Double Exposure, Inc.
  • September 24, 2018, 07:12:16 AM
  • Welcome, Guest
Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down

Author Topic: Love Finally Wins Over Hate  (Read 10842 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #45 on: November 27, 2009, 05:36:44 PM »

The US was not a nation founded to respect a specific religion. It was a nation founded predominantly by members of a specific religion, and inasmuch as concepts derived specifically from Christian teachings influenced English common law, so in turn did these ultimately impact US law and legal/philosophical thinking.
As the entire rest of this section is predicated on this statement, it is irrelevant to the case of the US, but I'll address it anyway because I like to fight. ;p
This in no way is different from what I said, so I am not sure what point you think makes the rest irrelevant, but since you answered anyway I will move on as well.
As the entire rest of this section is predicated on this statement, it is irrelevant to the case of the US, but I'll address it anyway because I like to fight. ;p

The Christian church did not invent marriage. Marriage is a custom predating recorded history, exists in some form across all human societies. Even the Latin precursors to the modern english word predate the notion of Christ! What the church does is proscribe a particular formalizing ceremony and specific oaths to be taken and held to by those so united, and to place certain prohibitions on who may be so joined. These specifics are not static and have changed over time in nearly every branch of Christianity, some more significantly than others.
Again not sure what your point is. Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism which goes back much further but again this seems irrelevant to your point.
To demand that one group be granted unquestioned authority over such a common and variable human custom is incredibly...
Noone is asking for control, however, as a matter of law, when we can help it, we will not let the defining characteristics of it, A union between a man and a woman,  be changed without a fight.
Yes, because opening up marriage to a wider array of consenting adults is totally equivalent to legitimizing all other taboo relationships evar. Or, you know, not at all.
Really? At one time homosexual relationships were considered taboo. So now it will only be changed if society is tolerant of it for the most part? If NAMBLA has it's way Men and boys would be an accepted relationship. If it were would we open that up for "marriage". Offshoots of the Mormon faith have long accepted  one man and multiple women as an acceptable union? Would that be an acceptable change for marriage? There has to be limits and the term defined. If the government wants to give special status to whatever is considered an accepted relationship, fine, just don't get it mixed in with marriage, call it what it is, a civil union.

Why? I still don't have a good understanding of why the term 'marriage' must never be applied to certain groups, even when they are otherwise joined in an identical legal relationship.
And this is precisely why we will always disagree on this issue.
Indeed, all religions were accounted for in the first amendment. Indeed, religious groups may perform marriage ceremonies for ANYONE, irrespective of the state. The state defines only which unions it will be recognized under law. Therefore the definition of what constitutes a legal marriage is quite relevant to the state, I quite agree. I am glad to see we at least agree on some of the core facts, for once.
It happens once in a while, though it is rare.
Marriage is ALREADY a concept that exists without religious connotation - civil marriages (marriages fully certified by the state irrespective of any religious involvement or recognition) have been increasingly popular in the West since at least the 19th century. You can already be married by a justice of the peace, even if you belong to a religion that specific prohibits and actively condemns the marriage you are entering into!

Civil marriage, the recording and recognition there of, and definition there of, is a function of the state, and all citizens (indeed, all persons) should be granted equal privileges under the law.
Which is precisely why it must be definatively defined. For many years it was simply assumed that it meant a union between a man and a woman. It is only recently that that is being challenged, and in every state it has gone to a vote, it has been voted that marriage is between a man and a woman. Even California.
Not at all. I recognize the value to and interest of certain religious groups to gain or retain control over this concept. I just absolutely reject the legitimacy of their claims or the propriety of making them.
Fine, then listen to the voters of every state that has voted it down. Democracy in action, but in your arrogance, you will just call the majority a bunch of haters.
Civil liberties were the very bedrock this country was founded for, with religious freedom a core concern for many at that time. In fact, property rights and rights to self-determination were equally important. It doesn't do to either under OR overstate the importance of the pursuit of religious freedoms. Even less so given the extreme intolerance towards various minority religious groups by those in power throughout our country's history.
All of these are under assault by the very party you support. Those of us who love our civil liberties just as they are, thank you very much, will fight when any of those is messed with. But I am glad you can see that these are the bedrock of our society.
As were many provisions of the constitution. The point being, to make the concurrent arguments of 'they could never have foreseen expanded marriage rights' and 'surely they foresaw technological advancements in weaponry and the military' is rather disingenuous. I do not think you have made both of these arguments yourself, but there are many who make both claims, and I was taking a well-deserved pot shot at those people.
OK, I was simply wondering what it had to do with my arguement, np, we will move on.
Come now, if the issue were being seriously considered at the time of the founding, it would have been specifically prohibited, though probably only in state law. Imagine the ammunition the anti-federalists would have held if the Constitution was used to address marriage customs!
I doubt there would have been any if they had simply defined it as a union between a man and a women. I doubt there would have been objectors.
Nothing like codifying oppression into law to make everyone's day, right?
Oppression? hardly.
What, Everson? Everson did not reflect a sweeping change in judicial interpretation of the establishment clause. Indeed, the court was unanimous in its interpretation of the clause, it just differed on the application of that understanding to the case at hand. It's worth noting that the Everson decision upheld the lower court and appelate rulings AGAINST the position that a law that predominantly benefits religious institutions need necessarily be construed as violating the separation principle.
It was hardly unanimous, the 4 dissenting judges heavily disagreed with many of the interpretations tha Justice Black put forward in his majority statement. Justice Black, many have thought would have been on the other side if they had included all private schools not just Catholic Schools.
I will finish tomorrow, I have to go for now.
Logged

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #46 on: November 29, 2009, 09:05:46 AM »

Was this in dispute? Because I don't recall making statements to the contrary. However, pay careful attention to your wording - AS MUCH. The establishment and free exercise clauses serve to protect equally the state and the church from the undue influence or involvement of the other.
Yes, this is true. The founders had witnessed what happens when an overbearing religion controls the government. The Church of England was very corrupt, almost as much as the Catholic Church at the time had become. They did not want one Church to have full control over the government, however, they did not want religion completely out of the government nor did they want religious principles to be discarded. They started each session with prayer, included bible verses in many early documents etc. That was the intention. Many recently have tried to exclude religion completely from government and this is simply not what was intended.
I think if you investigate the matter further you will come to understand that Douglas was not ultimately in favor of the ideas you are using his words to support. However, the Zorach decision is not particularly radical - it was a safe, if not necessarily philosophically rigorous, call to make. The Zorach decision is also not out of line with the Everson decision, though I suppose it does potentially conflict with the strictist interpretation of separation.
True, the Everson decision was not what many have used it to represent either. The majority decision did not bar religions from being supported, it simply did not want one to get preferential treatment. The minority decision was what wanted that. Douglas was right in line with this.
Creationism is an older idea, quite true, but as it is in no way scientific, it is not a traditionally scientific theory, so you're conflating what I said with something else. Your continued rejection of reality in favor of your own fantasy scenarios is... unfortunate, but I think rehashing the ID thing in this thread is probably counterproductive to the discussion at hand. The point being - you have a minority viewpoint being expressed and challenging a more established viewpoint in both cases, so if your argument holds that preference must be given to tradition definitions, then ID must cease its claims on science, no?
Again, I will point out that ID simply points out that we did not evolve, that we had a form of Intelligence. There is just as much scientific evidence to support this as there is that we spontaneously evolved from goo. By your definition evolutionist must give up their claim on science as well. If we were to go to Mars and find an area in a dome with full climate control and buildings and machinery to maintain it we would of course jump to the logical conclusion that there was a civilization that had built it. Not many scientists would argue that it somehow developed like that on it's own.
Umm... yeah, that's a 'square peg through a round hole', and REASON for this, as I hope you'll realize upon reflection, is that a 'round peg through a square hole' does not require any particular effort. The round peg slips easily into/through the square hole, because the dimensions of the square hole exceed those of the peg. Granted, if the hole is meant to contain the peg rather than allow its passage, and is therefore more of a slot, then round peg will of course fit rather loosely and be more prone to falling out, but we're getting a beyond the intent of the metaphor there.
Yes, I meant it the other way, however if the diameter of the round peg were wider than the dimentions of the square it would be as hard to get it to fit as the other way around. But you knew what i was going for. I was tired when I wrote it.
Marriage is the term most broadly used to represent the joining of two persons for the purpose of share agency, joint property, establishing households or families, and simplify the matter of responsibility for children. These social connotations are more important and valuable, and also currently more broadly recognized, than the religious connotations of the term, especially with respect to civil marriage. Their value in this regard is, in and of itself, enough to demonstrate fundamental inequity.
That is how it is now being defined, however up until recently if you asked anyone what the definition of marriage was, they would state that it is a union between a man and a woman. The reason for the benefits was specifically to foster a better environment for them to raise a family. Without adoption, this is impossible for a homosexual union. Therefore the idea it was meant to promote is moot. Even with that said I am more than willing to give those same benefits to homosexual unions because I do believe in fairness since adoption is quite possible. I will not support the use of the term saying it is exactly the same because it is not. To say it is exactly the same is disingenuous.
Marriage is also a legal institution maintained for this purpose. It is also far simpler and significantly more efficient to expand the rules for who may be married than to establish separate concurrent institutions.
I simply disagree with you. It weakens the term and cheapens the bond by broadening the term to include other unions. As I said once you broaden a term, where do you stop? I do not want the institution to be forever altered and someday include all manners of deprvity. By having a seperate but equal institution you solve this without cheapening it. The terms of what constitutes a Civil Union can be well defined and then it can be stretched in the future if society so chooses. Hopefully I will be long gone by the time all that comes to pass.
You misunderstand my argument. I say that the religious connotations are not as important as the general social connotations, and that the social connotations are significant enough to create inequity between those allowed to use the term and those not.
We will simply have to disagree on this point.
Besides which, your statement presupposes that the entire 'religious community' opposes marriage equality, which is not true. Many religious peoples and religious institutions support equality.
This is a real cute way to phrase this. Who does not support equality. I would however state that by far the overwhelming majority of the 'religious community' defines marriage as a union between a man and a womean exclusively. Many within that same community do not support unions as I do. I am actually rather liberal in this regard.
"We're going to beat you. Resist, and we'll beat you worse." We value religion as a social good WHY again, exactly?
Again you misunderstand my point. Whether purposely or not you try to pose this as if I was making a threat. What I say pure and simple is that the majority of the country is against expanding the definitions of marriage to include homosexual unions. If the homosexual community continues to push this issue without comprimise, it will force an amendment that will define marriage as a union between a man and a woman. There will be no priority given to create a seperate institution for civil Unions once that is done, because those who oppose that will not see the institution they value in jeopardy, and will simply reject it.
They are NO sort of compromise! They represent opponents of marriage equality being given absolutely everything they want!
There are many within that movement that think of homosexual unions as immoral and do not want any legal benefits for it at all. They will fight civil Unions as well. Those of us who are more open minded are willing to compromise by giving them the same rights as married couples. That is actually quite a compromise. Civil Unions will be more capable of getting passed because those of us who simply do not want the term marriage misused will support Civil Unions. As it is now I am being forced to side with those who want nothing to do with Homosexual Unions.
Logged

Horace

  • Senior Staff
  • Senior Meeper
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 497
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #47 on: December 01, 2009, 01:51:19 PM »

Killings in a target group scare just that group,

Wrong. They concern all reasonable people.

and this sort of terrorism is deserving of additional punishment,

Welcome back Jim Crow.
Once again we have one group who are specially protected.
It used to be that if a white beat up a black, he'd maybe get a slap on the wrist. But a Black doing the same to a white would get prison.
Now, A straight beating up a gay gets more serious punisment than a gay would get for doing the exact same thing to a straight.
There is no difference.
Both are wrong.

As to one group somehow being more devastated than another: This position is so far beyond unreasonable that it has landed on the far side of the irrational, close enough to reach out and touch the border with the insane. And in my opinion, can only be held by someone who hasnt had friends or loved ones from both of the relevant groups die at the hands of criminals.
Logged
I'm not really as scary as some people think I am. (re something Julie said to me at reg one night)

Having seen a video (Thanks dave and CAH) I now understand why she said that.

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #48 on: December 01, 2009, 02:31:08 PM »

Wrong. They concern all reasonable people.

Come now. A target group is affected to a greater degree. This is both intuitive and supported by the evidence. Your feelings as to what SHOULD be the outcome nonwithstanding.

Quote
Welcome back Jim Crow.

It is for statements like this that the LOLsob was invented.

Quote
Once again we have one group who are specially protected.

Except that we don't. Again, simply read the bill and see that this is not the case. Perhaps, if a law was passed that said members of specific minority groups, or even minority groups generally, could not be targeted, you would have some sort of point (a point you would still not be right on, but a point). But no group is highlighted under the law as deserving special protection or treatment. Point to ONE SINGLE instance in the law promoting the protection of any group over another, please!

Quote
It used to be that if a white beat up a black, he'd maybe get a slap on the wrist. But a Black doing the same to a white would get prison.

This was not a result of "Jim Crow laws". Please refer to an appropriate encyclopedic source for a definition before using the term again. You may be thinking of the "Black Codes" or other similar pre-Civil War laws. Following the 13th and especially 14th amendments, any such unequal application of law was a result more of deeply institutionalized racism, and not a function of laws themselves.

I have to say, this false equivalence you attempt to promote is... offensive and insulting, at best.

Quote
Now, A straight beating up a gay gets more serious punisment than a gay would get for doing the exact same thing to a straight.

Again, there are no laws (certainly no federal laws) establishing harsher punishment for the mistreatment of a member of a specific group over the mistreatment of the member of any other group.

Under the law in question in this thread, a straight-hating gay person who attacked straights for being straight would be equally culpable and punishable as the reverse. You simply MUST stop lying about this issue.

Quote
As to one group somehow being more devastated than another: This position is so far beyond unreasonable that it has landed on the far side of the irrational, close enough to reach out and touch the border with the insane. And in my opinion, can only be held by someone who hasnt had friends or loved ones from both of the relevant groups die at the hands of criminals.

Either you misunderstand my point, or are being deliberately disingenuous in your reply.

Attacking and killing members of a group for BEING members of a group has always had the effect (generally INTENTIONAL on the part of the attacker/killer) of inspiring terror in members of that group: whatever the group may be. You can't be possess any knowledge of history and remain totally ignorant of this fact.

The impact that targeted attacks/killings have on the group so targeted is measurably different than the impact that crime in general has on the population as a whole.

To provide examples:

1) a turquoise person is killed during a home invasion. That turquoise person is clearly not targeted for being turquoise - their color is irrlevant. This has a negative impact on those who are close to the turquoise person, and also inspires fear in the local community ("robbers and murderers are on the loose in our town, oh no!").

2) a plaid person is killed in what is clearly an attack motivated by a deepseated hatred of plaid people on the part of the killer. Their color is not only relevant, but the undisputed sole motivation for the murder. This has a negative impact on those who are close to the plaid person, and also inspires fear in the local plaid community ("murders OF PLAID PEOPLE are on the loose, oh no!"). In general, those who are not plaid and not close to the victim are not similarly impacted - not being members of the targeted group, they perceive themselves at less risk and are not as fearful.

Vastly oversimplified examples - certain the ramifications of a string of violent crimes within any community, especially when the motives are not so clear cut, are more complex. But the latter case is what I speak of when I speak of a greater negative impact.

I hope that makes my previous statements more clear.
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #49 on: December 04, 2009, 04:31:42 PM »

1) This has a negative impact on those who are close to the turquoise person, and also inspires fear in the local community ("robbers and murderers are on the loose in our town, oh no!").

2)  This has a negative impact on those who are close to the plaid person, and also inspires fear in the local plaid community ("murders OF PLAID PEOPLE are on the loose, oh no!"). In general, those who are not plaid and not close to the victim are not similarly impacted - not being members of the targeted group, they perceive themselves at less risk and are not as fearful.

I hope that makes my previous statements more clear.
Because inspiring fear in an entire community is far better than in just a smaller section of the Community?
Logged

LucasJamison

  • ?
  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 802
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #50 on: December 07, 2009, 04:22:20 PM »

Because inspiring fear in an entire community is far better than in just a smaller section of the Community?

To clarify - the fear / negative impact on the community generally in example 1) is not identical to that experienced by the segment in example 2).
Logged
eveilebotenoynaecrofnacenoonsevlesmehtrofdniftsumlla
hguorhtraelcsemocebllagnidnapxerevesillahtiwenoemoceb
otsiezilaerotesuactsujtuohtiwforewollofrehtonamrahton
tlahsuohtsdrawotseyeriehtnrutohwlladiallahsuoynahtrehgih
ecrofonezingocerllahsuoyotnrutersgnihtllamorfemocsgniht
llanaemedotsinialpxeot

Mack Ravensline

  • Avatars
  • Super Meeper
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 791
Re: Love Finally Wins Over Hate
« Reply #51 on: December 16, 2009, 08:14:24 AM »

To clarify - the fear / negative impact on the community generally in example 1) is not identical to that experienced by the segment in example 2).
This is true, but if a serial killer is targetting blond haired, blue eyed female because they remind him of a girlfriend who he had a fight with, it would stike fear throughout the community especially with blond blue eyed women. We do not need a new law to protect these women, just catch the killer and put him away for the rest of his life, or execute him. If it is a serial rapist, the penalty is also quite severe, up to life in prison. The problem is not that the laws are not severe enough, it is that the judges are letting people off on the minimum sentances, and budget cuts make it so they release prisoners and mental patients who should not be on the streets. This type of legislation will not solve that. Instead of spending money studying the reproductive habits of geese in a windstorm and it's effect on Global Warming, perhaps we should just keep these people locked up when they commit a serious crime. This is across the board, not just for those who commit "hate crimes".
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up