Talk about anything and everything not related to this site or the Dreamcast, such as news stories, political discussion, or anything else. If there's not a forum for it, it belongs in here. Also, be warned that personal insults, threats, and spamming will not be tolerated.
greay wrote:Can we please stop debating word definitions? Because, Farrell, you're using words in ways different from my dictionary, and it's getting really frustrating.
Discrimination does not have to have anything to do with rights. If I go door-to-door and give everyone who answers with blonde hair 5$, that's discrimination. No rights or priveleges involved. It's still discrimination.
Discrimination has everything to do with rights. The gov't is NOT allowed to pracatice discrimination with regard to rights. Privileges are a different matter. Privileges do not belong to everyone, so the gov't can decide who they want to have them.
Your analogy with the blone haired people is you discriminating on a personal level. You have the right to do that, and no one can stop you. Privileges are afforded to certain groups, as per its definition. Privileges are not and do not have to be given to everyone. This is the nature of a privilege.
greay wrote:
And you choose to ignore the fact that darc's point was not that marriage is a civil right, but that the law shouldn't stop people who are being discriminated against from trying to change the law.
If his point was not that marriage was a civil right, he shouldn't have used a civil rights issue as an example.
No one is trying to stop gays from changing the law. They're free, just as anyone is, to try and change it all they want. They're not going to succeed, because they're going about it the wrong way by treating marriage as something to which they are legally entitled.
Your entire argument, and the rest of the gay community's is that same-sex couples are somehow being discriminated against.
Are you sure that's not just the aspect of the argument that you prefer to deconstruct? I've seen a broader argument that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry because there is no reasonable basis for not allowing them to marry.
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Since you keep bringing up law, let's look at the highest law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
Amendment 9 basically means that this is by no means a complete and definitive list of rights there are others that are retained by the people.
And if you look even more closely, the Constitution does not set forth limits on the people of the United States. No, in fact, the Constitution lays limits on the government as entity. Because the government holds no power without consent of the people.
The government cannot define what rights the people have, because the government as entity does not have the power to. The power is vested in the people.
You live in America, "a government of the people, for the people, by the people", you should at least understand what that fact means.
farrell2k wrote:They're not going to succeed, because they're going about it the wrong way by treating marriage as something to which they are legally entitled.
Huh? If gay people already had that legal entitlement, then this conversation wouldn't be happening. The whole problem is that by denying these people the ability to marry, the government is behaving in an immoral manner. That is not acceptable in a civilized nation.
Also, read what toastman posted. The 9th Ammendment has been brought up a few times, and I don't think you've responded to what has been said about it.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Since you keep bringing up law, let's look at the highest law of the land, the U.S. Constitution.
Quoting the 9th amendment does also not make it a right. The 9th amendment recognizes many things; right to choose (certain things), right to privacy (in certain places), and I am sure it will be defined more in the future. Despite wha you believe, marriage is NOT a constitutional issue, and NEVER will be. The 9th amendment means nothing to marriage. As pointed out in Singer v. Hara. Singer v. hara is probably the best explanation as to why disallowing gay marriage does NOT vilate the equal rights amendment.
toastman wrote:
The government cannot define what rights the people have, because the government as entity does not have the power to. The power is vested in the people.
Okey Dokey... There is no distinction between the gov't and the people; the gov't consists of representatives and servants of the people. The gov't is the people... Thanks for your pointless little lesson, though. Oh, and this also still does not make marriage a right.
onethirty8 wrote:
Huh? If gay people already had that legal entitlement, then this conversation wouldn't be happening.
I agree, but marriage is not a right.
onethirty8 wrote:
The whole problem is that by denying these people the ability to marry, the government is behaving in an immoral manner. That is not acceptable in a civilized nation.
Your opinion, which I may add, is of the minority.
Last edited by farrell2k on Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Farrell, it seems to me that what you're essentially talking about here is a totalitarian government under which we have no rights, but we might have the 'privilege' of breathing. Not only is this not the kind of society most of us would like to live in, it's not the society that exists in America! We have rights, not all of which are laid out explicitly on paper, but which we have. When the government hasn't recognized them in the past, they have been forced to change the laws so that these rights are recognized. Your insistance that marriage is not a right is largely irrelevant. Everybody has the right to be treated as an equal in a free society, and that right is being infringed upon. Argue against this point all you want, but you won't remove the truth of it.
farrell2k wrote:marriage is NOT a constitutional issue, and NEVER will be
Chief Justice Earl Warren; Loving v. Virginia wrote:This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.
farrell2k wrote:marriage is not a right
Chief Justice Earl Warren; Loving v. Virginia wrote:Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
The applicability of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Loving v. Virginia opinion to same-sex marriage notwithstanding, your assertions that marriage is neither a right nor a constititutional issue appear to flatly contradict the nation's highest judicial authority. Of course, I believe that it is your right to hold a contrary opinion; although this right is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution, it is presumably implied by the First Amendment. Or perhaps you have an alternative interpretation?
As an aside, the arguments put forth in Singer v. Hara are interesting, but how do they have any more weight for the nation than Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health or Baker v. State of Vermont?
Last edited by Ex-Cyber on Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
"You know, I have a great, wonderful, really original method of teaching antitrust law, and it kept 80 percent of the students awake. They learned things. It was fabulous." -- Justice Stephen Breyer
farrell2k you are stupid. That's the bottom line. After the arguements and "facts" you've presented in this thread I really have no reason to listen to anymore of your ultra-conservative totalitarian babble.
Live in your bubble and have fun.
Toastman speaks the truth... especially the 1st sentence of his last post
Might as well lock this topic... it's just going around in circles, with Farrel reusing the same bulls*it over and over without making any valid comments.
|darc| wrote:
I don't give a fudge about whats a right and whats not.
What are we pushing for here? MARRIAGE REFORM.
So it DOESN'T MATTER whether its a right or not.
We're trying to REFORM it.
When blacks tried to vote, did they just go "Oops, forgot, we're not included in the constitution" and go pick more cotton?
It certainly does matter. Oh, and it doesn't matter whether you give a "fudge" or not. Your entire argument, and the rest of the gay community's is that same-sex couples are somehow being discriminated against. In order to show discrimination, you have to show that gays are entitled to marriage licenses in the first place, and because no one is entitled to a marriage license, the entire argument is moot. This is why it gets shot down in court every single time.
Oh, and your analogy with the blacks was pointless. Marriage has nothing to do with civil rights, as.....you guessed it: marriage is not a civil right.
Discrimination is defined as "treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice."
Whether or not it is a right or not, it is still discrimination.
But thats still besides my point, and my post seemed to go right over your head.
My point is that the open minded and gay communities want REFORM TO THE MARRIAGE SYSTEM. It doesn't matter if its a right now, we just want gays to be able to get married.
Those pushing for change are trying to change what marriage will be, not what marriage is now. So everything you say about it not being a right is pointless.
|darc| wrote:Discrimination is defined as "treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice."
Whether or not it is a right or not, it is still discrimination.
Discrimination happens. It does matter whether it's a right or not. Golf courses don't have to allow anybody and they can discriminate based on whatever they want. Why? It's nobody's right to play on a golf course, it's a privilege.
The government gives tax breaks that are only for the rich. That's discrimination, but tax breaks aren't a right. They're a privilege.
You don't work, you don't eat.
You don't grind, you shine.
-Mike Jones
281-330-8004, when someone picks up, ask for Mike Jones!
"It's [TreyDay] baby, I'm stackin my cheddar/plus I'm packin mo' heat than a Bill Cosby sweater"
|darc| wrote:Discrimination is defined as "treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice."
Whether or not it is a right or not, it is still discrimination.
Discrimination happens. It does matter whether it's a right or not. Golf courses don't have to allow anybody and they can discriminate based on whatever they want. Why? It's nobody's right to play on a golf course, it's a privilege.
It seems to me that the only consideration there should be whether or not you can afford the green fees. If I owned a golf course, that would be the only prerequisite I'd have. Anything else is immoral.
TreyDay wrote:The government gives tax breaks that are only for the rich. That's discrimination, but tax breaks aren't a right. They're a privilege.
Thanks. You've just reminded me of the reasons I've been ignoring you. Do you try to come up with ridiculous arguments on purpose? 'Tax breaks' aren't a privilege you earn by being rich. It's the rich looking out for their own at the expense of the rest of us - it's basically pissing on the working class. There's no valid comparison here with the topic of this discussion.
It seems to me that the only consideration there should be whether or not you can afford the green fees. If I owned a golf course, that would be the only prerequisite I'd have. Anything else is immoral.
If you were running a golf course, then you might let everyone play as long as they can pay. But until Tiger Woods came and became the world's greatest golfer, the golf course that holds the Masters only let white men play there. Not they only let men. Women still can't play there. It's a privilege. Discrimination still happens
Thanks. You've just reminded me of the reasons I've been ignoring you. Do you try to come up with ridiculous arguments on purpose? 'Tax breaks' aren't a privilege you earn by being rich. It's the rich looking out for their own at the expense of the rest of us - it's basically pissing on the working class. There's no valid comparison here with the topic of this discussion.
People tell me my theories are backwards, I tell them sincerely, it's clearly you hearing me backwards.
Tax breaks for people in a certain tax bracket is discrimination. I never said rich people earned tax breaks, they just get them. I was showing that the government can discriminate. Here's another example of discrimination by the government, they don't let women go in combat situations and they couldn't be drafted. That's discrimination.
Back to my original point, |darc|, it IS discrimination, but the government can do that and does do that.
You don't work, you don't eat.
You don't grind, you shine.
-Mike Jones
281-330-8004, when someone picks up, ask for Mike Jones!
"It's [TreyDay] baby, I'm stackin my cheddar/plus I'm packin mo' heat than a Bill Cosby sweater"
It seems to me that the only consideration there should be whether or not you can afford the green fees. If I owned a golf course, that would be the only prerequisite I'd have. Anything else is immoral.
If you were running a golf course, then you might let everyone play as long as they can pay. But until Tiger Woods came and became the world's greatest golfer, the golf course that holds the Masters only let white men play there. Not they only let men. Women still can't play there. It's a privilege. Discrimination still happens
The Masters tournament was forced to let a woman on the tour, so not only is your arguement just plain not sound from the start, you also have no idea what you are talking about and can't be bothered to research.
That and the government does not just say, "Oh, you made 200K this year, you don't have to pay taxes." No, people who make a lot have more opportunities to make deductions and they can put their money in various accounts and what not that can't be taxed by the government. It's not simply a matter of being rich, it's a matter of also being able to hire a good accountant.
