead to incestious marriage when that hasn't been the case with straight marriage, which has been around for thousands of year?
Asked and answered. Post 282
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 11:21 AM   #301
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,438
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
(snip) all of the arguments that apply to homosexual marriage also apply to incestuous marriage. There is only one exception. The vast majority of us think that people who want to marry their sisters are weird, icky, people.
There is another exception, and it is a fundamental one: marriage creates kinship. It is designed to treat people who are not directly related as family. An incestuous couple is by definition already family and would gain little if anything from getting married.
__________________
Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that!
Multatuli
Earthborn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 12:40 PM   #302
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,909
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
No one believes that. What some of us believe is that if you read the court rulings that have described the right to gay marriage and/or the simpler right to homosexual activity, there is no logical reason to say that the same right would not apply to incestuous marriages and/or activity.
And when it gets to a supreme court challenge they might have a decision that says it is wrong for any marriage between two mentally competent adults to be outlawed. We don't know what the court will decide. And I say again if you want to argue about the ethics of laws against incest vs homosexual you should start your own thread.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 12:48 PM   #303
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,909
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
There is nothing in the US Constitution, or the constitutions of most states, that prohibit discrimination based on either biological sex or sexual orientation. All such laws are restricted in their application, such as a prohibition on hiring preferences based on sexual orientation.

On the other hand, there is a statement in the Constitution that all citizens are entitled to equal protection of the law. A law that allows you to marry my sister but prevents me from marrying my sister treats you and me differently. Therefore, it is unconstitutional. At least, that seems to be the reasoning applied.
Not exactly, discriminating based on family status is well established in the law. For example if you and your sister had no other family you would be able to make decisions for her estate and such, while a stranger would not. So there is no general principle that you can not discriminate on the basis of familial relationship, unlike race and sex.

This might not address why one is wrong and the other not, but it does show that a legal distinction can be shown between sex and familial status.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 04:30 PM   #304
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Not exactly, discriminating based on family status is well established in the law.
I don't know how to break it to you, but discrimination based on sex is well established in the law.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 04:31 PM   #305
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
If anyone read the decision on the Iowa Supreme Court case legalizing gay marriage, they noted that the equal protection clause applies to people similarly situated for the specific institution, and to exclude the defence had to show that gay couples and straight couples were sufficiently dissimilar. They found that for the purposes of marriage gays and straights were "similarly situated in every important respect".

You can't just copy and paste incestuous couples. You need to show that such couples are sufficiently similar.

Obviously, it is incredibly easy to show that they sufficiently dissimilar, and thus are not protected under equal protection.

The slippery slope fallacy is a fallacy for a reason.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 04:41 PM   #306
Holler Hoojer
Critical Thinker
 
Holler Hoojer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 422
JFC! Why does anybody care who marries whom? Does no one have a life of their own? How does it harm me if a Black Buddhist septuagenarian male wants to marry his thirty year old Jewish brother who already has a wife and a husband? How is it even any of my business (unless they insist on having sex on the 68F bus)?
Holler Hoojer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 05:06 PM   #307
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
Originally Posted by Holler Hoojer View Post
JFC! Why does anybody care who marries whom? Does no one have a life of their own? How does it harm me if a Black Buddhist septuagenarian male wants to marry his thirty year old Jewish brother who already has a wife and a husband? How is it even any of my business (unless they insist on having sex on the 68F bus)?
From the same source:

Quote:
Nevertheless, we have said our marriage laws “are rooted in the
necessity of providing an institutional basis for defining the fundamental
relational rights and responsibilities of persons in organized society.” Laws
v. Griep, 332 N.W.2d 339, 341 (Iowa 1983); see also Baehr v. Lewin, 852
P.2d 44, 58 (Haw. 1993) (stating civil marriage is “ ‘a partnership to which
both partners bring their financial resources as well as their individual
energies and efforts’ ” (quoting Gussin v. Gussin, 836 P.2d 484, 491 (Haw.
1992))). These laws also serve to recognize the status of the parties’
committed relationship. See Madison v. Colby, 348 N.W.2d 202, 206 (Iowa
1984) (stating “ ‘the marriage state is not one entered into for the purpose of
labor and support alone,’ ” but also includes “ ‘the comfort and happiness of
the parties to the marriage contract’ ” (quoting Price v. Price, 91 Iowa 693,
697–98, 60 N.W. 202, 203 (Iowa 1894)) (emphasis added)); Hamilton v.
McNeill, 150 Iowa 470, 478, 129 N.W. 480, 482 (1911) (“The marriage to be
dissolved is not a mere contract, but is a status.”); Turner v. Hitchcock, 20
Iowa 310, 325 (1866) (Lowe, C.J., concurring) (observing that marriage
changes the parties’ “legal and social status”).
The last of those is most important to the would be libertarians here. Marriage is not reducible to a mere contract between two individuals.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 05:09 PM   #308
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,909
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I don't know how to break it to you, but discrimination based on sex is well established in the law.
Where?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 05:20 PM   #309
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Where?
Please don't lead him onto a pedantic red herring.
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 05:30 PM   #310
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Obviously, it is incredibly easy to show that they sufficiently dissimilar, and thus are not protected under equal protection.
Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was obvious. Now it all makes sense to me.

Obviously, a couple that consists of two men is exactly the same as a couple that consists of a man and a woman, and that couple is exactly the same as a couple that consists of two women, but none of those couples is anything like any couples that could be described in exactly the same terms except that they share a recent common ancestor.

It's obvious!
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 3rd May 2009, 05:57 PM   #311
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was obvious. Now it all makes sense to me.

Obviously, a couple that consists of two men is exactly the same as a couple that consists of a man and a woman, and that couple is exactly the same as a couple that consists of two women, but none of those couples is anything like any couples that could be described in exactly the same terms except that they share a recent common ancestor.

It's obvious!
__________________
As cultural anthropologists have always said "human culture" = "human nature". You might as well put a fish on the moon to test how it "swims naturally" without the "influence of water". -Earthborn
Tsukasa Buddha is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 04:23 AM   #312
Holler Hoojer
Critical Thinker
 
Holler Hoojer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 422
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
From the same source:



The last of those is most important to the would be libertarians here. Marriage is not reducible to a mere contract between two individuals.
The second quote is not from me. I don't know the source, but it ain't me.
Holler Hoojer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 04:50 AM   #313
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Many, gay or straight, are also weirded out by transgendered folks.

Interesting side note: all the transgendered people I know are woodwind players. Correlation or causation? hmmm...


That reminds me of an old Glaswegian term for a gay man. A player of the pink oboe.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 05:45 AM   #314
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Oh. I'm sorry. I didn't realize it was obvious. Now it all makes sense to me.

Obviously, a couple that consists of two men is exactly the same as a couple that consists of a man and a woman, and that couple is exactly the same as a couple that consists of two women, but none of those couples is anything like any couples that could be described in exactly the same terms except that they share a recent common ancestor.

It's obvious!
You are not as amusing as you think you are.

For one thing, incest involves people from the same immediate family. Bear with me on the obvious here a second. Two people of the same sex who are not closely related are virtually indistinguishable from two people of different sex who are not closely related for all the intents of marriage except (possibly) old fashioned baby makin' and His And Hers bath sets.

However, two who are closely related who want to marry is the sort of situation so rife with the potential for abuse and the possible history of abuse that just mentioning it will make a therapist hiss through their teeth. If a mother wants to marry her own son there's some serious issues there to be italicized. That's not the same as my thinking it's icky (I do, for the record.) That's based on a lot of really dirty business involving child abuse.

But, here's where I get all liberal about it. What if it turns out I'm wrong and incestuous relationships can be as harmless and free of abuse as typical straight marriage (not a very high bar, really?) What if it turns out that incestuous unions are no more harmful than straight ones, or gay ones? In that case, down the slippery slope I'd go to advocating legalizing it. Don't forget that sentence starts with "But." Gay marriage is something I support because it turns out every single argument to make against it falls flat except possibly the slippery slope argument, which demonstrates how weak the anti position is, because not only does cleaving to this one fallacy prove you have no other left, it also shows that you're willing to use the specter of irrelevant things that still make us wince to frighten us away from a just society. The anti gay marriage position has been reduced to conjuring tricks.










P.S. In case I was too subtle, incest is not pertinent to a gay marriage discussion. Get your own *********** thread.

Last edited by ImaginalDisc; 4th May 2009 at 05:53 AM.
ImaginalDisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 06:20 AM   #315
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,501
Originally Posted by Rasmus View Post
I am also not aware of any place that has laws that make discrimination on the basis of "biological affinity" illegal, hence this argument does not work for incesteous relationships. (In fact, there could be no laws against incest in such a place to begin with.)
In fact, anti-nepotism restrictions are very common in government organizations, so discrimination based on "biological affinity" is allowed.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 08:44 AM   #316
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
And I say again if you want to argue about the ethics of laws against incest vs homosexual you should start your own thread.
I think, if you read the OP, you would find that that is the subject of this thread.

At any rate, the person who started the thread doesn't seem to think it's extratopical.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 09:02 AM   #317
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,909
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
...becuse it doesn't matter what people want, the courts will magically find a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution.

Since it is crystal clear the courts simply do not care, and will simply decide any law against gay marriage is "unconstitutional", the only way for the people to have any say in the matter -- since, clearly, any laws they pass counts for nothing as far as the courts are concerned -- would be to amend the Constitution to explicitly ban gay marriage.

Perhaps it will fail and the courts will manage to force gay marriage on the public. But it is quite clear that no compromise is possible.
Nope meadmaker I don't see any incest in the OP.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 09:05 AM   #318
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
I still love that term. "Force" Gay Marriage on the public.

"Oh no! You're forcing me to allow two people that love each other with no health, mental, or physical detriment to marry! How dare you infringe on my right to discriminate arbitrarily!"

My heart doth weep for The Skeptic. Can't you just see how he's suffering? Why, he might just someday see two guys holding hands or... dare I say! Kissing.

The horror. The... horror.
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 11:37 AM   #319
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,737
Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
My heart doth weep for The Skeptic. Can't you just see how he's suffering? Why, he might just someday see two guys holding hands or... dare I say! Kissing.

The horror. The... horror.
If you haven't read it, I highly recommend reading this post of Skeptic's. It shows, I think, where he is coming from.

I think.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th May 2009, 11:55 AM   #320
David Wong
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,773
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
If you haven't read it, I highly recommend reading this post of Skeptic's. It shows, I think, where he is coming from.

I think.
That was one of the most baffling arguments I've ever seen in defense of anything. Trying to watch him build a chain of logic to defend his position is almost physically painful.
David Wong is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:26 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.