kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 29, 2015 10:50:12 GMT -5
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 29, 2015 13:46:22 GMT -5
I'm forever impressed by the right's ability to disingenuously attempt to re-shape the debate when they don't get their own way.
It's not about being against gay people, it's about being against gay sex itself!
It's not about being against gay people, it's about supporting Traditional MarriageTM!
It's not about being against gay people, it's about supporting my religious freedom to deny people services through my government protected, incorporated business!
It's not about being against gay people, it's about government interference in consenting adults' ability to contract!
I mean, really? Are we going to pretend that this isn't just another effort to make as much of an impact as they can on the issue while trying to dance around all of the avenues they've continuously lost on?
Unelected judges imposing their will is a theme that only seems to come up when the right wing doesn't get its way in judicial decisions. It's a great soundbite, though.
So no, I don't think it's time to examine whether or not government should be involved in the marriage business. And I think it's silly to treat this like an issue independent of the effort to block the full integration of gay people into American society. That's all it is.
Freedom to contract, like state's rights, is often the last bastion of losing bigots. That's all it is here. I also love him calling out the 'hypocrisy' of those who support Friday's decision, but don't believe in a race to the bottom in terms of wages.
Does he think the people reading this are stupid? The economic liberty to work for $3/hour is totally comparable to the liberty of two adults to marry!!
This issue will go nowhere, and then we'll be treated to the next idiotic dog and pony show they put on. Meanwhile, they'll keep losing.
|
|
SaxaCD
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,401
|
Post by SaxaCD on Jun 29, 2015 19:47:55 GMT -5
I agree -- I thought Paul's argument was thoughtful and fair. Therefore most will dismiss it and look for the Kardashians on TV. |
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,441
|
Post by TC on Jun 30, 2015 8:19:50 GMT -5
The I'll take-my-ball-and-go-home position. Republicans have had plenty of reasons why they think government should support marriage - I bet if you go through their platforms for the last 30-40 years, you find plenty of reasons why they think government recognition of marriage is a good (family values, supporting families, stability, etc etc). Their argument against is basically "gays". |
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 30, 2015 8:51:49 GMT -5
I agree -- I thought Paul's argument was thoughtful and fair. Therefore most will dismiss it and look for the Kardashians on TV. Ah yes, everyone who doesn't agree must be an ignorant idiot. So let's take a look at this "thoughtful and fair" piece. Well that means one side is correct and one side is incorrect. A major purpose of the Supreme Court is to protect rights from majorities who may seek to take them away. If you think gay rights shouldn't be covered under this, have the courage to say it instead of hiding behind 'some say' nonsense that you should learn in middle school civics. More total nonsense. Pretending that the concept of 'freedom' somehow means all issues should be considered equally as long as you use the word 'liberty' is another idiotic point. Hey but if you ignore reality, nuance, the constitution, our evolving views of rights (you know, from the whole slavery thing to today), then maybe it's a great point! But for an adult to say that sentence is a little embarrassing. Awesome, more 'some say' hypothetical b.s. How will this happen? Does he agree? Is it true? Doesn't matter, just throw platitudes at the base and they'll eat it up. Oh I can translate that: "Yes, I believe that the freedom to contract should go above people's rights and dignity, including slave labor wages. The government shouldn't interfere in the rights of consenting adults to contract how they'd like, and I believe that in a much more fundamentalist, extreme way than the majority of Americans. Except, of course, for gays. Because that's just totes different, obviously." He then goes into a rant using Clarence Freaking Thomas' opinion to bolster his point. That's usually not a good idea. Forgive me for not thinking that we should interpret the Constitution based on what Thomas thinks the Founding Fathers would have thought about it two centuries ago. You know, maybe the guys who owned slaves and didn't consider women to be full citizens shouldn't be the guideposts we use on contemporary social norms. But it sure is effective to shut down debate by pretending that's the only honest way to interpret the Constitution! Then he goes into the question of whether or not government should be involved in marriage at all, since it's apparently just always made things worse. It's a total coincidence that he's bringing it up now, it's not being a sore loser, it's just the right time to get government out of marriage. Clearly that's been a right-wing goal for decades now and isn't a bigoted, reactionary move one squeal short of a temper tantrum... The only question here is whether he's pandering or truly believes this. Having followed Rand for a few years, I'd go with pandering. It's not that he's stupid, it's that he thinks massaging other people's stupidity will get him elected. Eat it up! So he basically asks whether or not it's time to get government out of marriage. With no indication of what that would actually mean or do. Just because it's what we should have always done. Because...you know...government...bad... Consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want except what I don't want them to do. Really thoughtful, fair article there. Dress bigotry up in idealistic nostalgia for a time when freedom was freedom - it's still bigotry. And it's not fooling anyone. At least when people watch the Kardashians they know it's fake, scripted entertainment. |
|
Elvado
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,080
|
Post by Elvado on Jun 30, 2015 9:28:08 GMT -5
As a starting point, I find the hand-wringing over this issue exhausting.
Why shouldn't same sex couples have the same right to be miserable as heterosexual couples?
Having said that, my favorite argument against same sex unions is the one espoused by fundamentalist Christians and doctrinaire Catholics (full disclosure here, I am Roman casual ). Does anyone really believe that Christ himself would be against two people who love and want to care for one another being allowed to do so freely and under the same civil protections as another couple? Really?
I find this argument mind boggling.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 30, 2015 11:02:22 GMT -5
Why shouldn't same sex couples have the same right to be miserable as heterosexual couples? Except it's not that simple of a question. For example, does the Constitution require that each state recognize gay marriage, or is it an issue that should be left to be decided by the citizens of each state? For many, it's not a matter of whether gay marriage is acceptable, but rather how should we decide if its acceptable and how does government fit in to the equation. Jesus would not be "against" anyone. He loves all and teaches to do the same. That does not mean that sin is without consequence (whether it be sexually immoral activity or adultery or whatever). |
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 30, 2015 11:53:23 GMT -5
"Except it's not that simple of a question. For example, does the Constitution require that each state recognize gay marriage, or is it an issue that should be left to be decided by the citizens of each state? For many, it's not a matter of whether gay marriage is acceptable, but rather how should we decide if its acceptable and how does government fit in to the equation."
Well that's the thing, we just did that. Not liking the result is not the same thing as there being no result.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 30, 2015 13:56:11 GMT -5
"Except it's not that simple of a question. For example, does the Constitution require that each state recognize gay marriage, or is it an issue that should be left to be decided by the citizens of each state? For many, it's not a matter of whether gay marriage is acceptable, but rather how should we decide if its acceptable and how does government fit in to the equation." Well that's the thing, we just did that. Not liking the result is not the same thing as there being no result. Um, you're correct. I was addressing a different question. |
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Jun 30, 2015 14:04:07 GMT -5
Oh right, I always forget that we have to pretend this is not about the place of gay people in society and is instead a purely mechanistic discussion about governmental procedures. I'd also like to buy a bridge, selling any?
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jun 30, 2015 16:38:36 GMT -5
Oh right, I always forget that we have to pretend this is not about the place of gay people in society and is instead a purely mechanistic discussion about governmental procedures. I'd also like to buy a bridge, selling any? What? We're only allowed to talk about the former and not the latter? Sorry, the constitutional and legal aspects are much more interesting to me. The "place of gay people in society" has already been decided. There's not much more to discuss about that (unless you're one of those old people that keep posting about abortion on here). |
|
