Gay Rights

tomBitonti · Jun 26, 2015

goldomark said:
I have to say Thomas' dissent is perplexing to say the least. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...001&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook

View attachment 69014

So the Jews in extermination camps didn't lose their dignity? That man is a sad joke and needs to lose his job. Can that happen under US law?

Edit: Scalia ain't any better. http://www.vox.com/2015/6/26/8851173/gay-marriage-supreme-court-scalia

He does seem to go off the rails in the quoted text.

Hard to know what he is meaning when he says "dignity", but I'm guessing he is tending to a very literal definition, and using that meaning in a context where it doesn't fit.

For example, I could say that "life" is an "inalienable right". Then, with a literal meaning of "inalienable", it literally cannot be taken away from you.

What I think that is taken to mean is that one who takes life commits a wrong, and the government cannot change the taking into something that isn't wrong.

Then, a camp cannot take away a persons right to dignity, although, it does take away their dignity. I'm thinking that Roberts is interchanging "right to dignity" with "dignity".

Thx!

TomB

trappedslider · Jun 26, 2015

billd91 said:
Nor does one person having a stable of spouses. And that's the rub.

Not their fault you can't find more than one person who wants to marry you

Bullgrit · Jun 26, 2015

I'm not sure it is completely different. You're expressing skepticism of people letting their freak flag fly whether it's flamboyant gayness or the full frontal nerdity of cosplay. Conform. Blend in. Don't rock the boat. Be more like the broader culture so they'll like you more. But where does the line get drawn? What level of non-conformity is acceptable? What level of conformity will make you comfortable? Why should you, or society at large, get that much of a say in the level of conformity people need to exhibit?

You're talking about the individual, I'm talking about the culture. Micro, macro. If a broad culture wants to be accepted as normal, they *maybe* shouldn't let the minority "freaks" lead the way.

Sure, the freaks are part of the overall culture (every culture has it's own freaks), and they are harmless, and they don't need to hide or be hid. But, as I feel like I've said a hundred times, if you're trying to get accepted as normal in the "normal" culture, show that you are generally just as normal.

Actually, from what I've seen of the LGBT community (both leadership and average person), they seem to be all "normal." But when you see, think of, and web search for gay pride parades, the freak-flag-flyers seem to be forefront. This is why I questioned the use, purpose, and results of pride parades.

Bullgrit

Umbran · Jun 26, 2015

Bullgrit said:
I thought "queer" was general homosexual, so I thought the LGB covered that.

Yes, but some folks like having a catchall. Others use it to denote attraction to the same sex, but not otherwise conforming to the the mainstream sexuality monikers.

"Questioning" seems a bit odd, to me. Is that the period before coming to grips with one's...

...sexuality in general. Someone who has not figured out yet where they fit, of even if they want to fit in a group. Especially if one is realizing that some of one's thoughts come from exterior influences, rather than oneself - for that can generate internal conflicts.

Intersex?

Having sexual anatomy that doesn't fit the basic "male" or "female" labels.

tomBitonti · Jun 26, 2015

billd91 said:
Ah, the brother of the slippery slope argument. I was wondering when this would come up.

Not the same issues at all. Arguing to expand the definition of marriage from mixed-sex, equal, consenting adults to same-sex, equal, consenting adults isn't the same as arguing for polygamy or marrying with an immediate family. Polygamy pretty much always includes unequal relationships and, if you pay attention to the issues of the former-LDS sects that try to practice it, can be pretty abusive. That alone gives the state compelling reason to be skeptical of it in ways that aren't true for same-sex marriages. And as far as marrying within a family, inbreeding can be more problematic than just having a Habsburg lip.

This always seems to come up when we discuss same sex marriage in one of my gaming groups, from one particular person. I'm in agreement with what you just said, but never can quite get it across.

Thx!

TomB

Bullgrit · Jun 26, 2015

The archaic and offensive term for this was hermaphrodite.

I had no idea that term was out of date or offensive. Granted, I've very rarely heard or used it, ever. When did that happen? And what made it offensive?

Bullgrit

Umbran · Jun 26, 2015

trappedslider said:
So you want to deny those who chose to be married to more than spouse the legality to do so? That doesn't sound very equal to me.

Ah. I see. What you need to remember is that they weren't fighting for a fundamentally different legal structure, but for equal application of the *existing* structure.

Poly-marriage would require a fundamentally different legal structure, and so is a completely different issue.

IF it were to ever happen the system would get fixed i'm sure.

From a legal/governmental angle, marriage is very much about clarifying who you choose to have certain rights, privileges, and authorities. Poly-marriages, however, do not clarify these questions. If you have two spouses, and you fall into a coma, who makes healthcare decisions for you? That's not at all clear. Thus, there's a solid governance-reason to not allow such - because they are not clearly governable.

That all said, it is possible that, some time in the future, poly-marriages will be worked out and allowed.

However, going back to your original question - no, the gay rights activists aren't going to go work on this, and that's not hypocrisy. It is okay for people to work as advocates of their own causes, but not then go and advocate other people's causes. If, for no other reason, there are too many causes in the world - as a practical matter, each person must pick and choose what causes to fight for, as there aren't enough hours in a lifetime to fight for *all* of them.

KirayaTiDrekan · Jun 26, 2015

Bullgrit said:
I had no idea that term was out of date or offensive. Granted, I've very rarely heard or used it, ever. When did that happen? And what made it offensive?

Bullgrit

Honestly, I don't much of the specifics. I try to stay informed, but I am not an expert.

Umbran · Jun 26, 2015

Bullgrit said:
You're talking about the individual, I'm talking about the culture. Micro, macro. If a broad culture wants to be accepted as normal, they *maybe* shouldn't let the minority "freaks" lead the way.

Dude, a once-a-year parade does not qualify as "leading the way" for an overall movement.

But, as I feel like I've said a hundred times, if you're trying to get accepted as normal in the "normal" culture, show that you are generally just as normal.

So, the other 364 days a year, when the vast majority of those "freaks" publicly look just like everyone else, and are probably serving you lattes and doing your legal paperwork and you wouldn't know it, does not count as showing that they are generally normal? They must comply to norms *ALWAYS* to count as showing they are generally normal? Even that one parade is too much?

Dannyalcatraz · Jun 26, 2015

trappedslider said:
IF it were to ever happen the system would get fixed i'm sure.

Not sure it could be, not with feasibility, anyway. Again, the problem arises from how many laws interact with the keystone definition of "marriage".

Who is your next of kin?

Who is the legal guardian of the children?

Who is considered a natural heir under private law? Probate law suddenly gets very messy.

How do you apply marital privilege to multiple marriages? When the law specifies a paricular % of something- say, a survivor's benefit as a set percentage of salary- goes to a spouse, is that per spouse or to all spouses in aggregate?

Divorce law. Child support law. Adoption law.

Thousands upon thousands of moving parts...