The costs of gay marriage

[PearlWatson]

For the same reason it would be good for one state to call interracial unions marriage, and bad for another state to reject calling interracial unions marriage. In our culture, we accept that there are individual rights, and that among these is the right to participate in state-recognized institutions such as marriage. The will of the majority is not considered sufficient, in and of itself, to abridge those rights.

You missed the point of the question. Homosexuals accept the right of one state to have a vote on whether calling homosexual unions marriage because the vote went their way, but don't accept the right of another state to have the same vote because it didn't go their way. Do states have a right to hold a vote on redefining state-recognized institutions or don't they?
There has been no such "right" in the history of country. How did there suddenly become a "right" to call your particular type of union marriage?

A constitution is not allowed to contradict itself.

What is the contradiction in this case?

Those 9 appointees are the people's method of protecting the rights of the individual against the tyranny of the majority, among other things.

Your argument talked nothing of rights or tyranny, and thus your response has no relevance to my question.

You said: To exclude gay couples from this designation is to, culturally, exclude them from the status of being fully approved. It should not be the role of government to decide which legal couplings are considered culturally approved.

So again I ask: Why is it acceptable for 9 government appointed people to overrule what 100's of thousands of citizens find culturally acceptable if that shouldn't be the role of government?

 

[PearlWatson]

The Eugenicists/Darwiniacs claimed interracial progeny was "unfit" for the gene pool, which is why they sought to outlawed those marriages.

One Brow claimed this was false, but he seems to be familiar with Loving vs. Virginia so should know the origins of the Racial Integrity Act they passed in 1924.

In 1924, Virginia passed a law "to preserve racial integrity" as part of a wave of eugenic legislation. Debate surrounding the passage of the Racial Integrity Act, a law forbidding a white person to marry anyone of another race, reveals how eugenicists manipulated ideas about race, class, and gender to create a social crisis that apparently could only be solved through their policies.

Southerners had long advocated racial separation, yet scientific developments in the first decades of the twentieth century shifted the debate from culture to biology. Scientists mingled theories from genetics, biology, anthropology, and sociology to create the new "science" of eugenics. Eugenicists argued that both physical and character traits of individuals were biologically determined, and thus the genetic quality of society could be made better or worse through artificial selection. While encouraging positive eugenics--reproduction among those with salutary genetic traits--American eugenicists concentrated on negative eugenics--preventing reproduction among the unfit. To eliminate "unfit" genetic stock, eugenicists advocated four main policies: immigration restriction, racial segregation, restrictive marriage laws, and compulsory sterilization.
To Southerners, eugenic policies reinforced existed racial hierarchies. They also legitimized heretofore culturally based social policies in the name of science.

 

[One Brow]

You missed the point of the question. Homosexuals accept the right of one state to have a vote on whether calling homosexual unions marriage because the vote went their way, but don't accept the right of another state to have the same vote because it didn't go their way. Do states have a right to hold a vote on redefining state-recognized institutions or don't they?

I recognize the reality that such elections are needed, even though ideally, they should not be had, because civil rights should not be up for a vote.

There has been no such "right" in the history of country. How did there suddenly become a "right" to call your particular type of union marriage?

Our culture, and our constitution, recognizes that there are such things as unenumerated rights, rights that have never been spelled out or recognized.

What is the contradiction in this case?

Equal treatment under California law vs. a discriminatory practice.

Your argument talked nothing of rights or tyranny, and thus your response has no relevance to my question.

Are you feeling OK? I've talked about rights continually, and "tyranny of the majority" is a well-known idiom.

You said: To exclude gay couples from this designation is to, culturally, exclude them from the status of being fully approved. It should not be the role of government to decide which legal couplings are considered culturally approved.

So again I ask: Why is it acceptable for 9 government appointed people to overrule what 100's of thousands of citizens find culturally acceptable if that shouldn't be the role of government?

Because they are preventing the the 100s of thousands from using the government to enforce what the government has no role in determining.

 

[One Brow]

One Brow claimed this was false,

It is, because "Eugenicists/Darwiniacs" is a false conflation. You might as well say 'atheists/Mormons oppose this policy', for example. Even your very quote makes clear that the eugenicists were not interested in the science, just in supporting their views. To the degree that such a thing as a "Darwiniac" exists or could exist, they would have to believe that diversity is important for the survival of a species. Eugenicists believe in reducing diversity. Anyone who was a "Darwiniac" would have supported interracial marriage.

 

[PearlWatson]

It is, because "Eugenicists/Darwiniacs" is a false conflation. You might as well say 'atheists/Mormons oppose this policy', for example. Even your very quote makes clear that the eugenicists were not interested in the science, just in supporting their views. To the degree that such a thing as a "Darwiniac" exists or could exist, they would have to believe that diversity is important for the survival of a species. Eugenicists believe in reducing diversity. Anyone who was a "Darwiniac" would have supported interracial marriage.

Darwinism ain't science, so of course they weren't interested in "the science."

There is no doubt that eugenicists were followers of Darwin (Darwiniacs). They were very much interested in "preserving the favored races." They had already learned from Darwin that blacks/aborigines were the closest thing to the ape-like ancestor and that nature had favored them in selecting their particular "fit" mutation. They didn't want to mess that up with interracial marriage.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. By Prophet Darwin

 

[NAOS]

Darwinism ain't science, so of course they weren't interested in "the science."

There is no doubt that eugenicists were followers of Darwin (Darwiniacs). They were very much interested in "preserving the favored races." They had already learned from Darwin that blacks/aborigines were the closest thing to the ape-like ancestor and that nature had favored them in selecting their particular "fit" mutation. They didn't want to mess that up with interracial marriage.

On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. By Prophet Darwin

Anyone who thinks "Darwinism" was ever one unified and agreed upon canon is a ****ing retard. First off, Darwin wasn't alone in theorizing something like evolution. Second, in his time and since then there have been conflicting readings: some were more conservative -- basically starting with the imagination of some finished coherent species and theorizing its change over time -- here animals were automatons fully determined by instinct; other readings were more imaginative -- drawing from the works of Jakob von Uexkull and others in order to imagine a sensual world where species catagorizations don't exist a priori.

Pearl Watson never knows what he is talking about. But, he's clearly way over his head here.

 

[PearlWatson]

I recognize the reality that such elections are needed, even though ideally, they should not be had, because civil rights should not be up for a vote.

Why would they be needed if the results weren't going to be accepted no matter the outcome?

Our culture, and our constitution, recognizes that there are such things as unenumerated rights, rights that have never been spelled out or recognized.

In other words it is a right because some people want it to be a right, but the problem is that other people don't think this particular right exists.

Equal treatment under California law vs. a discriminatory practice.

California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights the state can bestow, so continuing to define marriage between a man and a woman can't be considered "a discriminatory practice."

Are you feeling OK? I've talked about rights continually, and "tyranny of the majority" is a well-known idiom.
Because they are preventing the the 100s of thousands from using the government to enforce what the government has no role in determining.

You suddenly properly re-framed your argument in terms of the homosexual desire for "cultural approval" "status" and what the "role of government" should be in that desire, rather than this nonsense of "rights" and "tyranny."

A vote is the means for determining what the citizens have decided is culturally acceptable. It is the homosexual lobby who is using the government as a means to seek cultural approval.

 

[One Brow]

There is no doubt that eugenicists were followers of Darwin (Darwiniacs). They were very much interested in "preserving the favored races."

Those two statements are contradictory. Your quote from a book title, in an attempt to undermine what the book says, is amusing, but not to be taken seriously.

 

[One Brow]

Why would they be needed if the results weren't going to be accepted no matter the outcome?

They are needed because, right or wrong, the results are accepted.

In other words it is a right because some people want it to be a right, but the problem is that other people don't think this particular right exists.

When you replace "some people want it to be a right" with "the only consistent interpretation of equal treatment makes it a right", yes. Examples include Brown vs. Board of Education, Griswold vs. Connecticut, Loving vs. Virginia, and Lawrence vs. Texas.

California statutes already recognize same-sex unions and grant them all the substantive legal rights the state can bestow, so continuing to define marriage between a man and a woman can't be considered "a discriminatory practice."

Separate is inherently unequal.

You suddenly properly re-framed your argument in terms of the homosexual desire for "cultural approval" "status" and what the "role of government" should be in that desire, rather than this nonsense of "rights" and "tyranny."

It's all connected. The recognition of the right, and the rejection of the tyranny of the majority, both comes from and increases cultural acceptance.

A vote is the means for determining what the citizens have decided is culturally acceptable.

The USA has a long history of rejecting the ability of citizens to decide basic freedoms are not culturally acceptable by majority vote.

 

[PearlWatson]

They are needed because, right or wrong, the results are accepted.

Not so, otherwise Prop 8 wouldn't be @ the Supreme Court, while the Maryland vote was celebrated.

When you replace "some people want it to be a right" with "the only consistent interpretation of equal treatment makes it a right", yes. Examples include Brown vs. Board of Education, Griswold vs. Connecticut, Loving vs. Virginia, and Lawrence vs. Texas.

The only one that applies to marriage is Loving vs. Virginia and in that case redefining marriage from 1 man and 1 woman wasn't being challenged. They also weren't already granted all the same legal rights under Virginia Law as same-race couples had.

Separate is inherently unequal.

Nonsense. They have all the same rights under California law.

It's all connected. The recognition of the right, and the rejection of the tyranny of the majority, both comes from and increases cultural acceptance.

No, hundreds of thousands of citizens voiced their cultural rejection, of the homosexual lobby's use of the government to redefine marriage in their desire for cultural acceptance, and a homosexual judge failed to recognize their voices. (<---tyranny of the minority).

The USA has a long history of rejecting the ability of citizens to decide basic freedoms are not culturally acceptable by majority vote.

Redefining marriage ain't a basic freedom.

 

[babe]

This thread was an amusing, and a broad discussion of the topic. Some of you were pretty persuasive despite yourselves.

Questions that came up while reading:

Why is it okay for the people of Maryland to vote to call homosexual unions marriage but not okay for the people of California to reject calling homosexual unions marriage?
How can it be unconstitutional to vote in order to amend the constitution? (prop 8) Why is it acceptable for 9 government appointed people to overrule what 100's of thousands of citizens find culturally acceptable if that shouldn't be the role of government. (<--goes to One Brow's statement on what the role of government is in all this).

because it's OK for voters to affirm in an election what the progressive/communist manifesto calls for.

but not OK for voters to reject progressive/communist ideals for all-encompassing government authority necessary for totalitariam statism.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

because it's OK for voters to affirm in an election what the progressive/communist manifesto calls for.

but not OK for voters to reject progressive/communist ideals for all-encompassing government authority necessary for totalitariam statism.

Are you baiting for the the conservative/fascist comeback, or do you really believe this rhetorical vitriol?