Let's relax and calmly discuss homophobic people...

The mention of incest in this thread made me stop in my tracks.

See, I don't give a hoot what other people do with their ding-dongs. The way I look at it, every time a man turns out to be gay, he becomes one less competitor for the attentions of women. In fact, the ideal situation from my perspective would be if every man on earth were gay except for me. Let's ignore what women might want in that scenario, because that would probably spoil things.

Anyway, my point is that I'm totes liberal. Except about incest though, because that's just plain wrong. I feel it to be wrong on a visceral level. I get the heebie-jeebies when I start to think about it, and then some kind of mental block kicks in that stops me thinking about it any further. I would certainly knee-jerkily oppose any loosening of anti-incest laws. Because... incest... eww!

So, what made me stop in my tracks is that it occurred to me that this may be how homophobes feel about teh gays. It's no use pointing out that they're being discriminatory, or that it's not fair, because, my goodness, if that's how homosexuality makes them feel then no wonder they oppose it. If mainstream society was moving in the direction of making incest on a par with marriage, and telling me I was a bigoted conservative for not agreeing, I would be like... OMG CIVILIZATION IS IMPLODING!!!11!

Now, I did say that I was a liberal, so actually after my knee had stopped twitching I would support, through gritted teeth, any loosening of anti-incest laws, because I do believe that consenting adults should be free to do whatever they wanted with each other. Even if... you know... they shouldn't. But oh boy, it's not easy.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I have a new-found respect for people who think being gay is wrong but who don't oppose it publically. So well done to the internet for making me a better person.

Also, stop making me think about incest. Ewwwwwwww!

 

This "calm discussion" is falling off the rails rather quickly.

 

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5VNe9NTOxA[/youtube]

 

Actively fighting my own horror to write what I did, was more than I thought I was capable of doing. What ended up in this thread was a rewrite that was more on point, and admittedly a conservative stance on the issue in question. Really, except for the newer members, everyone here has seen what I've said about incest; I was shouting the same things about it that rabid homophobes might say about non-straight relationships.

 

Re:

Well if Jimmy Barnes decided to "thumb a ride" I'm not surprised the old pervert got the wrong idea.

What, too soon to try and diffuse the homosexual tension?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sFHUTF7TtU

I'm just joking, Jojobobo. That was actually a witty little number. Interestingly enough, Jimmy Barnes is the same name of the lead singer of a famous Australian band called Cold Chisel (although I'm using the term "famous" very liberally). I can't confirm the validity of that video I just posted up (be it genuine or a parody of "conservative" views), Jojobobo, but it highlights an interesting shift that's happened in this thread; how the topic of homophobia has led us to the discussion of other forms of sexual conduct, such as incest (this unholy meme comes to mind). In other similar discussions I've come across, online and in the flesh, pedophilia and bestiality are put on the table, as well.

In regards to the concept of same sex marriage, there are people who express the equivalent of "Well, if we let homosexuals get married, who's to say that people won't some day be allowed to marry animals, family, or children?". Personally, I think this is too clumsy an argument, let alone quite hurtful; since homosexuality is not often a given norm in most societies (whereas certain Native American cultures considered homosexuals to be "twin spirited", for example*), it's put into the same category as other tendencies that are deemed immoral or bizarre, without any closer inspections. How someone can compare two women at the altar to a Welshman's average Saturday morning with little prompt is beyond me, personally.

I know that most of you are getting a strong feeling of déjà vu as you're reading this, but I just wanted to chip in. Again. Oh, and I certainly agree with the people who point out that there are far more pressing matters to attend to in the world before Adam and Steve can tie the knot. Compared to poverty and famine (at home and abroad), it can certainly wait. I think we can all agree that, in the meantime, one should avoid being a prat about the whole affair.

* http://www.theguardian.com/music/2010/o ... th-america

 

So to pick at the old gay* scab (and because that phrase has the power to conjure horrible imagery in almost anyone's head), what do people think of the legalisation of gay marriage in America? Was it a coup of the liberal agenda over hardline conservative values dreamt up by those morons in DC** or was a sign of the times and progress?

Things got pretty heated last time, and I don't care if they do this time either. People say always be civil in arguments, which to me is stupid. Being rational in arguments is far more important - put personal bias aside and try to grasp the argument by all possible angles not just your own. By all means, state your personal bias - so long as you're aware it's personal bias and not fact.

And I do totally get what the religious and/or conservative demographic is talking about; the first amendment states, "Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition" - what does the freedom of religion clause not matter now in comparison to freedom of speech? It reads very much like they should be on equal footing, and now one has taken precedence.

Plus it's not like Christian ministers would be out there gay bashing, they would just be refusing to marry gays if they were told to. They're not saying, "You can't do that anywhere." Rather, "I'm not going to be the one to do that." That doesn't seem like such an offensive idea, but I'm sure I've read they're planning to fine ministers who discriminate.

Honestly, I always appreciate debate between people who have at least semi-literate thoughts - rather than the rest of the rest of the Facebook and Twitter noise.

*Say what you like about the gays, their flag is pretty.

**I mean DC isn't even a state - why do they get to make all the decisions?

 

I don't think permitting same-sex civil unions is necessarily a bad thing, though obviously I'm opposed to homosexuality on moral grounds. The real travesty is this handful of non-elected judges legislating from the bench. They just decided that because the traditional definition of marriage is unpopular now, States' rights be damned, we'll just call it unconstitutional. Never mind that the constitution doesn't define, or even mention, marriage.

 

So I really like the strong codification of the American political system, and beyond that your strong codification of government under a formal written constitution (as in literally, people thought the UK government would implode before our most recent general election - people were worried that no one would be able to form a coalition parliament that had a majority that could enact laws. Seeing as we don't have so much of an ironclad constitution as you, that's a big fucking deal. And yes, I've now learnt to care about the political system and vote - regardless the childish apathetic stance I posted of before of, "Wah, politicians do nothing anyway so why vote?" But I digress, horribly, to illustrate why America is perhaps the best democracy on Earth). Isn't the point of your Supreme Court system and how it's invoked to appreciate political trends rather than political fads - in a broad sense? Surely, most of what the Supreme Court rules is always going to be done by non-elected judges? If I'm wrong, shoot me down brutally. My information, as I would wager to say any non-Americans' information, on your political system is always going to be a bit sketchy.

I'd say that, if something wasn't legally pinned down, there is always room to exploit how it is defined. As such, re-defining something that wasn't defined it the first place is of course not much of a problem legally. However, I am interested in how this violates States' rights in a legal sense - given my yokel Britainfolk status.

 

The Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President, and serve for life. They don't have the power to create laws; that falls to elected legislators in the Senate and the House of Representatives. They simply rule on the constitutional legality of federal and state laws, in cases where they have jurisdiction.

In a nutshell, the States can govern as they see fit (in accordance with the constitution) in areas where the Federal government is silent. Because neither the Constitution nor Federal law define marriage, it is left to the discretion of the State governments. The Supreme Court essentially ruled that States do not have the right to define marriage as being between a man and a woman, citing the 14th Amendment and "equal protection of the laws." That's a pretty big stretch.

The right way to legalize same sex marriage nationwide would have been through federal legislation. But because such legislation would never clear a Republican majority in the House and Senate, five out of nine Justices took it upon themselves to just dictate to the nation that, yeah, it's gonna be legal.

 

Honestly I didn't realise it was that much of a coup, and driven so much by a fairly semantics based argument. It does seem like it would be better if it had been made law through federal legislation when America was entirely ready for that, rather than snuck in through the back door with now many states not being happy about it.

 

Pretty much all legal arguments end up as semantic based. Japes defines "equal protection of the laws" as allowing discriminatory laws as long as they apply in a way he approves of. So marriage can be defined as a thing that can only happen between a man and a woman, and as long as it applies to all men and women alike then it's fine. If you happen to be gay you don't get to marry the person you want to and benefit from the tax exemptions that might apply to a married couple, but that's just tough for you. However, the Supreme Court doesn't think that fits with the spirit of what is meant by "equal protection of the laws", so they made their ruling accordingly.

Interestingly there was an Equal Rights Amendment proposed in 1972 that would have made the issue much clearer, but it was only ratified by 35 states and that wasn't enough to get it passed. So I'm not really sold on the proposition that America is "the best democracy on Earth".

 

I did say "perhaps" the best democracy on Earth - you can't beat that kind of unassailable ambiguity.

I do see what you're saying. Then again, it does seem like unelected officials shouldn't be making hard rulings on divisive issues that probably couldn't be brought into law in America through any other means right now. Then again again, I suppose it is kind of their job to make those kind of rulings in the first instance - and as I said as they're not elected just appointed so they should hopefully be representative of overall political trends not just which party is currently in office.

 

From Justice Scalia's dissent:

 

Another question is about the gay marriage referendum in Ireland earlier this month - while it's good that they voted yes, is it really fair to give a majority the right to determine the rights of a minority? Had the vote gone the other way the implication would be that that would be a legitimate reason not to allow same-sex marriage, but I'm not sure what people think of it really affects whether or not it's right to allow two people to marry when it's not going to do anyone else any harm. It sets a precedent for less tolerant countries to hold their own referendums and then claim that simply because their country is more homophobic that same-sex marriages shouldn't be allowed, and because so many people have celebrated the Irish result I don't see how they can claim that that's unfair - if Ireland's Yes is legitimate then someone else's No has to be too.

 

Marital rape was legal in most states until the 1970s, at which point courts started declaring it unconstitutional. But I guess you and Scalia would have argued that changing it at that stage made fools out of everyone up until then, so I guess you think marital rape should have stayed legal too. After all, there's nothing in the constitution specifically about it. It's nice to know you have a consistent view on these issues.

Not really sure what you're objecting to here. How else is government supposed to work?

 

By legislating fairly instead of gambling the rights of a minority on a public vote - gay marriage should be legal regardless of what the majority think. People used to (and some still do) object to mixed-race marriage but it wouldn't be fair to determine it's legality through a referendum would it?

 

So you think that generally the government should ignore what people want and do what it thinks is right instead?

That would work for precisely one electoral cycle, after which the government will be replaced with one that undertakes to do what the people want.

 

This is really just a new civil rights argument - fifty years ago, people held the very same opinions on whether interracial couples should marry. Hell, some of those still alive from that time still do. Now, I'm not saying anyone against the idea of same sex marriages is racist, but that I have a direct parallel with which to compare them to actual racists is rather interesting.

What's also interesting is how Scalia made no mention of the 14th amendment's language not including the rights of women. That's because women weren't allowed to vote until August of 1920, a little over 52 years after the 14th amendment passed - so they didn't have notable rights under an amendment designed to give all free men equal rights under the law. His statement could easily have read, if written in the 1920's,

"The five Justices who compose today’s majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 52 years between the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification and congress' vote to pass the 19th amendment in 1919, allowing women to vote. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a ‘fundamental right’ overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds—minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly—could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their ‘reasoned judgment.’ These Justices know that limiting votes to men is contrary to reason..."

It trails off because my edits would start to become hugely complex in order to keep the flow of the text, considering just how many times women have voted in other countries and even in the US before women had the right as citizens to vote.

*edit;

The reason the fourteenth amendment applies is simple - marriage is a legally binding contract that offers protections unique to such a partnership. If only heterosexual couples can make use of this right, protections aren't equal.

 

Except that it never needed to be put to a referendum, it could have just been initiated through the normal legislative channels, like pretty much everything else. Here's a link to a good article putting forward the same argument better than I can http://www.theguardian.com/world/co...hen-it-comes-to-gay-rights-or-minority-issues

From the article:
"The idea that the majority can legitimise the right of a minority is fundamentally flawed. In the words of Ayn Rand, the Russian-American novelist, “individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.”

There are plenty of examples on how popular votes could have catastrophic impacts in societies if they were to be sought on minority matters. The obvious example is the issue of marriage between white and non-white people in the US.

Long before the American people would approve such marriages, it was judges who struck down discriminatory laws in various parts of America. If the majority had been asked whether white people could marry black people, it would have taken decades longer for them be able to do so."