Jeez, what a fucking ridiculous analogy. I won't even address it. It's too fucking stupid.
There is no useful distinction between the topic of interracial marriage and the topic of homosexual marriage. It is not leaps and bounds different. It is the same fucking thing. It's something that is legal for one group of people that is illegal to a different group of people based on an arbitrary rule that devalues the latter group of people for having a certain essential and integral attribute to their persons.
Bringing up "tradition" also earns you absolutely no points, because tradition is a red herring, the excuse to do something wrong because "it's always been that way". No, fuck you. If something is wrong, it is wrong, and just because that is how it was done in the past is not any cover for continuing to do something wrong and refusing to correct it.
It would only be equivalent if homosexuals were banned from marrying people of the opposite gender. That is what happened with bans on interracial marriage. Men and women were banned from marrying opposite gender people strictly based upon race. It was a ban on something that was otherwise completely legal under the law.
Gender neutral marriage is not the same as interracial marriage.
Refutation the first: Really, did you really just spin the "well, homosexuals aren't banned from marrying. They can still marry people of the opposite gender, therefore we don't need to change anything" argument? Really, are you that much of a goddamn imbecilic fuckstick?
But if you insist on it, I will retranslate it to the times of when interracial marriage was illegal: "Well, black people aren't banned from marrying. They can still marry people of the same race, therefore we don't need to change anything."
Refutation the second: People can marry the people that they love, or at least want to marry. Unless they are homosexual, in which case they can not marry the partner of their choice. It is banning something that is otherwise completely legal under the law.
I'm not arguing against gender neutral marriage just pointing out that it is a very different animal than interracial marriage.
Your second refutation proves my poin as to why this is wholly different than interracial marriage because marrying who you want has been limited to opposite gender since the founding of the US(and earlier) bans on interracial marriage did not exist in all states at the founding.
Wow, you guys are sure getting emotional and sweary over a pedantic disagreement with someone who, in all important respects, agrees with you completely. Chill out.
I've seen your video and it has nothing to do with what Steve is trying to say
This comes down to a disagreement over the definition of marriage. If marriage is defined as a contract between a man and a woman then two men or woman cannot get married because their relationship would not fit that definition on matter how wonderful said relationship may be.
The idea is to change the definition so that it's more inclusive.
Edit: Legality is all about definitions and how they apply. It couldn't give a crap about right and wrong.
I'm not arguing against gender neutral marriage just pointing out that it is a very different animal than interracial marriage.
And I'm telling you it fucking isn't!
Some aspects are the same, others are different. You are pointing at the things that are the same, he is pointing at the things that are different.
If the concepts on either end of analogy were exactly the same in all regards, it wouldn't be an analogy. That differences exist is what allows them to be analogies.
Refutation the first: Really, did you really just spin the "well, homosexuals aren't banned from marrying. They can still marry people of the opposite gender, therefore we don't need to change anything" argument? Really, are you that much of a goddamn imbecilic fuckstick?
But if you insist on it, I will retranslate it to the times of when interracial marriage was illegal: "Well, black people aren't banned from marrying. They can still marry people of the same race, therefore we don't need to change anything."
Refutation the second: People can marry the people that they love, or at least want to marry. Unless they are homosexual, in which case they can not marry the partner of their choice. It is banning something that is otherwise completely legal under the law.
Refutation the third: FUCK YOU!
Way to make yourself sound like an ass. Your swearing and anger doesn't help your point at all. The fact is that our legal system has categorized the two issues as different and has valid reasons for doing so. Your personal opinion that they are not different is fine, but you aren't going to convince the establishment of that by swearing at them and calling them names.
Also you need to understand that these two things are not the same: 1) saying gender neutral marriage is a different issue from race neutral marriage 2) opposing gender neutral marriage
Instead of throwing a hissy fit and yelling the equivalent of "IS SO!" at people, maybe you should put together an argument that demonstrates WHY their argument that the two issues are different is incorrect.
Your second refutation proves my poin as to why this is wholly different than interracial marriage because marrying who you want has been limited to opposite gender since the founding of the US(and earlier) bans on interracial marriage did not exist in all states at the founding.
Since you added this in later: What a doozy of a non-sequitur. This statement has absolutely nothing to do with the statement you are responding to.
Further, it does not make for a coherent argument or poses a fundamental or relevant difference between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. Whether something was banned from the beginning or banned later on makes absolutely no statement on whether it should be banned, or whether the thing that was banned later on was less frowned upon or makes it logically a better thing to allow again. It perhaps makes it easier to annul the ban, but it doesn't make the ban less evil.
Whether something was banned from the beginning or banned later on makes absolutely no statement on whether it should be banned...
He isn't saying that. He's saying that, legally, it's approached and considered differently. You know, in courts and laws and shit. Not in morals or ethics.
Whether something was banned from the beginning or banned later on makes absolutely no statement on whether it should be banned...
He isn't saying that. He's saying that, legally, it's approached and considered differently. You know, in courts and laws and shit. Not in morals or ethics.
Way to make yourself sound like an ass. Your swearing and anger doesn't help your point at all. The fact is that our legal system has categorized the two issues as different and has valid reasons for doing so. Your personal opinion that they are not different is fine, but you aren't going to convince the establishment of that by swearing at them and calling them names.
Also you need to understand that these two things are not the same: 1) saying gender neutral marriage is a different issue from race neutral marriage 2) opposing gender neutral marriage
Instead of throwing a hissy fit and yelling the equivalent of "IS SO!" at people, maybe you should put together an argument that demonstrates WHY their argument that the two issues are different is incorrect.
If you cared to actually read the post rather than try to find flaws because I'm not nice enough you would see that I have continually refuted each and every point Steve has made. I have also pointed out that there is no valid reason for this separate categorization, and Steve has continually failed to present one. I swore and called him names in addition to that, because his arguments are truly outrageously stupid.
I find it funny that you are trying to paint me as the bad guy for using strong language, when it's Steve who is pretty happy in facilitating the devaluation of people based on their sexual orientation and piss all over the 14th amendment. The only thing he has advocated so far is stop the federal government of the U.S. from doing that, but he seems pretty content in allowing individual states to continue this denial of essential civil rights and segregation of people by their sexual orientation.
Whether something was banned from the beginning or banned later on makes absolutely no statement on whether it should be banned...
He isn't saying that. He's saying that, legally, it's approached and considered differently. You know, in courts and laws and shit. Not in morals or ethics.
a) I think it's been pretty clear that I've been arguing from the morals and ethics standpoint. b) So essentially what you are saying that Steve posed a tautology, which has no value as an argument, as it simply states that it will be approached differently, but not whether the ban itself is good or bad. c) I still don't see what Steve's statement has in the slightest to do with the refutation he was responding to.
It has been clear from the start that you have been arguing from the morals and ethics standpoint. It has also been clear that Steve has been discussing from the legal/rights standpoint, despite it not being the subject of your original post.
Everyone else reading the thread understands this, and is fine with it. You're the only one swearing and saying Steve is advocating against gay marriage, which he clearly isn't.
Don't you find it curious that only you are seeing that in my comments? Is it possible that you are seeing an argument I did not make?
This is the post that started this thread necro:
Since SCOTUS is currently deciding whether or not they want to wade into this I thought I might propose a simple solution:
1) Since the states issue marriage licenses it is up to the states to decide what constitutes a marriage.
2) The feds will treat ALL married couples the same regardless of gender. As long as the issuing state says the marriage is legal feds will too.
With both points you are essentially giving the states the full right of denying marriage to homosexual couples by proposing that certain marriages can be legal in one state but not the other. You know, just like The Commonwealth of Virginia having still laws against interracial marriage in 1967 despite it being allowed in different parts of the U.S. All you do is shift the burden a level down, but you appear to be still A-OK with states denying a certain group of people the same rights that other people enjoy.
You proposed this as a "solution". To me, this does not appear to be a solution at all, because there will still be homosexual couples who will be denied a right that heterosexual couples enjoy.
I'm not okay with that, and I don't think Steve is, but he is offering a solution for the SCOTUS for the federal government. For both democrats and republicans in the SCOTUS, it's a winning move.
He's not saying he's OK with it, dude. He's saying that's how our existing legal framework is set up to deal with this. Anything else would be a bigger precedent shift.
He's not saying he's OK with it, dude. He's saying that's how our existing legal framework is set up to deal with this. Anything else would be a bigger precedent shift.
I'm not okay with that, and I don't think Steve is, but he is offering a solution for the SCOTUS for the federal government. For both democrats and republicans in the SCOTUS, it's a winning move.
But a bigger precedent shift is what is necessary! All Steve's proposed solution does is set up a situation that will inevitably lead to a case like Loving v. Virginia or Lawrence v. Texas anyway. And in the meantime the stupidity and the denial of rights remains. Yeah, that's swinging for the fences, but that is simply what needs to happen.
What is needed to satisfy morals and ethics is not always what is possible politically speaking.
While that is true, one doesn't have to pretend that it's a solution to the problem at hand when it isn't. All Steve's proposal does is kick the can down the road, not actually give the rights to homosexual couples that they should have.
It's a solution to the political problem faced by the SCOTUS, which he stated in the first line of his first post on the subject: "Since SCOTUS is currently deciding whether or not they want to wade into this I thought I might propose a simple solution:"
The only thing I'm confused about is why Steve reacted so indignantly when jason and loc pointed out that all his proposal does is facilitate the ability of States to deny civil rights to certain groups of people and set up a Loving v. Virginia scenario. Plus his only response being to declare interracial marriage and homosexual marriage as incomparable.
Comments
There is no useful distinction between the topic of interracial marriage and the topic of homosexual marriage. It is not leaps and bounds different. It is the same fucking thing. It's something that is legal for one group of people that is illegal to a different group of people based on an arbitrary rule that devalues the latter group of people for having a certain essential and integral attribute to their persons.
Bringing up "tradition" also earns you absolutely no points, because tradition is a red herring, the excuse to do something wrong because "it's always been that way". No, fuck you. If something is wrong, it is wrong, and just because that is how it was done in the past is not any cover for continuing to do something wrong and refusing to correct it.
It is you who is fucking ignorant here.
Gender neutral marriage is not the same as interracial marriage.
But if you insist on it, I will retranslate it to the times of when interracial marriage was illegal: "Well, black people aren't banned from marrying. They can still marry people of the same race, therefore we don't need to change anything."
Refutation the second: People can marry the people that they love, or at least want to marry. Unless they are homosexual, in which case they can not marry the partner of their choice. It is banning something that is otherwise completely legal under the law.
Refutation the third: FUCK YOU!
Your second refutation proves my poin as to why this is wholly different than interracial marriage because marrying who you want has been limited to opposite gender since the founding of the US(and earlier) bans on interracial marriage did not exist in all states at the founding.
This comes down to a disagreement over the definition of marriage. If marriage is defined as a contract between a man and a woman then two men or woman cannot get married because their relationship would not fit that definition on matter how wonderful said relationship may be.
The idea is to change the definition so that it's more inclusive.
Edit: Legality is all about definitions and how they apply. It couldn't give a crap about right and wrong.
If the concepts on either end of analogy were exactly the same in all regards, it wouldn't be an analogy. That differences exist is what allows them to be analogies.
Also you need to understand that these two things are not the same:
1) saying gender neutral marriage is a different issue from race neutral marriage
2) opposing gender neutral marriage
Instead of throwing a hissy fit and yelling the equivalent of "IS SO!" at people, maybe you should put together an argument that demonstrates WHY their argument that the two issues are different is incorrect.
Further, it does not make for a coherent argument or poses a fundamental or relevant difference between interracial marriage and same-sex marriage. Whether something was banned from the beginning or banned later on makes absolutely no statement on whether it should be banned, or whether the thing that was banned later on was less frowned upon or makes it logically a better thing to allow again. It perhaps makes it easier to annul the ban, but it doesn't make the ban less evil.
I find it funny that you are trying to paint me as the bad guy for using strong language, when it's Steve who is pretty happy in facilitating the devaluation of people based on their sexual orientation and piss all over the 14th amendment. The only thing he has advocated so far is stop the federal government of the U.S. from doing that, but he seems pretty content in allowing individual states to continue this denial of essential civil rights and segregation of people by their sexual orientation.
Don't you find it curious that only you are seeing that in my comments? Is it possible that you are seeing an argument I did not make?
b) So essentially what you are saying that Steve posed a tautology, which has no value as an argument, as it simply states that it will be approached differently, but not whether the ban itself is good or bad.
c) I still don't see what Steve's statement has in the slightest to do with the refutation he was responding to.
Everyone else reading the thread understands this, and is fine with it. You're the only one swearing and saying Steve is advocating against gay marriage, which he clearly isn't.
You proposed this as a "solution". To me, this does not appear to be a solution at all, because there will still be homosexual couples who will be denied a right that heterosexual couples enjoy.
You are the only one who is confused about this.