Prop 8

[Xard]

I thought we were debating about "immorality" of taxing before I left internet completely for couple of months. And with random_n00b it had something to do with morals overall.

not sure what you mean about this, but you told me that if your government would not implement your form of oppression (which you clearly stated that you wanted to enforce certain behaviors) you would go somewhere else where the government would.

 

What "certain behaviors"? Not breaking laws by, for example, commiting homicide? Paying taxes?

 

Resurrecting many months old topic would've been more than silly.

i wasn't resurrecting a many months old topic, i was resurrecting your hypocrisy.

 

And I was merely explaining why I never got back to debate. But with you always running in circles with these same old matters like true pure hearted libertarian should (making as much noise as possible in process) I guess it'll never end.

 

 

What makes United Nations more evil than single nation? Why would UN legistilations be more immoral than those United States Of America forces on its states?

because the UN advocates oppression within its own constitution. the UN wants a socialist world, that is, as i've stated on many occasions, evil by any standard. while the US practices it, at the very least we have a document that does not. that our government chooses not to abide by said document is something i truly detest.

 

 

Ahh yes, the great evil of "socialism"! Let me guess you still believe this current economical crisis is due to "goverment meddling with business" too?

 

"The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights and achieving world peace."

 

Interesting. How one can see any of these aims as oppression is rather intriguing. And that mischievous working class back in the 19th century, they were surely evil lot motivated by want to oppress those pitiful well faring folks.

 

Isn't it rather interesting libertarian nutjobbery always arises among the people with good to great income? I've never heard of poor, barely surviving black woman advocating evils of social justice. Have you?

 

the UN wants a socialist world, that is, as i've stated on many occasions, evil by any standard

 

"Socialist" = oppression = evil

 

this is still basis of your views.

 

"Oppression" = taxes, "redistribution of wealth", social justice

 

I'm correct again, right?

 

Thus my verdict about this all ultimately being about morality of taxing and esp. progressive taxing is correct.

 

Heck, I remember you demanding me to give moral backing for taxing so don't give me that "not sure what you mean about this" crap.

 

 

You're free of course to point out where I went wrong with your views.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Xard

[taks]

What "certain behaviors"? Not breaking laws by, for example, commiting homicide? Paying taxes?

i think you need to go back and revisit what you said to me about forcing certain behaviors. protecting individual rights does not qualify.

 

And I was merely explaining why I never got back to debate. But with you always running in circles with these same old matters like true pure hearted libertarian should (making as much noise as possible in process) I guess it'll never end.

i could care less why you were gone, you have completely missed my point. i simply point out the hypocrisy of your position. you argue, repeatedly, regarding matters of individual rights yet you really don't understand what the phrase "individual rights" means.

 

Ahh yes, the great evil of "socialism"! Let me guess you still believe this current economical crisis is due to "goverment meddling with business" too?

uh, duh? what, are you really that stupid that you think a lack of regulation created this mess? for god's sake, where on earth do people like you get your information? have you ever had even the most basic economics education, or do you simply read chomsky and marx and think they're right?

 

Interesting. How one can see any of these aims as oppression is rather intriguing. And that mischievous working class back in the 19th century, they were surely evil lot motivated by want to oppress those pitiful well faring folks.

the UN thinks that discrimination is OK if it is done to help out someone that is less fortunate. in order to do that, they must violate someone else's rights. at that point, they are no longer rights, but mere privileges that can be taken away at the whim of the state.

 

Isn't it rather interesting libertarian nutjobbery always arises among the people with good to great income? I've never heard of poor, barely surviving black woman advocating evils of social justice. Have you?

yeah, it's pretty easy to sit back without much fortune and wish that you could legislate away someone else's. guess it's not stealing if the government grants you the right to another's pocketbook, eh?

 

and i'm the one with a philosophy based on greed? hypocrite.

 

"Socialist" = oppression = evil

 

this is still basis of your views.

uh, yeah. government sanctioned stealing from one person to pay for another is oppression, i.e., tyranny.

 

Thus my verdict about this all ultimately being about morality of taxing and esp. progressive taxing is correct.

what, that you're a hypocrite and don't understand rights?

 

Heck, I remember you demanding me to give moral backing for taxing so don't give me that "not sure what you mean about this" crap.

excuse me? you replied that you could not, as i recall. you cannot, btw, because your view requires theft from one to give to another.

 

You're free of course to point out where I went wrong with your views.

you didn't get anything wrong.

 

my view is rational, and consistent. your view is based purely on what you "think is right" regardless of what it means in the long run. discrimination is discrimination, whether it is the government excluding gays from tax breaks or providing health care to someone at the expense of another.

 

wake up hypocrite.

 

taks

[Enoch]

As GD alluded, the only legal argument now open to gay-marriage-rights activists in CA is to sue based on the federal constitution. The argument would be based on one or both of the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the 14th amendment. There is already precedent (Loving v. Virginia) under the Due Process clause for the right to marry being a so-called "fundamental" right which triggers "strict scrutiny" (i.e., the state needs a damn good reason for denying it to a group of people without giving them due process).

 

Of course, using the federal constitutional argument means that any decision by the CA Supreme Court is reviewable by the Federal Supreme Court, and the SCOTUS as currently composed has been very reluctant to expand 14th Amendment rights. Lawrence v. Texas was an exception to this trend a few years back, wherein Anthony Kennedy joined the more progressive justices. But that decision only affected a dozen or so laws that were almost never enforced. Kennedy is a pragmatist, and would be concerned about the institutional standing of the Court if they issued a wide-ranging emphatic pro-gay-rights decision on marriage.

 

I think the legal argument is quite sound. Read together, Loving's precedent on the primacy of marriage rights and Lawrence's holding that "gay sex is gross" isn't an acceptable reason to legislate against it spell out a pretty clear path to overturning Prop 8. But the general societal sh!tstorm that would follow would be furious. As a matter of strategy for the gay rights movement, I think it would be a big mistake. Looking at the demographics, there's going to be a majority favoring gay marriage in a generation. Forcing change now via a counter-majoritarian court decision would be making the same mistake that abortion rights groups did in the '70s.

[taks]

...spell out a pretty clear path to overturning Prop 8. But the general societal sh!tstorm that would follow would be furious.

which, i still don't understand. deep down i guess people are simply afraid of the slippery slope argument of gay and lesbian partnerships leading to an increase of the gay population, and what it would ultimately lead to for society, i.e., an erosion of their moral belief system.

 

As a matter of strategy for the gay rights movement, I think it would be a big mistake. Looking at the demographics, there's going to be a majority favoring gay marriage in a generation. Forcing change now via a counter-majoritarian court decision would be making the same mistake that abortion rights groups did in the '70s.

good point. do you think they see it that way, however?

 

taks

[Enoch]

This is hardly the thread to rehash the silly debate between the "any job giving less than 6 weeks of paid vacation is a civil rights violation" nutjobs and the "Teh Mahket is Infallabal! Ayn Rand 4EVA!!" nutjobs.

[Enoch]

As a matter of strategy for the gay rights movement, I think it would be a big mistake. Looking at the demographics, there's going to be a majority favoring gay marriage in a generation. Forcing change now via a counter-majoritarian court decision would be making the same mistake that abortion rights groups did in the '70s.

good point. do you think they see it that way, however?

 

taks

I think a lot of them do. But it only takes 1 very angry, well funded gay couple to bring the court case...

[taks]

I think a lot of them do. But it only takes 1 very angry, well funded gay couple to bring the court case...

true. and if it's going to happen anywhere, it's going to happen in CA.

 

as for the previous comment: don't you wish!

 

taks

[Xard]

i think you need to go back and revisit what you said to me about forcing certain behaviors. protecting individual rights does not qualify.

 

Thanks for providing perfect opening for "attack"!

 

i could care less why you were gone, you have completely missed my point. i simply point out the hypocrisy of your position. you argue, repeatedly, regarding matters of individual rights yet you really don't understand what the phrase "individual rights" means.

 

Individual rights can mean many things - what if rather limited set of rights of libertarians isn't the whole truth and is build on hopelessly idealistic view of human nature, just like communist one?

 

uh, duh? what, are you really that stupid that you think a lack of regulation created this mess? for god's sake, where on earth do people like you get your information? have you ever had even the most basic economics education, or do you simply read chomsky and marx and think they're right?

 

Lack of regulation? Well yeah, individuals in market can in my view **** things just as well as goverment. We're all humans.

 

Big words. Ever considered, even for a moment, that you might be wrong sometimes? What if market isn't the perfect, solipstic, ever itself repairing wonder machine that gets automatically ****ed up when snake - goverment - slithers into the paradise?

 

I can be c*cky but when it comes to economics you take it to wholly new level, especially with all your "rationality" spouting when you follow switz school which doesn't actually have hard science and maths behind it!

 

Thanks for admitting your own bigotry (I've never read Marx and barely any Chomsky btw) when it comes to your sources; the libertarian fallacy about this crisis being due to goverment has been vindicated critically in many different places here in Finland; I've read finnish economics (not of the keynesian-type btw!) admit it was failure of market many times. Some people have balls to do that due to not having their entire ideologies at stake. And it is entirely reasonable conclusion - except for the ideology of "MARKETS CAN'T BE WRONG GOVERMENT DON'T WORK HUR HUR ALL HAIL GURU".

 

It's also funny how this whole libertarian thinking relies on notion of "perfect market condition" which is nothing more than theoretical supposition utterly removed from real life. How one can build one's worldview on la la land of perfect flow of information on utterly correct balance of supply and demand is ridiculous. Ain't gonna happen.

 

Some english links here and here. You guys really hit low point when attacking Act from 70's as cause behind current crisis... but hey, it can't be the market! It was the goverment, some way or another!

 

the UN thinks that discrimination is OK if it is done to help out someone that is less fortunate. in order to do that, they must violate someone else's rights. at that point, they are no longer rights, but mere privileges that can be taken away at the whim of the state.

 

So how *exactly* is UN trying to violate your rights?

yeah, it's pretty easy to sit back without much fortune and wish that you could legislate away someone else's. guess it's not stealing if the government grants you the right to another's pocketbook, eh?

 

and i'm the one with a philosophy based on greed? hypocrite.

 

Yeah, you work 12 hours a day to bring money to your family, fearing for illness of any serious sort that would immeaditly demolish your meager financial standing as you can't afford health insurances in these hard times. Then you get laid off as apparently company could make even more profits with shift to China and use of child working power (not that something as politically incorrect as last part is found from any papers!). At the same time you ready to tell news for your wife (and fearing you go all Hollis Brown on her and kids) the CEO gives himself nice, "little" raise in form of options as he is so goddamn good at keeping growth on.

 

My my lad, you should've just worked harder! American dream is just around corner for you!

uh, yeah. government sanctioned stealing from one person to pay for another is oppression, i.e., tyranny.

 

curse these taxes, I don't get anything

for paying them!

 

what, that you're a hypocrite and don't understand rights?

 

I don't know, isn't it self-deception to build moral standings on amoral, even predatory system utilizing little green papers?

 

excuse me? you replied that you could not, as i recall. you cannot, btw, because your view requires theft from one to give to another.

 

wow, talk about remembering what you want. I never got around answer (or whole forums) due to various reasons that aren't exactly your (or anyone else's ) business - I never said "NO I CANNOT ANSWER YOU =( "

 

my view is rational, and consistent. your view is based purely on what you "think is right" regardless of what it means in the long run. discrimination is discrimination, whether it is the government excluding gays from tax breaks or providing health care to someone at the expense of another.

 

uhh, what if you're also providing healthcare for yourself with the same payment?

 

Libertarianism is only rational and consistent when taken to its extreme anarchistic variable and even there you end up with dilemma of freedom that "plagues" all anarchistic philosophies.

 

 

So, you want moral ground for taxing, progressive taxing and social justice and rights as well as reason(s) why you can't build morals on money and "ownership" rights alone?

 

Fine, you'll get them tomorrow after I come back from visiting some family members in pre-Christmas visit.

 

"How noble libertarianism, in its majestic equality, that both rich and poor are equally prohibited from peeing in the privately owned streets (without paying), sleeping under the privately owned bridges (without paying), and coercing bread from its rightful owners!"

Edited December 22, 2008 by Xard

[Guard Dog]

The real issue with gay marriage is that people have not gotten used to the idea yet. It is now where mixed race marrigaes were 10-15 years ago. A few years from now it will be commonplace and most folks will wonder what the big deal was anyway. Just like mixed race marriages now. Enoch was dead on the money when he pointed out the wisest course of action will be to just let it happen. Forced social change is usually a messy business and as I pointed out several times it is a little dumb for gays to portray themselves as an aggrieved and supressed minority. Compared to the REAL civil rights movement, they have no problems.

[Hurlshort]

taks and Xard totally ruined my awesome thread.

[taks]

taks and Xard totally ruined my awesome thread.

i was only responding to xard's nonsense, and i did tie my comment in to discrimination in general.

 

Individual rights can mean many things - what if rather limited set of rights of libertarians isn't the whole truth and is build on hopelessly idealistic view of human nature, just like communist one?

that's what you don't get. "individual rights" do not apply to groups of people. there are no "gay" rights, "libertarian" rights or any other group rights. do you know the definition of the word individual? that's why this gay marriage issue is a crock. as soon as the government rules on something one group has over another, it is discriminating. there is no other definition. prop 8 is as discriminatory as the damn laws that created government sanctioned marriage in the first place. rights apply ONLY to individuals, to people. only one defintion, which means only one meaning.

 

taks

[Trenitay]

That would be the ideal definition, but thats not how it works.

[Aristes]

I personally believe that homosexuals suffer from discrimination. However, and this is where I agree with the dog, the idea that the current discrimination against homosexuals somehow shares parity with decades... CENTURIES of civil rights abuses is ridiculous. Discrimination exists in many flavors through the world and pervades all history among evey people. How should we place discrimination of this sort in the vast array of abuses? Tell me, where are the lost tribes of native homosexuals devastated by European diseases and turned out from any refuge? Where are the enslaved homosexuals held in bondage and treated as property?

 

In antiquity, there were many many treatises against the evils of slavery, even in societies built upon slave labor. I know of no such tradition of grievance against the evils of denying members of the same sex the right to marry one another. It is not the same as refusing the right for people of different colors to marry. Even in antiquity, there were some who championed humanity as a whole regardless of superficial differences. In all our basic and essential human rights, there was some champion in antiquity. There is no champion I know for the right of marriage between two members of the same sex. I do know of some examples in history of homosexuality playing a prominent role in warfare or poetry, but that is clearly a different issue.

 

Yes, I think homosexuals deserve the right to marry. However, to grant the prohibition a place beside other civil rights transgressions; to put it near the pinnacle of violations against humanity is not only absurd, it is manifestly absurd to the point of creating hostility against the very movement you champion.

[Guard Dog]

However, to grant the prohibition a place beside other civil rights transgressions; to put it near the pinnacle of violations against humanity is not only absurd, it is manifestly absurd to the point of creating hostility against the very movement you champion.

Which is quite possibly the reason why a majority of black voters supported Prop 8 in November. Lets face facts here, had the majority of black voters been against it it would not have passed.

[Hell Kitty]

I think the fact that homosexuality is illegal (and punishable by death) in several countries is a bigger issue. A UN declaration on LGBT rights is still a long way off.

 

If only knowing that there are people worse off than ourselves could solve our own problems. Whether one group has it worse than another is kinda irrelevant when you're having the **** kicked outta ya for "choosing" to be gay.

 

***

 

I basically agree with Aristes, in that comparing apples and oranges doesn't do you any favours, but I really can't fault people for being unwilling to just sit back and wait for the apparently inevitable acceptance of gay marriage. And why the hell should anyone just sit back and wait when they have ad campaigns like the one Di mentioned thrown at them?

 

I also think arguing solely about legal rights and the role of religion or government in marriage is kinda missing the point. Social as well as legal recognition is important. Even with civil unions that provide equal legal rights, by insisting that homosexuals cannot call their unions "marriages", you* are making it clear that gay unions are not equal to straight unions.

 

* That's a general "you", but if you think I'm referring to you I probably am.

[Gorgon]

uh, yeah. government sanctioned stealing from one person to pay for another is oppression, i.e., tyranny

This is not the kind of response you would expect from me, rather an unusual anecdote.

 

A government economic think tank has recently proposed the following : If you own a home or part of a housing coop, (I'm not sure what the correct English term is here, I'm talking about split ownership of an apartment building for instance where the rent you pay goes to the coop association towards paying back the purchase loan as well as land tax) the government will penalize you by claiming 25% of the profit if you do not use the money to buy another home within a set limit.

 

My apartment is the most expensive thing I own, hell, it's the only expensive thing I own. Some of my friends have payed back their student loans by carefully examining the market and making some smart moves. Everyone has their limits, and I guess this is mine, this is simply too much interference. What if I want to capitalize on the market and rent instead of own for a while, this will cripple my choices in the long run, and I am not an evil speculator hellbent on making owning a house impossible for regular folk, I'm just trying to get along like everyone else.

[taks]

That would be the ideal definition, but thats not how it works.

um, that doesn't make sense. the definition of individual rights is rights that apply to individuals. if you come up with "group rights," then you absolutely must acknowledge that said rights will inevitably violate the rights of another group. they are no longer rights, but privileges granted by the state*. once the state has the power to give privileges (under the moniker of "rights") it also has the power to take them away. they are no longer rights by any definition, not just some "ideal." the people have given the state this power, not understanding that they have ultimately given away their own rights.

 

the gay rights issue is no different. ultimately the issue comes down to benefits provided by the government. there should be none. it is the government's job to protect individual rights, not provide benefits at the expense of another, i.e., to violate one man's rights in favor of another. the entire debate centers around tax breaks given to married couples, e.g., property passes to a spouse without the so-called "death tax," income tax rules favor married couples, etc. government gets out of marriage, these problems are history.

 

taks

 

* "the state" not meant to imply states of the US but, in general, the government.

Edited December 23, 2008 by taks

[taks]

I also think arguing solely about legal rights and the role of religion or government in marriage is kinda missing the point. Social as well as legal recognition is important. Even with civil unions that provide equal legal rights, by insisting that homosexuals cannot call their unions "marriages", you* are making it clear that gay unions are not equal to straight unions.

i disagree. i have no problem with gay couples calling their unions marriages any more than any other union. calling them marriages is entirely about the legal aspect when it comes to "gay rights." religious (or otherwise) people that believe homosexuality is a sin will continue to see it that way irrespective of any laws that are passed, and they are fully within their rights to think that way. furthermore, married people don't walk around with signs on their backs declaring "we're married," so the social aspect is rather a moot point. besides, people tend to hang around with those that share their views, or at least accept them.

 

a couple is a couple is a couple. heck, if someone wants to have a threesome so be it. not my personal cup 'o tea but it's neither my position to pass judgment.

 

taks

[Calax]

so from skimming taks posts he states that there is no such thing as group rights, but we can still legislate as if groups of people are seperate from each other. (men, women, black, asian, latino... not so much the latter three but the first two definately have different rights from eachother)

[taks]

so from skimming taks posts he states that there is no such thing as group rights, but we can still legislate as if groups of people are seperate from each other. (men, women, black, asian, latino... not so much the latter three but the first two definately have different rights from eachother)

actually what i said is that by definition group rights don't exist, not that governments don't try, because the concept means one group would end up with rights that supersede another group's rights. furthermore, we shouldn't legislate as if there are group rights, but the circumstances as they are dictate that we must, i.e., we created the need through unnecessary government involvement in the first place. by recognizing marriage, this example in particular, this singled out problems with gays and for that matter, singles. some groups have more rights than others? some groups are more equal than others? senseless.

 

why should men and women have different rights, btw?

 

taks

Edited December 23, 2008 by taks

[Calax]

so from skimming taks posts he states that there is no such thing as group rights, but we can still legislate as if groups of people are seperate from each other. (men, women, black, asian, latino... not so much the latter three but the first two definately have different rights from eachother)

actually what i said is that by definition group rights don't exist, not that governments don't try, because the concept means one group would end up with rights that supersede another group's rights. furthermore, we shouldn't legislate as if there are group rights, but the circumstances as they are dictate that we must, i.e., we created the need through unnecessary government involvement in the first place. by recognizing marriage, this example in particular, this singled out problems with gays and for that matter, singles. some groups have more rights than others? some groups are more equal than others? senseless.

 

why should men and women have different rights, btw?

 

taks

I'm not saying they should, just that in general they do (the right to hit and not be hit back for example. The right to have hair in the military)

[taks]

well, that was my point, too. there shouldn't be separations like that, but there are. i think the specific examples you're mentioning aren't really rights, btw, but common courtesies, actually. a holdover from the chivalrous days of yore (uh, hehe, that's a "friends" joke).

 

taks

[Guard Dog]

My final word on the subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSnNHUaNR_8

 

[taks]

i actually would have passed ron's test.

 

taks

[Humodour]

I think that if the pro-prop 8's keep up the shinanigans then we'll see the amendment thrown out.

 

The California SC cannot throw the amendment out because it is part of the Constitution of the State now. In other words, unless it conflicts with another aspect of the same it is the supreme law of the state and the SC is bound to enforce and uphold it.

 

Hold your horses.

 

Two significant lawsuits are in progress already on this matter. 1) Interpreting how rights are applied is up to the Judiciary branch (courts) not the Legislature branch (voters), as determined by the CA Constitution (and also the US Constitution) under separation of powers, 2) removing equal protection under law is a change to the fundamental nature of the Constitution and thus is a Revision, not an Amendment, which in turn requires a 66% majority, not a 50% majority.

 

It sucks that government has any say over marriages in the first place, but until America adopts stronger civil unions things like this will be important.