quote: In much the same way that anyone who claims that a homeless person and a wealthy person do not have the same rights when it comes to sleeping on a park bench is factually incorrect, I think.
Actually the laws are the same for a rich person who wants to sleep on a bench and a homeless person who wants to sleep on a bench.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I was thinking the exact same things, and am pleased to see that you found some of the statements that seriously bother me too.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I don't buy the argument that homosexuals have the same marriage rights because they, too, can marry someone of the opposite sex, it's important to articulate why this argument isn't acceptable, because it's facially accurate.
The key is to define the right in question. In Virginia, the marriage right used to be defined as "An adult can marry any unmarried consenting adult, not related to a certain degree, of the opposite sex and the same race." The latter qualification was removed in Loving.
Now, some people say the right of marriage is "An adult can marry any unmarried consenting adult, not related to a certain degree, of the opposite sex." The Massachusetts Supreme Court has struck down the last qualification in this definition, so it is now "An adult can marry any unmarried consenting adult, not related to a certain degree."
Clearly, none of three definitions discriminate based on anything other than age with respect to the first use of "adult" in the definition. All discriminate in some respect with respect to the second person in the definition: age, blood relation, sex, and/or race.
Each type of discrimination needs to have some justification under the equal protection clause. Race requires "strict scrutiny," which requires a showing of a compelling state interest and means as narrowly tailored as possible to meat that interest. Gender requires either "intermediate scrutiny" or "rational basis." Intermediate scrutiny requires an important state interest with closely tailored means. That is, the goal has to be important, and the means have to be no more than a little under- and over-inclusive. In intermediate scrutiny, the gov't does not have to prove it has adopted the "best" and least discriminatory policy, but it cannot be radically more discriminatory than required.
Rational basis means the law is aimed at achieving any legitimate end of government and the means are rational to achieving that end. Basically, the court will not look at the legislature's judgment in such cases and decide that they could have done it better or in a less discriminatory fashion.
It's not clear where sexual preference fits on this scale. Most other distinctions, excepting religion, ethicity, and national origin, require only a rational basis.
As a caveat, if the right at issue is "fundamental," then strict scrutiny will be observed. For example, if a law makes it easier for one group to exercise free speech than another, the court will generally require strict scrutiny, even if the distinction normally only requires rational basis.
What this means is, we need to answer three questions:
1) How important is the government end to be met by restricting marriage to heterosexual couples? 2) How is the right at issue defined and how fundamental is it? 3) What level of scrutiny does the distinction between hetero and homosexual require?
posted
"I was thinking the exact same things, and am pleased to see that you found some of the statements that seriously bother me too."
Well, here's the deal: do you believe that God's plan to destroy the entire human race is evil? If not, you are enabling His evil in exactly the same way that donating to Hamas is evil.
After all, your view can ONLY be good if you're right -- but, let's face it, if Hamas is right, they're good, too. A behavior that's only justifiable by its ends is not, by definition, a good behavior.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who says God's plan is to destroy the entire human race?
And what about the implication that people of my belief system are worse than terrorists? Do you honestly believe that statement isn't inflammatory and derogatory to Farmgirl and myself?
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay Tom -- I know that you are familiar with scripture -- I admire that at least you fight with knowledge instead of ignorance.
Please tell me just how the resurrection at the time of second coming of Christ is "the destruction of the human race" -- when instead it will be the resurrection of many who are currently dead?
posted
Tom, that's an overstatement. "The ends don't justify the means" is almost a meaningless statement, because any valid moral calculus requires examination of both. Most means are acceptable under some circumstances; most means are acceptable under some circumstances. The most prominent aspect of these circumstances is the type of end in question.
Killing is bad. Killing in self defense is OK. Killing in self-defense when non-lethat means of defense are available is bad.
It goes on and on. Some people think it's wrong to kill animals to feed humans. Most people don't think it wrong to kill animals to feed humans. Many people think it's wrong to keep them penned up with no ability to move until they're slaughtered to feed humans. Many also think killing animals solely for fur or ornamental uses is wrong.
posted
"Please tell me just how the resurrection at the time of second coming of Christ is 'the destruction of the human race' -- when instead it will be the resurrection of many who are currently dead?"
Speaking as one of the ones who will be suffering through the Tribulation, the resurrection of a bunch of dead folk doesn't quite make up for it. He will be killing far more than He'll be bringing back, based on most estimates.
And Belle, I never said that Christian fundamentalism was WORSE than terrorism; I said it was more dangerous to America. For what it's worth, I think obesity is more dangerous to America than terrorism.
-------
Dag, the thing about being an omnipotent God is that your means ARE ends. In other words, you NEVER need to do something unpleasant to achieve your goal.
posted
Yeah, see, I'm not comfortable with creating human life with the foreknowledge that I'm going to wind up killing it out of dissatisfaction. I wouldn't buy a puppy if I knew I'd have to put it to sleep.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually the laws are the same for a rich person who wants to sleep on a bench and a homeless person who wants to sleep on a bench.
Exactly my point.
Dag goes on to outline the problem with the sort of argument you're putting forth, articulating it much better than I would have.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yeah, see, I'm not comfortable with creating human life with the foreknowledge that I'm going to wind up killing it out of dissatisfaction. I wouldn't buy a puppy if I knew I'd have to put it to sleep.
True. But you don't know enough to know if the good of that action is greater than the evil that results. Presumably God does.
quote: Speaking as one of the ones who will be suffering through the Tribulation, the resurrection of a bunch of dead folk doesn't quite make up for it. He will be killing far more than He'll be bringing back, based on most estimates.
Actually, that's like blaming God for allowing Aids to kill a person who choose to have a lifestyle (drugs/primiscuous sex) which led to their acquiring of it.
If your choices lead to an end, it's your choices and ultimately YOU who are responsible for your own destruction.
Anyone who knows the basic Christian Ideology knows that there is no destruction of the human race. There's a cleansing by fire and everyone who puts on their fire proof vest has no problem, those who choose NOT to put on their vest (meet the requirements laid out) have their decision not to put on their vest to blame.
If you suffer during the "tribulation", it's because you choose to.
It's like the girl who killed herself by Alcohol binging. Keywords are "KILLED HERSELF" by her decisions.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There's a cleansing by fire and everyone who puts on their fire proof vest has no problem, those who choose NOT to put on their vest (meet the requirements laid out) have their decision not to put on their vest to blame."
Ah. So in your opinion God is not in fact a CONSCIOUS God, and things just happen whether He wills them or not?
Because if God IS conscious, you're blaming the man who refused to give money to the robber for being shot.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
