Flint
Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Ghost:
OK, maybe now we're getting somewhere.
| Quote | | 1) The traditional definition of marriage is arbitrary. Its raison d'etre? To exclude and oppress sexual minorities. |
Huh? What we're talking about here is the degree to which the State bureaucracy has institutionalized what marriage means in legal practice. Someone counted over 10,000 separate legal differences between married and not married. These differences cost gays over $10,000 as opposed to $25 for straights, and STILL don't quite cover the territory as thoroughly.
| Quote | | 2) Gay marriage is a logical consequence of the 14th Amendment. |
Ugh. The 14th Amendment is a consequence of the recognition that citizens of the States are citizens of the Nation, and ipso facto inherit rights granted by the US Constitution to all citizens. The US Constitution is itself a product of a political philosophy of legal equality for all citizens. So I would say that the US Constitution including all amendments and marriage derive from the same source. They are logical consequences of the same political philosophy.
| Quote | | 3) Therefore, any reasonable person would advocate gay marriage given the chance. |
That's very misleading. No, I would say that anyone who *values American political ideals* would advocate that what are considered basic civil rights be extended to all citizens, and that institutionalized discrimination violates those ideals. Please note that de facto discrimination is a different matter, handled differently. Marriage is so thoroughly intertwined with laws and regulations by now that any denial of these legalities is institutionalized discrimination. And please note that marriage is being addressed here because this seems to be the ONLY civil rights legally denied to gays. If they were allowed to marry but had to sit at the back of the bus, I'd still be trying to "mainstream" them. They are ordinary taxpaying citizens.
| Quote | | 4) Corollary: anyone who wishes to deny said rights must be a bigot |
Sigh. There are many entirely reasonable people worldwide who do NOT share American political values and ideals. But I'll concede that I consider the golden rule to be a human universal; it's very cross cultural. And accordingly, those who wish to violate this rule, in my opinion, need some pretty compelling and relevant reasons. Otherwise, as I keep saying, we can note that the golden rule is awfully hard to follow when the status quo favors those who break it.
| Quote | | 5) So the debate revolves around exposing the bigotry underlying the opponent's position. If he frets over the spread of deadly diseases, that's just a ruse. |
No, it's a different issue. Let's say the issue is whether women should be allowed to drive. We note that women DO drive despite not having licenses, and that they have accidents sometimes due to being drunk. Is focusing on the sobriety of these individuals proximately appropriate to the general issue of drivers licenses?
So I think you're using a "look over there" argument. If we're concerned about the spread of deadly diseases, let's focus on the disease. EVEN IF marriage by some incomprehensible mechanism increases the spread of the disease, the focus is still the disease and not the 10,000 legal distinctions and the $10,000 difference in cost to achieve them.
| Quote | | If he cites a study, it's merely to pollute the liberal mind with sophistry. |
You know better than this, so shame on you! Studies of disease aren't sophistry, but claiming that these studies justify denial of equality under the law flagrantly misses the point. And you know it.
| Quote | | We're liberals after all - we possess a purity of heart and clarity of mind that lets us see through the haze of smoke that cloaks the conservative's atavistic loathing of Liberty, Truth and Beauty. |
I would hope we value American political ideals. This doesn't necessarily mean purity of heart, I suppose. I've said nothing about truth and beauty, as you know. I'm talking about a *legal condition*, and the difference in the way the State treats people based on this legal condition. And the differential cost of achieving comparable conditions.
Look, nowhere have you said that gays should not be allowed to *approximate* marriage, very very closely, by going through this very extensive and expensive legal process. Yet by so doing, they achieve basically the same purpose (if they are wealthy enough).
So the challenge you continue to dodge is very simple: How will reducing the price of these legal arrangements cause damage to society? Let's TRY to stay focused, OK?
|
