The costs of gay marriage

[PearlWatson]

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

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

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

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

 

[NAOS]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[PearlWatson]

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

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

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

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

Equal treatment under California law vs. a discriminatory practice.

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

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

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

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

 

[One Brow]

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

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

 

[One Brow]

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

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

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

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

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

Separate is inherently unequal.

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

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

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

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

 

[PearlWatson]

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

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

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

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

Separate is inherently unequal.

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

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

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

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

Redefining marriage ain't a basic freedom.

 

[babe]

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

Questions that came up while reading:

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

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

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

 

[Darkwing Duck]

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

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

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

 

[babe]

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



A constitution is not allowed to contradict itself.



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



You had three really good questions, and then followed it up with this false garbage. Ugh.

The Constitution of the United States originally conferred upon the Federal government only certain specifically-delegated powers. . . . those enumerated withing the Constitution itself. . . . and reserved all other powers to the States, or to the People.

A Constitution is what it is. If it needs fixing, it can only be fixed by an Amendment, not by nine totalitarians wearing black robes.

Those nine unelected Judges are subject to the direction of Congress. Congress has the specifically enumerated power to write the laws and to limit the Court's jurisdiction. And both are subject to the law of the Land, the Constitution, which is supposed to be amended only by the prescribed method of Amending it. . . . .

you sometimes are devoted to fact, but often more devoted to agenda.

 

[babe]

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

Do you really believe this "conservative/fascist" vitriol you spew, and do you really want to be made to look like an idiot????

The communist call for social change is a matter I can document, as well as the progressive agenda call for it. It's not vitriol per se. It's the damn fact. Vitriol???? anybody can hate words, I suppose.

Irony. .. . the way I responded. . . . showing the irony of our general media take and the way some folks are constructing this argument. . . . is something else.

 

[babe]

By the way. . . . .


The Judges themselves, including some of most liberal ones, have let out some comments diplaying skepticism about whether it would be healthy for them to rule in a way that would pre-empt the societal process of change. . . .

Sorta saying they are going to defer to the court of public opinion on this one. . . .

Maybe throw the ball back into the Legislative process . .. . ..

 

[Stoked]

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

Way to take the high road!

 

[Scat]

Way to take the high road!

We have a high road here?!?

 

[Stoked]

We have a high road here?!?

Not on Jazzfanz but it always amuses me when people (general term) use the same tactics that they bash their opposition for using.

 

[One Brow]

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

You didn't accept the result of the vote on Proposition 8?

The goal is the recognition of the rights. Why should whether this happens by election, legislation, executive action, or, judicial finding matter? They are all valid ways to have rights recognized.

The only one that applies to marriage is Loving vs. Virginia ...

I was referring to the more general notion of civil rights that had been not previously recognized.

They also weren't already granted all the same legal rights under Virginia Law as same-race couples had.

If they have all the same rights, then a different name is segregation without a function. Segregation is always unequal, even when it has no functional implication.

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

Then there's no need fo ra different name. The only reason to impose a different name is convey a status of separation, hence inequality in that regard.

No, hundreds of thousands of citizens voiced their cultural rejection, ...

Were the issue resubmitted today, it would lose. The cultural feedback continues.

Redefining marriage ain't a basic freedom.

There's no universal definition of marriage to redefine, just unions that have been recognized as marriages by various cultures at various times.

 

[Stoked]

You didn't accept the result of the vote on Proposition 8?

The goal is the recognition of the rights. Why should whether this happens by election, legislation, executive action, or, judicial finding matter? They are all valid ways to have rights recognized.
I was referring to the more general notion of civil rights that had been not previously recognized.

If they have all the same rights, then a different name is segregation without a function. Segregation is always unequal, even when it has no functional implication.

Then there's no need fo ra different name. The only reason to impose a different name is convey a status of separation, hence inequality in that regard.


Were the issue resubmitted today, it would lose. The cultural feedback continues.



There's no universal definition of marriage to redefine, just unions that have been recognized as marriages by various cultures at various times.

That depends on where, and what scale, it was submitted. It would most certainly lose in Utah, Texas, Idaho, Tennesse, Arkansas, North Dakota...while it would probably win in places like Rhode Island, Maryland, Washington and Hawaii.

I think on a national scale it would come down to the wire.

 

[One Brow]

The Constitution of the United States originally conferred upon the Federal government only certain specifically-delegated powers. . . . those enumerated withing the Constitution itself. . . . and reserved all other powers to the States, or to the People.

This was deemed insufficient, and less than 100 years later, the 14th Amendment was passed, which held that state governments were required to respect individual rights in the same way the federal government was.

A Constitution is what it is. If it needs fixing, it can only be fixed by an Amendment, not by nine totalitarians wearing black robes.

I don't know of any cases that have 'fixed the Constitution' or are intended to do so.

you sometimes are devoted to fact, but often more devoted to agenda.

As long as the agenda is not contraindicated by fact.

 

[One Brow]

That depends on where, and what scale, it was submitted.

You are correct. I meant specifically California, but was not clear enough.

 

[PearlWatson]

You didn't accept the result of the vote on Proposition 8? The goal is the recognition of the rights. Why should whether this happens by election, legislation, executive action, or, judicial finding matter? They are all valid ways to have rights recognized.

You've already acknowledged the goal of the homosexual lobby as being cultural acceptance rather than any so called rights.

I was referring to the more general notion of civil rights that had been not previously recognized.

I was being specific.

If they have all the same rights, then a different name is segregation without a function. Segregation is always unequal, even when it has no functional implication.
Then there's no need fo ra different name. The only reason to impose a different name is convey a status of separation, hence inequality in that regard.

Sorry, I don't buy those statements either.

Were the issue resubmitted today, it would lose. The cultural feedback continues.

The vote in The People's Republic of Maryland barely passed midst efforts to re-elect Obongo Zedongo.

There's no universal definition of marriage to redefine, just unions that have been recognized as marriages by various cultures at various times.

Now suddenly we have to consider the universe, Iran, and France in the renaissance? How about we stick with the here and now, or we could go with Iran in the year 1980 if you prefer, but my statement doesn't change.

 

[One Brow]

You've already acknowledged the goal of the homosexual lobby as being cultural acceptance rather than any so called rights.

Not "rather than", but "as a result of". You can't get the former without the latter.

Sorry, I don't buy those statements either.

I'm not responsible for your refusal to accept human nature.

Now suddenly we have to consider the universe, Iran, and France in the renaissance? How about we stick with the here and now, or we could go with Iran in the year 1980 if you prefer, but my statement doesn't change.

The point is that cultures have been redefining marriage for eons. So your complaint about changing the definition yet again carries little weight.