I like this idea. It makes too much sense to reach any of the people it's targeting, however.
Reminds me of another thing I heard of... can't find an article at the moment, but the idea was to make it so any married couple that didn't produce kids within five years was automatically divorced.
Please tell me they were being ironic. Please.
Reminds me of another thing I heard of... can't find an article at the moment, but the idea was to make it so any married couple that didn't produce kids within five years was automatically divorced.
Please tell me they were being ironic. Please.
Ah, found it, it was a ballot initiative up in Washington around 2004.
And yes, they were just making a point about the silly argument they had to deal with. I imagine that stunts like that are part of the reason why in the more recent campaigns for/against you didn't see the procreation argument raised much.
I'm all for gay marriage, but I honestly think this is just stupid. I know what its trying to do, but I doubt it'll actually make people think. The first time I saw the link, I just dismissed it as stupid and didn't give it a thought. And once people think about it, I'm sure it won't change anyone's opinions.
So it just seems like a waste of time.
Meh, making hypocrites look like hypocrites is all good, IMO. I'm also all for getting people to admit the actual reasons they're for or against something. If it ain't all about protecting marriage, what is it about, then?
It's likely not going to make it to ballot and, if it did, it would never pass. Cuz there are so many people out there that don't see or don't care what their position actually is. Still, if the little bit of news this guy is generating starts even a few people down the road to actual thought, it can't be anything but good.
Personally, I what to see Prop 8 repealed just to hear the whining and moaning of the pseudo conservative b!tches on Fuax News! Truth be told, it don't take much to set them off on a crying fit - even if it was some made-up bull-&%$# from Glen Shmek's (I'm trying not to use real names here) OCD-fulled head!
As much of an injustice and hypocrisy Prop 8 is, it is giving a lot of strength to the gay-rights movement.
... I want the USA he's having. Mine has Maine, New York and Jersey. Mine has DADT and DOMA not even being mentioned in Congress. Mine has the NM state legislature not even letting civil unions get to the floor. Mine has the Catholic Church holding the poor and destitute of DC as hostages.
So yeah. I want the USA he's having. All mines got is Washington.
... I want the USA he's having. Mine has Maine, New York and Jersey.
wait for it (less than year)
Also, what's the difference between 'marriage' and 'civil union'?
Same difference really.
Escher: give it 20 years. Once the WW2 Generation finishes croaking we'll probably see a new kick start of Civil Rights. What we are seeing right now is the last gasps of a generation to make "AMERICA RIGHT!", it's always darkest before dawn and all that. That's also about the time my generation will start to become elected officials. Assuming we haven't just disbanded the country by then or forced a revolution.
"The option between having a family and not having a family? Uh, duh! Family, please!"
Also, what's the difference between 'marriage' and 'civil union'?
Legally speaking, there are a lot of laws that grant specific benefits to marriages but that don't grant those same benefits to civil unions. It would take so many legal changes to make civil unions actually legally equal to marriages that you might as well just do away with civil unions, re-name them as marriages, and call it a day. And, of course, there's also the issue that opposite-sex couple can always select between a marriage and a civil union even though same-sex couples don't have that option.
Culturally speaking, "Civil Union" doesn't mean very much. "Marriage" does. This is a "separate but (un)equal" issue. Picture a limo with the words "Just Civil Union'ed!" written on the back of it. Not quite the same, huh?
On the subject of gay marriage, I have a serious question I hope someone can answer. Can a kid who is up for adoption say 'no' to a potentially adoptive couple?
It depends on where (country/state) and the age of the child. Normally, the child is awarded an advocate.
Also, what's the difference between 'marriage' and 'civil union'?
technically - in almost all forms "marriage" developed from habits of mating and child-rearing. Various customs have developed regarding it (including the concept of legitimacy), and eventually those "matings" were given status under the law (both religious of civil). Civil unions are intended to be the legal equivalent of marriage, and afford that same status to those who are barred from marriage, for whatever reason.
I'm not gay, but I can understand the frustration of those that are. I live in Iowa, one of the few states where it is legal. I was particularly proud that first day when it became legal for gays to marry in Iowa.
If the rest of the country can't understand the concept of "live and let live" then perhaps it is time to sever this great union and dissolve these united states, as it's core principles have been forgotten. Have our leaders and people forgotten that "we the people" includes homosexuals as well? Have we also forgotten that our constitution, that most sacred document and foundation of all of our freedom and liberties, does not differentiate between this group of "we the people" and that group of "we the people"?
Marriage is a matter that falls into that "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that our founding fathers were very much concerned with when they first penned the documents that formed the core of our legal system. To make anything illegal for one group but not the whole is discrimination. The fact that a large segment of our population sees no problem in this disturbs me no end.
I've tried to stay away from as much of the political and religious in this post, but I somehow imagine that I have failed. Hopefully the ORC that edits my post will do so in a way that the message doesn't become altered or simply removes it altogether.
It's unfortunate that the prevailing wisdom is to "wait 20 years". I find it detestable that an issue of civil rights can be put to a general election, as though the majority has a right to decide the fate of the minority's "pursuit of happiness". Personally, I would make marriage illegal for all if it's to be made illegal for some. I make jokes about protecting gays from divorce lawyers, but in reality, the situation is intolerable.
I'm not gay, but I can understand the frustration of those that are. I live in Iowa, one of the few states where it is legal. I was particularly proud that first day when it became legal for gays to marry in Iowa.
If the rest of the country can't understand the concept of "live and let live" then perhaps it is time to sever this great union and dissolve these united states, as it's core principles have been forgotten. Have our leaders and people forgotten that "we the people" includes homosexuals as well? Have we also forgotten that our constitution, that most sacred document and foundation of all of our freedom and liberties, does not differentiate between this group of "we the people" and that group of "we the people"?
Marriage is a matter that falls into that "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" that our founding fathers were very much concerned with when they first penned the documents that formed the core of our legal system. To make anything illegal for one group but not the whole is discrimination. The fact that a large segment of our population sees no problem in this disturbs me no end.
I've tried to stay away from as much of the political and religious in this post, but I somehow imagine that I have failed. Hopefully the ORC that edits my post will do so in a way that the message doesn't become altered or simply removes it altogether.
And I agree whole heartedly with your sentiment. But unfortunately then reality sets in and realizes, one of the main culprits holding back equal rights, is a generational gap.
The 60s civil rights movement was at the right place and right time. The what I'm going to go ahead and be so bold as to call the Millennium movement, is not quite there yet as the biggest opposing generation is still alive and unfortunately is the one that is presently in the most levels of government.
And I agree whole heartedly with your sentiment. But unfortunately then reality sets in and realizes, one of the main culprits holding back equal rights, is a generational gap.
The 60s civil rights movement was at the right place and right time. The what I'm going to go ahead and be so bold as to call the Millennium movement, is not quite there yet as the biggest opposing generation is still alive and unfortunately is the one that is presently in the most levels of government.
Don't be so quick to blame government for this one. An interesting fact I had heard (haven't verified, so by now there may be a single or two exceptions) is that in no instance where gay marriage was legalized was it done through either ballot or legislation. The former is the more telling. When put to the population, at large, it hasn't garnered success.
Don't be so quick to blame government for this one. An interesting fact I had heard (haven't verified, so by now there may be a single or two exceptions) is that in no instance where gay marriage was legalized was it done through either ballot or legislation. The former is the more telling. When put to the population, at large, it hasn't garnered success.
I keep thinking that, unconstitutional laws and the disbanning of them falls under the Supreme Court's area of expertise? That the SC was ultimately the one that ruled Seperate but Equal is unconstitutional etc.
That being said, I think most of the population is probably for gay marriage. But most Americans don't vote for anything. Even if their civil rights depend on it.
Don't underestimate the power of apathy.
Don't be so quick to blame government for this one. An interesting fact I had heard (haven't verified, so by now there may be a single or two exceptions) is that in no instance where gay marriage was legalized was it done through either ballot or legislation. The former is the more telling. When put to the population, at large, it hasn't garnered success.
It has been passed by legislation four times (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, California), was vetoed by the governor twice (Vermont, California), had the veto over-ruled once (Vermont), and was later repealled by a refernedum once (Maine).
Three times it's been by court case (Massachusets, Connecticut, Iowa).
And I don't believe civil rights for a minority group has ever been granted at the ballot box.
It has been passed by legislation four times (Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine, California), was vetoed by the governor twice (Vermont, California), had the veto over-ruled once (Vermont), and was later repealled by a refernedum once (Maine).
Thanks for the correction with regard to legislation. (either 2 are newer or I remembered the bit incorrectly - it was a while back)
And I don't believe civil rights for a minority group has ever been granted at the ballot box.
I believe you are correct. However, it still shows as a reason not to be so fast to blame "government" for the failing.
America has too many conservatives over all. I mean we cant even have gay people serve openly in the military WTF? You think they would have at least fixed that. Then again how the republican party and conservatives have any credibility with anyone at this point is beyond me. But thats a different story. Most people believe what they are told by morons who say it would hurt them somehow if gays and lesbians got married. Morons.
I'm a registered Republican and tend to be conservative in some of my views. However, I'm also totally on a different page than the party in plenty of cases. There are a crapton of people like me. Don't let the radical stance that political parties have decided to take (and, in some ways, were forced to) color your view of the people that lean that way. In other words, nobody is an exact copy of the party or philosophy they choose to say represents them. Hell, the Republican party basically admitted as much. They released a check list of sorts detailing the core values of the party to be used to gauge whether or not a person or bill would gain their endorsement. IIRC, it has ten things listed. The requirement for endorsement? Eight. Not even Republican representatives are wholly Republican in philosophy. ;)
I'm a registered Republican and tend to be conservative in some of my views. However, I'm also totally on a different page than the party in plenty of cases. There are a crapton of people like me. Don't let the radical stance that political parties have decided to take (and, in some ways, were forced to) color your view of the people that lean that way. In other words, nobody is an exact copy of the party or philosophy they choose to say represents them. Hell, the Republican party basically admitted as much. They released a check list of sorts detailing the core values of the party to be used to gauge whether or not a person or bill would gain their endorsement. IIRC, it has ten things listed. The requirement for endorsement? Eight. Not even Republican representatives are wholly Republican in philosophy. ;)
Heh, that's not how the party portrays itself in the media. Particularly not Faux News. :P
America has too many conservatives over all.
I have to disagree with this. The people that call themselves conservatives rarely are. They don't clamor for the dismantling of the tax system or armed forces, even though those are the greatest drain on our resources. They insist that we need more police and and law enforcement protect us from ourselves, further draining our coffers. They insist that everyone is trying to take away their freedom, but see no problem in doing the same to others.
I am a conservative. I would rather see all laws abolished save those that reinforce the core principles laid out in the constitution. I would move to conserve that core of our republic over any preference for one group over another.
Our founding fathers were rebels. The so-called conservatives of today would've happily remained subjects of George IV instead of rising up and bringing forth in this country the great experiment in democracy that is this republic.
A republic only stands as long as it continues to have the will of it's people, all of it's people. When the tyranny of the majority holds sway over the happiness and well-being of the minority, revolution is the only cure. Open insurrection isn't necesary in our republic because the basis of our republic allows for the removal of tyrants by vote. Revolution fought in the voting booths and the courts was seen by the founding fathers as the most basic tool of future revolutions.
I think the founding fathers would have approved of the sixties. I see protesters and demonstrations as a means to sway others to a particular way of thinking and applaud anyone that has the courage to speak up. So speak up. If the law is against you, challenge it. Never surrender even one inch to those that would oppress you. You have inherited one of the greatest republics in our history, but in order for it to continue, it needs to be tweaked a bit.
And I don't believe civil rights for a minority group has ever been granted at the ballot box.
I believe you are correct. However, it still shows as a reason not to be so fast to blame "government" for the failing.
Seems like the opposite to me. The folks in power have an opportunity to do something just and right: protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. It seems quite reasonable to blame them for totally failing to do so.
Heh, that's not how the party portrays itself in the media. Particularly not Faux News. :P
Of course not. The party can't do that. They need to hang on to that outrageous, far right ideology. Just like the left does. I've explained it before someplace 'round here. They simply have to take the most extreme angle possible - and so they do and need to continue to do so because they've already done it. People like me, though, with no political aspirations and no real vested intrest in the success of the party, can think and portray ourselves as we please. Anyone that's 100% on board with the Republican agenda is insane. And so is anyone that's 100% on board with the Democrat agenda. See, they're extreme by nature to draw people away from the other side to ensure their survival and the continued massive paychecks of their elected members. I can't think of anyone - including the elected - that completely espouses the ideology of their party. So, looking at people as though they do because a particular label is attached to them is silly.
Seems like the opposite to me. The folks in power have an opportunity to do something just and right: protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. It seems quite reasonable to blame them for totally failing to do so.
But those elected officials were elected by the majority. It is their duty to speak for those they represent.
Can we please leave Democratic/Republican and Conservative/Liberal out of this? It really has nothing to do with this. There are plenty of Conservative Republicans that are all for gay marriage and plenty of Liberal Democrats that are not in support of gay marriage, and that's not even starting on all of the Conservative Democrats and all of the Liberal Repiblicans, so let's please just let that particular element of the argument go and move on...
There's no argument. I was basically saying exactly this in a different way. Go ahead and look of you don't believe me. I totally would, but that's probably because I'm me.
But those elected officials were elected by the majority. It is their duty to speak for those they represent.
In which case they should all be fired, and given summary executions for failing miserably at doing their job. :P
Seems like the opposite to me. The folks in power have an opportunity to do something just and right: protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. It seems quite reasonable to blame them for totally failing to do so.
Is it better to burn a flag and wrap yourself in the constitution or the other way 'round?
Politicians are keen on having jobs in the next voting cycle, so alienating their constituents is generally not in their best interest. They will say whatever it takes to get themselves re-elected. If they think ignoring the rights of a minority population will get them job security, they'll do it in a heartbeat.
Seems like the opposite to me. The folks in power have an opportunity to do something just and right: protect a minority from the tyranny of the majority. It seems quite reasonable to blame them for totally failing to do so.
But those elected officials were elected by the majority. It is their duty to speak for those they represent.
They represent ALL of the people in their state/district/country. It is their duty to represent and defend the rights of ALL of them, not just the people who voted for them.
A Free Republic: ur doin it wrong.
They represent ALL of the people in their state/district/country. It is their duty to represent and defend the rights of ALL of them, not just the people who voted for them.
A Free Republic: ur doin it wrong.
Give that man a kewpie doll.
In which case they should all be fired, and given summary executions for failing miserably at doing their job. :P
They're just doing what they think will allow them to keep their jobs - like most of the rest of us. So far, it's been working. Even those that run on pro gay rights platforms largely do nothing when elected. Like abortion and the Right. It's just a nice thing to say to get a job but it's too damned explosive to play with if you want to keep it. Actually fighting for gay marriage or against abortion is a good way to blow up your career right now. So they talk a good game and walk a bland one. Such is the nature of the beast. It's a combination of human nature and the system that's to blame. Until one is changed, this kind of crap will persist.
Fundamentally, conservatives (should) believe that the government is there to protect people from others, primarily to act as a referee in the game of life. So, military and police are two of the primary uses of government.
In application, who knows what they actually believe.
lofgren:
Theoretically, an elected official is supposed to represent his voters. So if the majority does not want something, that official shouldn't. Hence, the problem is fundamentally with the people in my opinion.
They represent ALL of the people in their state/district/country. It is their duty to represent and defend the rights of ALL of them, not just the people who voted for them.
A Free Republic: ur doin it wrong.
Quick reality check: Were they to do that - and ignore the wishes of the majority that voted for them - they'd be out of a job. Not many of us have the type of stones that acting like that requires.
I'm not saying it's a good thing. I'm not saying it's what should be. I don't expect you to like it or to learn to like it. I don't like it. But it is the reality of the situation. How the system is supposed to work is not how it works.
That way, improvements tend to take forever
America has too many conservatives over all.
I have to disagree with this. The people that call themselves conservatives rarely are. They don't clamor for the dismantling of the tax system or armed forces, even though those are the greatest drain on our resources.
That's a very strange definition of being conservative. Here (Denmark) conservatism has traditionally been mostly about God, king, and country, about protecting the establishment, strengthen legal authority (including the army), and oppose anarchy. Then again, despite this tradition, the Danish conservative party is currently placed further to the left on the political spectrum than our liberal party, so I'm not sure our definitions make more sense
It's the ultimate political paradox... anyone with the balls to actually do the job will lose his job at the first re-election; anyone who does the job poorly to keep everyone happy, will be re-elected.
That way, improvements tend to take forever
Improvements? We here in the US of A don't believe in those. :P
Theoretically, an elected official is supposed to represent his voters. So if the majority does not want something, that official shouldn't. Hence, the problem is fundamentally with the people in my opinion.
Not exactly true. An elected official is supposed to act in the best interest of their entire district, not just the ones that voted for them, and not just to give whatever the popular opinion is. If the official, through their superior time to examine the issues, education on the topic, and so-on concludes that, quite simply, the popular opinion is not in the best interest of the people they represent, it is their responsibility to go against the popular opinion.
For example, Senator Joe Liberman has gone on record as stating that he believes a public option would be devastating to the economy and to health care in general. Whether he's right or not, if that's what he truely believes then he's still doing his job to vote against it, whatever the popular opinion in Connecticut might be.
In short, we elect officials because no one has the time to be both fully informed on all the issues and still have a full-time job. So we elect people whose judgement we trust (or at least, trust more then the other sod running for office) so that they can make the best choice in our stead. And it's their job to make the best choice, regardless of whether it's the popular one.
That's a very strange definition of being conservative. Here (Denmark) conservatism has traditionally been mostly about God, king, and country, about protecting the establishment, strengthen legal authority (including the army), and oppose anarchy. Then again, despite this tradition, the Danish conservative party is currently placed further to the left on the political spectrum than our liberal party, so I'm not sure our definitions make more sense
The US constitution doesn't have the provisions for a standing army except in times of war. It's assumed that the "well-regulated militias" would fill the role of an army if needed to protect the united states in times of war. I'm not so certain that it wasn't implied that all of the people would be expected to rise to the occasion if needed.
They represent ALL of the people in their state/district/country. It is their duty to represent and defend the rights of ALL of them, not just the people who voted for them.
A Free Republic: ur doin it wrong.
First of all, how do you represent ALL the people of your district when they have different opinions?
Secondly, you can't use "rights" as something not agreed upon. People can have very different ideas of what "rights" are. So unless they are defined in law, then they are not "rights".
So again, it goes back to defining what are "rights" and that is largely determined by the people, which is where the failure in the system is coming from. But this is the fundamental flaw in democracy or representative governement: people are dumb.
What about when Rights are pretty much spelled out for you, line for line in law and it's deliberately violated anyway?
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness. Honestly, unless someone's pursuit of happyness is actively harming others in society it shouldn't be infringed upon.
What is so hard to comprehend about that?
Honestly, there are universal morals and universal human rights. It's why pretty much every major religion on the planet, and every true civilization has had the same or many of the same common laws. Which basically amount to Don't be a Douchebag to your fellow man.
But this is the fundamental flaw in democracy or representative governement: people are dumb.
So we should scrap the whole thing and try something else then?
Not exactly true. An elected official is supposed to act in the best interest of their entire district, not just the ones that voted for them, and not just to give whatever the popular opinion is. If the official, through their superior time to examine the issues, education on the topic, and so-on concludes that, quite simply, the popular opinion is not in the best interest of the people they represent, it is their responsibility to go against the popular opinion.
For example, Senator Joe Liberman has gone on record as stating that he believes a public option would be devastating to the economy and to health care in general. Whether he's right or not, if that's what he truely believes then he's still doing his job to vote against it, whatever the popular opinion in Connecticut might be.
In short, we elect officials because no one has the time to be both fully informed on all the issues and still have a full-time job. So we elect people whose judgement we trust (or at least, trust more then the other sod running for office) so that they can make the best choice in our stead. And it's their job to make the best choice, regardless of whether it's the popular one.
My comment was based on a matter of public opinion. I doubt any amount of research will change most people's opinions on certain matters such as gay marriage.
That's how our government is supposed to work. Remember "power to the people" or whatever. If people are dumb, then the government is going to be dumb. If the people don't want gay marriage, then the government shouldn't want gay marriage.
Representative government are basically mob rule (which someone said earlier).
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness. Honestly, unless someone's pursuit of happyness is actively harming others in society it shouldn't be infringed upon.
What is so hard to comprehend about that?
The part where the government minds it's own business.
Honestly, there are universal morals.
Eh. Run the universe through the finest sieve imaginable and pull out a speck of truth, a grain of justice, and one iota of "the American Way", and we'll talk.
Basic human rights are defined by society? I don't think so.
What about when Rights are pretty much spelled out for you, line for line in law and it's deliberately violated anyway?
Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happyness. Honestly, unless someone's pursuit of happyness is actively harming others in society it shouldn't be infringed upon.
What is so hard to comprehend about that?
Honestly, there are universal morals and universal human rights. It's why pretty much every major religion on the planet, and every true civilization has had the same or many of the same common laws. Which basically amount to Don't be a Douchebag to your fellow man.
Basic human rights are defined by society. That concept is relatively new and just became heavily accepted.
And your last paragraph is based on what is considered right to do. Read works from different parts of the world at different times and you'll realize how completely different people saw things.
I was reading "Three Kingdoms" (Ancient China, I want to say around AD 50-300 ish times) and they describe how a man killed his wife and used her meat to feed a guest. The guest found out and was moved to tears by the act. The act was written as a very kind and generous act.
So based on just that one passage from one of the greatest works of Chinese literature, would you say that China is not a "true civilization" or that I should be able to kill my wife to feed a guest?
I can give other examples if you don't like that one.
The part where the government minds it's own business.
Good luck with that one, mate.
So we should scrap the whole thing and try something else then?
Its good to know the faults within a system. Its foolish to expect that something to be perfect. Once you know the flaws, maybe you can judge it better and compare it to other systems.
I do like democracy or representative governments, but I don't think they are the only legitimate form of government. I'm honestly not even sure if they are the best.
The part where the government minds it's own business.
Good luck with that one, mate.
Kinda the point.
An interesting fact I had heard (haven't verified, so by now there may be a single or two exceptions) is that in no instance where gay marriage was legalized was it done through either ballot or legislation. The former is the more telling. When put to the population, at large, it hasn't garnered success.
From Wikipedia:
The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day. On December 7, 2006, the House of Commons effectively reaffirmed the legislation by a vote of 175 to 123, defeating a Conservative government motion to examine the matter again.
Also, what's the difference between 'marriage' and 'civil union'?
lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/union...
The Civil Marriage Act was introduced by Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberal government in the Canadian House of Commons on February 1, 2005 as Bill C-38. It was passed by the House of Commons on June 28, 2005, by the Senate on July 19, 2005, and it received Royal Assent the following day. On December 7, 2006, the House of Commons effectively reaffirmed the legislation by a vote of 175 to 123, defeating a Conservative government motion to examine the matter again.
Thanks - but EE already set me straight on the legislation part (and the report concerned only "the states")
Basic human rights are defined by society.
There are no basic human rights.
"Rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're privileges…if you think you do have rights, I have one last assignment for ya. Next time you're at the computer get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, i want to type in, "Japanese-Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious ****ing rights." ~ George Carlin
Basic human rights are defined by society.
There are no basic human rights.
"Rights aren't rights if someone can take em away. They're privileges…if you think you do have rights, I have one last assignment for ya. Next time you're at the computer get on the Internet, go to Wikipedia. When you get to Wikipedia, in the search field for Wikipedia, i want to type in, "Japanese-Americans 1942" and you'll find out all about your precious ****ing rights." ~ George Carlin
I disagree with this. Just because somebody can unjustly take away your rights doesn't mean you don't have any.
I disagree with this. Just because somebody can unjustly take away your rights doesn't mean you don't have any.
Effectively, it does. You have a right to life. I kill you. You no longer have anything. If you don't have the opportunity to exercise your right, you simply don't have it.
EDIT: Actually, you could say you still have the right. Fat lot of good it does you, though. So, effectively you do not.
Effectively, it does. You have a right to life. I kill you. You no longer have anything. If you don't have the opportunity to exercise your right, you simply don't have it.
EDIT: Actually, you could say you still have the right. Fat lot of good it does you, though. So, effectively you do not.
But just because someone denies you a right, it doesn't mean that it didn't exist.
For example, I have the right to attorney in the United States. So if I get arrested and the cop does not allow me to use my rights, he is in the wrong. Theoretically, there would be some sort of punative action towards the cop since my rights were not respected.
But if cops can easily ignore these rights and no one cares, then society had changed what the definition of "rights" are.
They represent ALL of the people in their state/district/country. It is their duty to represent and defend the rights of ALL of them, not just the people who voted for them.
A Free Republic: ur doin it wrong.
First of all, how do you represent ALL the people of your district when they have different opinions?
Because "represent" does not mean "do whatever the mob tells you to." A representative is supposed to do what he believes is in the best interests of the people. That means fighting FOR their rights, not fighting to take the rights of 49% of them away in order to appease 51% because those 51% happen to be bigots.
Secondly, you can't use "rights" as something not agreed upon. People can have very different ideas of what "rights" are. So unless they are defined in law, then they are not "rights".
Fact: heterosexual couples have the right to compel the government to recognize each other as members of a contractual family.
Fact: In most states, men cannot do this with other men, and women cannot do this with other women.
Fact: This restriction is based on nothing except homophobic bigotry and outmoded tradition.
Therefore, heterosexual families enjoy more civil rights than homosexual families.
Anybody who opposes gay marriage is an opponent of civil rights. Period. Either people have the right to define their own adult family, or they do not. You can't say that some people have that right, but others do not unless you have an actual reason to deny those rights.
So again, it goes back to defining what are "rights" and that is largely determined by the people, which is where the failure in the system is coming from. But this is the fundamental flaw in democracy or representative governement: people are dumb.
When you write a law that grants privileges to specific people and excludes others out of pure bigotry, you violate the rights of the excluded people.
To argue the opposite is to argue that minority rights are merely a gift from the majority that can be revoked at any time. By your reasoning, if I could get enough support in my state to return to simply lynching black people instead of giving them a fair trial, our elected officials – sheriffs, judges, mayors, governors – would be absolutely obligated to allow us to do so, because those black people don't have any rights that we the majority don't deign to grant.
But just because someone denies you a right, it doesn't mean that it didn't exist.
A right cannot be taken away. If it can be taken away it isn't a right.
For example, I have the right to attorney in the United States. So if I get arrested and the cop does not allow me to use my rights, he is in the wrong. Theoretically, there would be some sort of punative action towards the cop since my rights were not respected.
Legal rights are quite different from the "basic human rights" mentioned earlier.
But if cops can easily ignore these rights and no one cares, then society had changed what the definition of "rights" are.
No, "rights" already has more than one definition.
When you write a law that grants privileges to specific people and excludes others out of pure bigotry, you violate the rights of the excluded people.
This describe MOST laws. Every "targetted" law is a "privilege" to a specific people. Title IX - specifically grants privileges to women. "Amber's Law" specifically grants privileges to children. (and the list goes on). By this definition - Almost all laws violate the rights of some.
To argue the opposite is to argue that minority rights are merely a gift from the majority that can be revoked at any time.
See above - are they merely a gift that can be revoked? You make the call.
By your reasoning, if I could get enough support in my state to return to simply lynching black people instead of giving them a fair trial, our elected officials – sheriffs, judges, mayors, governors – would be absolutely obligated to allow us to do so, because those black people don't have any rights that we the majority don't deign to grant.
You may not like it, but it is truth. The officials would find themselves either out of office, or, at worst, dead. Saw an interesting show the other day with the wife about a place called Colorado City, in Utah. On a small scale, it is very similar to your scenario. With the police department on board, and county and federal officials kept at arm's length.
Because "represent" does not mean "do whatever the mob tells you to." A representative is supposed to do what he believes is in the best interests of the people. That means fighting FOR their rights, not fighting to take the rights of 49% of them away in order to appease 51% because those 51% happen to be bigots.
A representing official SHOULD do what the group of people he represents wants him to do. Conceptually, this is how a representative form of government SHOULD work. What's the point of polling people to select a leader based upon stances if that leader does not act upon those stances.
So, it is a problem with the people if an elected official isn't going to change the marriage laws because they elected someone who said they weren't going to change the laws.
If there is an issue where one candidate says he'll do option A and another candidate says he'll do option B and the public elects one of those candidates, it should be expected (and faulted on the public) that the candidate goes with whatever option was being promised.
Now, we know candidates don't promise what they say, but the candidate SHOULD represent his people.
Anybody who opposes gay marriage is an opponent of civil rights. Period. Either people have the right to define their own adult family, or they do not. You can't say that some people have that right, but others do not unless you have an actual reason to deny those rights.
I agree with you sentiment. I favor many non-traditional forms of marriage. My dispute is over the idea of how a representative government should work.
When you write a law that grants privileges to specific people and excludes others out of pure bigotry, you violate the rights of the excluded people.
To argue the opposite is to argue that minority rights are merely a gift from the majority that can be revoked at any time. By your reasoning, if I could get enough support in my state to return to simply lynching black people instead of giving them a fair trial, our elected officials – sheriffs, judges, mayors, governors – would be absolutely obligated to allow us to do so, because those black people don't have any rights that we the majority don't deign to grant.
Simply put, that is the way it is. In a representative government, the majority determines the leaders and the rules. "Rights" are granted (or protected) theoretically by the state, which determines them from its leaders, who are elected by the people (if its a representative government). So if your people are unjust, you'll have unjust laws just like the laws we have/had for slavery, limited voting rights, limited marriage rights, etc.
A right cannot be taken away. If it can be taken away it isn't a right.
Everything can be taken away so nothing in a right. Therefore that is a meaningless definition. I've been using right in the legal (domestic and international) case.
Legal rights are quite different from the "basic human rights" mentioned earlier.
"Basic human rights" are rights granted by international law. So they're legal rights.
When you write a law that grants privileges to specific people and excludes others out of pure bigotry, you violate the rights of the excluded people.
This describe MOST laws. Every "targetted" law is a "privilege" to a specific people. Title IX - specifically grants privileges to women. "Amber's Law" specifically grants privileges to children. (and the list goes on). By this definition - Almost all laws violate the rights of some.
Yes, because Amber's law excludes adults out of bigotry.
First of all, Amber's law doesn't grant anybody special priviledges or rights, so it's not even relevant here.
Second, there is a very good reason for not including adults: adults can spontaneously go missing if they so choose, while the default assumption for children is that parents or some authority is responsible for their whereabouts. Adults are responsible only to themselves. This is not the product of mere bigotry towards adults.
Title IX does not grant any special priviledges to women that I am aware of. The law states: "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
So let me reiterate:
When you write a law that grants privileges to specific people and excludes others out of pure bigotry, you violate the rights of the excluded people.
Now, can you come up with a law that actually fits this definition, and (and this is important) is neither 1) injust nor 2) denies anybody rights.
By your reasoning, if I could get enough support in my state to return to simply lynching black people instead of giving them a fair trial, our elected officials – sheriffs, judges, mayors, governors – would be absolutely obligated to allow us to do so, because those black people don't have any rights that we the majority don't deign to grant.
You may not like it, but it is truth. The officials would find themselves either out of office, or, at worst, dead.
I don't like it, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that I am talking about.
An elected official may well find himself voted out of office if he does the right thing in opposition to the bigotry of a majority. That does not mean that it is his responsibility to do whatever the mob dictates. The representative's job is to protect and fight for the rights of his constituents – both minority and majority, both those who voted for him and those who voted for the other guy – not to get himself reelected. Getting reelected is how the representative keeps his job, it's not what his job actually consists of. If keeping hos job is more important to a rep than doing his job right, then he is a bad representative. Possibly a bad person.
So a representative may be killed if they stand up for a minority's rights. Are you really arguing that a representative's job is to appease terrorists and assassins?
We don't excuse other individuals for oppressing people just because it's popular. Why would that change once the individual is elected to government? If a bunch of racists get together and manage to take over a state government, it doesn't suddenly make racism just and right. The same is true of homophobes.
well how does a kid that was born of a mommy and daddy, explain that his now divorced mom/dad now have a new girlfriend/boyfriend?
Same difference really.
Escher: give it 20 years. Once the WW2 Generation finishes croaking we'll probably see a new kick start of Civil Rights. What we are seeing right now is the last gasps of a generation to make "AMERICA RIGHT!", it's always darkest before dawn and all that. That's also about the time my generation will start to become elected officials. Assuming we haven't just disbanded the country by then or forced a revolution.
I belive you overestimate the zeal of your 'generation' and the level of their agreement with your particular belifes to the point of delusion. For the record, what do you define as 'your generation'?
Something to keep in mind.
I belive you overestimate the zeal of your 'generation' and the level of their agreement with your particular belifes to the point of delusion. For the record, what do you define as 'your generation'?
Polls routinely show that younger people show huge support for gay marriage (compared to to older demographics). Some of them will inevitably change their stance as they get older and become more conservative, but for a lot of those people their position is the result of growing up knowing gay people. So many more gay people live openly now than when our parents were forming their opinions about what is important that I doubt we will see a massive conservative shift on this issue in the future.
Everything can be taken away so nothing in a right.
Precisely.
Therefore that is a meaningless definition.
No, the concept of "rights" is simply a fallacy.
I've been using right in the legal (domestic and international) case.
Fair enough. When there are differing defintions of a term it is never a bad thing to clarify which one you're using.
"Basic human rights" are rights granted by international law. So they're legal rights.
If they really were "basic human rights" they'd not need to be granted by anyone.
... I want the USA he's having. Mine has Maine, New York and Jersey.
wait for it (less than year)
But not this year. [link]
Edit: Found a better link.
Bigotry 1. the attitudes, behaviour, or way of thinking of a bigot; prejudice; intolerance
Prejudice 1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
"Not being so much opposed to gay marriage" is a long way off from destroying the country by armed revolt over it. I would wager a good portion of those who support it support it in a passive abstract way: 'yah sure, whatever' ect. If the gay+gaysupporter population continues to increase and the people who are greatly opposed to it continues to decrease, the rise in apathy will eventually see such a change. Assuming, of course, that the growing gay population doesn't somehow galvanize people against it. If they somehow come to be seen as a threat or a scapegoat again, then they will be back to square one.
Exactly right.
A representing official SHOULD do what the group of people he represents wants him to do. Conceptually, this is how a representative form of government SHOULD work. What's the point of polling people to select a leader based upon stances if that leader does not act upon those stances.
No, your concept of how a representative government should work is wrong.
The leaders we elect are not elected for their stances alone. Stances help us assess the measure of the person, but an elected representative has huge leeway from the whims of the majority for very good reason. Representatives are elected for the leadership skills, their grasp of the subjects at hand, their commitment to the public good, and their courage to do what is right. Representatives are supposed to be better versed at governing than the joes who voted for them. At least, that's the ideal. The fact that it does not always occur in practice doesn't mean that the concept itself is incorrect.
So, it is a problem with the people if an elected official isn't going to change the marriage laws because they elected someone who said they weren't going to change the laws.
It's a problem with both the people and the representative. You don't let the representative off the hook for bigotry because his district is bigoted. Part of a rep's job is exercising his judgement. He can't excuse bad judgement by pointing to the same bad judgement amongst others.
If there is an issue where one candidate says he'll do option A and another candidate says he'll do option B and the public elects one of those candidates, it should be expected (and faulted on the public) that the candidate goes with whatever option was being promised.
Sure, it should be expected, but it is the fault of the candidate just as much or more than the people. The people haven't taken an oath to protect and fight for the rights of their community. They are not specialists at governing. The candidate has. When option A is a bad choice for his constituents, the candidate is absolutely at fault.
Put it this way: you hire a consultant for advice. Consultant A says you should X, and consultant B says you should do Y. You hire consultant B, and Y turns out to be horrible advice. Consultant B doesn't get to excuse himself by saying, "That's what you wanted to hear." Consultant B gave bad advice. No matter how good it might have sounded to you, he did his job poorly.
Now, we know candidates don't promise what they say, but the candidate SHOULD represent his people.
Yes. Including gay people. If there is a rep somewhere without a single gay person living in his district, then the matter is simply moot to him. Any rep who has gay constituents has an obligation to represent them, and he abdicates his responsibility by supporting any measure that oppresses them.
When you write a law that grants privileges to specific people and excludes others out of pure bigotry, you violate the rights of the excluded people.
To argue the opposite is to argue that minority rights are merely a gift from the majority that can be revoked at any time. By your reasoning, if I could get enough support in my state to return to simply lynching black people instead of giving them a fair trial, our elected officials – sheriffs, judges, mayors, governors – would be absolutely obligated to allow us to do so, because those black people don't have any rights that we the majority don't deign to grant.
Simply put, that is the way it is. In a representative government, the majority determines the leaders and the rules. "Rights" are granted (or protected) theoretically by the state, which determines them from its leaders, who are elected by the people (if its a representative government). So if your people are unjust, you'll have unjust laws just like the laws we have/had for slavery, limited voting rights, limited marriage rights, etc.
That's not necessarily true.
A majority of Americans supported interracial marriage for the first time in 1991. 1991! Yet interracial marriage has been legal and defended in this country for decades.
Advancements in civil rights are almost always unpopular. That does not excuse anybody – anybody at all – from curtailing those rights out of bigotry, especially when they have it within their power to do something about it.
But not this year. [link]
That's a surprise, with the numbers they were the assembly, I was sure it would get through the senate. In addition, I know that Patterson said he'd sign it.
Take care, friends.
Prejudice 1. a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.b. A preconceived preference or idea.
Title IX does not grant any special priviledges to women that I am aware of.
Fair enough. The thomas library is an excellent source to read the text of the US code (or cornell law, if you prefer). Title IX (part of US Code Title 18) explicitly sets up panels (more funding) to study and evaluate women's participation and achievement. The titles of most include the word "gender", though go on to define the panels as regarding "females" (if you want to use search terms).
So what? Women disproportionately benefit from title IX only because they are far more likely to be disenfranchised. Counting words is not an argument for anything. It's the same reason black people benefitted more from the emancipation proclamation. Putting something like that off until an equal number of white slaves could be freed would just be stupid.
So let me reiterate:
When you write a law that grants privileges to specific people and excludes others out of pure bigotry, you violate the rights of the excluded people.
No need to. It may simply be that you don't accept the prejudiced nature of laws. Even hate crime legislation is prejudiced. Laws desiigned (even in protection) for one particular subset of the population will ALWAYS (by definition) exclude those not of that subset.
Can you name a law like this? Because the two examples you gave were pretty wildly off the mark. I'm not going to accept the prejudiced nature of laws until you can actually demonstrate some prejudice somewhere. So far you have given two examples that are so poor they are practically nonsensical, and referenced a "list" somewhere that "goes on and on."
Now, can you come up with a law that actually fits this definition, and (and this is important) is neither 1) injust nor 2) denies anybody rights.
1) I did - where is there justice in having one subset receive more attention and funding than another?
I'm not going to answer this question in the abstract. Can you or can't you give a specific example? Attention and funding are tools. Wielding them fairly doesn't necessarily mean wielding them equally.
2) that brings up the subject of rights - without treading down that slope (others have already), are the excluded not entitled to equal financial representation under the law?
I'm not even sure what you mean here. Do you mean that every individual should have an equal allotment of tax dollars put aside to benefit them? No, of course not. Government money is for the public good. It should go where it is needed.
The bolded part is, I belive, the one most intended in the definition your provided for 'Bigot'.
Perhaps - but the problem with bigot (as I found it)
Bigot One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
... is that it describes many - especially any that are advocates of any given cause. Lofgren, by that definition is a bigot. (as are most, in general, I would imagine)
Even the one you supplied presents two minor issues - 1 - 2c is a bit down as far as usage, and 2 - it, like, bigot can be broadly applied, as any advocate is, by nature, "strongly" averse to differing opinions.
Title IX does not grant any special priviledges to women that I am aware of.
Fair enough. The thomas library is an excellent source to read the text of the US code (or cornell law, if you prefer). Title IX (part of US Code Title 18) explicitly sets up panels (more funding) to study and evaluate women's participation and achievement. The titles of most include the word "gender", though go on to define the panels as regarding "females" (if you want to use search terms).
So what? Women disproportionately benefit from title IX only because they are far more likely to be disenfranchised. Counting words is not an argument for anything. It's the same reason black people benefitted more from the emancipation proclamation. Putting something like that off until an equal number of white slaves could be freed would just be stupid.So let me reiterate:
When you write a law that grants privileges to specific people and excludes others out of pure bigotry, you violate the rights of the excluded people.
No need to. It may simply be that you don't accept the prejudiced nature of laws. Even hate crime legislation is prejudiced. Laws desiigned (even in protection) for one particular subset of the population will ALWAYS (by definition) exclude those not of that subset.
Can you name a law like this? Because the two examples you gave were pretty wildly off the mark. I'm not going to accept the prejudiced nature of laws until you can actually demonstrate some prejudice somewhere. So far you have given two examples that are so poor they are practically nonsensical, and referenced a "list" somewhere that "goes on and on."Now, can you come up with a law that actually fits this definition, and (and this is important) is neither 1) injust nor 2) denies anybody rights.
1) I did - where is there justice in having one subset receive more attention and funding than another?
I'm not going to answer this question in the abstract. Can you or can't you give a specific example? Attention and funding are tools. Wielding them fairly doesn't necessarily mean wielding them equally.2) that brings up the subject of rights - without treading down that slope (others have already), are the excluded not entitled to equal financial representation under the law?
I'm not even sure what you mean here. Do you mean that every individual should have an equal allotment of tax dollars put aside to benefit them? No, of course not. Government money is for the public good. It should go where it is needed.
If only it was used for that purpose more often. We'd be in pretty good shape right now, or so I think.
Take care, friend.
The bolded part is, I belive, the one most intended in the definition your provided for 'Bigot'.
Perhaps - but the problem with bigot (as I found it)
Bigot One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
... is that it describes many - especially any that are advocates of any given cause. Lofgren, by that definition is a bigot. (as are most, in general, I would imagine)
Even the one you supplied presents two minor issues - 1 - 2c is a bit down as far as usage, and 2 - it, like, bigot can be broadly applied, as any advocate is, by nature, "strongly" averse to differing opinions.
I don't see how that follows. What makes you think I am a bigot? What makes you think that anybody who advocates a position is a bigot? The definition you cite does not support your reading of it.
Edit: how about this definition:
one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
So what? Women disproportionately benefit from title IX only because they are far more likely to be disenfranchised.
Read your own words (reiterated no less). How about a different question - why not write the law to study ALL participation and compare the equality? At that point, funding is equal, and one group is NOT disenfranchised by law.
Counting words is not an argument for anything.
The terms were for a quick search to find the passages in the law (it's huge). I wasn't arguing you should count words, but suggesting you read the law for yourself. That is the argument.
It's the same reason black people benefitted more from the emancipation proclamation. Putting something like that off until an equal number of white slaves could be freed would just be stupid.
Non-sequiter. In fact - here is the text. Where is the term black or white (or negro or caucasion) used? (hint: it isn't). The argument isn't about benefitting a class, it is about spending resources on a class, ie. affording one class a privilege, that is DENIED to others.
Can you name a law like this? Because the two examples you gave were pretty wildly off the mark. I'm not going to accept the prejudiced nature of laws until you can actually demonstrate some prejudice somewhere. So far you have given two examples that are so poor they are practically nonsensical, and referenced a "list" somewhere that "goes on and on."
No - they were spot on. In addition, they are just 2. As stated MOST laws fall under this particular problem. Farmer subsidies necessarily deny a privilege to all other industries, all because of preconceived notions. Again - the only real difference we have lies in what is prejudice.
I'm not going to answer this question in the abstract. Can you or can't you give a specific example? Attention and funding are tools. Wielding them fairly doesn't necessarily mean wielding them equally.
Fair =/= equal? Wow... just wow... So - civil unions that afford all the rights currently under law for married couples is fair, then, yes?
I'm not even sure what you mean here. Do you mean that every individual should have an equal allotment of tax dollars put aside to benefit them? No, of course not. Government money is for the public good. It should go where it is needed.
And there is the crux - who determines the public good, if not the public?
So what? Women disproportionately benefit from title IX only because they are far more likely to be disenfranchised.
Read your own words (reiterated no less). How about a different question - why not write the law to study ALL participation and compare the equality? At that point, funding is equal, and one group is NOT disenfranchised by law.Counting words is not an argument for anything.
The terms were for a quick search to find the passages in the law (it's huge). I wasn't arguing you should count words, but suggesting you read the law for yourself. That is the argument.It's the same reason black people benefitted more from the emancipation proclamation. Putting something like that off until an equal number of white slaves could be freed would just be stupid.
Non-sequiter. In fact - here is the text. Where is the term black or white (or negro or caucasion) used? (hint: it isn't). The argument isn't about benefitting a class, it is about spending resources on a class, ie. affording one class a privilege, that is DENIED to others.Can you name a law like this? Because the two examples you gave were pretty wildly off the mark. I'm not going to accept the prejudiced nature of laws until you can actually demonstrate some prejudice somewhere. So far you have given two examples that are so poor they are practically nonsensical, and referenced a "list" somewhere that "goes on and on."
No - they were spot on. In addition, they are just 2. As stated MOST laws fall under this particular problem. Farmer subsidies necessarily deny a privilege to all other industries, all because of preconceived notions. Again - the only real difference we have lies in what is prejudice.I'm not going to answer this question in the abstract. Can you or can't you give a specific example? Attention and funding are tools. Wielding them fairly doesn't necessarily mean wielding them equally.
Fair =/= equal? Wow... just wow... So - civil unions that afford all the rights currently under law for married couples is fair, then, yes?I'm not even sure what you mean here. Do you mean that every individual should have an equal allotment of tax dollars put aside to benefit them? No, of course not. Government money is for the public good. It should go where it is needed.
And there is the crux - who determines the public good, if not the public?
The governemt. Duh.
I'm sorry, I know I've been lurking on the edges of this conversation, but the context is simply fascinating. To see the amount of interesting points being bandied back and forth is quite refreshing; it's hard to find good debate, these days.
I promise I'll just spectate from now on.
Take care, friend
I'm not going to answer this question in the abstract. Can you or can't you give a specific example? Attention and funding are tools. Wielding them fairly doesn't necessarily mean wielding them equally.
Fair =/= equal? Wow... just wow... So - civil unions that afford all the rights currently under law for married couples is fair, then, yes?
Do you always jump to such... binary... conclusions?
If A then B does not imply if B then A.
I don't see how that follows. What makes you think I am a bigot? What makes you think that anybody who advocates a position is a bigot? The definition you cite does not support your reading of it.
How would you read "strongly partial". For most (all?) - advocacy requires strong partiality. (refer back to the "whatever" group mentioned, they will NEVER be advocates)
and so we are clear:
advocate: 1. One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender
one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Sure - as long as we don't confuse differing viewpoints as representing either hatred, or lack of respect, then we're good. One can disagree without hating, and still maintain respect for those that have a differing viewpoint.
it's hard to find good debate, these days.
Mostly because such things are discouraged here. Considering the threads that are continuing here, I belive the ORC's may be on holiday. Let's all enjoy it while it lasts, and try our best to keep it within the ephemeral bounds of acceptable-for-the-tavern boundaries.
So what? Women disproportionately benefit from title IX only because they are far more likely to be disenfranchised.
Read your own words (reiterated no less). How about a different question - why not write the law to study ALL participation and compare the equality? At that point, funding is equal, and one group is NOT disenfranchised by law.
What about my words? Please show me how title IX disenfranchises somebody.
Counting words is not an argument for anything.
The terms were for a quick search to find the passages in the law (it's huge). I wasn't arguing you should count words, but suggesting you read the law for yourself. That is the argument.
It's the same reason black people benefitted more from the emancipation proclamation. Putting something like that off until an equal number of white slaves could be freed would just be stupid.
Non-sequiter. In fact - here is the text. Where is the term black or white (or negro or caucasion) used? (hint: it isn't). The argument isn't about benefitting a class, it is about spending resources on a class, ie. affording one class a privilege, that is DENIED to others.
That's not my argument.
Again, can you come up with a single example of what you are talking about? Title IX and amber alerts are not relevant, and you haven't come up with anything to replace them.
Can you name a law like this? Because the two examples you gave were pretty wildly off the mark. I'm not going to accept the prejudiced nature of laws until you can actually demonstrate some prejudice somewhere. So far you have given two examples that are so poor they are practically nonsensical, and referenced a "list" somewhere that "goes on and on."
No - they were spot on. In addition, they are just 2. As stated MOST laws fall under this particular problem. Farmer subsidies necessarily deny a privilege to all other industries, all because of preconceived notions. Again - the only real difference we have lies in what is prejudice.
No, they were not. Neither title IX nor Amber's law affords anybody special privileges. You can't keep saying it over and over again to make it true.
What special privilege does title IX afford anybody?
I'm not going to answer this question in the abstract. Can you or can't you give a specific example? Attention and funding are tools. Wielding them fairly doesn't necessarily mean wielding them equally.
Fair =/= equal? Wow... just wow... So - civil unions that afford all the rights currently under law for married couples is fair, then, yes?
No, it's not fair. Where do you even get that?
Fair != equal. The only person who would claim such is trying to sell you something.
I'm not even sure what you mean here. Do you mean that every individual should have an equal allotment of tax dollars put aside to benefit them? No, of course not. Government money is for the public good. It should go where it is needed.
And there is the crux - who determines the public good, if not the public?
What is this the crux of? You asked a question and I answered it, and now you seem to think you've proven something, but damned if I know what it is.
it's hard to find good debate, these days.
Mostly because such things are discouraged here. Considering the threads that are continuing here, I belive the ORC's may be on holiday. Let's all enjoy it while it lasts, and try our best to keep it within the ephemeral bounds of acceptable-for-the-tavern boundaries.
I concur. I'm extraordinarily impressed by the civility being exercised by everyone involved in this thread. Debate on.
Take care, friend.
I'm not going to answer this question in the abstract. Can you or can't you give a specific example? Attention and funding are tools. Wielding them fairly doesn't necessarily mean wielding them equally.
Fair =/= equal? Wow... just wow... So - civil unions that afford all the rights currently under law for married couples is fair, then, yes?
Do you always jump to such... binary... conclusions?
If A then B does not imply if B then A.
Clever - but not applicable in this case as I didn't "jump" (hopefully the nested quotes held). He is the one that mentioned that funding are tools, and that wielding them fairly doesn't necessarily mean wielding them equally. My example showed, obviously, that the issue isn't one of being fair, but one of being equal. The rhetorical question (because it is indeed a "fair" solution) is not the solution desired. The equal solution is the goal. Unfortunately, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, looking for such within the law is a fruitless endeavor, as most laws (modern day) are not geared around equality, regardless of what we may be sold.
How would you read "strongly partial". For most (all?) - advocacy requires strong partiality. (refer back to the "whatever" group mentioned, they will NEVER be advocates)
and so we are clear:
advocate: 1. One that argues for a cause; a supporter or defender
I'm more interested in this part:
Bigot One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
Partiality and advocacy do not necessarily imply intolerance.
one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Sure - as long as we don't confuse differing viewpoints as representing either hatred, or lack of respect, then we're good. One can disagree without hating, and still maintain respect for those that have a differing viewpoint.
Absolutely. I wouldn't generally use the word bigot to describe a person who is intolerant of a viewpoint, though. I generally see the word describing intolerance of people.
I'm not going to answer this question in the abstract. Can you or can't you give a specific example? Attention and funding are tools. Wielding them fairly doesn't necessarily mean wielding them equally.
Fair =/= equal? Wow... just wow... So - civil unions that afford all the rights currently under law for married couples is fair, then, yes?
Do you always jump to such... binary... conclusions?
If A then B does not imply if B then A.
Clever - but not applicable in this case as I didn't "jump" (hopefully the nested quotes held).
Eh, you went from "fair doesn't necessarily mean equal" (a true statement) to a comparison of something that is unequal and seeing if was fair (so A => !B, !B =>A).
And heck, even if I misunderstood what you were trying to do, it was still hyperbole.
What about my words? Please show me how title IX disenfranchises somebody.
I did. REPEATEDLY. How about an example of title IX in action? My local middle school got federal funding (thanks to title IX) for new cheerleader outfits. However, all parents of the football team have been asked to contribute $150 per player for the same? (Note: as my daughter is a cheerleader, can't say I mind - but NOR would I say it's fair)
Again, can you come up with a single example of what you are talking about? Title IX and amber alerts are not relevant, and you haven't come up with anything to replace them.
They are - and not because I keep repeating it. They are because they afford a privilege = additional funding for a subset of the population. A privilege that ALL other subsets are denied.
What special privilege does title IX afford anybody?
I gave you an example in action. Unless we are now to debate the definition of privilege, my answer stands.
No, it's not fair. Where do you even get that?
It is entirely fair. The example given would give no special treatment to any party involved, insofar as resources afforded by the state to the couples involved. If you get a dollar, and I get 4 quarters, it's fair.
What is this the crux of?
The crux of the argument. You claim that the funds should be spent in the name of the public good, but deny the public to determine, in all cases, what exactly is the public good. Further, you claim that spending does not have to be equal to be fair. It's somehow fair to spend more on women because they have been traditionally disenfranchised. It's somehow fair to spend more on children because adults should have other means of dealing with a situation of abduction.
edited to add: @EE, yes, definite hyperbole on my part, admittedly. My biggest issue with debates of this nature is that I don't believe that there should be civil unions or marriages AT ALL, regardless of sexual orientation. I'm a libertarian, through and through. My ultimate preference wouldn't be to add yet more laws, but get all the existing ones off the books. Then (and only then) if we found ourselves in a situation such as Russia, we could discuss SHORT TERM incentives to expand the population.
What about my words? Please show me how title IX disenfranchises somebody.
I did. REPEATEDLY. How about an example of title IX in action? My local middle school got federal funding (thanks to title IX) for new cheerleader outfits. However, all parents of the football team have been asked to contribute $150 per player for the same? (Note: as my daughter is a cheerleader, can't say I mind - but NOR would I say it's fair)
You'll have to explain how that means anything because I'm not seeing the relevance.
Edit: wait, unless you are claiming that:
1) Cheerleading (almost always an integrated sport) is segregated by gender in your school.
2) Football (often but not always integrated) is segregated by gender in your school.
3) The school had already spent more on cheerleaders than it had on the football team.
Unless all of these things are true, your example is not relevant.
Again, can you come up with a single example of what you are talking about? Title IX and amber alerts are not relevant, and you haven't come up with anything to replace them.
They are - and not because I keep repeating it. They are because they afford a privilege = additional funding for a subset of the population. A privilege that ALL other subsets are denied.
You can't be serious.
And again, can you cite an example here?
What special privilege does title IX afford anybody?
I gave you an example in action. Unless we are now to debate the definition of privilege, my answer stands.
What, the cheerleader thing? You'll have to explain to me how that works, because I'm not seeing the relevance.
No, it's not fair. Where do you even get that?
It is entirely fair. The example given would give no special treatment to any party involved, insofar as resources afforded by the state to the couples involved. If you get a dollar, and I get 4 quarters, it's fair.
Civil unions and marriages are not the same in most states, for one thing.
For another, it's segregation, which is a form of special treatment, for no purpose other than discrimination.
What is this the crux of?
The crux of the argument. You claim that the funds should be spent in the name of the public good, but deny the public to determine, in all cases, what exactly is the public good.
I don't know where you are even getting this.
Further, you claim that spending does not have to be equal to be fair. It's somehow fair to spend more on women because they have been traditionally disenfranchised. It's somehow fair to spend more on children because adults should have other means of dealing with a situation of abduction.
Yes, that is what I claim. If you are trying to make educational opportunities more equal between the sexes, then you need to spend more effort on women's opportunities than men's opportunities. If you want to protect people from abductions, then you need to spend more time and money on children than on adults because children are abducted more often, less capable of protecting themselves, and more easily determined to be missing in the first place.
What is the problem?
edited to add: @EE, yes, definite hyperbole on my part, admittedly. My biggest issue with debates of this nature is that I don't believe that there should be civil unions or marriages AT ALL, regardless of sexual orientation. I'm a libertarian, through and through. My ultimate preference wouldn't be to add yet more laws, but get all the existing ones off the books. Then (and only then) if we found ourselves in a situation such as Russia, we could discuss SHORT TERM incentives to expand the population.
Marriage has nothing to do with expanding the population. Marriage is the civil right to determine your own adult family.
Wow... just wow... So - civil unions that afford all the rights currently under law for married couples is fair, then, yes?
I just want to reiterate that the premise of the question is mistaken, because Civil Unions do not afford all of the rights currently under law for married couples.
1) Cheerleading (almost always an integrated sport) is segregated by gender in your school.
by enrollment, not by policy (middle school in the district is grades 5 and 6)
2) Football (often but not always integrated) is segregated by gender in your school.
See above.
3) The school had already spent more on cheerleaders than it had on the football team.
Not needed, the budgetary amounts were the same as the preceeding year. (where no such benefit was given)
Unless all of these things are true, your example is not relevant.
Entirely relevant. It goes back to privilege. However, it seems this is a point that we will not agree on. To you, as stated elsewhere in the post, money does not have to spent equitably to be fair.
You can't be serious.
And again, can you cite an example here?
Entirely, and I have (repeatedly). You may not wish to accept those provided, however, that does not mean I haven't done so. Spending money on one group TO THE EXCLUSION of others IS privilege (by definition) of a select group.
Civil unions and marriages are not the same in most states, for one thing
Granted - but not what I asked.
For another, it's segregation, which is a form of special treatment, for no purpose other than discrimination.
Then you are NOT looking for fair - you are looking for equal. And by your other statement, the two are not necessarily the same. With that, I suggest we drop the fair argument, as we (as noted) will never agree on that one, as you deem it fair to favor one group over another.
I don't know where you are even getting this.
From you - the public - ie. the majority, should not be able to infringe upon the rights of others. The public, therefore, can NOT determine what is for the public good.
Yes, that is what I claim. If you are trying to make educational opportunities more equal between the sexes, then you need to spend more effort on women's opportunities than men's opportunities. If you want to protect people from abductions, then you need to spend more time and money on children than on adults because children are abducted more often, less capable of protecting themselves, and more easily determined to be missing in the first place.
What is the problem?
the point is that, as stated, you want equal treatment - not fair actions.
Marriage has nothing to do with expanding the population. Marriage is the civil right to determine your own adult family.
Wasn't directed to you - but, in this case, you are not entirely correct. Expanding the population is the root of marriage. As I stated to someone asked, the practice itself was for mating and child-rearing. As far as I'm concerned it isn't even a right. the "right" to determine your own adult family is one everyone (in this country, at least) ALREADY HAS. What they lack is fair financial treatment. Again, however, that bit was intended for EE. Since you decided to answer, I ask you this. Why not just remove Marriage from the concern of the state entirely? Return it to the private sphere where it belongs. Of course, certain cultures and religions would still perform ceremonies - though it's nothing that ANYONE cannot do with or without state sanctioning. One of the most beautiful ceremonies I ever attended was a wiccan ceremony - and, to my knowledge, the couple involved did NOT get a license from the state. Do they feel their union to somehow be less valid than others? Not at all - in fact, they consider theirs to be more valuable, binding and sincere than most.
I just want to reiterate that the premise of the question is mistaken, because Civil Unions do not afford all of the rights currently under law for married couples.
It wasn't a premise, it was a hypothetical to determine whether what the poster was seeking was fair or equal, as the two do not necessarily coincide.
Expanding the population is the root of marriage. As I stated to someone asked, the practice itself was for mating and child-rearing.
Eh. At some point, maybe. That point is past. Sides, with adoption the couple doesn't have to bear children on it's own to raise 'em.
Eh. At some point, maybe. That point is past.
And there we (and others) disagree. Note my stance below. For marriage, as an entity in and of itself, the state has NO reason to be involved (in any form).
Sides, with adoption the couple doesn't have to bear children on it's own to raise 'em.
This, as well, should have little to do with marriage (or the state, unless the state is the one adopting them out).
It wasn't a premise, it was a hypothetical...
Yes, a hypothetical premise. I apologize if I was unclear, but I did understand what you were doing. I just wanted to make sure the point was getting across that is was indeed hypothetical and that it was not true.