LGBTQ+ Rights and America

We do try and tear into Jhimmibhob, but he simply doesn’t respond to our counter points so the conversation grinds to a halt.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

I don't consider starting an argument and then not responding to your opponents counter points smart, but each to their own.

“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran

What, you saying you've never seen Invader Zim? Episode "Walk of Doom".

Eh, if he doesn't want to debate, I don't think he has to. It would be nice for him to answer points raised, but I don't he really has to if he doesn't want to.

boop

Evening—sorry I haven't been at you folks' disposal, but a fellow will occasionally have to see to minutiae such as one's job, running errands, taking the wife to supper, etc. Promise I'll look back over the last few pages (my God, how it grows!) and try to address the most salient stuff in a little while ... assuming I don't get distracted during our Downton Abbey marathon.

edited 1st Feb '13 4:28:40 PM by Jhimmibhob

Scouts allow gays now Well that was suprisingly easy. Ok where is the trap?

Who watches the watchmen?

...That's been posted twice already.

@Tueful: It looks like there still only "considering" admitting gay people.

edited 1st Feb '13 4:55:37 PM by Wildcard

All righty:

For starters, YMMV on the degree to which the examples you have in mind are illegal or perversions of the law. For another thing, governmental malfeasance in one realm is no reason to throw up one's hands and say we might as well countenance it in others.

I'm all for legislation that would help ensure the former benefits, and ensure the latter access. But I'm naïve enough to think it could be done without resort to legal fantasias. And the parties you mention can no more be married than they can reasonably be declared blood siblings—one intends no cruelty in pointing that out, but it's so. As a human being with minor pretensions to integrity, I feel a certain need to embrace truth, whatever its implications, and a certain reluctance to live by convenient lies. Choosing the latter might seem consequence-free to you. Maybe I'm old-fashioned and stiff-necked in considering it so consequential. But there it is.

And now, back to hanging out with Mrs. Jhimmibhob, keeping a certain three-month-old kitten from walking across the keyboard, and finding out whether that creepy little footman gets his; and then to bed. And if I don't immediately respond to people's (undoubtedly sound) rebuttals with alacrity over the weekend, it'll be because we're out & about, or doing some typical weekend chores. Best to all!

Can somebody decode that? How is "this definition is wrong and hurting our citizens we must destroy it and put up a new one!" a "convenient lie?"

Yeah, sorry but that is pretty naive. We tried getting them the befits without changing the definition, was called "civil unions" and it didn't work. Certain religious politicians used it to keep them from the benefits of marriage. If you can't find another way to give couples like that all the benefits of marriage than I still believe nothing will work until we change the definition of marriage to include gay people.

edited 1st Feb '13 5:39:40 PM by Wildcard

I don't understand how this

is different from this:

"And the negroes you mention can no more be declared people than they could be declared dolphins-one intends no cruelty in pointing that out, but it's so."

or

"And the [interratcial couple] you mention can no more be married than they can reasonably be declared blood siblings—one intends no cruelty in pointing that out, but it's so."

There has been no demonstration on Jhimm's part that there are any consequences to having a more open definition, as we have expanded our definitions of certain words in the past.

Much to my BFF's wife's chagrin, No Pants 2013 became No Pants 2010's at his house.

But WHY is there government malfeasance there? We've found a particularly strong correlation between the inconvenience a law provides to the exercise of power and the degree to which the government is willing to get creative with the law. If the Soviet Union had an insurrection problem with homosexual insurgent cells trying to overthrow the communist state, and the tolerance of homosexuality was key to winning their support and weakening the influence of the U.S.S.R., then I'm positive that we would have seen gay marriage stateside before the Wall fell. You are not pursuing any causal explanation for why things are so. So, you want to give gays equal rights...through a hodgepodge of context-specific laws that need to get updated every time we give something to straight marriages, that would be easy for homophobic political groups to fight every step of the way, that would be vulnerable to state-by-state heel-dragging, that would still tell homosexuals that they are second-class citizens. That's your idea of non-fantastic legislation? I am extremely glad you do not work in the House of Representatives. (Though I much suspect you are too. Thank goodness for small mercies.) Bollocks. Blood sibling relation has its foundation in a physical event (concurrent births). Marriage does not. Marriage is a social construct. Like any tool, when a social construct isn't fulfilling its function, it needs to be repaired. There is no integrity without inquiry.

Your definition of marriage is arbitrary. The definition of any social construct is arbitrary by necessity, as society arbitrates them. Your arbitrary definition doesn't get to be confused with truth just because it happened to be the accepted definition in area Y for era of history X. And it may not be nice for me to say that you stopped asking questions and taking the debate seriously when you picked your definition of marriage and stuck by it, but if that weren't the case, I wouldn't have had to ask why like I did at the start of this post, now would I?

We are not more deceitful than past speakers of English because we use the words "nice" (originally "clumsy, foolish"), "gay" (originally "carefree" or "sexually laviscious"), and "wicked" (this one's been back and forth) differently than they did. Using the word "marriage" differently will not make us any more deceitful.

Then you need to think your choice out, because if its structure is so sound, then it will withstand the criticism. It's not old-fashioned to think otherwise; I'm suggesting an idea that goes back to Socrates. There is no integrity without inquiry.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

We have changed our definitions of many things before nothing leading to nothing bad happening. We proved how it would be good, so yes the burden of proof rests on you to prove it will lead to a horrible future.

You have a lot of good answers.

edited 1st Feb '13 5:47:57 PM by Wildcard

Convenient lies? What is anybody lying about, exactly? There is a difference of opinions, but that doesn't mean one side is lying. Unless there is some universal truth that both sides are aware of, and one side is actively working against this truth, there is no lie. And, since words are human constructs, they have no universal value, thus changing their meaning would not be "lying". Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean the other side is lying. And implying that you have more "integrity", since the other side is just being deceitful to accomplish its goal (as opposed to possibly believing what they say is the truth) is a tad bit insulting.

boop

So, explain to me how my relationship with my girlfriend and the mother of my children who is currently on voluntary deployment is akin to incest?

Please. I am all ears.

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

I just wanted to say that was a beautifully worded question.

Because it wasn't directed to you Starship.

"Oh wait. She doesn't have a... Forget what I said, don't catch the preggo. Just wear her hat." - Question Marc

Yep, you've been replaced by someone!

edited 1st Feb '13 7:04:21 PM by Matues

You mean this isn't the Starship thread for a bit?

Eating a Vanilluxe will give you frostbite.

Though Leviticus 18 does put anti-homosexuality verses in the same section as those about incest..

..But that's a thought best preserved for the other thread.

I don't really see how those issues are any more a matter of opinion than the nature of marriage. The Bush-Obama years really speak for themselves in terms of their blatant disregard for civil liberties. Albeit, this isn't really the proper place to elaborate on that.

And it's true that nothing I said means we should simply allow the law to continue to be twisted and corrupted. My point is only that I reject the notion that gay marriage will set a legal precedent that will open the doors for negative consequences. Those are within the nature of the state, and some benign social issue isn't going to add on to that.

Now, whether or not gay marriage in itself would constitute some aberration of justice, regardless of what may follow in its wake... I suppose that is the real question here.

And that is pretty much the point where it's clear to me that my perception of the truth and reality are just fundamentally very different from anyone who considers something like gay marriage to be wrong, perhaps to the point where it's a barrier to any further discussion. Every opposing argument I've seen that pertains to this issue, whether it be from this thread or the religious variant, rests on some base assumption that I don't support or find flatly absurd. No matter how strong the disagreement is, there has to be some sort of common ground that allows both parties to have a coherent discussion. I just don't think that exists.

edited 1st Feb '13 7:30:12 PM by HilarityEnsues