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 4th May 2009, 03:26 PM   #321
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by David Wong View Post
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.
Agreed.
__________________
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, 03:33 PM   #322
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by David Wong View Post
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.
He should have just said "It's obvious" and saved himself a lot of trouble.


***********************
Amusing article on National Review Online today. The columninst's daughter was assigned a co-ed room at Stanford. Not a co-ed suite. A co-ed room. It seems it was all a result of not paying close attention to the fine print in the new "gender neutral housing policy." The reason I found it amusing was that of course, the daughter was quite ok with it. The mother, though, was pretty outraged.

Not directly related to anything in this thread, but slightly related, and I think others might also find it amusing.
*******************************

Final thought for the moment. I've been talking a lot about incestuous marriage, and a lot of people miss the point. TB characterized it as a slippery slope argument, and it is, but the slippery slope doesn't lead to incestuous marriage. It leads to Norm Coleman. Hopefully, he won't succeed, but he will try.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 4th May 2009 at 04:38 PM.
Meadmaker is online now   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, 03:38 PM   #323
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
He should have just said "It's obvious" and saved himself a lot of trouble.
So is skin color/race. So the **** what?
__________________
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, 05:20 PM   #324
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,909
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Amusing article on National Review Online today. The columninst's daughter was assigned a co-ed room at Stanford. Not a co-ed suite. A co-ed room. It seems it was all a result of not paying close attention to the fine print in the new "gender neutral housing policy." The reason I found it amusing was that of course, the daughter was quite ok with it. The mother, though, was pretty outraged.
It makes it easier for those who have some issue with gender, like people who are transgendered. Big deal.
__________________
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, 05:54 PM   #325
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
It makes it easier for those who have some issue with gender,...
It makes a lot of things easier, which is why the mother was outraged.

(For those who didn't read the article, the girl didn't actually request a co-ed room, but she failed to fill out the proper form requesting a single sex room. At least, that's what she told her mother.)
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is online now   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, 06:41 PM   #326
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,909
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
It makes a lot of things easier, which is why the mother was outraged.

(For those who didn't read the article, the girl didn't actually request a co-ed room, but she failed to fill out the proper form requesting a single sex room. At least, that's what she told her mother.)
You didn't actually link to the article.
__________________
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 5th May 2009, 06:38 AM   #327
volatile
Scholar and a Gentleman
 
volatile's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
Agreed.
That made my brain hurt.
__________________
- ""My tribe has a saying: 'If you're bleeding, look for a man with scars'" - Leela, Doctor Who 'Robots of Death'.
volatile 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 5th May 2009, 04:25 PM   #328
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
Originally Posted by Earthborn
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.
Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc View Post
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.
Hey Meadmaker, sorry to interrupt your "It's obvious" fun, but there are posts here that you are ignoring about incest. and Earthborn's was before my post, and you still ignored it.

And if you actually read the decision and the legal arguments, you will realize how incredibly stupid it is to claim you can just copy and paste in incest.

Quote:
In short, for purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, which are designed to bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs are similarly situated in every important respect, but for their sexual orientation.
Much of the text is dedicated to the question of scrutiny level for a class:

Quote:
In this case, the County acknowledges sexual orientation is highly resistant to change. Additionally, “sexual orientation ‘forms a significan tpart of a person’s identity.’ ” Kerrigan, 957 A.2d at 438 (quoting Able v.United States, 968 F. Supp. 850, 863 (E.D.N.Y. 1997), rev’d on other grounds, 155 F.3d 628 (2d Cir. 1998)). Sexual orientation influences the formation of personal relationships between all people—heterosexual, gay, or lesbian—to fulfill each person’s fundamental needs for love and attachment. Accordingly, because sexual orientation is central to personal identity and “ ‘may be altered [if at all] only at the expense of significant damage to the individual’s sense of self,’ ” classifications based on sexual orientation “are no less entitled to consideration as a suspect or quasi-suspect class than any other group that has been deemed to exhibit an immutable characteristic.” Id. at 438–39 (quoting Jantz v. Muci, 759 F. Supp. 1543, 1548 (D. Kan. 1991), rev’d on other grounds, 976 F.2d 623 (10th Cir. 1992)). Sexual orientation is not the type of human trait that allows courts to relax their standard of review because the barrier is temporary or susceptible to self-help.
It is really effing obvious that this is specific to gays getting married and can't be transfered to incest.
__________________
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

Last edited by Tsukasa Buddha; 5th May 2009 at 04:35 PM.
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 5th May 2009, 04:26 PM   #329
CORed
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Central City, Colorado, USA
Posts: 10,416
Originally Posted by Dr Adequate View Post
Certainly anyone who wants to deprive their fellow-citizens of their civil rights would be best advised to start by changing the Constitution. Though I note that in this particular case it is the constitution of the state of Iowa that acts as a guarantor of civil liberties. Perhaps you could figure out some way to abolish it.

Relax. The courts are not going to "force" gay marriage on anyone.

Of course, the courts might permit it. But anyone who doesn't wish to avail him or her self of this liberty will of course be free not to do so.
Yes, but in the twisted logic of the "family values" crowd, the fact that anybody is allowed to do something that they believe to be sinful is an infringement of their rights.
CORed 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 5th May 2009, 06:35 PM   #330
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
Hey Meadmaker, sorry to interrupt your "It's obvious" fun, but there are posts here that you are ignoring about incest. and Earthborn's was before my post, and you still ignored it.
I didn't want to be overly pedantic, but since you asked:

Earthborn's argument is easily disposed of. Marriage confers a variety of rights. Since they are already kin, they already have some of those rights. You can't give a person "some" of their rights, and then say they don't need the rest.

ImaginalDisc's argument is just as easy

Originally Posted by ID
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.
In the case of first cousin marriage, illegal in most states, I would challenge anyone to provide any evidence that those unions are any more harmful than regular marriages.

Now here it gets a bit trickier to proceed, because it is unclear if you, or ImaginalDisc, or anyone else on this thread* is distinguishing between whether they are advocating the legalization of certain types of marriages, or insisting that there is a constitutional right to certain types of marriages. It seems to me that an awful lot of people don't seem to think that distinction matters.

I'm going to proceed on the assumption that ImaginalDisc feels that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, and , if it could be shown that incestuous unions are no more dangerous than other marriages, then there is a constitutional right to incestuous marriages. He can correct me if I am wrong.

So, we already agree on first cousin marriages (unless someone can come up with some sort of evidence about the harm they produce.) It's tempting to stop right there and say that's enough, and for the moment, I will. However, rest assured that I will return to take on the rest.

*Except me, of course. I support gay marriage, but don't think there's a constitutional right to it.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is online now   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 5th May 2009, 07:03 PM   #331
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
 
Prometheus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 50,254
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
<snip>
I support gay marriage, but don't think there's a constitutional right to it.
There isn't. There also isn't a Constitutional right to straight marriage, civil union, or any other sort of cohabitation agreement, except in the negative sense implied by the 10th Amendment. However, once any sort of marriage is instituted as a statutory right, the 14th Amendment kicks in as well.
__________________
As Einstein once said, "If you can't think of something relevant to say, just make something up and attribute it to some really smart dead guy."
"I find your lack of pith disturbing," - Darth Rotor
..........
Don't be offended. I'm not calling you a serial killer. -- Ron Tomkins.
Prometheus 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 5th May 2009, 07:19 PM   #332
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I didn't want to be overly pedantic, but since you asked:

Earthborn's argument is easily disposed of. Marriage confers a variety of rights. Since they are already kin, they already have some of those rights. You can't give a person "some" of their rights, and then say they don't need the rest.

ImaginalDisc's argument is just as easy



In the case of first cousin marriage, illegal in most states, I would challenge anyone to provide any evidence that those unions are any more harmful than regular marriages.

Now here it gets a bit trickier to proceed, because it is unclear if you, or ImaginalDisc, or anyone else on this thread* is distinguishing between whether they are advocating the legalization of certain types of marriages, or insisting that there is a constitutional right to certain types of marriages. It seems to me that an awful lot of people don't seem to think that distinction matters.

I'm going to proceed on the assumption that ImaginalDisc feels that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, and , if it could be shown that incestuous unions are no more dangerous than other marriages, then there is a constitutional right to incestuous marriages. He can correct me if I am wrong.

So, we already agree on first cousin marriages (unless someone can come up with some sort of evidence about the harm they produce.) It's tempting to stop right there and say that's enough, and for the moment, I will. However, rest assured that I will return to take on the rest.

*Except me, of course. I support gay marriage, but don't think there's a constitutional right to it.
Surprisingly, you've selectively quoted and ignored your original argument, just like you did before. Very disappointing since you were making such a big deal about my post.
__________________
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 5th May 2009, 09:31 PM   #333
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I didn't want to be overly pedantic, but since you asked:

Earthborn's argument is easily disposed of. Marriage confers a variety of rights. Since they are already kin, they already have some of those rights. You can't give a person "some" of their rights, and then say they don't need the rest.

ImaginalDisc's argument is just as easy



In the case of first cousin marriage, illegal in most states, I would challenge anyone to provide any evidence that those unions are any more harmful than regular marriages.

Now here it gets a bit trickier to proceed, because it is unclear if you, or ImaginalDisc, or anyone else on this thread* is distinguishing between whether they are advocating the legalization of certain types of marriages, or insisting that there is a constitutional right to certain types of marriages. It seems to me that an awful lot of people don't seem to think that distinction matters.

I'm going to proceed on the assumption that ImaginalDisc feels that there is a constitutional right to gay marriage, and , if it could be shown that incestuous unions are no more dangerous than other marriages, then there is a constitutional right to incestuous marriages. He can correct me if I am wrong.

So, we already agree on first cousin marriages (unless someone can come up with some sort of evidence about the harm they produce.) It's tempting to stop right there and say that's enough, and for the moment, I will. However, rest assured that I will return to take on the rest.

*Except me, of course. I support gay marriage, but don't think there's a constitutional right to it.

Not only do I support it, I think there's already a constitutional right to it.

The 14th Ammendment, Section 1:

Quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
While marriage is in the hands of the states, they can't just arbitrarily decide two people can't marry because they're of different races or the same sex. Gay marriage opponents agree with me about how the law reads, because why else would they push the DOMA and other efforts to specifically exclude gay marriage?
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 5th May 2009, 10:13 PM   #334
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
OK. On to the rest of the post. (Patience, young one.)


Originally Posted by Tsukasa Buddha View Post
And if you actually read the decision and the legal arguments, you will realize how incredibly stupid it is to claim you can just copy and paste in incest.

Much of the text is dedicated to the question of scrutiny level for a class:
Indeed it is. Here's a truncated version of the quote, to remind people about what we are talking.

Originally Posted by Iowa Supreme Court
In this case, the County acknowledges sexual orientation is highly resistant to change. ... classifications based on sexual orientation “are no less entitled to consideration as a suspect or quasi-suspect class than any other group that has been deemed to exhibit an immutable characteristic.”
It's true. You can't apply that portion of the ruling to incestuous people. So, that appears to defeat my argument, I guess. Except...there's one way to save it. This portion of the judicial opinion doesn't actually address the right of same sex marriage. It addresses the question of what level of scrutiny ought to be applied when determining if a law restricting such a right is Constitutional.

The court notes certain instances in which intermediate scrutiny ought to be applied, and in it we find illegitimacy (check it out. It's listed in the Iowa ruling.) Now, you might think that by illegitimacy, we are only talking about laws that target or discriminate against bastards, but that is not the case. More accurately, it applies to all statutes that discriminate, in the broadest sense, against children of unmarried parents. If a statute deprives a child of rights, benefits, or privileges that he would have had if his parents had been married, then it is a law that to which intermediate scrutiny must be applied. A law which prohibits a child's parents from getting married is one sort of law that falls into this category. The reasoning is described more thoroughly here:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/cont....5_Ledsham.pdf

So, we have a law respecting illegitimacy, which is therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny. (There are other reasons why it might be subject to a level of scrutiny beyond the simple rational basis test, but I will leave others to investigate further.)

Having demonstrated that the proper test is intermediate scrutiny, you could go through the remainder of the opinion, strike out homosexual and its synonyms, replace it with incestuous, and the ruling would make just as much sense.

Back to ImaginalDisc.

Earlier, I noted that he was willing to agree to support incestuous marriage if they could be shown not harmful. (This makes a lot of sense actually, because it parallels the test under the Equal Protection Clause about serving a legitimate government interest. I assume we all agree that protecting children, and even adults, is a legitimate government interest. ) I will submit that first cousin marriages are not harmful in the least, and laws outlawing them would not even survive a rational basis review if fairly applied.

As for the other categories of incest, I'm not so sure. I suspect it would be pretty easy to convince me that Father-daughter and mother-son relationships were injurious to mental health, although it's quite possible even that is culturally biased. If so, laws against them would survive even a strict scrutiny challenge. As for brother-sister relationships, I'm not so sure. It would certainly be controversial, and I doubt that scientific evidence would be conclusive either way. In such cases of controversy, where there is no, clear proof, I, personally, would defer to the legislature.


Quote:
It is really effing obvious that this is specific to gays getting married and can't be transfered to incest.

"incredibly stupid"? "effing obvious"?
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is online now   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 5th May 2009, 10:20 PM   #335
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Back to ImaginalDisc.

Earlier, I noted that he was willing to agree to support incestuous marriage if they could be shown not harmful. (This makes a lot of sense actually, because it parallels the test under the Equal Protection Clause about serving a legitimate government interest. I assume we all agree that protecting children, and even adults, is a legitimate government interest. ) I will submit that first cousin marriages are not harmful in the least, and laws outlawing them would not even survive a rational basis review if fairly applied.

As for the other categories of incest, I'm not so sure. I suspect it would be pretty easy to convince me that Father-daughter and mother-son relationships were injurious to mental health, although it's quite possible even that is culturally biased. If so, laws against them would survive even a strict scrutiny challenge. As for brother-sister relationships, I'm not so sure. It would certainly be controversial, and I doubt that scientific evidence would be conclusive either way. In such cases of controversy, where there is no, clear proof, I, personally, would defer to the legislature.
Are you perhaps confusing me for someone else, becase I don't see how this relates to anything I have written.
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 5th May 2009, 10:31 PM   #336
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc View Post
Are you perhaps confusing me for someone else, becase I don't see how this relates to anything I have written.
Originally Posted by mm
Earlier, I noted that he was willing to agree to support incestuous marriage if they could be shown not harmful.
Originally Posted by id
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.
I don't think I was misrepresenting anything.


The rest of my discussion was about my own opinion on whether or not incestuous unions were harmful. I believe first cousin marriages are not harmful in the least, father daughter marriages probably are, and I'm not sure about brother-sister marriages. In such cases, I would defer to the legislature.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is online now   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 5th May 2009, 11:06 PM   #337
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
I don't think I was misrepresenting anything.


The rest of my discussion was about my own opinion on whether or not incestuous unions were harmful. I believe first cousin marriages are not harmful in the least, father daughter marriages probably are, and I'm not sure about brother-sister marriages. In such cases, I would defer to the legislature.
That's off topic. The topic is incestuous marriage as a slippery slope arguement against gay marriage. You claim to be for gay marriage, do not make an argument that it would lead to a slippery slope, and you fail to understand how the 14th ammendment protects it.

Why are you talking about yourself? How are you relevant to the OP?

We're attacking Skeptic's arguments, you're being a narcicist.

Last edited by ImaginalDisc; 5th May 2009 at 11:29 PM.
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 6th May 2009, 01:35 PM   #338
Regnad Kcin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Regnad Kcin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: New York
Posts: 10,474
Skeptic: Thanks for revisiting the thread you started, yet more or less checked out of. (Hey, people get busy.) Would it be too much trouble for you to answer a question put forth some time back?

How are you, personally, affected by two people in Vermont getting married?
__________________
My heros are Alex Zanardi and Evelyn Glennie.
Regnad Kcin 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 6th May 2009, 02:05 PM   #339
marksman
Reality Checker
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,001
Maybe he issues marriage licenses and objects to the increased workload.
marksman 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 6th May 2009, 02:28 PM   #340
Earthborn
Terrestrial Intelligence
 
Earthborn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 6,438
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Earthborn's argument is easily disposed of.
I don't think you have disposed of it.

Quote:
Marriage confers a variety of rights. Since they are already kin, they already have some of those rights.
Which shows that "incestuous marriage" really is a separate issue from non-gendered marriage, and perhaps explains why there aren't many "incestuous couples" trying to get married.

Quote:
You can't give a person "some" of their rights, and then say they don't need the rest.
It does mean that they could be given equal rights without marriage and without an institution that copies marriage.

Quote:
I suspect it would be pretty easy to convince me that Father-daughter and mother-son relationships were injurious to mental health
I assume you are referring to sexual relationships, because I don't think you would seriously argue that all interaction between parents and their children are necessarily injurious to mental health. However if I am right about my assumption, your argument is very weak as marriage law does not regulate sexual relationships.
__________________
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 6th May 2009, 03:28 PM   #341
AWPrime
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,926
I am still waiting Meadmaker.....
__________________
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 6th May 2009, 05:19 PM   #342
Tsukasa Buddha
Other (please write in)
 
Tsukasa Buddha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,302
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Indeed it is. Here's a truncated version of the quote, to remind people about what we are talking.



It's true. You can't apply that portion of the ruling to incestuous people. So, that appears to defeat my argument, I guess. Except...there's one way to save it. This portion of the judicial opinion doesn't actually address the right of same sex marriage. It addresses the question of what level of scrutiny ought to be applied when determining if a law restricting such a right is Constitutional.

The court notes certain instances in which intermediate scrutiny ought to be applied, and in it we find illegitimacy (check it out. It's listed in the Iowa ruling.) Now, you might think that by illegitimacy, we are only talking about laws that target or discriminate against bastards, but that is not the case. More accurately, it applies to all statutes that discriminate, in the broadest sense, against children of unmarried parents. If a statute deprives a child of rights, benefits, or privileges that he would have had if his parents had been married, then it is a law that to which intermediate scrutiny must be applied. A law which prohibits a child's parents from getting married is one sort of law that falls into this category. The reasoning is described more thoroughly here:

http://www.cardozolawreview.com/cont....5_Ledsham.pdf

So, we have a law respecting illegitimacy, which is therefore subject to intermediate scrutiny. (There are other reasons why it might be subject to a level of scrutiny beyond the simple rational basis test, but I will leave others to investigate further.)

Having demonstrated that the proper test is intermediate scrutiny, you could go through the remainder of the opinion, strike out homosexual and its synonyms, replace it with incestuous, and the ruling would make just as much sense.
From your own source:

Quote:
Legitimacy reframing does not make arguments for same-sex marriage any more vulnerable to slippery-slope arguments invoking incest or polygamy126 than sex-discrimination framing does, to the extent such arguments have any currency.127 Doctrinally, as with the sex-discrimination frame, the legitimacy frame merely shifts the burden onto the state of proposing an important governmental interest justifying such discrimination. In the case of same-sex marriage, it is a very difficult burden to bear, but it is comparatively less difficult to find an important governmental interest in denying access to marriage to incestuous or polygamous unions.128
Which goes back to the quote which you conveniently ignored, which you seem to have a habit of doing.

Quote:
In short, for purposes of Iowa’s marriage laws, which are designed to bring a sense of order to the legal relationships of committed couples and their families in myriad ways, plaintiffs are similarly situated in every important respect, but for their sexual orientation.
Incestuous marriage is inherently destructive to the order of legal relationships.

Quote:
There are other justifications for incest laws that might be more compelling. Anthropologists Margaret Mead and Claude Levi-Strauss both wrote convincingly in defense of the "incest taboo." Mead characterized the widely held belief that incest is wrong as "among the essential mechanisms of human society."
According to Mead, the taboo has strong benefits: Because certain sexual and marital relationships are categorically forbidden, and the categorical ban is instilled early on in children's minds, children can grow and develop affectionate, close bonds with a wide span of relatives, without the intrusion of "inappropriate sexuality." Children can "wander freely, sitting on laps, pulling beards, and nestling their heads against comforting breasts-neither tempting nor being tempted beyond their years."
Levi-Strauss focused on the benefits of the incest taboo to society at large. The ban on intrafamily marriage forces families to reach outward and connect with other families -- and it is those connections between many different families that make society function.
Linky.

Quote:
The best policy argument against incest has nothing to do with genetics and everything to do with the protection of minor children. The protection of children from sexual exploitation is among the most compelling of state interests and overrides any constitutional rights. 74 Many incidents of sexual abuse of children, especially girls, are incestuous, occur at a shockingly high rate, 75 and result in trauma that is likely to be severe. 76 Society has an extremely compelling interest in doing everything it can to prevent fathers and brothers from viewing their daughters and sisters in a sexual manner. As Karst points out, "incest laws forbidding parent-child marriage are arguably sustainable even when the child is mature, on the theory that parental authority established during one's childhood may have a lasting impact, dominating what would otherwise be the child's freedom of choice." 77
Linky.

Yes, you can copy and paste in incest into the decision, but then what you have left doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
"incredibly stupid"? "effing obvious"?
Don't worry, I find your slippery sophistry equally offensive.
__________________
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 6th May 2009, 06:16 PM   #343
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by Earthborn View Post
It does mean that they could be given equal rights without marriage and without an institution that copies marriage.
True, although, perhaps not completely. I would argue that the same is very nearly true for gays. If we had the "civil union equivalent to marriage", they would have equal rights, except for one thing. Such solutions are met with howls of protest, usually in America using the phrase "separate but equal", and complaints that by calling it something else you are inherently demeaning it, and so nothing short of an absolutely identical institution is acceptable.

So, if you were to decide that the Constitution required equal protection for any particular sort of couple, or the children of that couple, very few people demanding it would be satisfied with anything less than marriage, specifically.

Quote:
I assume you are referring to sexual relationships, because I don't think you would seriously argue that all interaction between parents and their children are necessarily injurious to mental health. However if I am right about my assumption, your argument is very weak as marriage law does not regulate sexual relationships.
Well, sort of. Laws about marriage and sex are very closely intertwined, even today, and much more so historically, as I am sure you understand.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is online now   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 6th May 2009, 06:35 PM   #344
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by Meadmaker
True, although, perhaps not completely. I would argue that the same is very nearly true for gays. If we had the "civil union equivalent to marriage", they would have equal rights, except for one thing. Such solutions are met with howls of protest, usually in America using the phrase "separate but equal", and complaints that by calling it something else you are inherently demeaning it, and so nothing short of an absolutely identical institution is acceptable.
Why should we call it something else?

It's stupid. It really is. People like you keep making these ridiculous arguments, but there's simply no reason to call it a different name. You have to plead for special consideration to suddenly call it anything else than marriage. No matter what, you are still making it clear that this is sort of like marriage, but we can't call it that, so there must be some sort of difference.

The fact that you make it out to be some sort of extremist, "howling" viewpoint is rather telling.
__________________
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 6th May 2009, 08:04 PM   #345
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by AWPrime View Post
I am still waiting Meadmaker.....
This analysis: http://www.nationalreview.com/commen...0508040812.asp explains it well.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is online now   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 6th May 2009, 08:18 PM   #346
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,737
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
an NRO op/ed? It could be a very astute analysis, but given the source, the odds of that are low based on experience.

Where is Brown when you need him?
Upchurch is online now   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 6th May 2009, 08:38 PM   #347
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post

Here's how an internet discussion works:

You have the luxury of time to gather sources, make citations, edit, proof, and compose a thoughtful reply to other people.

Posting a link rather than articulating your points is both lazy and dismissive.

Try again.
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 7th May 2009, 07:23 AM   #348
Alt+F4
diabolical globalist
 
Alt+F4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
If we had the "civil union equivalent to marriage", they would have equal rights, except for one thing. Such solutions are met with howls of protest, usually in America using the phrase "separate but equal", and complaints that by calling it something else you are inherently demeaning it, and so nothing short of an absolutely identical institution is acceptable.
It not just about demeaning it, it's about the fact when you use the term "civil union" rather than marriage, couples are discriminated against in regard to benefits, such as health insurance and adoption.
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 7th May 2009, 08:29 AM   #349
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27,558
Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
Why should we call it something else?

It's stupid. It really is. People like you keep making these ridiculous arguments, but there's simply no reason to call it a different name. You have to plead for special consideration to suddenly call it anything else than marriage. No matter what, you are still making it clear that this is sort of like marriage, but we can't call it that, so there must be some sort of difference.

The fact that you make it out to be some sort of extremist, "howling" viewpoint is rather telling.
*sigh*

I was trying to point out to Earthborn that any solution to the problem of equal rights for couples would have to be a complete and total solution. The reason for this is rooted in some subtleties of American history and jurisprudence. The solutions which have been perfectly adequate in Europe, where I am pretty sure Earthborn lives, would be considered politically unacceptable here.

I’ve debated various facets of the gay marriage debate over the years, and have modified my position greatly. Certain people have been highly influential in shifting my position. None more so than Scot Trypal, but Earthborn has been influential as well. Earthborn consistently brings up points that challenge some of my most basic assumptions. We frequently disagree on those points, but because they are brought up, I find myself constantly examining my own beliefs to see if they are the result of careful thought, or latent prejudice.

I appreciate people who can bring up challenging thoughts on various sides of an issue. It makes the discussion worthwhile. Not everyone succeeds in that fashion.

On the subject of the incest-gay marriage link, despite the fact that I support a right to engage in sado-necro-bestiality, there’s not a whole lot more to be said. For those who feel they haven’t studied the subject sufficiently, I recommend contemplating your own views on what are the limits on government regulation of sexual activity between consenting adults. Then, read Lawrence v. Texas and see how that agrees or disagrees with your view of the law, or what the law ought to be. Consider Skeptic’s, or my, assertions in the light of that decision. Make sure to read Scalia’s dissent, and O’Connor’s partial concurrence. They address the subject of gay marriage directly.

Then, finally, to see where this slippery slope truly leads, google the phrase “conservative judicial activism” and read some news articles about Norm Coleman’s pending appeal in the Minnesota Senate race.

Or, alternatively, you could read an argument like Skeptic’s, and engage in a lot of name calling and derision. That’s fun, too.
__________________
Proud of every silver medal I've ever received.
Meadmaker is online now   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 7th May 2009, 09:39 AM   #350
Skeptic
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 18,312
Once again we get the gang with the usual "I am baffled", "it makes my head hurt", "I don't get it" pseudo-replies. I suppose that's the internet version of "declaring victory and running away".

I wonder: does this work both ways? Suppose someone told you that they're baffled about why women have the right to vote, and to every reply you make they'll claim they don't get it and that your argument makes their head hurt. Does it mean they win the argument, and you must concede that women shouldn't vote?

I'm just asking.
Skeptic 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 7th May 2009, 09:40 AM   #351
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by Skeptic
I wonder: does this work both ways? Suppose someone told you that they're baffled about why women have the right to vote, and to every reply you make they'll claim they don't get it. Does it mean they win the argument, and you must concede that women shouldn't vote?
Okay, seriously. Is that really the only argument you see throughout this thread?

Talk about willful myopia.

I'll be over here actually reading posts, as opposed to... whatever it is you do.
__________________
Writing.com Account

Last edited by Lonewulf; 7th May 2009 at 09:41 AM.
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 7th May 2009, 09:47 AM   #352
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,737
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
I wonder: does this work both ways? Suppose someone told you that they're baffled about why women have the right to vote, and to every reply you make they'll claim they don't get it and that your argument makes their head hurt. Does it mean they win the argument, and you must concede that women shouldn't vote?
See, here's the problem with your question. If I were in this situation and my first attempt to explain an argument was met with claims of not being understood, I would try a different approach and answer again, even many times if need be.

You only made one attempt to explain why sex is the most relevant element in marriage and that was nearly universally agreed to be a nonsensical analogy. Asking for clarification is not an attempt to declare victory and run away.
Upchurch is online now   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 7th May 2009, 09:47 AM   #353
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 51,909
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Once again we get the gang with the usual "I am baffled", "it makes my head hurt", "I don't get it" pseudo-replies. I suppose that's the internet version of "declaring victory and running away".
The thing is you can not really rebut an incoherent argument. Your arguements are often not inteligible enough for those here respond to in an effective maner.
__________________
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 7th May 2009, 09:52 AM   #354
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Gays shouldn't be able to marry because of Blargleplax.
__________________
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 7th May 2009, 09:54 AM   #355
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,737
Originally Posted by Lonewulf View Post
Gays shouldn't be able to marry because of Blargleplax.
I don't get it. It makes my head hurt.
Upchurch is online now   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 7th May 2009, 09:56 AM   #356
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
That's obviously just you declaring victory and running away.
__________________
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 7th May 2009, 10:03 AM   #357
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,737
...and scene.
Upchurch is online now   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 7th May 2009, 10:05 AM   #358
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Meh, we need a do-over. My makeup got smeared in that. :<
__________________
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 7th May 2009, 10:14 AM   #359
ZirconBlue
Sole Survivor of L-Town
 
ZirconBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Lexington, KY, USA, Earth
Posts: 14,062
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
Once again we get the gang with the usual "I am baffled", "it makes my head hurt", "I don't get it" pseudo-replies.
You make pseudo-arguments, you get pseudo-replies. Go figure.

Quote:
I suppose that's the internet version of "declaring victory and running away".
No, it's the internet version of "I don't understand what you're trying say." It's remarkably similar to the non-internet version.
__________________
Religion and sex are powerplays.
Manipulate the people for the money they pay.
Selling skin, selling God
The numbers look the same on their credit cards.
ZirconBlue 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 7th May 2009, 10:27 AM   #360
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,737
Originally Posted by Skeptic View Post
I suppose that's the internet version of "declaring victory and running away".
It's not, but do you know what might be considered "declaring victory and running away"?

First, you'd have to make a really bizarre argument, a bad analogy for example. Then when people question you about your argument, call them names and question their intelligence. Then, and this is important, never revisit or clarify your original argument.

That would be declaring victory and running away.
Upchurch is online now   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 07:14 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.