gbaji wrote:
But we don't strip them of their right [...] of free speech,
·Theme
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- LBGT Terrorism
LBGT TerrorismFollow
Yes we do.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Almalieque wrote:
So, you do understand my point. That's great.
I haven't read one of your posts in days. I was talking to Gbaji.
Quote:
They are deprived in the same way with the caveat of it being justified discrimination.
All legalized discrimination is under the blanket concept of being "justified". People felt [prior discrimination] was justified as well, both legally and socially.
Quote:
Jophiel wrote:
just as prior generations felt blacks weren't good enough to marry whites.
I.e., "weren't good enough". Correct.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#379Almalieque,
Posted: Sep 05 2012 at 12:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Less to do with them not being "good enough" and more with "We're not getting any".
Jophiel wrote:
I haven't read one of your posts in days.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Almalieque wrote:
Wrong, please refer to my conversation with Allegory on pages one and two.
No thanks. If you have a point, make it.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I haven't read one of your posts in days.
You knew what the thread was when you opened it.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I haven't read one of your posts in days.
You knew what the thread was when you opened it.
He was asking for it, really.
Edited, Sep 5th 2012 2:38pm by Eske
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
why it was a violation of rights to deny the vote to women (and blacks), but is not a violation to deny it to people under the age of 18?
(A) It's not a great comparison since those under 18 will eventually turn 18 barring any calamitous circumstances. Women and blacks will presumably remain female and/or African-American.
Chazz Bono and Michael Jackson would beg to differ
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Almalieque wrote:
please refer to my conversation with Allegory on pages one and two.
I pop in to see if this thread went any place weird since I left, and apparently it's gone exactly nowhere.
Eske Esquire wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
I haven't read one of your posts in days.
You knew what the thread was when you opened it.
He was asking for it, really.
Edited, Sep 5th 2012 2:38pm by Eske
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Wrong, please refer to my conversation with Allegory on pages one and two.
No thanks. If you have a point, make it.
I did.. It was the following sentences. I just gave you a reference for further details.
Oh. It wasn't much of an argument and was unsupported by anything so it didn't register that you were trying to advance it as a point.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Hence the reference to the argument. If you don't want to read it, then fine, but that doesn't take away from the argument.
Belkira wrote:
It's almost as if certain people think that the only argument that has ever been made in favor of same sex marriage is "But THEY get to!!!!"
Isn't that exactly the argument being made in favor of same sex marriage? What do you think you're saying when you say "It was wrong to deny marriage to interracial couples, so it's wrong to deny it to same sex couples"? If there's a difference between that and "they got it, so we should get it too" it's not much of one.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes. We restrict the right to vote (and a few other things) for minors because of a belief that they cannot fully participate in those things (for reasons of maturity in this case). We also don't allow them to enter into binding contracts. But we don't strip them of their right to live, or right of free speech, or most other rights for that matter. So clearly it's about more than just age alone. And clearly it's not acceptable because one is in a temporary state.
No, it's 100% about age. I don't know why you'd try to argue otherwise.
Because you're simplifying the argument down to one easy to refute phrase. Since not all rights are infringed based on the age of the person, then age alone does not determine why we're doing it. Get it? If it was just about age, we would strip all rights from everyone until they reach the age 18. But we don't, do we? We infringe a set of rights. Not all of them.
Quote:
The reason we deprive minors of their right to vote is ultimately the same reason we previously deprived women and minorities the right to vote: We don't think they're good enough and don't want their inconvenient votes to impact our election process.
Yup. So why did we decide that this was a wrong assessment for women and minorities, but not for minors?
The point I'm slowly and painfully trying to get you to grasp isn't about voting rights Joph. It's that it's possible for the same rationale for something to be correct when applied in one case, but incorrect when applied to another. In the same way that we can say it's wrong to deny women the right to vote, but ok to deny minors that right, we can say that it's wrong to deny marriage status to interracial couples, but ok to deny it to same sex couples. Obviously that doesn't prove that position. It merely disproves the argument that since it was wrong to deny that status to one group, it must be wrong to deny it to another.
I've presented arguments for my position, explaining how same sex couples are not the same with regard to marriage as interracial couples. But the counter position just repeats the same argument that since it was wrong for X, it must be wrong for Y as well.
Which is why I went this way. I'm showing that the logic being used for same sex marriage is flawed and hoping that someone might actually one day present something else. Hasn't happened yet though, so I'm not going to hold my breath.
Quote:
In the same manner, you don't think homosexuals are good enough to get to marry ("No natural kids!") just as prior generations felt blacks weren't good enough to marry whites.
For radically different reasons though. And I wouldn't use the phrase "good enough to marry". More "there's no state interest in them marrying". Let's not forget that one of the key arguments made in Loving (on both sides) was that of children. The state argued that mixed race children would be at a disadvantage in society, so preventing interracial marriage was justified. The plaintiff argued that not allowing mixed race couples to marry would doom their children to illegitimacy (among other arguments). The point being that the issue of procreation has always been at the heart of decisions regarding the "right to marry".
I think it's relevant when discussing a set of couples who can't procreate (as a couple) to observe that perhaps the same arguments no longer apply. They are under no great burden if not granted that state recognition of their relationship as an interracial couple is. And the state is under no great burden or cost if they don't either. Which is ultimately the point here, isn't it?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
That was a lot of typing about voting and minors just to come back to the same failed argument you always make. I hope it was good for you, anyway because it was a real let down on this end.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#393Almalieque,
Posted: Sep 05 2012 at 9:16 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) It's exactly what I've been going through. I demonstrated how denying someone the right to vote, equal education, house ownership, the usage of public transportation, the usage of public facilities, etc. do not validate an argument for SSM. Even still, comparisons to the Civil Rights are always made with this fallacious belief that interracial marriage was "key" in Civil Rights.
gbaji wrote:
Belkira wrote:
It's almost as if certain people think that the only argument that has ever been made in favor of same sex marriage is "But THEY get to!!!!"
Isn't that exactly the argument being made in favor of same sex marriage? What do you think you're saying when you say "It was wrong to deny marriage to interracial couples, so it's wrong to deny it to same sex couples"? If there's a difference between that and "they got it, so we should get it too" it's not much of one.
Sure, that's AN argument being made for same sex marriage. But it's not the ONLY argument being made.
#395Almalieque,
Posted: Sep 06 2012 at 10:03 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So, why do people get upset when others make the same comparison with SSM and other unrelated groups?
gbaji wrote:
I think it's relevant when discussing a set of couples who can't procreate (as a couple) to observe that perhaps the same arguments no longer apply.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
LolGAX wrote:
We should set a age limit to marriage, and necessitate the need for complete medical screening.
I'm actually surprised that this isn't or wasn't ever in practice.
Almalieque wrote:
LolGAX wrote:
We should set a age limit to marriage, and necessitate the need for complete medical screening.
I'm actually surprised that this isn't or wasn't ever in practice.
Nobody wants to be responsible for someone with a pre-existing condition.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
@Alma Same sex marriage is not legal (recognized by the government if you will) so no one has ever made the argument "they have it so we should to" when talking about same sex marriage. Therefore, no one has ever gotten upset by the scenario you presented.
someproteinguy wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
LolGAX wrote:
We should set a age limit to marriage, and necessitate the need for complete medical screening.
I'm actually surprised that this isn't or wasn't ever in practice.
Nobody wants to be responsible for someone with a pre-existing condition.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Belkira wrote:
@Alma Same sex marriage is not legal (recognized by the government if you will) so no one has ever made the argument "they have it so we should to" when talking about same sex marriage. Therefore, no one has ever gotten upset by the scenario you presented.
Are you saying that there are no places in the United States where SSM is recognized by the government?
Recent Visitors: 330
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (330)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- LBGT Terrorism
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC