Gen. Flynn lied concerning his pre-innauguration communications with Russia.

[EvoUK]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]20986[/ATTACH]

Didn't you know? Women and children were allowed on life rafts first because your penis can be used as an efficient floatation device.

Maybe not as efficient as it's could be, given that the water was cold...

[One Bad Pig]

Not that I really care about gay marriage as an issue, but surely this means you can marry someone of the same sex*, just like they can? Not really an extra 'right' if you get the same benefits.

Erm, it would be an extra 'right' regardless, no?

[Starlight]

Erm, it would be an extra 'right' regardless, no?

Stop and think about it from the perspective of a gay person for 10 seconds please: You are only attracted to people of the same sex, and you plan to spend your life with one such person, so the law change from your point of view goes from (a) You and your love will never ever be able to get married in your entire life because you are legally banned from getting married, to (b) You will be able to get married and have the same legal ability to married as all other couples.

Your 'logic' of "well the law is impartial and applies to everyone equally and gives all people the right to get heterosexually married" isn't impartial in practice because in practice it applies differently to different people. It would be like saying a law that says "white people get to have black people as their slaves" is impartial and applies to everyone equally and gives all people the right to own slaves... but in practice it's not impartial because it confers on some people a practical right and ability that is vastly different to what it confers on others, even though "the same law applies to everyone".

So extending the human right to marriage to a group that was previously denied that right in practice, is not creating "an extra 'right'", it is correcting a previous injustice where a group of people was being restricted in practice from exercising the human right to marriage.

[Terraceth]

Your 'logic' of "well the law is impartial and applies to everyone equally and gives all people the right to get heterosexually married" isn't impartial in practice because in practice it applies differently to different people. It would be like saying a law that says "white people get to have black people as their slaves" is impartial and applies to everyone equally and gives all people the right to own slaves... but in practice it's not impartial because it confers on some people a practical right and ability that is vastly different to what it confers on others, even though "the same law applies to everyone".

It's not akin to that at all. What it would be more akin to (if you insist on some kind of slavery comparison that involves race) would be if the law said "anyone can have a slave as long as the slave is not of their race." So whites could have blacks as slaves and blacks could have whites as slaves, but whites couldn't have whites as slaves and blacks couldn't have blacks as slaves.

[Starlight]

It's not akin to that at all. What it would be more akin to (if you insist on some kind of slavery comparison that involves race) would be if the law said "anyone can have a slave as long as the slave is not of their race." So whites could have blacks as slaves and blacks could have whites as slaves, but whites couldn't have whites as slaves and blacks couldn't have blacks as slaves.

Not at all. Your hypothetical law would in practice and not merely in theory give blacks the opportunity to own slaves just as it gives to whites: The blacks could have white slaves.

My point was that limiting marriage to opposite-sex-only in practice prevents gay people ever marrying even though it theoretically doesn't prevent them doing so because they could marry someone of the opposite sex if only they happened to be attracted to such a person. So the heterosexual-marriage-only law theoretically applies to both gay and straight equally by supposedly offering them both the same marriage opportunity, but due to qualities inherent in the people themselves it applies in very different ways to the two groups, and to one group (the heterosexual) it in practice gives them the ability to marry, and to the other group (the homosexual) it in practice bans them from ever marrying. Hence the analogous law is "whites can own black slaves" because while it gives a right to all humans (the right to own a slave if you meet the arbitrary criteria of being white), some humans in practice happen to be white and some happen to be black, and the result is that one and the same law in practice helps some and hurts others. You might reasonably say "well, the black person could never have been white so they were never truly been given the opportunity to own a slave by this law, and it was always a law that is intrinsically and deeply biased against them." I would agree and would say exactly the same thing about the heterosexual-marriage-only law for exactly analogous reasons. And unsurprisingly courts worldwide have been striking it down as unjust and prejudiced.

[Tassman]

Erm, it would be an extra 'right' regardless, no?

No! You too have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

[Terraceth]

Not at all. Your hypothetical law would in practice and not merely in theory give blacks the opportunity to own slaves just as it gives to whites: The blacks could have white slaves.

But your hypothetical law both in practice and in theory was not equal; you can't try to draw some difference between "in practice" and "in theory" when your analogy quite clearly fails both, as the right (in theory) is only given to whites. You later on try to ignore this by saying that in theory it's given to all humans, but you're not; you're giving it (again, in the theory phase) only to whites.

[Starlight]

But your hypothetical law both in practice and in theory was not equal; you can't try to draw some difference between "in practice" and "in theory" when your analogy quite clearly fails both, as the right (in theory) is only given to whites. You later on try to ignore this by saying that in theory it's given to all humans, but you're not; you're giving it (again, in the theory phase) only to whites.

The ability to marry the opposite sex is not a meaningful or useful 'right' as far as gay people are concerned - it is like saying "you could marry if you were straight", and it is like saying to blacks "well you could own slaves if you were white". For this reason I regard being against same sex marriage as morally similar to supporting slavery - in both cases the person is supporting the severe withholding of basic human rights from a minority group.

[Terraceth]

The ability to marry the opposite sex is not a meaningful or useful 'right' as far as gay people are concerned - it is like saying "you could marry if you were straight", and it is like saying to blacks "well you could own slaves if you were white".

And your analogy still falls apart. Because under the previous law, homosexuals could marry! They could marry anyone that a heterosexual of their gender could marry. Perhaps the homosexual would be significantly less interested in doing so for obvious reasons, but they still can do the same thing.

In your goofy analogy, however, you gave whites the ability to enslave blacks... but then declined to give the exact same ability to the blacks. Whites get to enslave blacks, but blacks don't. So no, your analogy does not work because the same rights are not being given. Now, if you had said that the law said "anyone can enslave blacks" then that would have been closer because then the right would have, in fact, been given to the blacks, i.e. that they could enslave other blacks. That would have better matched the point.

However, that still doesn't fit the situation, because in the case of marriage, men could only marry women and women could only marry men. The aforementioned analogy would only fit if all humans, male or female, could only marry men. That obviously is not the case. Thus, the more proper analogy would be if anyone could enslave someone but only if that person was not of their own race. That is why I said that would be the more accurate analogy. It fits the situation significantly better.

For this reason I regard being against same sex marriage as morally similar to supporting slavery - in both cases the person is supporting the severe withholding of basic human rights from a minority group.

There is nothing even remotely basic about the rights that the government confers via marriage. They can certainly be useful rights (e.g. easier hospital visits), but none are anything close to to the actual basic rights that slavery frequently deprives someone of. Unlike slavery (at least the form practiced in America), inability to marry someone of your own gender did not give your masters permission to beat you freely, did not deny you the right to vote, did not make it illegal for you to learn to read and right, did not take away your ability to travel, did not allow you to be sold, did not deny you all labor rights, and so on. Those are severe withholding of basic human rights. Your comparison of the two is actually rather troubling.

[Starlight]

Perhaps the homosexual would be significantly less interested in doing so for obvious reasons, but they still can do the same thing.

I think your problem comes because you are not seeing sexuality as an innate characteristic in the same way skin color is. Saying a homosexual person can marry heterosexually is to me like saying a black person can have slaves if they are white. You are suggesting they do something that their innate characteristics contradict them doing... hence in all practical respects it is nonsensical. What I was trying to emphasize, with regard to my analogy is that although there is a small theoretical difference between the situations, in practice in each instance you are offering a 'right' to the people that they are essentially rendered ineligible for by an innate quality they have (skin color, sexuality).

So no, your analogy does not work because the same rights are not being given.

You're not getting it, because in the case of marriage the same rights are not in practice being given. My general point is that if you think giving gay people a 'right' to heterosexual marriage is relevant or useful to them, or is in same way 'the same' as giving heterosexual people a right to heterosexual marriage, then you are not sufficiently understanding the issue and not considering it from the point of view of the gay person. What you are offering to them, in 'a right to heterosexual marriage' is - as far as they are concerned something that self-evidently is inapplicable to them. It is like offering you the right to marry an alien from another planet - it is simply of zero use to you. In the same way, offering to a black person the right to have slaves if they become white is a right that is not useful to them because they cannot become white. So when people pretend that "heterosexual marriage was available to both straight and gay people equally" I can never decide whether they are really that stupid are are honestly deceiving themselves, or whether they are disingenuous and deceptive and just trying to pretend like they have some sort of solid argument.

There is nothing even remotely basic about the rights that the government confers via marriage.

Humans have had marriage customs in all known cultures for the duration of human history. Who one marries is one of the fundamental choices a human makes in their life with respect to themselves, their life, and their future. It is a basic human right.

Unlike slavery (at least the form practiced in America), inability to marry someone of your own gender did not give your masters permission to beat you freely, did not deny you the right to vote, did not make it illegal for you to learn to read and right, did not take away your ability to travel, did not allow you to be sold, did not deny you all labor rights, and so on.

Slavery certainly included the withdrawal of many additional rights, above and beyond the inability of slaves to marry. However the inability of slaves to marry was certainly one of the gross violations of human rights that slavery involved.

Your comparison of the two is actually rather troubling.

Conservatives all too often seem to me to be willfully blind to the moral arc of history, and choose not to see any connection between the various human rights struggles over the centuries, from freedom of religion, to slavery, to apartheid, to the rights of women, to the rights of LGBT people. They seem to have a very very weird approach where they take for granted the freedoms and equality that the liberals have fought for and achieved in the past, but view with immense suspicious and opposition the freedoms and equality that the liberals are fighting for in the present.

[Terraceth]

I think your problem comes because you are not seeing sexuality as an innate characteristic in the same way skin color is. Saying a homosexual person can marry heterosexually is to me like saying a black person can have slaves if they are white. You are suggesting they do something that their innate characteristics contradict them doing... hence in all practical respects it is nonsensical. What I was trying to emphasize, with regard to my analogy is that although there is a small theoretical difference between the situations, in practice in each instance you are offering a 'right' to the people that they are essentially rendered ineligible for by an innate quality they have (skin color, sexuality).

Except your analogy does not do it because, as I pointed out before, you are trying to make a distinction between in theory and in practice, but your example didn't do that, as it enters the biases right in the theory phase. A better example would have been something like a law that prevented anyone from making more than $100,000 per year; it applies the same thing to everyone, but only the richer people are functionally affected by it. But your analogy didn't do that. That's why it fails so hard.

Your analogy doesn't support your point, pick a different one already instead of going down this failed path.

Humans have had marriage customs in all known cultures for the duration of human history. Who one marries is one of the fundamental choices a human makes in their life with respect to themselves, their life, and their future. It is a basic human right.

No, it is not, because if you look at the actual rights conveyed, they're nice to have, but they're not anything near basic. Inability to marry, for example, does not deny you the right to do things like live together. If you want to say rights are still being denied, that could be an argument, but don't say silly things like calling them "basic" rights.

Slavery certainly included the withdrawal of many additional rights, above and beyond the inability of slaves to marry. However the inability of slaves to marry was certainly one of the gross violations of human rights that slavery involved.

Slaves actually did often marry, it just wasn't recognized by the government. But what basic human rights were being violated in that? If they did let them marry, it would've been a cute little rubber stamp that would do nothing to stop any of the lack of actual basic rights I mentioned. For example, it wouldn't stop a master from easily separating them by just selling one of them off because no marriage right actually stops that.

Conservatives all too often seem to me to be willfully blind to the moral arc of history, and choose not to see any connection between the various human rights struggles over the centuries, from freedom of religion, to slavery, to apartheid, to the rights of women, to the rights of LGBT people.

And you seem to be willfully blind to the major differences in severity between what you are comparing. That is what I find troubling; acting like being banned from quitting your job (for life) despite signing no contract is somehow comparable to not getting automatic funeral leave if your significant other dies is a major case of playing down what happened in slavery.

[One Bad Pig]

No! You too have the right to marry someone of the same sex.

...and my point goes zipping right over your head. Starlight at least got my point, as is evident by his response.

[One Bad Pig]

Stop and think about it from the perspective of a gay person for 10 seconds please: You are only attracted to people of the same sex, and you plan to spend your life with one such person, so the law change from your point of view goes from (a) You and your love will never ever be able to get married in your entire life because you are legally banned from getting married, to (b) You will be able to get married and have the same legal ability to married as all other couples.

The perspective of a gay person is abnormal, as his attraction is not conducive to reproduction. It's his perspective that needs to change, not the law.

[Sparko]

The perspective of a gay person is abnormal, as his attraction is not conducive to reproduction. It's his perspective that needs to change, not the law.

right. Same with something like pedophilia. They want special "rights" and they think they and their love will never be able to get married or whatever, so should be legalize pedophilia to give them "equal right" because of their "suffering?"

[Starlight]

The perspective of a gay person is abnormal

Um, wow. I can't believe you wrote that without realizing it showed the need to rethink your entire life and values. I guess you're just a horrible horrible person who doesn't care about others.