Politics

[Buster Bluth]

I hear no one seriously discussing disbanding the EPA

Well they bring it out when they're in front of the fanatics, ie CPAC and debates.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/01O8L1MrbYg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bqjhJLxEAu0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And who could forget Rick Perry's implosion in which he couldn't name the three departments of government he'd eliminate. In that downward spiral he said he'd totally rework the EPA. Now if I were a betting man the big money behind the GOP wants to use the anti-government sentiments as fuel to cherry pick the regulations they don't like and add others. I think it is sadly beyond balancing environmental stewardship and business concerns for too many of the Republicans these days.

It's also worth noting the when one of the Koch brothers ran on the libertarian ticket in 1980, this was their platform on the matter:

“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”

Of course today they now are the largest funders of the GOP's candidates (no?), so that's got to count for something.

As for Israel, again my sense is, they are supposed to be an ally...and that seems not to be clear. Yes I've read the info about the Israel lobby, and no I don't believe the issues of influence are as extensive as many believe. Most conservatives here, that I know share that sentiment.

The GOP has a serious Israel problem. Criticizing Israel is akin to shitting on George Washington's grave for too many of them. Sheldon Adelson's money and zionist evangelicals are a tough opponent, so they bend at the knee at every opportunity. I respectfully disagree with your position on the influence of the Israel Lobby.

For the lulz:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x2ZVihACwQ0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm a fan of this video:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rzXS3tmZrcU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

As for climate change... As I've said before I'm not a denier, but I'm not freakin Al Gore either. I am largely concerned because the money goes to those supporting climate change narratives, and not to those with a hypothesis ranging from "not Armageddon" to "not true at all". So there is a natural selection occurring that stifles scientific pursuits that explore the possibility climate change is exaggerated or false. Most conservative people here believe there is some level of human impact, but do not drink the Koolaid.

Yeah that's generally the gist of the position. The best you can get out of a popular conservative these days is "yeah, some of it is us. But come on Al Gore blows..."

Maybe Utah isn't representative of other conservatives, but I just don't experience this GOP mainline as you describe it. I guess I need to get out more.

In fairness I'm speaking to the party and not the people. I think most Republicans are more moderate than their party.

 

[wizards8507]

Yeah that's generally the gist of the position. The best you can get out of a popular conservative these days is "yeah, some of it is us. But come on Al Gore blows..."

The Republicans are in a difficult position when it comes to climate change and climate regulation. The fact is, many of the policies put forward in the name of the environment are pretty transparent that they have absolutely nothing to do with protecting the environment at all.

It's the same tactic the Democrats used with healthcare. "We present Obamacare. Obamacare helps the sick and the poor. If you hate Obamacare, you hate the sick and the poor." That's crap. Republicans care about the sick and the poor, they just believe that Obamacare is the wrong way to go about helping them. Likewise, I'd say most Republicans believe we should be good stewards of the environment, they just object to the proposals that liberals want to implement in the environment's name.

Why Do Conservatives Hate Environmentalism? | The American Conservative

I think, for example, about what Sam M. keeps saying to us on this blog about fracking and western Pennsylvania, where he lives. Is fracking harmful to the environment. Possibly; it’s arguable. Is fracking good for the human community? Undoubtedly, says Sam, in that it brings jobs to a region that has been down and out, more or less, for a generation. A clean environment is a good thing — but so is a community that can sustain itself economically. These are rival goods that exist in tension. The problem that the more thoughtful people on the right (as distinct from the knee-jerkers) have with environmentalists is that so many of them treat environmental protection as an absolute good, and don’t see it as bounded by anything.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

It's the same tactic the Democrats used with healthcare. "We present Obamacare. Obamacare helps the sick and the poor. If you hate Obamacare, you hate the sick and the poor." That's crap. Republicans care about the sick and the poor, they just believe that Obamacare is the wrong way to go about helping them.

It's the same tactic the Republicans used with Iraq. If you don't support the war, you don't support our troops.

 

[Emcee77]

In fairness I'm speaking to the party and not the people.

Right, and appropriately, I think, because the Politico article was about Republican politicians, not Republican citizens.

Things could get really interesting for some Republican politicians when that climate change encyclical comes out this summer. I tend to agree with some of the posts on here that a lot of the stuff that Pope Francis has said so far, like the pro-Palestinian comments, are not too troubling because they are in agree-to-disagree territory, but if the Pope says in the forthcoming encyclical that there is a moral imperative to preserve the environment, that's harder to dismiss as outside his purview. Now, Catholic politicians will still be able to take the position that certain domestic environmental policies don't appropriately advance the goal of environmental preservation because they are inefficient or their good effects are outweighed by harmful ones or whatever, but it could get awkward.

 

[wizards8507]

It's the same tactic the Republicans used with Iraq. If you don't support the war, you don't support our troops.

Correct.

And most Americans are too stupid to comprehend nuance, so rhetoric rules the day.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The Republicans are in a difficult position when it comes to climate change and climate regulation. The fact is, many of the policies put forward in the name of the environment are pretty transparent that they have absolutely nothing to do with protecting the environment at all.

It's the same tactic the Democrats used with healthcare. "We present Obamacare. Obamacare helps the sick and the poor. If you hate Obamacare, you hate the sick and the poor." That's crap. Republicans care about the sick and the poor, they just believe that Obamacare is the wrong way to go about helping them. Likewise, I'd say most Republicans believe we should be good stewards of the environment, they just object to the proposals that liberals want to implement in the environment's name.

Why Do Conservatives Hate Environmentalism? | The American Conservative

I think that can be true at the same time as big money championing "fuck the EPA" to cherry pick regulations they don't like, regardless of their merit. Maybe I'm being too cynical.

 

[phgreek]

The Republicans are in a difficult position when it comes to climate change and climate regulation. The fact is, many of the policies put forward in the name of the environment are pretty transparent that they have absolutely nothing to do with protecting the environment at all.

It's the same tactic the Democrats used with healthcare. "We present Obamacare. Obamacare helps the sick and the poor. If you hate Obamacare, you hate the sick and the poor." That's crap. Republicans care about the sick and the poor, they just believe that Obamacare is the wrong way to go about helping them. Likewise, I'd say most Republicans believe we should be good stewards of the environment, they just object to the proposals that liberals want to implement in the environment's name.

Why Do Conservatives Hate Environmentalism? | The American Conservative

"A clean environment is a good thing — but so is a community that can sustain itself economically. These are rival goods that exist in tension. The problem that the more thoughtful people on the right (as distinct from the knee-jerkers) have with environmentalists is that so many of them treat environmental protection as an absolute good, and don’t see it as bounded by anything."


for me this is almost always where I part ways with Liberal and progressive folks...plug in any issue really. " ...so many of them treat X_Cause as an absolute good, and don't see it bounded by anything", and I might add that budget and implementation are frequently in their bounding blind spot...

 

[phgreek]

Well they bring it out when they're in front of the fanatics, ie CPAC and debates.

yea, I'll bet...but I guess I don't know any fanatics.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/01O8L1MrbYg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/bqjhJLxEAu0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And who could forget Rick Perry's implosion in which he couldn't name the three departments of government he'd eliminate. In that downward spiral he said he'd totally rework the EPA. Now if I were a betting man the big money behind the GOP wants to use the anti-government sentiments as fuel to cherry pick the regulations they don't like and add others. I think it is sadly beyond balancing environmental stewardship and business concerns for too many of the Republicans these days.

Me too. I think the regional approach could better be refined, and more money spent within OAQPS and research to ensure we don't under verify causal issues, and subsequently over-represent enforcement on things that are still in question. Lemme give an example...lets say an EPA region defines a policy regarding land farms (a place where bugs eat petroleum waste out in the open). The policy comes from narrowly focused lab work that presumes a specific chemical reaction causing release of regulated gases. Well then the state starts hammering land farms for air emissions...guess what...not all bugs are created equally, and not all bugs generate the same byproducts. Now because of poor policy making, businesses are forced to PROVE their bugs are different. More basic research, more industry coordination...less enforcement. I can't speak to Perry's influences, but most people I know want to get environmental quality right.


It's also worth noting the when one of the Koch brothers ran on the libertarian ticket in 1980, this was their platform on the matter:



Of course today they now are the largest funders of the GOP's candidates (no?), so that's got to count for something.

...money in politics. Its bad...we all hate it. I guess we could discuss foreign money in politics...and how that drives international politics...shrug. Its all bad.


The GOP has a serious Israel problem. Criticizing Israel is akin to shitting on George Washington's grave for too many of them. Sheldon Adelson's money and zionist evangelicals are a tough opponent, so they bend at the knee at every opportunity. I respectfully disagree with your position on the influence of the Israel Lobby.

Fair enough, you wouldn't be the only one...

For the lulz:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/x2ZVihACwQ0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'm a fan of this video:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rzXS3tmZrcU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Yeah that's generally the gist of the position. The best you can get out of a popular conservative these days is "yeah, some of it is us. But come on Al Gore blows..."

Al Gore does blow. He put himself as the poster child for the climate change movement, and was roundly (hehehe) accepted as "The Man" by devotes who he whipped into a fever pitch with sensationalized rhetoric. Now that he turns out to be a complete fat cat himself, and thus a hypocritical douche, folks get touchy about the incessant references to how shady he is/was. He is used for the crazy town area on the continuum by his own doing.

In fairness I'm speaking to the party and not the people. I think most Republicans are more moderate than their party.

OK...maybe thats why I don't know of these people...

 

[Whiskeyjack]

I tend to agree with some of the posts on here that a lot of the stuff that Pope Francis has said so far, like the pro-Palestinian comments, are not too troubling because they are in agree-to-disagree territory, but if the Pope says in the forthcoming encyclical that there is a moral imperative to preserve the environment, that's harder to dismiss as outside his purview.

That's already well-established as Catholic doctrine. The only question is what that looks like in practice.

Now, Catholic politicians will still be able to take the position that certain domestic environmental policies don't appropriately advance the goal of environmental preservation because they are inefficient or their good effects are outweighed by harmful ones or whatever, but it could get awkward.

And that's exactly how every Randian "Catholic" will reconcile the upcoming encyclical with his libertarian indifference towards the poor and future generations.

 

[wizards8507]

And that's exactly how every Randian "Catholic" will reconcile the upcoming encyclical with his libertarian indifference towards the poor and future generations.

That's unfair. Many of us libertarians are far from Randian. Institutions freely joined, chief among them family and organized religion, are good and legitimate sources of authority in a libertarian society. The operative clause there is "freely joined."

Further, libertarianism has mechanisms wherein the environment is protected. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have to clarify that position.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 4 using Tapatalk.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That's unfair. Many of us libertarians are far from Randian. Institutions freely joined, chief among them family and organized religion, are good and legitimate sources of authority in a libertarian society. The operative clause there is "freely joined."

We've had this argument many times before, but once more can't hurt. Libertarianism is essentially liberal, because it is built upon Locke's false anthropology of the autonomous individual. You never freely submitted to the authority of God, your parents, or the Federal government, and yet you continue to insist on this incredibly harmful fiction that one's only legitimate duties flow from those few contractual relationships to which he's explicitly consented.

That's not a recipe for genuine community or human flourishing, as the very notion is a powerful solvent for both.

Further, libertarianism has mechanisms wherein the environment is protected. I'd be happy to answer any questions you have to clarify that position.

Please do. My understanding of Christian stewardship of creation is predicated in part on two notions: (1) that creation is a sacred gift which the living hold in trust for future generations; and (2) that environmental degradation overwhelmingly harms the global poor to benefit of the global rich, so we have a moral duty to mitigate such harm.

Libertarianism, which asserts that any duty not explicitly consented to is tyrannical, rejects the idea that present individual liberty should be limited due to the claims of future generations, and that the environmental vulnerability of poor people living in third world countries should limit the liberty of industrious "makers" here in America.

Then there's the Tragedy of the Commons, which continues unabated despite advances in economic modeling, ability to accurately identify negative externalities, etc. But perhaps you've anticipated these critiques, so I'll let you respond before going further. Regardless, I don't see how libertarianism is in any way compatible with Christianity or the responsible stewardship of creation.

 

[wizards8507]

We've had this argument many times before, but once more can't hurt. Libertarianism is essentially liberal, because it is built upon Locke's false anthropology of the autonomous individual.

I'll respond generally and then go point by point. The biggest issue I take with your (mis)characterization of my brand of libertarianism is the role of God. You seem to think that sovereignty of the individual somehow contradicts an appropriate reverence for the Creator, but it's quite the opposite. You've argued before that the concept of the sovereign individual was invented by natural rights philosophers in the 17th century, but I'd argue it's much older than that. As old as Genesis, in fact.

"Then God said: Let us make human beings in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the tame animals, all the wild animals, and all the creatures that crawl on the earth.

God created mankind in his image;
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them"

From the International Theological Commission's Communion and Stewardship: Human Personals Created in the Image of God:

Because every human being is an image of God, he cannot be made subservient to any this-worldly system or finality. His sovereignty within the cosmos, his capacity for social existence, and his knowledge and love of the Creator - all are rooted in man's being made in the image of God.

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

You never freely submitted to the authority of God, your parents, or the Federal government, and yet you continue to insist on this incredibly harmful fiction that one's only legitimate duties flow from those few contractual relationships to which he's explicitly consented.

That's incorrect. As the Creator, God's authority is absolute, with parental authority flowing therefrom. I have many duties to my neighbor, but a political system needs to accommodate men and women of good conscience who have different faiths or no faith whatsoever. Thus, those duties that are imposed through God's authority, though legitimate, do not warrant legal mandate.

You seem to have an overly broad (or maybe overly narrow) interpretation of "legitimate duties." There are plenty of legitimate duties that I have that don't require state intervention. I have a duty to love my wife and daughter but divorce and adultery are (and should be) legal. Morally wrong? Yes. Breach of my legitimate duty? Yes. Illegal? No. We have a legitimate duty (by God's authority) to help the poor among us, but it's not the state's duty to enforce those duties imposed by God.

That's not a recipe for genuine community or human flourishing, as the very notion is a powerful solvent for both.

It's absolutely the recipe for community and human flourishing. The more power assumed by the state, the less people rely on family, community, and faith for those social needs. We see this in the inner cities every day. When the federal government assumes the role of "father," families crumble, requiring further state intervention and further crumbling. It's a downward spiral. Free association is what creates strong community bonds.

Please do. My understanding of Christian stewardship of creation is predicated in part on two notions: (1) that creation is a sacred gift which the living hold in trust for future generations; and (2) that environmental degradation overwhelmingly harms the global poor to benefit of the global rich, so we have a moral duty to mitigate such harm.

Libertarianism, which asserts that any duty not explicitly consented to is tyrannical, rejects the idea that present individual liberty should be limited due to the claims of future generations, and that the environmental vulnerability of poor people living in third world countries should limit the liberty of industrious "makers" here in America.

Then there's the Tragedy of the Commons, which continues unabated despite advances in economic modeling, ability to accurately identify negative externalities, etc. But perhaps you've anticipated these critiques, so I'll let you respond before going further. Regardless, I don't see how libertarianism is in any way compatible with Christianity or the responsible stewardship of creation.

You avoid the tragedy of the commons when there are no commons. If land and lakes and trees and wildlife are all owned by somebody, then that somebody has standing to sue when their property is damaged. Compare the population of elephants from 1979 to 1989. Kenya, which banned elephant trade, saw a population decline from 65,000 to 19,000. In Zimbabwe, elephant trade was legal and the population rose from 30,000 to 43,000. Natural resources are protected much more vigorously when it's your "property."

 

[NDgradstudent]

My son (soon to be 27) and the vast majority of his friends, acquaintances over the years don't really understand the kerfuffle. I don't either as an old fart. It's the old "Live and let live" credo.

Live and let live, unless you own a business (where you will be required to participate in gay marriages), or send your kid to a public school (where this will all be taught apart from what parents want), or send your kid to a Catholic school (which will now have its tax exempt status threatened).

Minnesota can vote how it wants, but the other states ought to be allowed to vote how they want, too. Not every state wants the sort of policies Minnesotans want.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Minnesota can vote how it wants, but the other states ought to be allowed to vote how they want, too. Not every state wants the sort of policies Minnesotans want.

 

[NDgradstudent]

And yet poll after poll sets them distinctly apart from their northern European brethren when it comes to belief in god. They're among the most religious in Europe.

Compared to the rest of Western Europe, Ireland is more religious: this is true, but it is like saying that compared to the rest of New England, Maine is conservative. Secularization simply started later in Ireland than in the rest of Europe, but it has been progressing since around 1990 when church attendance among Catholics was around 90% (now around 40%). Belief in God is not necessarily a good proxy for religious conservatism, considering that a large portion of people who say that they believe in "god or a higher being" mean some sort of "life force" (they are what ND sociologist Christian Smith calls "moral-therapeutic deists" rather than materialists, but they are not describing the Christian God in a meaningful sense).

And when has Ireland ever been an "important country?"

Well, it was pretty important to American Catholics for a long while, as you can tell from the name of this website!

As I've previously shown you, those votes were largely when the public wasn't in favor of gay marriage and those stances are changing rapidly. It's also rather irrelevant considering the court is considering the law under equal protection (no?) and so the people can be wrong (see: slavery, Jim Crow, etc).

In a democratic republic, if the public opinion changes, the legislature usually changes the law. The Court is the least suited to judge public opinion, compared to the legislature.

The people can be wrong, and so can the Court, as slavery taught us. Both slavery and Jim Crow were ended by Congress, not by the Court.

Those aren't even remotely the same thing, and those lawsuits wouldn't stand a chance in court.

Have federal judges told you that? Or are you just guessing? During the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment, opponents remarked that if adopted, it would become the justification for same-sex marriage. Supporters of the ERA replied that this was paranoid, ludicrous, etc. (see for example this 1981 NYT piece by Betty Friedan). Fortunately, the federal ERA was defeated, but several states adopted their own versions. It was in 1993, just eleven years after the defeat of the ERA, that a Hawaii state judge ruled in favor of same-sex marriage on the basis of Hawaii's state ERA. That set off the passage of state DOMAs, the federal DOMA, etc., in the mid-1990s.

So forgive me if I doubt your confident assurances that having dismantled the entire structure of our marriage law, we can now just stop making any further "progressive" adjustments. The groundwork is already being laid for a Lawrence v. Texas for polygamy, and once that is in place, it becomes a matter of marketing, propaganda, etc. The essential point is that many Americans (and almost all in elite professions) have adopted a view that the state must recognize as marriage any relationship that any individual feels compelled to based upon their sexual appetites. Once people accept that, there are no grounds of principle for rejecting polygamy, just the same "ick factor" or appeal to tradition that have already been ruled out of bounds.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Compared to the rest of Western Europe, Ireland is more religious: this is true, but it is like saying that compared to the rest of New England, Maine is conservative. Secularization simply started later in Ireland than in the rest of Europe, but it has been progressing since around 1990 when church attendance among Catholics was around 90% (now around 40%). Belief in God is not necessarily a good proxy for religious conservatism, considering that a large portion of people who say that they believe in "god or a higher being" mean some sort of "life force" (they are what ND sociologist Christian Smith calls "moral-therapeutic deists" rather than materialists, but they are not describing the Christian God in a meaningful sense).

Good. God doesn't exist anyway.

Well, it was pretty important to American Catholics for a long while, as you can tell from the name of this website!

By that definition I'd say it continues to be important to all on this board who don't have an ironic hard-on for eliminating gays via genetic engineering.

In a democratic republic, if the public opinion changes, the legislature usually changes the law. The Court is the least suited to judge public opinion, compared to the legislature.

The people can be wrong, and so can the Court, as slavery taught us. Both slavery and Jim Crow were ended by Congress, not by the Court.

Oh Christ you pedant, how about Brown vs Board of Education? The point is pretty clear: people fuck up and laws change. Cry me a river over the Supreme Court having the ability to throw your stupid mindset off a bridge.

Have federal judges told you that? Or are you just guessing? During the debate over the Equal Rights Amendment, opponents remarked that if adopted, it would become the justification for same-sex marriage. Supporters of the ERA replied that this was paranoid, ludicrous, etc. (see for example this 1981 NYT piece by Betty Friedan). Fortunately, the federal ERA was defeated, but several states adopted their own versions. It was in 1993, just eleven years after the defeat of the ERA, that a Hawaii state judge ruled in favor of same-sex marriage on the basis of Hawaii's state ERA. That set off the passage of state DOMAs, the federal DOMA, etc., in the mid-1990s.

So forgive me if I doubt your confident assurances that having dismantled the entire structure of our marriage law, we can now just stop making any further "progressive" adjustments. The groundwork is already being laid for a Lawrence v. Texas for polygamy, and once that is in place, it becomes a matter of marketing, propaganda, etc. The essential point is that many Americans (and almost all in elite professions) have adopted a view that the state must recognize as marriage any relationship that any individual feels compelled to based upon their sexual appetites. Once people accept that, there are no grounds of principle for rejecting polygamy, just the same "ick factor" or appeal to tradition that have already been ruled out of bounds.

I'm not even going to read this. You suggested that incest was right around the corner after gay marriage, and that's pretty stupid.

 

[dshans]

Minnesota can vote how it wants, but the other states ought to be allowed to vote how they want, too. Not every state wants the sort of policies Minnesotans want.

And any other state can vote any damn well they please.

Until it butts heads against Federal Civil Rights Laws. Or (perhaps more "importantly") Interstate Commerce Laws.

One thing that supersedes "what people want" is what is right and just.

That takes time, education and a degree of enlightenment.

 

[EddytoNow]

And any other state can vote any damn well they please.

Until it butts heads against Federal Civil Rights Laws. Or (perhaps more "importantly") Interstate Commerce Laws.

One thing that supersedes "what people want" is what is right and just.

That takes time, education and a degree of enlightenment.

Agree totally. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights was designed to protect the rights of minorities, preventing a simple majority from trampling over basic human rights. Citizens in South Carolina, Texas, Minnesota and every other state have the same rights that we are all guaranteed. Voting to deny basic human rights is not a power reserved for individual states.

The same-sex marriage controversy is plain and simple. One side wants gay couples to have the same rights as everyone else. The other side wants to deny them those rights. The proponents of same-sex marriage are not asking heterosexual couples to give up their right to marry someone of the opposite sex. They are not proposing that heterosexual marriages be banned. The talk of denying rights and banning certain marriages is all coming from one side in this argument.

 

[wizards8507]

Agree totally. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights was designed to protect the rights of minorities, preventing a simple majority from trampling over basic human rights. Citizens in South Carolina, Texas, Minnesota and every other state have the same rights that we are all guaranteed. Voting to deny basic human rights is not a power reserved for individual states.

The same-sex marriage controversy is plain and simple. One side wants gay couples to have the same rights as everyone else. The other side wants to deny them those rights. The proponents of same-sex marriage are not asking heterosexual couples to give up their right to marry someone of the opposite sex. They are not proposing that heterosexual marriages be banned. The talk of denying rights and banning certain marriages is all coming from one side in this argument.

I've already made my position (marriage privatization) clear, but I'll provide a counter-point to your argument based on the "standard" conservative response, though it's not one I agree with.

First, marriage is not a basic human right. It's been a social institution since day one, so it's appropriate that "society" sets the bounds of what is and isn't legitimate.

Second, every person has the same rights. Each and every person, regardless of gender, has the right to marry someone of the complimentary gender. Straight Jim has the right to marry a woman. Gay Steve has the same right.

Though I'd still like to know why nobody will respond to the marriage privatization argument I've made previously. It solves EVERY side's "beef" with the whole issue but it won't even be considered.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Good. God doesn't exist anyway.

I'm glad you're here to tell me these things!

Oh Christ you pedant, how about Brown vs Board of Education? The point is pretty clear: people fuck up and laws change. Cry me a river over the Supreme Court having the ability to throw your stupid mindset off a bridge.

Most states forbade school segregation prior to Brown; in states where the Brown was unpopular, it had no effect (schools remained wholly segregated until Congress intervened). Schools today are increasingly segregated: New York, ostensibly unaffected by Brown, has the most segregated schools in the country.

So I am not convinced that Brown proves the nobility, legitimacy, etc., of everything the Supreme Court does. As for its power to throw a "mindset" off a bridge, it attempted to do that with the pro-life mindset in Roe, but that mindset has hung around.

I'm not even going to read this. You suggested that incest was right around the corner after gay marriage, and that's pretty stupid.

I was talking about polygamy, not incest. My point is that predictions conservatives have made during this debate, and going back a long time, have consistently come true, which should give anyone caution in dismissing the prediction about polygamy.

 

[NDgradstudent]

One thing that supersedes "what people want" is what is right and just.

That takes time, education and a degree of enlightenment.

The Supreme Court is a group of people too. What makes you think these nine people (really five, for a majority) know what is "right and just" any better than legislatures or voters? Do they have some special expertise in political morality? They are lawyers, better suited than non-lawyers to perceive the meaning of legal texts. Of course there are many, many lawyers/judges who could be on the Supreme Court but are not. The Court's history does not suggest to me that it knows what is right and just any better than other political actors. Many gay rights activists, such as Jon Rauch, agree that a non-judicial victory for their cause would be more stable, create less resentment, etc., too.

Agree totally. Our Constitution and Bill of Rights was designed to protect the rights of minorities, preventing a simple majority from trampling over basic human rights. Citizens in South Carolina, Texas, Minnesota and every other state have the same rights that we are all guaranteed. Voting to deny basic human rights is not a power reserved for individual states.

The same-sex marriage controversy is plain and simple. One side wants gay couples to have the same rights as everyone else. The other side wants to deny them those rights. The proponents of same-sex marriage are not asking heterosexual couples to give up their right to marry someone of the opposite sex. They are not proposing that heterosexual marriages be banned. The talk of denying rights and banning certain marriages is all coming from one side in this argument.

The problem is, people disagree about what "basic human rights" are: so what qualifies the judges of Supreme Court to determine what they are? Is a right to a paid vacation a basic human right, as Article 24 of the UDHR claims?

If you oppose polygamy, you are proposing to ban certain marriages and deny certain rights. Relatedly, the "right" in question is only the same right as anyone else if it is defined as the right to marry based upon your sexual orientation. If that is so, then it is difficult to say how bisexuals (which are recognized as an orientation within 'LGBT') or poly people (who often claim to have a unique orientation) should also be denied those rights.

 

[EddytoNow]

I've already made my position (marriage privatization) clear, but I'll provide a counter-point to your argument based on the "standard" conservative response, though it's not one I agree with.

First, marriage is not a basic human right. It's been a social institution since day one, so it's appropriate that "society" sets the bounds of what is and isn't legitimate.

Second, every person has the same rights. Each and every person, regardless of gender, has the right to marry someone of the complimentary gender. Straight Jim has the right to marry a woman. Gay Steve has the same right.

Though I'd still like to know why nobody will respond to the marriage privatization argument I've made previously. It solves EVERY side's "beef" with the whole issue but it won't even be considered.

Let me see if I fully understand the bolded Conservative response you list above. Straight Jim has the right to marry a woman. Gay Steve has the right to marry a woman. What about Lesbian Karen? Does she also have the right to marry a woman? If not, how is she not being discriminated against on the basis of her gender? She is being denied the right Conservatives are willing to grant to men, both straight and gay. Is that not the very definition of discrimination?

In a way it is very much like the "Separate But Equal" argument used in racial discrimination. You can attend this all-black school, but not this all-white school. It's not discrimination because you are allowed to attend "a school". However, that issue was decided long ago.

 

[wizards8507]

Let me see if I fully understand the bolded Conservative response you list above. Straight Jim has the right to marry a woman. Gay Steve has the right to marry a woman. What about Lesbian Karen? Does she also have the right to marry a woman? If not, how is she not being discriminated against on the basis of her gender? She is being denied the right Conservatives are willing to grant to men, both straight and gay. Is that not the very definition of discrimination?

In a way it is very much like the "Separate But Equal" argument used in racial discrimination. You can attend this all-black school, but not this all-white school. It's not discrimination because you are allowed to attend "a school". However, that issue was decided long ago.

Did you read the sentence immediately prior to the example to which you object? Every person regardless of gender has the right to marry someone of the complimentary gender. To rephrase my example, Straight Jim has the right to marry someone of the complimentary gender. Gay Steve has the right to marry someone of the complimentary gender. Lesbian Karen has the right to marry someone of the complimentary gender.

It's not "discrimination" to acknowledge the fact that men and women are different. Every person has the right to use public restrooms designated for their gender. It's not "discrimination" that I'm not allowed to use the women's room. Likewise, it's not discrimination that my wife's doctor won't give her a testicular exam.

 

[Wild Bill]

Let me see if I fully understand the bolded Conservative response you list above. Straight Jim has the right to marry a woman. Gay Steve has the right to marry a woman. What about Lesbian Karen? Does she also have the right to marry a woman? If not, how is she not being discriminated against on the basis of her gender? She is being denied the right Conservatives are willing to grant to men, both straight and gay. Is that not the very definition of discrimination?

In a way it is very much like the "Separate But Equal" argument used in racial discrimination. You can attend this all-black school, but not this all-white school. It's not discrimination because you are allowed to attend "a school". However, that issue was decided long ago.

Each and every person, regardless of gender, has the right to marry someone of the complimentary gender.

.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Let me see if I fully understand the bolded Conservative response you list above. Straight Jim has the right to marry a woman. Gay Steve has the right to marry a woman. What about Lesbian Karen? Does she also have the right to marry a woman? If not, how is she not being discriminated against on the basis of her gender? She is being denied the right Conservatives are willing to grant to men, both straight and gay. Is that not the very definition of discrimination?

In a way it is very much like the "Separate But Equal" argument used in racial discrimination. You can attend this all-black school, but not this all-white school. It's not discrimination because you are allowed to attend "a school". However, that issue was decided long ago.

Suppose I concede that she is being discriminated against on the basis of sex. Not all discrimination is unjust (e.g. separate bathrooms for men and women, although even these are now being called into question). If there is any instance where the distinction of sex matters, marriage is it.

In order to say that such discrimination is unjust, irrational, etc., you have to argue that sex is irrelevant to marriage. The only reason this discrimination matters is because of the sexual orientation of the person involved. So a straight person can marry a member of the opposite sex; a homosexual person can marry a member of the same sex; but a bisexual or poly person cannot marry a member of both sexes, or multiple people, based upon his or her orientation? How is that just?

 

[pkt77242]

I was talking about polygamy, not incest. My point is that predictions conservatives have made during this debate, and going back a long time, have consistently come true, which should give anyone caution in dismissing the prediction about polygamy.

On the last page, you did talk about incest and marrying children.

If I choose to "love" a sibling, or parent, or under-age person, or multiple people, etc., the government "discriminates" against me. How sustainable is that discrimination? Expect those lawsuits the day after the Supreme Court installs same-sex marriage.

 

[wizards8507]

On the last page, you did talk about incest and marrying children.

What's the difference? Legally speaking, what's the difference? Why couldn't "so-and-so deserves the right to marry whomever he or she loves" be a valid argument for a 48 year old who "loves" a 13 year old?

 

[pkt77242]

Suppose I concede that she is being discriminated against on the basis of sex. Not all discrimination is unjust (e.g. separate bathrooms for men and women, although even these are now being called into question). If there is any instance where the distinction of sex matters, marriage is it.

In order to say that such discrimination is unjust, irrational, etc., you have to argue that sex is irrelevant to marriage. The only reason this discrimination matters is because of the sexual orientation of the person involved. So a straight person can marry a member of the opposite sex; a homosexual person can marry a member of the same sex; but a bisexual or poly person cannot marry a member of both sexes, or multiple people, based upon his or her orientation? How is that just?

Why? The only reason to say that it matters is for procreation, but we let people who are past child bearing age get married, we let people who can't procreate for other reasons to get married. Should we not allow them to marry?

Does the government have a need to limit marriage to men and women, what is the justification for government to discriminate?

 

[pkt77242]

What's the difference? Legally speaking, what's the difference? Why couldn't "so-and-so deserves the right to marry whomever he or she loves" be a valid argument for a 48 year old who "loves" a 13 year old?

A minor can't* enter into the contract or give consent, not just in marriage but in just about anything.

*Edit: They kind of can enter into contracts but they are completely voidable. Most contracts that minors can sign are employment contracts and insurance.

Edit: So it mostly comes down to consent, though the contract would be part of it.

Now the argument about plural marriage raises some questions.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

You seem to have an overly broad (or maybe overly narrow) interpretation of "legitimate duties." There are plenty of legitimate duties that I have that don't require state intervention. I have a duty to love my wife and daughter but divorce and adultery are (and should be) legal. Morally wrong? Yes. Breach of my legitimate duty? Yes. Illegal? No. We have a legitimate duty (by God's authority) to help the poor among us, but it's not the state's duty to enforce those duties imposed by God.

Why do you insist on this false dichotomy of an oppressive nanny state v. an anarcho-capitalist utopia? I'm obviously not arguing for the former, and the latter has never existed anywhere in human history.

It's absolutely the recipe for community and human flourishing. The more power assumed by the state, the less people rely on family, community, and faith for those social needs.

Again with that false dichotomy.

We see this in the inner cities every day. When the federal government assumes the role of "father," families crumble, requiring further state intervention and further crumbling.

The "family" began crumbling long before the Feds moved to fill the void, mostly due to the logical outworkings of liberalism itself. You're confusing cause and effect here.

Free association is what creates strong community bonds.

Quite the opposite. The myth of individual autonomy that undergirds liberal ideals like "free association" ensures that community will eventually disappear wherever it takes hold.

You avoid the tragedy of the commons when there are no commons. If land and lakes and trees and wildlife are all owned by somebody, then that somebody has standing to sue when their property is damaged. Compare the population of elephants from 1979 to 1989. Kenya, which banned elephant trade, saw a population decline from 65,000 to 19,000. In Zimbabwe, elephant trade was legal and the population rose from 30,000 to 43,000. Natural resources are protected much more vigorously when it's your "property."

And how does one parcel out ownership of the oceans? The polar zones? The atmosphere?

You are too smart for that. A minor can't enter into the contract or give consent, not just in marriage but in just about anything.

This is all about individual autonomy, which is the summum bonum of liberal philosophy. You know who has lots of autonomy? The rich and powerful. And they've done exceptionally well since the Enlightenment. You know who doesn't have much autonomy? The poor, the disabled, the elderly, and children. The only protections such groups currently enjoy are relics of the uniquely Christian belief that all human life is sacred.

But we've spent the last several decades aggressively jettisoning much of the West's Christian patrimony, so what makes you think that particular ideal is going to hold? 100 years ago, legalized abortion was unthinkable in America. And yet ~57 million children have been destroyed in utero since Roe v. Wade passed 40 years ago. A mere 10 years ago, legalized SSM was unthinkable; but now it's a fait accompli. You at least recognize that polyamory is the next stop on this very slippery slope, but the flippant insistence of Progressives that it'll go no further than that is flatly absurd in light of the revolutionary social changes that have happened (and will continue to happen) over the last century.

Before the Edict of Milan, children in the Roman Empire were considered property. A father could kill, abuse or sell his kids with impunity. As we re-paganize, we're starting to see similar reversions in our own culture: abortion is like the Roman practice of expositio, and the "rights" of the LGBTQ community are necessitating the deliberate creation of marketable orphans so that they can choose to become parents just like heterosexual couples can.

To borrow from Marx, "[a]ll fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify; [a]ll that is solid melts into air, [and] all that is holy is profaned..."

The sexual revolution was simply the commodification of sex. And just as wizards' devotion to laissez-faire capitalism is incompatible with community, your devotion to sexual libertinism is incompatible with protecting the weak from the powerful.