So do teh gays win in Maine tomorrow? [Archive]

paranoid

11-04-2009, 01:24 PM

so what was it, poor dem turnout?

maine is filled with people that are highly uneducated, church going people. The only democratic area of maine is the portland area, which is a very gay supportive community. the further north you get, the more conservative. Aroostook county voted 73% in favor of yes. The rest of the state was mostly in the 50%-40% yes range. With cumberland and york voting in favor of no (but still close).

these were the kind of ads that were aired, persuading the yes voters:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zukoa2_x0Vc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zukoa2_x0Vc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/1U7bs5yHJv4&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/1U7bs5yHJv4&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Corganist

11-04-2009, 01:31 PM

it was the fucking legislature you uninformed twat

My bad. I haven't been following it closely at all. I thought if the voters were trying to overturn something, it'd have had to be some kind of judicial edict. After all, the legislature is supposed to be representing the voters' interest already. It sounds to me like the legislature bit off more than it could or should chew and now it's blown up in their face.

Mayfuck

11-04-2009, 02:00 PM

so sea otters and clams are like an abomination in the eyes of god?

Eulogy

11-04-2009, 03:20 PM

My bad. I haven't been following it closely at all. I thought if the voters were trying to overturn something, it'd have had to be some kind of judicial edict. After all, the legislature is supposed to be representing the voters' interest already. It sounds to me like the legislature bit off more than it could or should chew and now it's blown up in their face.

so the ONLY way to make this legal would be a vote from the majority?

you're impossible and completely thick-headed with this issue.

we do not and have never lived with a simple democracy. ugh. ugh ugh.

Corganist

11-04-2009, 04:57 PM

so the ONLY way to make this legal would be a vote from the majority?

That's the only way to make anything legal on anything more than a temporary basis. Usually when the legislature enacts something, it's because they are speaking for the majority. A law passed without the majority having its say in the matter is never long for this world.

you're impossible and completely thick-headed with this issue.

we do not and have never lived with a simple democracy. ugh. ugh ugh.

How am I the one being thick headed? I'm not the one beating my head up against the reality of the situation here. I'm just saying that if the voters overturn something that their elected officials did in their name, then obviously the legislature screwed up big time. When the legislature substitutes their own judgment over that of their constituents, they do so at their own risk. You can call that "simple democracy" if you want to, and you're entitled to your opinion on it...but it doesn't change the way things work. It's not the majority's job to be nice to the minority. The system is actually set up to assume they won't be (hence, constitutions).

Nimrod's Son

11-04-2009, 05:11 PM

maine is filled with people that are highly uneducated, church going people. The only democratic area of maine is the portland area, which is a very gay supportive community. the further north you get, the more conservative. Aroostook county voted 73% in favor of yes. The rest of the state was mostly in the 50%-40% yes range. With cumberland and york voting in favor of no (but still close).

these were the kind of ads that were aired, persuading the yes voters:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zukoa2_x0Vc&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zukoa2_x0Vc&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
they ran that same commercial in CA.. well, almost the same one. same couple.

Eulogy

11-04-2009, 06:11 PM

That's the only way to make anything legal on anything more than a temporary basis. Usually when the legislature enacts something, it's because they are speaking for the majority. A law passed without the majority having its say in the matter is never long for this world.

How am I the one being thick headed? I'm not the one beating my head up against the reality of the situation here. I'm just saying that if the voters overturn something that their elected officials did in their name, then obviously the legislature screwed up big time. When the legislature substitutes their own judgment over that of their constituents, they do so at their own risk. You can call that "simple democracy" if you want to, and you're entitled to your opinion on it...but it doesn't change the way things work. It's not the majority's job to be nice to the minority. The system is actually set up to assume they won't be (hence, constitutions).

it's not the majority's job to be nice to the minority. it is the state's job to ensure that the majority can't strip minorities of their legally granted rights.

Mayfuck

11-04-2009, 06:23 PM

ravenguy2000

11-04-2009, 06:35 PM

so sea otters and clams are like an abomination in the eyes of god?

I was thinking lobster specifically in this case.

Nimrod's Son

11-04-2009, 06:36 PM

so you don't believe in civil rights

i voted for gay marriage in california 3 times already. the thing is when my side lost i didn't get all butthurt and then demand the courts to "fix things"

Eulogy

11-04-2009, 06:39 PM

i voted for gay marriage in california 3 times already. the thing is when my side lost i didn't get all butthurt and then demand the courts to "fix things"

because your side losing doesn't involve you being discriminated against.

but you're probably trolling again so whatever.

Corganist

11-04-2009, 06:47 PM

it's not the majority's job to be nice to the minority. it is the state's job to ensure that the majority can't strip minorities of their legally granted rights.

Again, that's why there are state constitutions. But the state doesn't owe the minority any more protection than the baseline level its constitution prescribes. You can grant and take away rights with complete impunity as long as it's constitutional.

(Yeah, yeah. I know you probably don't think it's constitutional either...but that's a completely different, and for now, irrelevant argument.)

Eulogy

11-04-2009, 06:54 PM

Again, that's why there are state constitutions. But the state doesn't owe the minority any more protection than the baseline level its constitution prescribes. You can grant and take away rights with complete impunity as long as it's constitutional.

(Yeah, yeah. I know you probably don't think it's constitutional either...but that's a completely different, and for now, irrelevant argument.)

the legislature decided they acted according to their state's constitution.

and let me ask you, corganist, whether or not you think it's legally correct that this happened, does it bother you at all that so many people think this way?

and also just out of curiosity, where'd you go to law school? pepperdine or something?

Corganist

11-04-2009, 07:03 PM

no corganist. we do not live in a direct democracy. direct democracy is not "just the way things work" in this country. and it is absolutely the majority's job to be "nice" to the minority, of course 'nice' meaning that is not to overrule a dissenter by such a measure that the dissenter is in effect actively oppressed.

Says who? The result of any majority vote is going to be oppressive to the dissenters. Yes, there are rules in place to keep it from being completely oppressive...but I don't know where you get the idea that the majority has any duty whatsoever to take it's foot off the minority's throat when they don't have to.

and the system is absolutely set up for this system, and not the one you speak about (hence electoral colleges, an upper and lower houses of congress, three branches of govt/checks and balances) all the legislature did was interpret the law correctly and discontinued discrimination in marriage. the maine state legislature didn't screw up, the people did.

The legislature does not interpret laws. Why would they have to? They can just make them. And that's what they did here. But the caveat is that, as the most direct voice the people have in their government, the legislature has to be sure that the laws it does make jive with what the people want. The Maine legislature took it upon themselves to make a law that its people clearly didn't want, and they rightly got slapped down for it.

Would anyone here complaining about this result do so in the event that there was a national referendum that repealed Congress's passage of DOMA?

but i dont care to have a debate with you about gay marriage as defending discrimination is an indefensible position.

Who is defending discrimination? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.

Mayfuck

11-04-2009, 07:16 PM

you're pretty sick in the head

Eric Blair

11-04-2009, 07:27 PM

Does corganist think the 'majority' is the most powerful voice in deciding issues concerning ethics? That is pretty fucked up.

Corganist

11-04-2009, 07:37 PM

Does corganist think the 'majority' is the most powerful voice in deciding issues concerning ethics? That is pretty fucked up.

Since when are we talking about ethics? We can tsk tsk the voting population of Maine all we want to for not meeting whatever lofty ethical ideal we may hold them to. That doesn't mean that there was anything legally untoward about the way the vote came out. Laws aren't required to be ethical. They just have to be constitutional.

All I'm saying is that you can blame the voters, but not the system. The system allows majority rule, and always has. The majority can sometimes act like dicks, and always could. This shouldn't be a surprise after 200 years.

Eric Blair

11-04-2009, 07:48 PM

Since when are we talking about ethics? We can tsk tsk the voting population of Maine all we want to for not meeting whatever lofty ethical ideal we may hold them to. That doesn't mean that there was anything legally untoward about the way the vote came out. Laws aren't required to be ethical. They just have to be constitutional.

All I'm saying is that you can blame the voters, but not the system. The system allows majority rule, and always has. The majority can sometimes act like dicks, and always could. This shouldn't be a surprise after 200 years.
How is being against discrimination a lofty ideal? It seems pretty straightforward to me.

Laws aren't required to be ethical. They just have to be constitutional.
This is bullshit, by the way. If a law is unethical then that law should not exist. Legal positivism has been largely rejected since the end of the second world war (the whole nazi thing) and as far as my understanding of American history goes the Philadelphia convention drafted the constitution from strongly ethical convictions, which were largely shared by Madison and Jefferson as the Bill of Rights was being ratified and so on and so forth.

Furthermore, positivist worship of a document like the constitution is a strange and dangerous side of politics that should be utterly discouraged. Once you adopt this kind of extreme positivist attitude you seem to be advocating then the role of reason and individual conscience is abandoned. This is basically how totalitarian mentalities are born.

paranoid

11-04-2009, 07:55 PM

oh wow.. so anyone can get into law school these days, huh?

paranoid

11-04-2009, 07:59 PM

The legislature took it upon themselves to make a law that its people clearly didn't want, and they rightly got slapped down for it.

actually the ending results were something like 48 to 52. So no, the state didn't clearly not want gay marriage. they're clearly divided. I give the state another 10 years before these morons that voted yes realize it's really a non issue.

Corganist

11-04-2009, 09:51 PM

How is being against discrimination a lofty ideal? It seems pretty straightforward to me.

How is it not lofty given the way this vote turned out (and the way similar elections have almost universally turned out in other states)?

This is bullshit, by the way. If a law is unethical then that law should not exist. Legal positivism has been largely rejected since the end of the second world war (the whole nazi thing) and as far as my understanding of American history goes the Philadelphia convention drafted the constitution from strongly ethical convictions, which were largely shared by Madison and Jefferson as the Bill of Rights was being ratified and so on and so forth.

Positivism most assuredly has it's share of flaws, but I don't think its take on the relationship between laws and ethics and/or morality is one of them. I think laws can and should be ethical, but I don't think it's at all realistic to deny that they aren't always.

Furthermore, positivist worship of a document like the constitution is a strange and dangerous side of politics that should be utterly discouraged. Once you adopt this kind of extreme positivist attitude you seem to be advocating then the role of reason and individual conscience is abandoned. This is basically how totalitarian mentalities are born.

I'm not really advocating a kind of extreme positivism so much as I'm merely pointing out that I think it's what is in place. By all means, I think voters should vote in a way that makes reason and morality play a large role in the development of laws. I just don't think it's something that we can force onto people through tweaking the legal/political system itself though. The system will certainly allow morality and ethics to creep in, but it can just as effectively do the opposite.

Corganist

11-04-2009, 09:54 PM

actually the ending results were something like 48 to 52. So no, the state didn't clearly not want gay marriage.

:think:

Unless the 52 percent were actually for gay marriage, then I think it was clear enough that the majority of the state were not having their interests represented by the legislature.

Eulogy

11-04-2009, 09:59 PM

when will the oldest generation in this country die

then we can vote on all of these again and corganist can finally shut the fuck up

Eulogy

11-04-2009, 10:01 PM

the "tee hee that's the way the majority vote cookie crumbles!" attitude might be as repulsive to me as the fact that 52% of voters in a state care enough about not allowing gays to marry to actually vote for it.

Charmbag

11-04-2009, 10:17 PM

it's his opportunity to passive-aggressively express his bigotry in a sanctimonious way.

duovamp

11-04-2009, 11:02 PM

Gay people marrying is about as morally sickening as interracial couples.

aomb1979

11-04-2009, 11:32 PM

just gonna have to wait it out. one more generation to go

Nimrod's Son

11-05-2009, 12:53 AM

because your side losing doesn't involve you being discriminated against.

but you're probably trolling again so whatever.
yes, everyone who calls you out is a troll.

it doesn't involve you either because you're not trying to marry anyone in maine.

for fuck's sake dude, this affects you as much as this does my dog.

Nimrod's Son

11-05-2009, 12:54 AM

does it bother you at all that so many people think this way?

ridiculous question since the measure lost. fuck, you live in godddamn candyland.

Corganist

11-05-2009, 03:02 AM

it's his opportunity to passive-aggressively express his bigotry in a sanctimonious way.

So now I'm a homophobe (again?) for making a blase defense of the unavoidable fact that majorities can and do decide what is legal? Typical ad hominem bullshit. Ah, some things never change.

I think now comes the part where you tell me all about how I'm a devout religious fundamentalist, right? I always so love when that card gets played. I mean, while you're just making insults up out of whole cloth, why not just go the full monty?

Eulogy

11-05-2009, 07:28 AM

So now I'm a homophobe (again?) for making a blase defense of the unavoidable fact that majorities can and do decide what is legal? Typical ad hominem bullshit. Ah, some things never change.

I think now comes the part where you tell me all about how I'm a devout religious fundamentalist, right? I always so love when that card gets played. I mean, while you're just making insults up out of whole cloth, why not just go the full monty?

Well the homophobia argument doesn't seem to be much of a stretch based on your "only married people can adopt" vote. I know it's not inherently homophobic and we've gone over that in detail already, but I imagine you can think about how it might appear that way.

Also, if you're saying that the only way for a minority to be granted a right (or even privilege, if you prefer) is to be given it by a majority.... doesn't that seem slightly out of whack? and then shouldn't that be changed by say, maybe, the SCOTUS? But then that's "legislating from the bench." There's absolutely nothing that can be done, according to you, except wait for the old people to die. And we just have to tell all the old gay couples who might die along with them that it's just too goddamn bad. Wonderful.

Eulogy

11-05-2009, 07:29 AM

yes, everyone who calls you out is a troll.

it doesn't involve you either because you're not trying to marry anyone in maine.

for fuck's sake dude, this affects you as much as this does my dog.

You're absurdly narrow-minded.

I haven't called Corganist a troll. I don't like his argument, but he's not (contrary to what I've probably said before) an idiot. Or at least not nearly as big of one. I think he's just misguided on a few things.

You, on the other hand, most assuredly are.

Eulogy

11-05-2009, 07:31 AM

ridiculous question since the measure lost. fuck, you live in godddamn candyland.

so you can only ask questions when they are relevant to upcoming ballot initiatives? what?

i'm done responding to you, you dense shithead.

Nimrod's Son

11-05-2009, 11:22 AM

So are you moving to Maine so that this matters to you or what

redbreegull

11-05-2009, 11:28 AM

So are you moving to Maine so that this matters to you or what

you really just don't get it

dudehitscar

11-05-2009, 11:34 AM

I wish the progressive community would stop shooting for the gold(gay marriage) and get practical with what can be accomplished. Legally recognized civil unions give you all the rights and privileges(you can even tell people you are married!) without having the legal document state Marriage Certificate. Given all you have to gain from civil unions it seems a little tiresome to keep stirring the pot over Gay Marriage.

For fuck's sake it's just a word. We will deal with that when the older generation die. Get civil unions now. Put your money on that. Get that on the ballot. Buy tv time for that. That can be accomplished.

redbreegull

11-05-2009, 11:36 AM

Eulogy

11-05-2009, 11:36 AM

Eulogy

11-05-2009, 11:38 AM

and Obama had said he would work for Civil Unions on a federal level but I don't see that happening any time soon.

FIERCE ADVOCATE

dudehitscar

11-05-2009, 12:07 PM

This passed in Washington State by 2%.

so. you don't know what you're talking about. and if you don't think these failings lay groundwork for an eventual victory here, then i think you're wrong.

but it passed. Gay marriage has now lost in every single state — 31 in all — in which it has been put to a popular vote.

I think that speaks for itself. Get the rights first. When america grows up a bit we can work on the wording.

jm9843

11-05-2009, 12:12 PM

when will the oldest generation in this country die

then we can vote on all of these again and corganist can finally shut the fuck up

It'll be great won't it? No more troglodytes standing in the way of progress.

No homo.

Mayfuck

11-05-2009, 12:21 PM

dudehitscar

11-05-2009, 12:39 PM

dudehitscar why do you even bother posting here? I find you just as obnoxious as the conservatrolls. I read your posts and never once do you put forth any kind of opinion. Just straddling the middle line where you happily sit on the fence mistaking it for some platform you can speak from. Stop wasting our time with your 'centrist' bullshit. We already have civil unions jackass.

my state doesn't. How many states recognize gays in civil unions with all the rights of a married couple?

I'm sure corganist/nimrod's son/jczeroman/futureboy will get a kick out of you saying I don't put forth an opinion. If that were true then them and I would not of went back and forth on so many subjects.

dudehitscar

11-05-2009, 12:49 PM

I read your posts and never once do you put forth any kind of opinion. Just straddling the middle line where you happily sit on the fence mistaking it for some platform you can speak from. Stop wasting our time with your 'centrist' bullshit.

http://forums.netphoria.org/politics-forum/156038-universal-healthcare-wonderful-will-ensure-better-health-care-everyone-12.html#post3537037

I have been less argumentative on here lately because i'm tired of the same old lines with the same people over and over. but you can see from this post I haven't failed to put forth an opinion when it was due.

also there is nothing wrong with being a centrist. Most centrist's i know usually vote republican but are not religious nuts. I can handle that type most of the time. I'm definitely far left of that.

what specific posts do you take issue with?

Future Boy

11-05-2009, 02:17 PM

A centrist opinion is still an opinion, dont know what hes getting at there. I dont think you're wrong, but maybe focus on those states that have already denied marriage. Beats waiting til they're all dead.

Freedom delayed is freedom denied
Uh, aren't you the biggest incrementalist apologist for Obama on this board. "Oh he could only do so much" "Its better than nothing" type shit.

Starla

11-05-2009, 04:00 PM

I cannot believe we're going into the year 2010, and gays still cannot marry legally. There's so many people wanting to protect the "sanctity" of marriage, that have cheated or divorced and remarried themselves. This sucks for my friends wanting to be treated the same as everyone else. I'm tired of seeing gay people being treated like 2nd class citizens.

redbull

11-05-2009, 04:10 PM

Eulogy

11-05-2009, 04:16 PM

that's generally true (although I am not sure which rights go with what), and that's why the Washington thing was sort of a big deal I guess? Because it grants every state granted right that married couples have.

Still no federally granted rights but all the queers should just sack up and have some GODDAMN PATIENCE already.

bloop

11-05-2009, 04:19 PM

I think MLK said "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I agree.

It would be so much better if people would just mind their own damn business. I'm pretty sure that 52% wouldn't have been affected either way this went.

Eulogy

11-05-2009, 04:27 PM

ravenguy2000

11-05-2009, 08:19 PM

If you want platitudes Springsteen said "Remember, in the end, nobody wins unless everybody wins" but that is some straight up commie shit right there

bloop

11-05-2009, 08:27 PM

I think MLK might have a bit more pertinent to say about civil rights than even Bruce Springsteen.

dudehitscar

11-06-2009, 04:48 AM

Nimrod's Son

11-06-2009, 12:13 PM

it was justice delayed is justice denied. put yours and redbreegull's together and you get it.

i just heard it today in a class, actually. he scrawled it on the margins of the NYT when he was in jail around an article about white clergymen urging them to take a break. or something to that effect.

The problem is that you're not willing to accept small victories and keep going for the knockout, which keeps failing over and over.

You can chant whatever slogan makes you feel better but the bottom line is that *some* progress is better than *no* progress.

It's like you're demanding steak when your people are starving and turning down sandwiches because it's not good enough.

dudehitscar

11-06-2009, 12:26 PM

The problem is that you're not willing to accept small victories and keep going for the knockout, which keeps failing over and over.

You can chant whatever slogan makes you feel better but the bottom line is that *some* progress is better than *no* progress.

It's like you're demanding steak when your people are starving and turning down sandwiches because it's not good enough.

more like turning down steaks because they don't have the right brand name but spot on sir.

Mayfuck

11-06-2009, 12:40 PM

you do realise you agreed with a troll right, dudehitscar?

dudehitscar

11-06-2009, 12:45 PM

you do realise you agreed with a troll right, dudehitscar?

that would be an opinion which I apparently do not post so no.

you didn't respond to my direct questions...

Corganist

11-06-2009, 12:51 PM

Also, if you're saying that the only way for a minority to be granted a right (or even privilege, if you prefer) is to be given it by a majority.... doesn't that seem slightly out of whack? and then shouldn't that be changed by say, maybe, the SCOTUS? But then that's "legislating from the bench." There's absolutely nothing that can be done, according to you, except wait for the old people to die. And we just have to tell all the old gay couples who might die along with them that it's just too goddamn bad. Wonderful.

I just don't know where you get the idea that civil rights spring up naturally from the ether instead of coming from the consent of the majority. Black people required an act of Congress to get rid of Jim Crow, for example. That was a majority giving rights to a minority. Even from the time of the founders, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution were the ones the majority agreed upon. Can you give me an example of some unpopular minority group who has rights that the majority has not granted or would take away from them if they could? I can't think of any.

It would be so much better if people would just mind their own damn business. I'm pretty sure that 52% wouldn't have been affected either way this went.

I really don't like this argument. What if a child molester were to say "Geez, if all the childless voters out there would just mind their own business, pedophilia would be legal. It doesn't effect anyone but people with kids"? (Note, I AM NOT equating pedophilia and homosexuality. I'm just using an extreme example to show the paucity of logic in this "everyone should mind their own business and only vote on what directly concerns them" mentality.)

Eulogy

11-06-2009, 12:54 PM

I just don't know where you get the idea that civil rights spring up naturally from the ether instead of coming from the consent of the majority. Black people required an act of Congress to get rid of Jim Crow, for example. That was a majority giving rights to a minority. Even from the time of the founders, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution were the ones the majority agreed upon. Can you give me an example of some unpopular minority group who has rights that the majority has not granted or would take away from them if they could? I can't think of any.

How is Congress getting rid of Jim Crow different than Maine's legislature giving gays the right to marry? Did we have a nationwide referendum to make sure the majority was ok with it?

I really don't like this argument. What if a child molester were to say "Geez, if all the childless voters out there would just mind their own business, pedophilia would be legal. It doesn't effect anyone but people with kids"? (Note, I AM NOT equating pedophilia and homosexuality. I'm just using an extreme example to show the paucity of logic in this "everyone should mind their own business and only vote on what directly concerns them" mentality.)

that analogy is nonsensical.

Eulogy

11-06-2009, 12:57 PM

The problem is that you're not willing to accept small victories and keep going for the knockout, which keeps failing over and over.

You can chant whatever slogan makes you feel better but the bottom line is that *some* progress is better than *no* progress.

It's like you're demanding steak when your people are starving and turning down sandwiches because it's not good enough.

i'm done responding to you, you dense shithead.

..

Corganist

11-06-2009, 01:16 PM

How is Congress getting rid of Jim Crow different than Maine's legislature giving gays the right to marry? Did we have a nationwide referendum to make sure the majority was ok with it?

Maybe there would have been if such a thing was available. But barring that, one would think that if the public was that opposed to the Civil Rights Act then you would have seen massive effort to oust the guys who voted for it in favor of new guys who'd overturn it. Obviously that didn't happen en masse, thus I think one could assume that the majority of voters were okay with it. Obviously the same thing wasn't the case in Maine.

Nimrod's Son

11-06-2009, 01:31 PM

..

Typical tactic they teach in college these days - when someone disagrees with you, yell louder. If that doesn't work, ignore them.

Never engage in discourse. Typical.

dudehitscar

11-06-2009, 01:31 PM

Eulogy

11-06-2009, 01:37 PM

Typical tactic they teach in college these days - when someone disagrees with you, yell louder. If that doesn't work, ignore them.

Never engage in discourse. Typical.

i'm still responding to corganist, you dense shithead.

Eulogy

11-06-2009, 01:40 PM

Maybe there would have been if such a thing was available. But barring that, one would think that if the public was that opposed to the Civil Rights Act then you would have seen massive effort to oust the guys who voted for it in favor of new guys who'd overturn it. Obviously that didn't happen en masse, thus I think one could assume that the majority of voters were okay with it. Obviously the same thing wasn't the case in Maine.

a massive move to change the state's representation is what marriage opponents should have had to do. i don't like how direct democracy is relied upon in certain instances (especially ones that deal with civil rights) when as a nation we are a representative democracy.

failing all of that, if we're going to hang on to this insane "ballot initiative" shit, shouldn't certain things have to get to some sort of super majority? the fact that such a slight majority can strip legislatively granted rights from people is unnerving. it's clearly not "illegal," and that's not the point i'm making.

you keep defending this because it's a possible outcome of the current system. i'm saying the system is inherently flawed, and you haven't given me a compelling argument against that point yet.

ATS

11-06-2009, 04:42 PM

Typical tactic they teach in college these days - when someone disagrees with you, yell louder. If that doesn't work, ignore them.

Never engage in discourse. Typical.

youre talking to a guy who physically assaulted the last person to debate gay politics with him in person

Eulogy

11-06-2009, 04:45 PM

youre talking to a guy who physically assaulted the last person to debate gay politics with him in person

that was like a month ago, and it wasn't the first time or the last time i've debated gay politics in person.

Nimrod's Son

11-07-2009, 02:46 AM

youre talking to a guy who physically assaulted the last person to debate gay politics with him in person

Oh? I missed that

bloop

11-07-2009, 06:25 AM

Nimrod has a point on taking a small, but probable, victory over a major coup.

I'm not condoning people not vote on issues that don't directly affect them. After all, there may be other issues on the ballot that do. The pedophilia example is irrelevant, though. No one is talking about making something that violates the rights of others a right itself. However, when it comes to the freedoms of others, it is right and in better keeping with democratic values to vote as if it does. Barring that, yeah, it would be better if that 52% didn't vote at all.

It's called empathy. I want to know where the hell it is, particularly with those calling themselves "Christian".

Older people will die eventually, justices replaced, so this will likely correct itself given some time. I'm with Eulogy in that ballot initiatives do seem like a bit of a waste. Why do we even have a legislature again?

paranoid

11-07-2009, 11:54 AM

The pedophilia example is irrelevant, though. No one is talking about making something that violates the rights of others a right itself.

Thank you. This should seem obvious and clear, right? Corganist seriously went to law school? or did i misread that somewhere?

Corganist

11-07-2009, 10:20 PM

a massive move to change the state's representation is what marriage opponents should have had to do. i don't like how direct democracy is relied upon in certain instances (especially ones that deal with civil rights) when as a nation we are a representative democracy.

failing all of that, if we're going to hang on to this insane "ballot initiative" shit, shouldn't certain things have to get to some sort of super majority? the fact that such a slight majority can strip legislatively granted rights from people is unnerving. it's clearly not "illegal," and that's not the point i'm making.

I just don't see a "legislatively granted right" as being anything near ironclad, especially when we're talking about things on a state government level. And that goes doubly so if the "right" is actually unpopular with the voters of the state by whatever margin. I know you want to carve out exceptions for your own pet causes, but what workable framework for that can you really offer? The minority can't just nakedly assert that they have a "right" to something they want and in so doing create the necessity for some super majority of voters in order keep it from them.

you keep defending this because it's a possible outcome of the current system. i'm saying the system is inherently flawed, and you haven't given me a compelling argument against that point yet.

You're asking me to justify the way our entire system of government and rights has been set up for hundreds of years. How in the world am I supposed to do that? What exactly is the alternative to the current system that I'm supposed to be arguing against?

Corganist

11-07-2009, 10:30 PM

I'm not condoning people not vote on issues that don't directly affect them. After all, there may be other issues on the ballot that do. The pedophilia example is irrelevant, though. No one is talking about making something that violates the rights of others a right itself.

It's perfectly relevant. Again, I was not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia in any way, shape, or form other than using the two words in the same sentence. All I'm saying is that if you apply the same logic of "people shouldn't care one way oir the other about votes that don't directly affect them" to other situations, it leads to places we don't want to go.

Thank you. This should seem obvious and clear, right? Corganist seriously went to law school? or did i misread that somewhere?

Sure, it would be obvious and clear if that was the point I was trying to argue. But since I actually went to law school, I can actually read what's being debated and keep it on point without twisting it.

hnibos

11-07-2009, 10:33 PM

It's perfectly relevant. Again, I was not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia in any way, shape, or form other than using the two words in the same sentence. All I'm saying is that if you apply the same logic of "people shouldn't care one way oir the other about votes that don't directly affect them" to other situations, it leads to places we don't want to go.

no no no no no

idk tonight i can not take netphoria. jesus fucking christ. thats a place we dont want to go because it violates the rights of others. gay marriage does not.

paranoid

11-08-2009, 02:50 PM

It's perfectly relevant. Again, I was not comparing homosexuality to pedophilia in any way, shape, or form other than using the two words in the same sentence. All I'm saying is that if you apply the same logic of "people shouldn't care one way oir the other about votes that don't directly affect them" to other situations, it leads to places we don't want to go.

Sure, it would be obvious and clear if that was the point I was trying to argue. But since I actually went to law school, I can actually read what's being debated and keep it on point without twisting it.

good god you are so full of shit.

Corganist

11-08-2009, 03:50 PM

no no no no no

idk tonight i can not take netphoria. jesus fucking christ. thats a place we dont want to go because it violates the rights of others. gay marriage does not.

What does it matter to voters without children if children's rights are violated though? If you apply the logic I was criticizing, childless voters have no dog in the fight either way as far as the legality of pedophilia goes, so they're free to go whatever way they want to since it doesn't affect them. Personally, I think that's ridiculous, but it's exactly the logic that was being applied towards gay marriage. There's nothing wrong with wanting people to vote differently, but this idea that they should do so merely because a result doesn't directly affect them is just nonsensical.

Look, replace the word pedophilia with "incest" or "polygamy" if you are going to so obtusely refuse to see the forest for the fucking trees. It doesn't fucking matter what the issue is. The point is that the logic that was offered is terrible no matter what issue it is applied to. I'm just saying that one particular argument is illogical and doesn't help build up the case for gay marriage one bit. I don't see what is hard to grasp about that.

11-08-2009, 03:54 PM

Oh? I missed that
yeah, what's the story here?

Trotskilicious

11-08-2009, 04:20 PM

these gay marriage threads are like the lowest point on this sub forum which is already a low point on the whole internet.

TuralyonW3

11-08-2009, 04:23 PM

Why do ya'll waste time arguing with Corganist. He doesn't support gay rights and will spin around you for 10 pages if you keep feeding him.

hnibos

11-08-2009, 04:30 PM

What does it matter to voters without children if children's rights are violated though?

maybe corganist is a troll too.

hnibos

11-08-2009, 04:30 PM

yea i dont have kids so i dont give a flying fuck if theres some legislation that allows for kids to be raped easier or something

Corganist

11-08-2009, 04:39 PM

Why do ya'll waste time arguing with Corganist. He doesn't support gay rights and will spin around you for 10 pages if you keep feeding him.

When have I ever said I don't support gay marriage? Never. Where do you guys keep getting this stuff?

What I don't support is when people make shoddy arguments and then whine and complain about why no one ever is convinced by them. But when I point out that an argument is bad and why that is, and that maybe a different approach would work better, somehow I'm the asshole? Insanity.

Corganist

11-08-2009, 04:40 PM

yea i dont have kids so i dont give a flying fuck if theres some legislation that allows for kids to be raped easier or something

Yes, it's fucking ridiculous, isn't it? That's the logic I'm attacking!

Eulogy

11-08-2009, 04:45 PM

Yes, it's fucking ridiculous, isn't it? That's the logic I'm attacking!

if raping children didn't violate children's rights or have negative effects on children then i would have a problem with laws restricting child rapists.

stick with polygamy. the child molestation argument makes you look dumb, to be frank.

hnibos

11-08-2009, 04:46 PM

oh ok. either way, legislation that allows kids to be raped =/= in any sense legislation that allows two gay people to marry.

Corganist

11-08-2009, 04:56 PM

if raping children didn't violate children's rights or have negative effects on children then i would have a problem with laws restricting child rapists.

stick with polygamy. the child molestation argument makes you look dumb, to be frank.

I think I made enough of a disclaimer from the very beginning that I was making no statement about the substance of child molestation. I just wanted a stark example to show in no unclear terms the stupidity of the argument being offered. I didn't think people would really try and sit here and parse over the idea of how plausible a vote to legalize pedophilia would be in real life. All I was saying is that if the people who supported such an idea suggested that people without kids should really have no problems supporting the measure, their argument would be disregarded completely....because it's a just plain bad logic, regardless of it's substance.

Eulogy

11-08-2009, 05:03 PM

I think I made enough of a disclaimer from the very beginning that I was making no statement about the substance of child molestation. I just wanted a stark example to show in no unclear terms the stupidity of the argument being offered. I didn't think people would really try and sit here and parse over the idea of how plausible a vote to legalize pedophilia would be in real life. All I was saying is that if the people who supported such an idea suggested that people without kids should really have no problems supporting the measure, their argument would be disregarded completely....because it's a just plain bad logic, regardless of it's substance.

but you can't frame this in this way because you're comparing the two things, even though you say you're not. there are clear reasons for having laws against molesting children. so even if a majority of people wanted it to be legal, there are other reasons for not doing that. with gay marriage, there is no clear, reasoned, and well defined argument beyond people's discomfort with gay people.

it's a terrible comparison and you make no point with it.

Corganist

11-08-2009, 05:21 PM

but you can't frame this in this way because you're comparing the two things, even though you say you're not. there are clear reasons for having laws against molesting children. so even if a majority of people wanted it to be legal, there are other reasons for not doing that. with gay marriage, there is no clear, reasoned, and well defined argument beyond people's discomfort with gay people.

it's a terrible comparison and you make no point with it.

Actually, my point has been made perfectly well. My point is that all those "other reasons," as you put it, are where the argument actually lies. The point is that "There is no good reason to not vote for gay marriage" is a much better argument than "Most people aren't even affected by gay marriage one way or the other, so they should just vote for it just based on that."

Eulogy

11-08-2009, 05:24 PM

Actually, my point has been made perfectly well. My point is that all those "other reasons," as you put it, are where the argument actually lies. The point is that "There is no good reason to not vote for gay marriage" is a much better argument than "Most people aren't even affected by gay marriage one way or the other, so they should just vote for it just based on that."

well you might want to consider the fact that there can be multiple arguments in favor of something.

Eulogy

11-08-2009, 05:24 PM

"Most people aren't even affected by gay marriage one way or the other, so they should just vote for it just based on that."

so there's the straw man you are railing against so vehemently.

Corganist

11-08-2009, 05:37 PM

so there's the straw man you are railing against so vehemently.

It would be so much better if people would just mind their own damn business. I'm pretty sure that 52% wouldn't have been affected either way this went.

I don't think I've misrepresented this point. I carried it to it's extreme maybe, I've created no straw man.

bloop

11-08-2009, 06:11 PM

duovamp

11-08-2009, 06:43 PM

"Most people aren't even affected by gay marriage one way or the other, so they should just vote for it just based on that."

Isn't this the foundation of libertarian beliefs though?

Nimrod's Son

11-08-2009, 10:36 PM

Isn't this the foundation of libertarian beliefs though?

Libertarians believe the government shouldn't have any say in marriage at all, and that any contraact signed between two individuals shoudl be equal.

But go ahead and keep voting for your Burger King/McDonald's parties, I'm sure they're quite different.

Trotskilicious

11-08-2009, 10:52 PM

keep voting i'm sure it will make a difference someday

Order 66

11-09-2009, 12:37 AM

i'm a chick-fil-a man myself

bloop

11-09-2009, 04:56 AM

Libertarians believe the government shouldn't have any say in marriage at all, and that any contraact signed between two individuals shoudl be equal.

This is what I believe, but if the government must have their hand in it, it should be equal.

Red Scarlet

11-09-2009, 09:58 AM

i think whatever consenting adults do in their bedroom is their own business and not based on any metric of morality per se. but you're taught from a very young age that boys go with girls and if you can't comprehend such a basic precept in adulthood then you clearly aren't competent, so should the state allow you to possibly start a family where kid's lives could be at stake? parenthood isn't a game.

Charmbag

11-09-2009, 11:33 AM

I think minding one's business is a good rule of thumb until someone's rights are being violated. so in the case of Corganist's analogy, gays would be the pedophile's victims and the pedophile would be the government/American society.

Luke de Spa

11-09-2009, 12:29 PM

in the case of this board, we are the pedophile's victims and the pedophile would be corganist

Luke de Spa

11-09-2009, 12:29 PM

and in the case of real life corganist is a pedophile

Corganist

11-09-2009, 04:04 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that we were all, at some point in our lives, children. To say childless people have no horse in that rather extreme case is stretching it. They can at least empathize, and they may know children, while not theirs, that they deeply care about.

Sure, some of may have some peripheral interest in the matter. But that doesn't mean that they, as an entire group, have any kind of obligation to default to one view or another. In reality, yes, everybody with any good sense, parent or not, is going to be against raping kids. Obviously there's more that goes into any vote than whether or not people are minding their business.

I'll admit to making a sloppy argument (I should have clarified that by "mind their own damn business" didn't mean "don't vote at all" from my perspective), but your counter strikes me as disingenuous.

I was just trying to point out how sloppy I thought the argument was with an extreme example, that's all. It looks like I finally got the point across.

Though it is kinda disturbing how much some of you went into a frenzy trying to explain just how deeply you're against child molesting. A couple of you doth protest too much, methinks.

Mayfuck

11-09-2009, 05:19 PM

Mayfuck

11-09-2009, 05:25 PM

We'll argue why banning gay marriage is wrong, and you'll say 'perhaps, but its allowed because..." and then we'll demonstrate that banning gay marriage is discrimination, and you'll say 'perhaps, but certain forms of discrimination are okay because..." and then we'll demonstrate why discrimination is unfair, and you'll say "perhaps, but lets define what fair and unfair is..." And it goes on and on. This is what you do. You're the Zeno's Paradox of debaters. And its very disingenous because you know exactly that this is what you do, because you went to law school and I've been in juries for court cases and I've seen lawyers pull off this bullshit.

redbreegull

11-09-2009, 06:06 PM

Nimrod's Son

11-09-2009, 06:23 PM

how many times did i say I have always voted in favor of gay marriage

redbreegull

11-09-2009, 06:33 PM

oh I was just saying generally

Trotskilicious

11-09-2009, 07:31 PM

you have a hard on for nimrod dude

redbreegull

11-09-2009, 07:57 PM

you have a hard on for nimrod dude

I do love to hate him

duovamp

11-09-2009, 10:28 PM

I'm not just sucking cocks here, but Nimrod's Son does it intentionally to see other people act. Corganist does it to see himself act.

duovamp

11-09-2009, 10:29 PM

Corganist likes to hear himself talk, and legitimately thinks he's being intelligent. Nimrod's Son is just a troll king.

duovamp

11-09-2009, 10:30 PM

I like it that way though, because you don't ever have to take what Nimrod's Son says personally. He's just fucking around. Corganist pisses me off though because he thinks he's clever.

Luke de Spa

11-09-2009, 10:55 PM

corganist is just fucking children

duovamp

11-10-2009, 12:01 AM

White children.

Corganist

11-10-2009, 04:16 PM

It wasn't an extreme analogy. It was a fallacious analogy. Your goal wasn't to convince us of anything. You failed in that regard. Your goal was to sidetrack the discussion so you can prolong your obnoxious defense of Maine voters. Your initial motif in this thread was to come in and explain to those of us frustrated with people who keep voting down gay marriage "oh well thats just how the system is" No shit? Did we really need you to come in and tell us this? No. So why do you do it? To get in your digs and subtle hatred toward anything liberal/progressive or homosexual using a passive-aggressive tone to mask it as some kind of restrained 'voice of reason'.

So I'm supposed to just sit back and idly watch while people whine incessantly and then make shitty arguments to justify said whining? I understand the need to vent or to have a good cry when things don't shake out the way you want them, but is it too much to ask that the venting be based on some form of reality? I never told anyone that they shouldn't be upset that the vote failed. I'm disappointed myself, but that doesn't mean that I'm gonna sit here and go "right on, guys!" when people start indicting our whole system of laws and government and suggesting we turn it on its ear to suit their agenda. And though I always initially take the utterly wrong things you guys say about the nature of the law and the rights it grants as just your emotions getting the better of you, to a T you all seem to dig the hole further and further when called on it. I don't claim to know everything about the nature of laws and rights and all things of that nature, but I know enough to see when someone has a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of them...and unfortunately, a lot of people here do. So based on that...yes, I do think some of you need to be told "this is how it is." I don't do it for it's own sake.

We'll argue why banning gay marriage is wrong, and you'll say 'perhaps, but its allowed because..." and then we'll demonstrate that banning gay marriage is discrimination, and you'll say 'perhaps, but certain forms of discrimination are okay because..." and then we'll demonstrate why discrimination is unfair, and you'll say "perhaps, but lets define what fair and unfair is..." And it goes on and on. This is what you do. You're the Zeno's Paradox of debaters. And its very disingenous because you know exactly that this is what you do, because you went to law school and I've been in juries for court cases and I've seen lawyers pull off this bullshit.

Or maybe the issues just aren't ever going to be as simple as you guys want them to be. Yes, I'll own up to lawyering up most debates here....but do you know why I do it? Because that's how the debate plays out in real life! You guys want to dumb everything down, as though repeating "discrimination is unfair" is the secret password that grants an aggreived party whatever they want, laws be damned. It never has and never will work that way. If Ts aren't crossed and Is aren't dotted, then any law is going to fail no matter how "fair" it may seem to some people. Same goes for people who want to overturn a law...if it's a solidly put together law, clicking your ruby slippers and saying "it's not fair" is never going to be enough to get rid of it. It's all about knowing the process and being willing to win in every step. Cheering on badly reasoned court decisions and other subversions of the legal system doesn't help anyone. Grousing about perfectly legitimate election results doesn't help anyone. What's so bad about approaching the issue in such a way that when it is finally settled it is perfectly legal and unable to be assailed? Why am I such a bad guy for saying "this is what is going to have to be done for you to really get what you want and have it count for something."?

Corganist

11-10-2009, 04:19 PM

Corganist pisses me off though because he thinks he's clever.

No one here (and certainly not you) has managed to show me otherwise.

redbull

11-10-2009, 04:27 PM

WHAT'S WITH THIS HOMIE DISSIN MAH GURLLLLLLL

paranoid

11-10-2009, 06:17 PM

No one here (and certainly not you) has managed to show me otherwise.

what's so entertaining about this is that numerous people in this thread have pointed out the endless flaws in your argument (if you even want to call your constant blbbering an argument), yet you still think you are right.

duovamp

11-10-2009, 07:05 PM

No one here (and certainly not you) has managed to show me otherwise.

Dumbest thing I ever heard.

mercurial

11-10-2009, 07:15 PM

why do gay ppls want to get these marriages?

Corganist

11-10-2009, 07:20 PM

what's so entertaining about this is that numerous people in this thread have pointed out the endless flaws in your argument (if you even want to call your constant blbbering an argument), yet you still think you are right.

What argument are you even talking about? All I said was that the "people should just mind their own business when they vote" argument was sloppy, and people seem to have finally gotten that point. I admit to using a somewhat unwieldy analogy to get it across, but that's only because beating people over the head is the only thing that works here....and as your post indicates, sometimes even that doesn't work.

paranoid

11-10-2009, 07:29 PM

What argument are you even talking about? All I said was that the "people should just mind their own business when they vote" argument was sloppy, and people seem to have finally gotten that point. I admit to using a somewhat unwieldy analogy to get it across, but that's only because beating people over the head is the only thing that works here....and as your post indicates, sometimes even that doesn't work.

anyway you can get the last word in, eh? are you even aware of what you are going on about at this point, or have you talked so much that you don't even know what thread you are posting in anymore?

the only point you've proven so far is that you have no point at all.

'people can't mind their own business..' debate --> this type of vote just goes to show that people who are against gay marriage are uncomfortable with homosexuality, and for whatever reason they feel they should make it their business what people do behind locked doors in their own homes. There's nothing to debate here.. people who are against gay marriage have nothing to stand on in their side of the argument. So why are they making other peoples adult decisions their business? has nothing to with pedophilia, rape, etc. To parrallel homosexual marriage to said things is to classify homosexual marriage as a perverted thing, which is pure ignorance. People shouldn't make another human beings sexuality their business, period.

But I'm not going to sit here and argue on and on about it with you. The majority in this thread has ruled that you are a dumbass.

Corganist

11-10-2009, 08:01 PM

anyway you can get the last word in, eh? are you even aware of what you are going on about at this point, or have you talked so much that you don't even know what thread you are posting in anymore?

the only point you've proven so far is that you have no point at all.

What point was I supposed to be proving? Again, I got people to realize that the whole "If only people minded their business..." argument was bunk. What other arguments are there to be made? The matter was settled as far as I was concerned until the peanut gallery started sniping at me for no good reason.

I know some people here are desperate to prove me wrong on something...but you guys have to pick your battles a little better than this.

bloop

11-10-2009, 08:44 PM

You were arguing against a point that I didn't intend. What I meant, which I spelled out briefly before, is that people should vote in the interest of the freedoms of others in a pluralist society when those freedoms do not infringe the rights of others.

Frankly, though, I think it would be better if voters who are purely selfish, or were fool (or stubborn) enough to believe the ads of the gay marriage opponents, stayed home. That's not a statement on anything other than what would result in a more just outcome. Simply put, justice would be better-served if they exercised their right to sit on their asses in this past election cycle. It has nothing to do with whether what these Maine voters did was lawful. It obviously is - no one is arguing otherwise.

You shot down an argument that I haven't seen anyone try to make, or else I don't even understand what you're arguing against. I admit that what I said can be misconstrued to mean what you've been arguing against, though. But, let's move beyond that already.

paranoid

11-10-2009, 09:28 PM

I know I'm desperate to prove you people wrong on something...but I have to pick my battles a little better than this.

Fixed.

Eulogy

11-11-2009, 09:13 AM

What point was I supposed to be proving? Again, I got people to realize that the whole "If only people minded their business..." argument was bunk. What other arguments are there to be made? The matter was settled as far as I was concerned until the peanut gallery started sniping at me for no good reason.

I know some people here are desperate to prove me wrong on something...but you guys have to pick your battles a little better than this.

It's bunk as a standalone, which no one said it was. You're not clever.

Corganist

11-11-2009, 03:54 PM

'people can't mind their own business..' debate --> this type of vote just goes to show that people who are against gay marriage are uncomfortable with homosexuality, and for whatever reason they feel they should make it their business what people do behind locked doors in their own homes. There's nothing to debate here.. people who are against gay marriage have nothing to stand on in their side of the argument. So why are they making other peoples adult decisions their business?

Wait a minute here. They weren't voting on sodomy laws or outlawing homosexuality or anything of that sort. You can say what you want about people's motivations for not approving of gay marriage, but it's disingenuous to play it off as simply a "behind locked doors" kind of issue. If anything, the whole point of legalizing gay marriage is to get it out from behind locked doors, is it not? It's not that hard to see that some voters might have some qualms about that, justified or not. In the meantime, nothing the voters of Maine did has affected anything that goes on in the homes of it's homosexual residents or the decisions they make.

has nothing to with pedophilia, rape, etc. To parrallel homosexual marriage to said things is to classify homosexual marriage as a perverted thing, which is pure ignorance. People shouldn't make another human beings sexuality their business, period.

It happens all the time, and people have no problem with it. There are all sorts of things having to do with sexuality that society frowns upon with its laws. Maybe pedophilia wasn't the best example (which I disclaimed FROM THE VERY START, it was just the first thing that came to mind) but this idea that anything tangentially related to human sexuality is somehow untouchable by the mores and law of society is just false...unless you know of anywhere where incest or polygamy is legal and accepted.

Corganist

11-11-2009, 04:07 PM

You were arguing against a point that I didn't intend. What I meant, which I spelled out briefly before, is that people should vote in the interest of the freedoms of others in a pluralist society when those freedoms do not infringe the rights of others.

If that's what you meant, it didn't come through in your initial post. And it didn't come out in anyone's defense of it.

Frankly, though, I think it would be better if voters who are purely selfish, or were fool (or stubborn) enough to believe the ads of the gay marriage opponents, stayed home. That's not a statement on anything other than what would result in a more just outcome. Simply put, justice would be better-served if they exercised their right to sit on their asses in this past election cycle. It has nothing to do with whether what these Maine voters did was lawful. It obviously is - no one is arguing otherwise.

My view is that if you can't convince the dumbass voters of your view, then you haven't met your burden. It just seems like a hollow victory to achieve a result out the apathy of others as opposed to actually bringing them on board. Especially when it comes to gay marriage, where acceptance of homosexuals is clearly a major underlying issue. I don't see how the kind of hollow victories hardcore gay marriage supporters seek out (bad court decisions, elections where the "bigots" just don't vote, etc.) are really supposed to give them the satisfaction that they want. I just don't think that if justice is the goal here that your approach serves that end nearly as effectively as you think.

You shot down an argument that I haven't seen anyone try to make, or else I don't even understand what you're arguing against. I admit that what I said can be misconstrued to mean what you've been arguing against, though. But, let's move beyond that already.

If we got our wires crossed, I'll take my share of the blame for that. But whatever.

Trotskilicious

11-11-2009, 05:15 PM

WHAT'S WITH THIS HOMIE DISSIN MAH GURLLLLLLL

WHY DO THEY GOTTA FROOONT

Trotskilicious

11-11-2009, 05:18 PM

Trotskilicious

11-11-2009, 05:19 PM

in fact i'd go as far to say that it's against the united states constitution but i'm sure i'd be "ruling from the bench" or some dogshit.

bloop

11-11-2009, 05:50 PM

Any of our elections have had will have people staying home, and some people staying home is preferable to others. If someone is voting with the moral low ground, out of fear or ignorance, I have no qualms in saying the country would be better off if they didn't vote.

I'm saying nothing of their right to be jackasses and head off to the polls if that's what they want to do. This can't even be called much of an approach at all, because I'm not for enforcing a person be informed and not a dick.

Corganist

11-11-2009, 05:51 PM

i don't know why you guys bother with corganist, he's the same guy in that iowa gay marriage thread that tried to figure out some kind of hole in the idea of concept of equal protection under the law and continued to assert that the iowa court ruled outside of its bounds despite the fact that it's plain as day to anyone with half a brain that according to their constitution's simple clauses that I dug up, there's no legality in banning homosexual marriage. But he had to keep going on and on about how many pages there were in the court ruling like that's some kind of argument ender.

The Iowa Supreme Court didn't even use the "simple clauses" that you dug up in that thread! If it was so cut and dried that all they had to do was take your simplistic, third-grade level view of equal protection and apply it to the case, then why didn't they do that at any point in the 65+ pages they wrote?

You still to this day have zero clue on why they ruled as they did. God for-fucking-bid that you actually took the time to read the decision and figure out why you agreed with it other than "it got the result I wanted." For fuck's sake man. How the fuck can you take potshots at me while being so totally, utterly, and completely out of your depth?! I mean, come on man, you're not an idiot. Stop acting like it.

Corganist

11-11-2009, 05:54 PM

bloop

11-11-2009, 05:56 PM

paranoid

11-11-2009, 07:39 PM

blah blah blah blah i'm a fucking moron blah blah blah

.unless you know of anywhere where incest or polygamy is legal and accepted.

In the state of Maine, you can legally marry your first cousin, as long as you can prove that you attended 'genetic counseling' classes.

Corganist

11-11-2009, 07:55 PM

In the state of Maine, you can legally marry your first cousin, as long as you can prove that you attended 'genetic counseling' classes.
Not sure why I'm bothering with you, since all you can do is cast out insults whenever you run into an argument you don't like. But I digress, do you think that's forward thinking on the part of Maine to let cousins marry? Is it something that other states should adopt? And why stop at first cousins if what we're after is never restricting the sexuality related choices of consenting adults?

Corganist

11-11-2009, 08:03 PM

We can't all be legal experts. I'm not speaking from a place of legal expertise (I'm a math teacher). Some people are just happy with the results.

I thought the decision in Lawrence vs. Texas was at least poorly worded, and likely to be challenged, but I can understand people agreeing with the result of the decision anyway.

Oh, I perfectly understand why people like when they get the results they want. I just don't think a "the ends justify the means" mentality really serves true justice. I want gay people to be happy to the fullest extent that the law and/or society will alow. I just have never believed that good results gained under questionable pretenses are as legitimate as those gained by the true letter of the law. And without legitimacy, how much are these victories actually worth?

It's certainly not something you want to hold onto as a strategy, but there's no law against hope.

IMO, it's more hopeful to hold onto the idea that reasonable arguments can still win out eventually. It's not as though there aren't people who can be swayed by appeals to reason, and on a close issue like this it wouldn't take convincing too many of them to get a solid, legitimate good result. That's why it bugs me to see people so eager to look for shortcuts around that.

paranoid

11-11-2009, 08:13 PM

Not sure why I'm bothering with you, since all you can do is cast out insults whenever you run into an argument you don't like. But I digress, do you think that's forward thinking on the part of Maine to let cousins marry? Is it something that other states should adopt? And why stop at first cousins if what we're after is never restricting the sexuality related choices of consenting adults?

man, you can just go on and on and on and on, huh? You have not presented a reasonable argument yet that everyone else in this thread hasn't already disputed you on/pointed out your flaws. WHY oh why should I repeat what everyone else has already said, hmm?

You asked me to point out a place where laws allow for incest/polygamy, and i did. There is a huge difference between incest and homosexuality. I'll let you figure that one out on your own. Also, there are plenty of other states that legally allow the marriage of first cousins. You have studied law, and you did not already know this?

Cousin Marriage Laws in the United States (http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/cousin.htm)

Corganist

11-11-2009, 08:28 PM

man, you can just go on and on and on and on, huh? You have not presented a reasonable argument yet that everyone else in this thread hasn't already disputed you on/pointed out your flaws. WHY oh why should I repeat what everyone else has already said, hmm?

What exactly do you think I'm supposed to be arguing? All you've done in this thread is snipe at me from the peanut gallery with fifth grade insults. I don't know what argument you think is going on here. All I know is that you're not engaging me on any of the specific points I'm bringing to you. Why not try a little good faith?

[i]You asked me to point out a place where laws allow for incest/polygamy, and i did. There is a huge difference between incest and homosexuality. I'll let you figure that one out on your own. Also, there are plenty of other states that legally allow the marriage of first cousins. You have studied law, and you did not already know this?

Fine, I should have been more specific. Any idiot knows that cousins can legally marry in some places. I took it that when most people think of "incest," they don't think of cousins right off. So, now that we've gotten that out of the way why don't you answer my other questions...you know, the ones that actually pertain to the point of the discussion. Do you approve of cousin marriage or think it's okay if it spreads? What about brothers and sisters? If not, how can you possibly hold to this idea that the law can't touch on the sexuality of consenting adults? If you're fine with it all, that's fine. I'd have nothing to say to that. But I just want to make sure that you're being truly consistent with your viewpoint here.

paranoid

11-11-2009, 08:49 PM

What exactly do you think I'm supposed to be arguing? All you've done in this thread is snipe at me from the peanut gallery with fifth grade insults. I 't know what argument you think is going on here. All I know is that you're not engaging me on any of the specific points I'm bringing to you. Why not try a good faith?

Fine, I should have been more specific. Any knows that cousins can legally in some places. I took it that when most people think of "incest," they don't think of cousins right off. So, now that we've gotten that out of the way why don't you answer my other questions...you know, the ones that actually pertain to the point of the discussion. Do you approve of cousin or think it's okay if it spreads? What about brothers and sisters? If not, how can you possibly to this idea that the law can't touch on the sexuality of consenting adults? If you're fine with it all, that's fine. I'd have nothing to say to that. But I just want to make sure that you're being truly consistent with your viewpoint here.

like I said, I'm not engaging you on any points you've made because they've been engaged by other people. And I agree with them.. so why repeat them?

Do Homosexual married couples run the risk of bearing genetically defective children? Oh fuck it you know what, I'm not getting into this with you. Trots is right, it's not worth it. Sorry I'm not giving you the satisfaction. Whatever point I present you're just going to twist it until you feel like you've exhausted me, and I don't really give that much of a shit at proving you wrong. You are too arrogant to reason. Besides, it's much more fun slinging poo at you, as it gets you just as riled up.

Charmbag

11-11-2009, 09:16 PM

Eulogy

11-11-2009, 09:16 PM

I want gay people to be happy to the fullest extent that the law and/or society will alow.

see, shit like this is why it's so hard to believe that you're supportive of gays and not a bigot. comments like this make it seem like you're just using our convoluted legal system to veil your bigotry.

and when you had an opportunity to contribute to the legal happiness of gays, you fucked them, children in foster homes, and any other person or couple that could raise a child well but isn't married.

so. you know. it gets harder and harder to take you seriously.

Corganist

11-11-2009, 09:18 PM

I got nothing.

Fixed that for you.

All I'm asking is whether or not you think there is any situation where the law can rightfully infringe on the sexual choices of consenting adults. It's a simple yes or no question. You seem to imply that the answer is "no," and I have no problem with that so long as you recognize just how far beyond gay marriage such a view actually affects. I'm not going to say "Aha! You support people marrying their sister!" if you grant that your views extend to all categories of consenting adults. I'd say "Good on you for being consistent," and leave it at that. It's not a trick. It's not a trap. It's just me trying to see just how much you buy into your own argument.

If the answer to the question is "yes," however, then that means that saying "the law should not affect sexuality" is not enough of an argument in and of itself to justify keeping the government out of marriage.

Eulogy

11-11-2009, 09:22 PM

Fixed that for you.

All I'm asking is whether or not you think there is any situation where the law can rightfully infringe on the sexual choices of consenting adults. It's a simple yes or no question. You seem to imply that the answer is "no," and I have no problem with that so long as you recognize just how far beyond gay marriage such a view actually affects. I'm not going to say "Aha! You support people marrying their sister!" if you grant that your views extend to all categories of consenting adults. I'd say "Good on you for being consistent," and leave it at that. It's not a trick. It's not a trap. It's just me trying to see just how much you buy into your own argument.

If the answer to the question is "yes," however, then that means that saying "the law should not affect sexuality" is not enough of an argument in and of itself to justify keeping the government out of marriage.

You're missing the given point that homosexuality and homosexual marriage have no negative effect on any person or on society in general. Do we have to add this on to everything we say in order for you to get it?

I don't have a legal argument against polygamy or even first cousins. Is that consistent enough?

Honestly I can see how it'd be hard to make a legal argument against brothers and sisters too. But I don't know why you keep wanting to go down these paths. It turns what is a very practical concern for a lot of people into a theoretical masturbatory session for you. And that's what annoys me more than anything else.

Corganist

11-11-2009, 09:26 PM

see, shit like this is why it's so hard to believe that you're supportive of gays and not a bigot. comments like this make it seem like you're just using our convoluted legal system to veil your bigotry.

and when you had an opportunity to contribute to the legal happiness of gays, you fucked them, children in foster homes, and any other person or couple that could raise a child well but isn't married.

so. you know. it gets harder and harder to take you seriously.

Stop. Just. Fucking. Stop.

I have made it perfectly fucking clear ad nauseum that when I have had the chance to vote directly on the interests of gays, I have voted in favor of them. Why do you lend so much more weight to a vote on child adoption that did not mention sexual orientation in any way, shape, form, or fashion than my vote that specifically dealt with whether or not gays can get married in my state? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever unless you're just incredibly desperate to shoehorn me into the "bigot" box by any fucking means necessary so that you don't have to deal with the practical things about the law that I try to tell you. It's gotten really fucking annoying by now.

By your logic, if I vote for a tax increase on...I don't know, cigarettes, I'm a closet bigot because a lot of gay people who smoke will be affected. That is beyond ridiculous.

Eulogy

11-11-2009, 09:29 PM

By your logic, if I vote for a tax increase on...I don't know, cigarettes, I'm a closet bigot because a lot of gay people who smoke will be affected. That is beyond ridiculous.

This analogy would make sense if some gays were legally forced to continue smoking.

Eulogy

11-11-2009, 09:30 PM

also you never answered me when i asked where you went to law school. it might shed light on your thought processes.

Charmbag

11-11-2009, 09:33 PM

can't you just live with the knowledge that you're right and he's wrong

Corganist

11-11-2009, 09:35 PM

You're missing the given point that homosexuality and homosexual marriage have no negative effect on any person or on society in general. Do we have to add this on to everything we say in order for you to get it?
When I have ever said or implied otherwise?

I don't have a legal argument against polygamy or even first cousins. Is that consistent enough?

Honestly I can see how it'd be hard to make a legal argument against brothers and sisters too. But I don't know why you keep wanting to go down these paths. It turns what is a very practical concern for a lot of people into a theoretical masturbatory session for you. And that's what annoys me more than anything else.

I'm sorry, but I just get annoyed with the "we should have it because I want it" mentality that always comes through in these threads. I just want people to realize that these kind of issues run so much deeper than that. They're not simple. These things have to be built on principle, otherwise it's all just whims being fulfilled willy-nilly.

Eulogy

11-11-2009, 09:38 PM

When I have ever said or implied otherwise?

Your two page pedophilia mess? Someone says "it doesn't effect anyone not directly involved," and you, oh wise one, should be able to fucking infer that along with that reason is implicit the fact that it has no negative effect on anyone or anything and thus there is no reason to make gay marriage illegal.

Eulogy

11-11-2009, 09:39 PM

can't you just live with the knowledge that you're right and he's wrong

eventually

Corganist

11-11-2009, 09:39 PM

This analogy would make sense if some gays were legally forced to continue smoking.

You know what I meant. The adoption law I voted on was one of general applicability. It didn't single out or even mention gays, and if it had I would have never even considered voting for it for a single instant.

Eulogy

11-11-2009, 09:40 PM

I'm sorry, but I just get annoyed with the "we should have it because I want it" mentality that always comes through in these threads. I just want people to realize that these kind of issues run so much deeper than that. They're not simple. These things have to be built on principle, otherwise it's all just whims being fulfilled willy-nilly.

that's the mentality you put on everyone.

ajwerhgaiuyvgpiaulrekwg

Eulogy

11-11-2009, 09:42 PM

You know what I meant. The adoption law I voted on was one of general applicability. It didn't single out or even mention gays, and if it had I would have never even considered voting for it for a single instant.

Well that doesn't make any sense. The law would have had the exact same effect, but the wording would have changed your vote? As a matter of principle?

What you did was ignore the fact that adoption agencies are way more fucking thorough than people who issue marriage licenses. And a marriage is in no way any sort of indicator of ability to raise a child. And it just shows ignorance on a gross scale. And like I said, stuff like that makes it hard to take you seriously.

bloop

11-11-2009, 09:57 PM

IMO, it's more hopeful to hold onto the idea that reasonable arguments can still win out eventually. It's not as though there aren't people who can be swayed by appeals to reason, and on a close issue like this it wouldn't take convincing too many of them to get a solid, legitimate good result. That's why it bugs me to see people so eager to look for shortcuts around that.

I understand what you're saying, and I would agree that it's preferable if voters are not disaffected or dead, but either scenario produces a just outcome for those who are affected by their decisions. I'm not heartbroken if people attain their rights any way they can be attained, respecting the rights of others of course.

Corganist

11-11-2009, 10:01 PM

also you never answered me when i asked where you went to law school. it might shed light on your thought processes.

Don't see why it matters, but I went here in Arkansas. There's one in Little Rock and one in Fayetteville, I went to former because it was closer to home. In retrospect I probably should have gone to Fayetteville, but oh well, either one is fine for working in Arkansas.

Your two page pedophilia mess? Someone says "it doesn't effect anyone not directly involved," and you, oh wise one, should be able to fucking infer that along with that reason is implicit the fact that it has no negative effect on anyone or anything and thus there is no reason to make gay marriage illegal.

I don't know how many times I should have to say I was making no direct or indirect comparison between homosexuality and any other sexual practice or predilection with that whole analogy. I was illustrating what I thought to be absurd logic with an absurd example, that's all. I disclaimed it to the fucking hilt. I admitted it was an unwieldy analogy. I don't know what else you want me to do. I didn't imply or infer anything negative about the effect of homosexuality on society at large. Why would I?

Well that doesn't make any sense. The law would have had the exact same effect, but the wording would have changed your vote? As a matter of principle?

Except it didn't have the exact same effect. It affected all unmarried people, not just gay ones. If it only affected gay people, but didn't say it did, I would have voted against it. I may like my semantics, but even I can't overlook something like that.

But regardless, the only reason it even affects gays at all is because the state banned gay marriage. I voted against that, and it passed anyway. That sucks, but I don't think that means that I should now have to vote down every single law relating to marriage and families, regardless of how good an idea I think it is, because of its disproportionate impact on gays. I don't think that helps anything.

What you did was ignore the fact that adoption agencies are way more fucking thorough than people who issue marriage licenses. And a marriage is in no way any sort of indicator of ability to raise a child. And it just shows ignorance on a gross scale. And like I said, stuff like that makes it hard to take you seriously.

You seriously have a lot more faith in the foster care/adoption system in the country (let alone in my state) than I do. And that's okay. I just don't understand why reasonable minds can't agree to disagree on an issue like whether single parent or two parent households are preferable.

Eulogy

11-11-2009, 10:15 PM

I don't know how many times I should have to say I was making no direct or indirect comparison between homosexuality and any other sexual practice or predilection with that whole analogy. I was illustrating what I thought to be absurd logic with an absurd example, that's all. I disclaimed it to the fucking hilt. I admitted it was an unwieldy analogy. I don't know what else you want me to do. I didn't imply or infer anything negative about the effect of homosexuality on society at large. Why would I? Because as I have said numerous, numerous times, your analogy only made sense (and only the tiniest, most minuscule amount of sense) when pretending that the argument stated in that single post was meant to be the only reason for the opinion given. Which ignores what you should have been able to infer. I'm done making a comment on the ridiculous nature of your analogy. I'm now talking about how you made a fundamental error in your thought process before you made it.

Except it didn't have the exact same effect. It affected all unmarried people, not just gay ones. If it only affected gay people, but didn't say it did, I would have voted against it. I may like my semantics, but even I can't overlook something like that.

But regardless, the only reason it even affects gays at all is because the state banned gay marriage. I voted against that, and it passed anyway. That sucks, but I don't think that means that I should now have to vote down every single law relating to marriage and families, regardless of how good an idea I think it is, because of its disproportionate impact on gays. I don't think that helps anything.

You seriously have a lot more faith in the foster care/adoption system in the country (let alone in my state) than I do. And that's okay. I just don't understand why reasonable minds can't agree to disagree on an issue like whether single parent or two parent households are preferable.

I fail to see how that law improves the foster care/adoption system in your state. All it does is further limit their options, making it more likely that children get placed in poor situations because there is a much smaller applicant pool. I don't see how someone as obsessed with cold, impersonal logic could possibly miss that point. A stable, married couple is probably the best for a child. But why make a law that just says a couple has to be married? It has to be clear to you that some married people shouldn't raise kids and that some unmarried people really should (and help the foster home situation by taking kids out of the foster system and placing them in permanent POSSIBLY UNMARRIED OH NO homes).

Ugly

11-11-2009, 11:06 PM

why do gay ppls want to get these marriages?

Because they want the right to be stuck in a miserable, loveless marriage like heterosexuals are. Nothing wrong with that.

Nimrod's Son

11-12-2009, 12:04 AM

^ I think it's because they want the right to steal someone's soul and walk with half of their shit in the process.

Trotskilicious

11-12-2009, 12:42 AM

someone hurt you real bad huh

Ugly

11-12-2009, 01:13 AM

Aren't we all, though?

Trotskilicious

11-12-2009, 02:22 AM

Corganist

11-12-2009, 03:09 PM

Because as I have said numerous, numerous times, your analogy only made sense (and only the tiniest, most minuscule amount of sense) when pretending that the argument stated in that single post was meant to be the only reason for the opinion given. Which ignores what you should have been able to infer.

You act as though I was trying to shoot down the entire idea of supporting gay marriage through that one argument. I wasn't whatsoever. All I was saying is "that argument sucks, stick to the better ones." I wasn't saying "Aha! You'll never get gay marriage if that's your only argument!"

I'm done making a comment on the ridiculous nature of your analogy. I'm now talking about how you made a fundamental error in your thought process before you made it.

I think the only error in my thought process was my giving this board enough credit for me to think that I could get away with merely using the word "pedophilia" in an homosexuality discussion without everyone flipping out over it.

I fail to see how that law improves the foster care/adoption system in your state. All it does is further limit their options, making it more likely that children get placed in poor situations because there is a much smaller applicant pool. I don't see how someone as obsessed with cold, impersonal logic could possibly miss that point. A stable, married couple is probably the best for a child. But why make a law that just says a couple has to be married? It has to be clear to you that some married people shouldn't raise kids and that some unmarried people really should (and help the foster home situation by taking kids out of the foster system and placing them in permanent POSSIBLY UNMARRIED OH NO homes).

Or maybe it narrows the applicant pool enough that more resources are available for better vetting of applicants to be done and thus children get placed into better situations than they would have otherwise? Would you not admit that a lot more probably goes into determining the stability of an unmarried couple's household than a married one? And even more goes into determining whether or not a single person has the structure in place to raise a child alone? Why can that not be a factor here?

I think you can go either way on this one, and I just happened to go a different way than you did. I just don't see it as the slam dunk you do. Maybe that makes me insensitive to the feelings of all the poor single spinsters out there who would love nothing more than a kid to love. And maybe it makes me just plain wrong on what facilitates the best home for an orphan. I'm willing to accept that much. But what it doesn't make me is a bigot.

Corganist

11-12-2009, 03:43 PM

by the way corganist i know you're the law-talkin-guy and i'm just some dumbshit that didn't read a court ruling that i'm fairly certain you didn't either but you so consistently miss the point that when something says "people shall not be discriminated against for any reason" it just blows your fucking gasket that i'm going to draw a line and say "That should be pretty self explanatory." But since your entire livelihood is based on nothing being self explanatory well, that just causes you to fucking lose it. It's incredible how just mentioning that causes the most childish response from you. You usually tend to be pretty calm and controlled and it is genuinely amusing to watch you lose it and consistently claim that you're the only one who is right in the room when it is so fucking crystal clear to every functioning, rational human being, that you're scum.

You're just plain old regular lawyer scum. That's it.

Look, I don't expect anyone here to agree with me on most things. Obviously my opinions on things don't run with the general current of the board. But I do know a little bit about the law. And I do know a little bit about what courts do in equal protection cases. Yes, it's overly complicated and overly legalistic. Yes, it'd be easier if we could distill it down to "be nice to others" and be done with it. But it's not that simple. And I hate that whenever I try to pull the veil back and explain the workings of the system that I get it thrown back in my face because people just refuse to even try to understand it. I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I'm not trying to say that discrimination is right or should be legal. I'm just telling you what the law has to say about things.

I'm sorry the system sucks. I'm sorry lawyers make everything too complicated. But it all is what it is, and telling me I'm wrong when I know good and well what I'm talking about won't change it. And I'm not even claiming that I'm right all the time, but I just wish that if someone thinks I'm wrong on something they'd actually take the time to learn why they're disagreeing with me rather than misapply "simple" concepts and then high five themselves over it while calling me a moron.

Trotskilicious

11-12-2009, 04:50 PM

:the helicopter:

Eulogy

11-12-2009, 05:10 PM

You act as though I was trying to shoot down the entire idea of supporting gay marriage through that one argument. I wasn't whatsoever. All I was saying is "that argument sucks, stick to the better ones." I wasn't saying "Aha! You'll never get gay marriage if that's your only argument!"

I think the only error in my thought process was my giving this board enough credit for me to think that I could get away with merely using the word "pedophilia" in an homosexuality discussion without everyone flipping out over it.

No, you shot down what is a perfectly reasonable argument to make as a part of why homosexual marriage should exist in this country based on the faulty premise that someone was presenting it as the end all, be all of arguments. If you can't see that after I've explained it to you three times, then there is no hope here.

Corganist

11-12-2009, 07:37 PM

No, you shot down what is a perfectly reasonable argument to make as a part of why homosexual marriage should exist in this country based on the faulty premise that someone was presenting it as the end all, be all of arguments. If you can't see that after I've explained it to you three times, then there is no hope here.

I honestly don't know where you're getting that idea from. Either I worded something really badly so that my point was totally misconstrued, or you're reading something into what I said that's not there. I just didn't like that one single particular line of argument. I don't think that relying on or encouraging people to be apathetic or ambivalent to gay marriage is an effective strategy (or even part of one) to get it passed, period. The argument irked me, but I never said anyone was offering it as the end-all, be-all (though you guys certainly started defending it like it is).

Eulogy

11-12-2009, 07:50 PM

I honestly don't know where you're getting that idea from. Either I worded something really badly so that my point was totally misconstrued, or you're reading something into what I said that's not there. I just didn't like that one single particular line of argument. I don't think that relying on or encouraging people to be apathetic or ambivalent to gay marriage is an effective strategy (or even part of one) to get it passed, period. The argument irked me, but I never said anyone was offering it as the end-all, be-all (though you guys certainly started defending it like it is).

"Straight people should allow gay marriage to happen because it has nothing to do with them."

IN BETWEEN THE LINES or WHAT CORGANIST SHOULD HAVE ASSUMED BEFORE GOING OFF ON A NONSENSICAL TANGENT = "Of course if this statement is to hold any validity, one has to assume that I have already considered the fact that gay marriage doesn't have any negative consequences on anyone or anything."

Corganist: "Well with that logic, childless people should be OK with child molestation being legal!!"

Everyone: No, because child molestation hurts children and our society.

That's what happened. Period. The point is that if something doesn't affect you at all, and it doesn't negatively affect anyone or anything else, then who the hell are you (relax, the theoretical 'you') to cast a vote against it? You realize the argument was pointing out why people should vote a certain way, not that votes should be discounted because of idiocy, right?

It's not a matter of ambivalence or apathy. It's a matter of recognizing when you have the ability to misuse your status as part of the majority and then decide to act in the best interest of society as a whole and not of your narrow minded and oftentimes nonsensical worldview. I realize that is unlikely, but that was never the point.

bloop

11-12-2009, 08:39 PM

Wait...I think I trust Eulogy more with my argument than I trust myself.

I understand some of the frustration, but some of the comments directed at Corganist in particular seem a little much to me. I appreciate his perspective here, too.

Eulogy

11-12-2009, 08:44 PM

I understand some of the frustration, but some of the comments directed at Corganist in particular seem a little much to me. I appreciate his perspective here, too.

It is good to have someone who's not Nimrod to argue with about things.

Corganist

11-12-2009, 08:53 PM

"Straight people should allow gay marriage to happen because it has nothing to do with them."

IN BETWEEN THE LINES or WHAT CORGANIST SHOULD HAVE ASSUMED BEFORE GOING OFF ON A NONSENSICAL TANGENT = "Of course if this statement is to hold any validity, one has to assume that I have already considered the fact that gay marriage doesn't have any negative consequences on anyone or anything."

Corganist: "Well with that logic, childless people should be OK with child molestation being legal!!"

Everyone: No, because child molestation hurts children and our society.

I was trying to frame it in more of a "If a child molester used that same argument you wouldn't buy it," sort of way. I was suggesting that such an argument would be ridiculous independent of whether child molestation (or anything else you plug in) hurts others.

But again, I guess I was just sloppy in using the first negative example that came to mind.

That's what happened. Period. The point is that if something doesn't affect you at all, and it doesn't negatively affect anyone or anything else, then who the hell are you (relax, the theoretical 'you') to cast a vote against it? You realize the argument was pointing out why people should vote a certain way, not that votes should be discounted because of idiocy, right?

It's not a matter of ambivalence or apathy. It's a matter of recognizing when you have the ability to misuse your status as part of the majority and then decide to act in the best interest of society as a whole and not of your narrow minded and oftentimes nonsensical worldview. I realize that is unlikely, but that was never the point.

I understand where you're coming from, but I still just don't like that view of things. It just smacks of defeatism to me. If you know it's unlikely, why fret over it? It's quicker and easier to convince people to do the right thing than it is to sit and hope they do it themselves and be continually disappointed when they don't.