incyr and resk have asked me to share my feelings about Proposition 8 in California. My quick response was that I have mixed feelings and am on the fence. They asked for more
( Read more... )
Re: hateful rantshad_0November 12 2008, 07:52:52 UTC
Pointless digression, containing information that you probably already know even as a Canadian:
The United States Supreme Court established the doctrine of "separate but equal" in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. There the Court upheld racial segregation as permissible, with "separate" facilities (transportation facilities in that case) for each race, so long as the separate facilities were "equal." The Court found no unconstitutional discrimination in such "separate but equal" facilities.
Almost sixty years later, in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court finally overturned the doctrine of "separate but equal," holding that separate facilities (educational facilities in that case) based on race were unconstitutional because they could never be truly "equal":
To separate them [students] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be
( ... )
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 15:25:54 UTC
If you do vote on such an issue as this, either way you are trying to impose your morality on others by the very nature of the vote, a point which I believe theBruce has already agreed with
Yes. However, not that you should abstain from the vote "IF you want to claim you are not imposing your morality on others". That process is a right granted by the system that's set in place. So it shouldn't be considered wrong to exercise that right - everyone is equal in that everyone has that same right. So use it. If someone wants to say it's "imposing your morality", well, then, it's everyone imposing everyone's morality.
The disconnect is that the use of that term is very different in the context of debates about morality. It's always used against the right, against people who want to vote "positive morals" into government. The implication is that "imposing your morality" is a bad, evil thing. In that case, I don't agree on its usage in the context of exercising your right to vote. I do agree that it is wrong when, say church and
( ... )
Re: hateful rantikkarus01November 12 2008, 15:38:33 UTC
Yes, we are essentially arguing the same thing here. My only issue at the start of this was when you stated that you would vote "yes", but that you would not "offensively impose your morality" on others. My point is that you can't have it both ways. If you vote at all, regardless of the vote, you are imposing your opinions on others. That is the entirety of my point and no other.
Oh, and in this context, I think the term "positive morality" is a misnomer. I would call it "overwhelmingly negative morality", actually. But that's just my opinion talking, and I would hate to impose.
(yes, I'm just being snarky for the hell of it now)
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 16:02:12 UTC
My point, which I explained in greater detail, was to relate "offensively imposing morality" to the commonly used context against the 'moral right' as if they were somehow enslaving, dictating, or oppressing people into their morality. This is flatly untrue. So no, voting my yes is not "offensively imposing morality", as much as voting No isn't. In that context, it's the government that decides how to proceed after the people have voted. I, myself, am not imposing. The government chooses to listen to my vote or not. There's a big difference. And that difference is the point I'm trying to make, based on your accusations.
Re: hateful rantvortechNovember 12 2008, 17:38:45 UTC
That's probably because the Right's morality is mostly about telling people they can't do things that hurt nobody but themselves, and the left's morality is mostly about trying to keep people from hurting each other. Which brings us to the super huge diffrence between voting yes and no vis-a-vis imposing morality on others. One will (has, I guess) remove rights, and destroy legal marriages, and target citizens against whom the government will work to deny them happiness; the other will "impose" only the awareness that others are "sinning," and the knowledge that a representative government will only stand idly by (which it does for the majority of sinning, because that was the social contract americans signed up for when they read the constitution). When people use "imposing morality" as a pejorative for "the Right" it's because equality and freedom, as morals go, are so very much less of an imposition.
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 17:56:20 UTC
That's probably because the Right's morality is mostly about telling people they can't do things that hurt nobody but themselves
nono, that's the activists' position. I don't promote that position. I promote condoning morality which unsinful or helps keep people away from sin for their own sakes, and doing my best to live that morality as well. I don't promote telling people "you CAN'T do that" (forcing morality), but I do promote "we shouldn't do that and here's why" (condoning morality).
the left's morality is mostly about trying to keep people from hurting each other
Ultimately, so is mine. We also recognize that people will always hurt each other, and trying to create some utopian society where anyone can do as they please simpy isn't possible. As we can see, even simply holding certain controversial beliefs or morals without being an activist about them is still considered deplorable by many. I believe a certain way, and I've been granted the right to vote with my conscience. It's not my problem if I vote a certain way -
( ... )
Re: hateful rantvortechNovember 12 2008, 18:35:53 UTC
I'm having the same problem as (our) ikkarus, here. "Your" vote took away someone else's right. The only reason I have seen you give is that it is against your religion. You must recognize that laws are things which the state is duty-bound to enforce. The whole idea of a democracy is that it is a force that draws it's power from the people (The Leviathan). Your vote sent the dogs of government against these people to take their marriages away. Yes, "you" have that power, but you sound as if you are standing behind the mistaken belief that any exercise of political power is inherently defensible, or acceptable. This is neither philosophically true nor borne out by history. Not to go all Mtv special on you, but voting for this law is action and you can not claim to not be an activist simply because your taxes pay someone else to roll up their sleeves at your behest. Is is your "problem" if you vote a certain way, even thought it is your right. You have many things which are your right but none of them can be considered free
( ... )
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 19:02:10 UTC
The only reason I have seen you give is that it is against your religion
No, other homosexuals getting married isn't against my religion. The way I choose to apply the morality I hold regarding marriage for man and a woman, and having our government condone something that I consider sinful, which has afforded me the right to vote with my conscience, means that my conscience tells me "don't support a government that condones sinful actions for people, for the good of those people!" If the government chooses to condone it, then so be it. It's like when passing committee votes - if you're opposed to something, and "all in favour" raise their hands, it's pointless for you to say 'no', but you do anyway, because you'd rather not be dishonest with yourself. I can't in good conscience vote to condone sinful behaviour. That doesn't mean I will do whatever the hell I can to make sure my morality is imposed on everyone else because "I'm right" or "my religion must be legislated" or whatever. BIG difference.
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 20:19:29 UTC
But that is a difference only in your mind. In reality, voting for something is acting to make it so.
It's a government sanctioned and granted right. Not "only if you vote a certain way". Also, it's acting towards making it so, it's not making it so. The government makes it so, if the issue at hand it deems constitutional for the people to decide.
If you do so using your religion's principles over America's
Whut?! you vote using your personal principles - whether based on your faith, religion, or lack thereof. EVERYONE votes based on the principles they feel are important to vote towards. And you just pitted people's personal religions against "America". That's quite the challenge.
turn America into a Theocracy
No, that's only true if a church is put in power and overrides people's individual rights. If individuals who vote share similar values and principles, whether they share the same religion or not, that is certainly empowering a Theocracy.
I put "you" in quotes because IIRC you are canadianno disrepect taken - I meant it
( ... )
Re: hateful rantvortechNovember 12 2008, 21:10:39 UTC
>Well what are they protesting then? They want the government to overturn the law because they feel it's unconstitutional. I personally think they'll get their way. That's the protesting I'm referring to. They may also hope that their protesting will change minds. So if the gov't doesn't repeal it, and they manage at some point to get another vote, it'll go the other way. Protesting is a right. That's why the police (are to) allow it, as long as it's civil
( ... )
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 21:35:53 UTC
They are protesting because they feel powerless and trod upon and in America ....
That's certain not the purpose I felt from the protests. I hear repeatedly that they want Prop 8 repealed because it's unconstitutional. Even so, by your description, if they are protesting to change minds for another vote, then all power to them. Once again I support their rightto protest for change. I also support every person's right to vote however they see fit, under the assumption that the government has already deemed said item as valid and constituional for the poopular vote.
It is not the most moral ambiguous and debatable. or most fair variable depending on who you ask or most efficient way well it's been around for over 200 years. You'd think someone would have fund a way to optimize the governmental system by now, right? Maybe not. *shrug* If you don't like it, change it, offer a better solution, bite the bullet, or really the only other option is to go elsewhere.
I don't know why marriage is so important to them if it's the dominion of
( ... )
Re: hateful rantvortechNovember 12 2008, 22:14:45 UTC
>>I don't know why marriage is so important to them if it's the dominion of hateful bigots and religious theocrats >Stereotyping an entire set of people, that's fair and balanced.
I never claimed to be Balanced; I'm aiming for right.
>Not everyone against gay marriage is religious, theocratic, or hateful.
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 22:38:56 UTC
- religious, theocratic, or hateful what else is there?
People who want to promote a marriages only as means for maintaining and increasing the population. People who simply see it as 'unnatural' Extremists who may only feel this is a slippery slope to allowing ridiculous marital unions as to animals or cartoon characters.
You ask if I can show you examples of these people? I ask - can you prove that everyone is "religious, theocratic, or hateful" You're making an unfounded blanket accusation. I'm making an unfounded assumption. You say yu're right. I say I'm right. Now we're balanced.
Calling people hateful bigots because they value their 'dominion of marriage' is just as bad.
Re: hateful rantvortechNovember 12 2008, 23:46:45 UTC
I have heard reasons for voting for these bans on gay marriage (both from actual voters explaining their vote and from analysts explaining the votes of others). So far all of the reasons fall under two categories. I suppose I am making an assumption in so far as I have called someone who says hateful things, makes hateful statements and makes decisions based on hate, is hateful. I suppose it could all be a façade, but that's a risk I am comfortable with. Ditto religious theocrats
( ... )
Re: hateful rantthebruce0November 12 2008, 23:57:09 UTC
I never said those reasons were good or valid, only that there may easily exist (and I'm 100% certain they do) people who oppose it for non-religious/hateful/theocratic reasons (and "I don't think so" isn't a sufficient rebuttle anyway)
The United States Supreme Court established the doctrine of "separate but equal" in the 1896 case of Plessy v. Ferguson. There the Court upheld racial segregation as permissible, with "separate" facilities (transportation facilities in that case) for each race, so long as the separate facilities were "equal." The Court found no unconstitutional discrimination in such "separate but equal" facilities.
Almost sixty years later, in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court finally overturned the doctrine of "separate but equal," holding that separate facilities (educational facilities in that case) based on race were unconstitutional because they could never be truly "equal":
To separate them [students] from others of similar age and qualifications solely because of their race generates a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be ( ... )
Reply
Yes. However, not that you should abstain from the vote "IF you want to claim you are not imposing your morality on others". That process is a right granted by the system that's set in place. So it shouldn't be considered wrong to exercise that right - everyone is equal in that everyone has that same right. So use it. If someone wants to say it's "imposing your morality", well, then, it's everyone imposing everyone's morality.
The disconnect is that the use of that term is very different in the context of debates about morality. It's always used against the right, against people who want to vote "positive morals" into government. The implication is that "imposing your morality" is a bad, evil thing. In that case, I don't agree on its usage in the context of exercising your right to vote. I do agree that it is wrong when, say church and ( ... )
Reply
Oh, and in this context, I think the term "positive morality" is a misnomer. I would call it "overwhelmingly negative morality", actually. But that's just my opinion talking, and I would hate to impose.
(yes, I'm just being snarky for the hell of it now)
Reply
yes, I'm just being snarky for the hell of it now
gfi. I wouldn't expect any less.
Reply
Reply
nono, that's the activists' position. I don't promote that position. I promote condoning morality which unsinful or helps keep people away from sin for their own sakes, and doing my best to live that morality as well. I don't promote telling people "you CAN'T do that" (forcing morality), but I do promote "we shouldn't do that and here's why" (condoning morality).
the left's morality is mostly about trying to keep people from hurting each other
Ultimately, so is mine. We also recognize that people will always hurt each other, and trying to create some utopian society where anyone can do as they please simpy isn't possible. As we can see, even simply holding certain controversial beliefs or morals without being an activist about them is still considered deplorable by many. I believe a certain way, and I've been granted the right to vote with my conscience. It's not my problem if I vote a certain way - ( ... )
Reply
Reply
No, other homosexuals getting married isn't against my religion.
The way I choose to apply the morality I hold regarding marriage for man and a woman, and having our government condone something that I consider sinful, which has afforded me the right to vote with my conscience, means that my conscience tells me "don't support a government that condones sinful actions for people, for the good of those people!" If the government chooses to condone it, then so be it.
It's like when passing committee votes - if you're opposed to something, and "all in favour" raise their hands, it's pointless for you to say 'no', but you do anyway, because you'd rather not be dishonest with yourself. I can't in good conscience vote to condone sinful behaviour. That doesn't mean I will do whatever the hell I can to make sure my morality is imposed on everyone else because "I'm right" or "my religion must be legislated" or whatever. BIG difference.
You must recognize that laws are ( ... )
Reply
Reply
It's a government sanctioned and granted right. Not "only if you vote a certain way". Also, it's acting towards making it so, it's not making it so. The government makes it so, if the issue at hand it deems constitutional for the people to decide.
If you do so using your religion's principles over America's
Whut?!
you vote using your personal principles - whether based on your faith, religion, or lack thereof. EVERYONE votes based on the principles they feel are important to vote towards. And you just pitted people's personal religions against "America". That's quite the challenge.
turn America into a Theocracy
No, that's only true if a church is put in power and overrides people's individual rights. If individuals who vote share similar values and principles, whether they share the same religion or not, that is certainly empowering a Theocracy.
I put "you" in quotes because IIRC you are canadianno disrepect taken - I meant it ( ... )
Reply
Reply
That's certain not the purpose I felt from the protests. I hear repeatedly that they want Prop 8 repealed because it's unconstitutional.
Even so, by your description, if they are protesting to change minds for another vote, then all power to them. Once again I support their rightto protest for change. I also support every person's right to vote however they see fit, under the assumption that the government has already deemed said item as valid and constituional for the poopular vote.
It is not the most moral
ambiguous and debatable.
or most fair
variable depending on who you ask
or most efficient way
well it's been around for over 200 years. You'd think someone would have fund a way to optimize the governmental system by now, right? Maybe not. *shrug*
If you don't like it, change it, offer a better solution, bite the bullet, or really the only other option is to go elsewhere.
I don't know why marriage is so important to them if it's the dominion of ( ... )
Reply
>Stereotyping an entire set of people, that's fair and balanced.
I never claimed to be Balanced; I'm aiming for right.
>Not everyone against gay marriage is religious, theocratic, or hateful.
OK, I'll bite: what else is there?
Reply
what else is there?
People who want to promote a marriages only as means for maintaining and increasing the population.
People who simply see it as 'unnatural'
Extremists who may only feel this is a slippery slope to allowing ridiculous marital unions as to animals or cartoon characters.
You ask if I can show you examples of these people? I ask - can you prove that everyone is "religious, theocratic, or hateful"
You're making an unfounded blanket accusation.
I'm making an unfounded assumption.
You say yu're right. I say I'm right.
Now we're balanced.
Calling people hateful bigots because they value their 'dominion of marriage' is just as bad.
Reply
Reply
Ok now I'm done. I'm nodding off.
Reply
Leave a comment