Jump to content

The Kentucky Licence discussion II


Stubby

Recommended Posts

 

Human dignity means that no (adhering to all the other rules) couple can be denied marriage. Which has fuck all to do with any pats on the head and only with equality under the law.


It has nothing to do with equality under the law. OBERGEFELL was not (as far as anyone reading it can tell) decided on an Equal Protection basis. And there is an excellent reason for that. Gays, in this context, are not demanding equality. They are demanding a privilege. They see other citizens getting a privilege, and they say "We want that privilege too". They don't care that singles and celibates and persons in platonic partnerships or other arrangements are still being left behind.

Any claim that discrimination against singles, celibates, and persons in platonic partnerships is "invidious" would be laughable. So how can it be "invidious" for committed gay couples to be in the same boat? It cannot be. Unequal treatment here need only pass rational basis scrutiny, which in most cases it can easily do. And if some marriage-specific regulations do not pass this scrutiny they should be challenged on an individual basis, not with a blunderbuss approach involving Federally mandated language-control and thought-control.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
It has nothing to do with equality under the law. OBERGEFELL was not (as far as anyone reading it can tell) decided on an Equal Protection basis. And there is an excellent reason for that. Gays, in this context, are not demanding equality. They are demanding a privilege. They see other citizens getting a privilege, and they say "We want that privilege too". They don't care that singles and celibates and persons in platonic partnerships or other arrangements are still being left behind.

Any claim that discrimination against singles, celibates, and persons in platonic partnerships is "invidious" would be laughable. So how can it be "invidious" for committed gay couples to be in the same boat? It cannot be. Unequal treatment here need only pass rational basis scrutiny, which in most cases it can easily do. And if some marriage-specific regulations do not pass this scrutiny they should be challenged on an individual basis, not with a blunderbuss approach involving Federally mandated language-control and thought-control.


I think that your privilege argument is flawed. What about heterosexual couples that are unable to have.children? Or that don't want children? They can still get married. So the privilege for breeding is.bunk.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that your privilege argument is flawed. What about heterosexual couples that are unable to have.children? Or that don't want children? They can still get married. So the privilege for breeding is.bunk.

When has marriage been needed to breed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never. But CP's arguig that its a privilege only for people planning to reproduce.

 

Because, clearly, we have denied this privilege to all the people who cannot breed, like the elderly and those who have physiological problems conceiving. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
It has nothing to do with equality under the law. OBERGEFELL was not (as far as anyone reading it can tell) decided on an Equal Protection basis. And there is an excellent reason for that. Gays, in this context, are not demanding equality. They are demanding a privilege. They see other citizens getting a privilege, and they say "We want that privilege too". They don't care that singles and celibates and persons in platonic partnerships or other arrangements are still being left behind.

Any claim that discrimination against singles, celibates, and persons in platonic partnerships is "invidious" would be laughable. So how can it be "invidious" for committed gay couples to be in the same boat? It cannot be. Unequal treatment here need only pass rational basis scrutiny, which in most cases it can easily do. And if some marriage-specific regulations do not pass this scrutiny they should be challenged on an individual basis, not with a blunderbuss approach involving Federally mandated language-control and thought-control.

Same sex couples are in no way different to opposite sex couples, and as such ought to be treated in the same way. And that is the individual basis that was used in the courts. And as is only sensible the courts decided that the government can't discriminate on the basis of the gender or sex of the people involved in a marriage, just as they earlier decided the government can't discriminate based on race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never. But CP's arguig that its a privilege only for people planning to reproduce.

I guess it is 18 years of headaches for those that did not plan well.  But what does any of this have to do with marriage? Does a lathe need a marriage licence because it has the ability to reproduce itself? What about Onanists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my 2¢

1) If you sign up for a job you need to be able to perform the tasks, including being spiritually prepared as well as cognitively/physically.
2) If the job changes you should be allowed certain aspects of the job to be 'grandfathered' in.
IE: If it was a Jew or Muslim that was working there before the law passed I would support their right as well.
Why should they give up their livelihood when they up till some politician interfered--performed their job without incident.

I think we have a problem in this country (of which I am a citizen) of not accepting other people's right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
All over this planet we are constantly being forced to engage in atheist practices. Where on this planet can you live in a religious manner? We need a sanctum for religious people who want to live in peace according to their believes, instead of imposing atheism on everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 They don't care that singles and celibates and persons in platonic partnerships or other arrangements are still being left behind.

 

Well obviously singles cannot get married, they're single. Though I suppose if they really wanted to they could marry someone and continue acting like their single. But yes, marriage "discriminates" against singles, because by definition married people are not single. But married people are not by definition straight.

 

I'm not aware that marriage requires sex so a pair of celibates could marry, unless you use the definition of celibate that specifically excludes marriage, in which case yes celibates can't marry. Since marrying would make them no longer celibate.

 

As for platonic partnerships I really don't know, is there anything stopping two people in a platonic partnership from getting married? I know some people who's marriage started off romantically but became platonic and no ones trying to say they are no longer married.

 

Though it's not like the above matters. Because singles, celibates, and platonic partnerships are not equivalent to homosexual romantic relationships, homosexual romantic relationships is equivalent to heterosexual romantic relationships (Notice the key word there?) and as such they need to be treated the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I think we have a problem in this country (of which I am a citizen) of not accepting other people's right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
All over this planet we are constantly being forced to engage in atheist practices. Where on this planet can you live in a religious manner? We need a sanctum for religious people who want to live in peace according to their believes, instead of imposing atheism on everyone.

 

What are atheist practices?  Is there a playbook somewhere I'm missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never. But CP's arguig that its a privilege only for people planning to reproduce.


Nope. Never argued that. Do not believe that.

I do believe there is a nexus between traditional marriage and reproduction, in which traditional marriage serves a child-protective function, but even that has nothing to do with what I was saying in the post you are responding.

All I was saying is that gays are not asking for (and receiving) equality, only privileges. Their only argument is that the see something someone else has, and they cry "me too". But they never explain why they are MORE deserving of these privileges than singles, celibates, or persons in platonic partnerships, etc., etc.

That argument said nothing about the traditional privileges being justified by some purpose related to reproduction. That's another discussion. It did not even claim that the privileges are justified at all.

My only point is, that if you base your claims on "equality", you have to argue for equality. You can do this by arguing (for instance) for the abolition of privileges. But that's not what is being asked for (and granted).

If you claim privileges denied to others, you have state some special reason why you deserve privileges denied to others. Gays are claiming privileges denied to celibates, singles, persons in platonic partnerships, and other arrangements. At no point to they try to state a special reason why they are more deserving than these others.

They are demanding privileges in the name of equality, and that is self-contradictory. They need to either argue for an end to the traditional privileges, or state some reason why they are MORE deserving of those privileges than those who are still left out.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just my 2¢

1) If you sign up for a job you need to be able to perform the tasks, including being spiritually prepared as well as cognitively/physically.
2) If the job changes you should be allowed certain aspects of the job to be 'grandfathered' in.
IE: If it was a Jew or Muslim that was working there before the law passed I would support their right as well.
Why should they give up their livelihood when they up till some politician interfered--performed their job without incident.

I think we have a problem in this country (of which I am a citizen) of not accepting other people's right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression.
All over this planet we are constantly being forced to engage in atheist practices. Where on this planet can you live in a religious manner? We need a sanctum for religious people who want to live in peace according to their believes, instead of imposing atheism on everyone.

So as a police officer can I decline to enforce laws which are formed or altered after my hiring date if they conflict with some belief or philosphy I hold as important?

 

Also, are you familiar with the phrase 'separation of church and state'? It's almost as if that idea is based on the notion of of leaving religious beliefs outside of how we make and enforce laws in the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Well obviously singles cannot get married, they're single. Though I suppose if they really wanted to they could marry someone and continue acting like their single. But yes, marriage "discriminates" against singles, because by definition married people are not single. But married people are not by definition straight.

I'm not aware that marriage requires sex so a pair of celibates could marry, unless you use the definition of celibate that specifically excludes marriage, in which case yes celibates can't marry. Since marrying would make them no longer celibate.

As for platonic partnerships I really don't know, is there anything stopping two people in a platonic partnership from getting married? I know some people who's marriage started off romantically but became platonic and no ones trying to say they are no longer married.

Though it's not like the above matters. Because singles, celibates, and platonic partnerships are not equivalent to homosexual romantic relationships, homosexual romantic relationships is equivalent to heterosexual romantic relationships (Notice the key word there?) and as such they need to be treated the same.


I agree that single people are by definition not married, just as I agree that black people are by definition not white. But you have not explained why you believe married people deserve government privileges not available to single people; and specifically, why gay married people deserve privileges not available to single people.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...