Legal asymmetry - POLITICS (was: disturbing article)

[Guest guest]

Gene Schwartz wrote:

>> It's not really true that the state's refusal to recognize homosexual

>> marriage amounts to creating second-class citizens. You have as much

>> right as anyone else to get married, subject to exactly the same

>> restrictions as anyone else--namely that you may marry at most one

>> person, and that that person must be of the opposite sex.

>>

>

> LOL! And when women were denied the vote, they were also granted the

> same rights as men. Anyone could vote IF they were male. I cannot

> believe how depraved some of this logic is.

Not the same thing. Men had the right to vote, and women didn't. The law

clearly favored men over women. With marriage, unless you want to argue

that marrying a woman is inherently superior to marrying a man, or

vice-versa, you can't really say that the law favors one gender over the

other. In any case, the claim is that homosexuals are second-class

citizens, not that men or women are second-class citizens. The laws

applying to homosexual men are the same as those applying to all other

men, and the laws applying to homosexual women are the same as those

applying to all other women.

Here, again, is a more accurate analogy: Some people, if it were

optional, would choose to participate in Social Security. I would rather

participate in an investment-based retirement program. The laws apply

equally to all of us. The only difference is in our preferences. Does

the fact that I am not allowed to participate in the retirement program

of my choice make me a second-class citizen?

Note that, despite your spurious charges of bigotry and depravity, I am

not arguing that any of these laws are good or fair--only that they

cannot rightly be said to create second-class citizens.

>> This isn't about whether homosexuals have the right to do what any

>> heterosexual person can do--rather, it's about whether they have the

>> right to do what no heterosexual person can do.

>

> Absolutely false. You have framed the issue in a totally bigoted way.

No hard feelings. If I didn't have a leg to stand on, I'd start throwing

around words like " bigoted " and " depraved, " too.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: " Berg " <bberg@...>

> Reply-

> Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 11:44:17 -0800

> < >

> Subject: Legal asymmetry - POLITICS (was: disturbing article)

>

>

> Gene Schwartz wrote:

>>> It's not really true that the state's refusal to recognize homosexual

>>> marriage amounts to creating second-class citizens. You have as much

>>> right as anyone else to get married, subject to exactly the same

>>> restrictions as anyone else--namely that you may marry at most one

>>> person, and that that person must be of the opposite sex.

>>>

>>

>> LOL! And when women were denied the vote, they were also granted the

>> same rights as men. Anyone could vote IF they were male. I cannot

>> believe how depraved some of this logic is.

>

> Not the same thing. Men had the right to vote, and women didn't. The law

> clearly favored men over women.

Ok - looks like you're totally missing the point. One can frame the act of

marrying in 2 ways - one can say, by definition, that it is between a man

and a woman. Therefore, if one presupposes this definition, then homosexuals

and heterosexuals have the same rights. However, one can frame it less

prejudicially, without the presupposition that only a bond between straight

people constitutes marriage - and define it as a bond between people,

regardless of their sex. The difference is, that in the first case, the

assumption is bigoted, while the law (superficially equal) is bigoted

because it relies on the bigoted presupposition.

I can, similarly, restrict the act of voting as the act of voting if one is

a male. Once I've made that bigoted assumption, I can then apply it equally

to women and men. it's really the same kind of reasoning.

> With marriage, unless you want to argue

> that marrying a woman is inherently superior to marrying a man, or

> vice-versa, you can't really say that the law favors one gender over the

> other. In any case, the claim is that homosexuals are second-class

> citizens, not that men or women are second-class citizens. The laws

> applying to homosexual men are the same as those applying to all other

> men, and the laws applying to homosexual women are the same as those

> applying to all other women.

Well, no. The laws are really not the same, as I've explained above.

>

> Here, again, is a more accurate analogy: Some people, if it were

> optional, would choose to participate in Social Security. I would rather

> participate in an investment-based retirement program. The laws apply

> equally to all of us. The only difference is in our preferences. Does

> the fact that I am not allowed to participate in the retirement program

> of my choice make me a second-class citizen?

>

LOL! You can make the same argument, if you want to, that the

presuppositions behind Social Security are bigoted in some way, and that

therefore a law that is founded on those presuppositions is also bigoted.

Either way, I don't think it invalidates the claim that a law that is

superficially egalitarian can be founded on bigoted presuppositions. Another

way of looking at it is that the action of 'marrying someone of the opposite

sex' is in reality a different action for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

> Note that, despite your spurious charges of bigotry and depravity,

I said that your reasoning was depraved. I see no need to retract that.

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>I said that your reasoning was depraved. I see no need to retract that.

While I agree with your disagreements with 's reasoning -- even up

to characterizing it as morally corrupt due to bigoted foundational

assumptions -- I'd appreciate it if you'd tone down the rhetoric you're

using to describe it. " Depraved " is a more heated term than " morally corrupt " .

-

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Not to be confrontational....but really?

>

>I looked up 'depraved' on www.dictionary.com, and it says, 'Morally corrupt;

>perverted'. Then I looked up 'corrupt', and it said, 'Marked by immorality

>and perversion; depraved.'.

Yes, I'm aware of the irony. However, " depraved " has a number of

connotations and meanings which are not included in " morally corrupted

reasoning " . A translation can become corrupted by errors. In fact I ought

to have used a description more like " his reasoning is morally erroneous " ,

but it amounts to the same thing. " Depraved " brings to mind images of

debauchery and evil.

>I agree to try to tone it down, but I'm just not sure I can discern this

>finely as to which term is more confrontational than the other.

In that case I'd appreciate it if you'd just try to overshoot in the

direction of calmness.

>'depraved' does seem more colorful, though, don't you think? 'Morally

>corrupt' is so retro, you know?

If I were writing for Fox News or Ann Coulter, sure, I'd go for

" depraved " . But this is a nutrition list, and to the degree there's strong

debate, especially on subjects which have no possible relation to the

subject of nutrition (unlike even libertarianism vs regulation and

taxation, which does (or can) directly bear on agriculture, food choices,

day-to-day eating, etc.), I want it to be calm and polite and courteous.

-

[Guest guest]

Not to be confrontational....but really?

I looked up 'depraved' on www.dictionary.com, and it says, 'Morally corrupt;

perverted'. Then I looked up 'corrupt', and it said, 'Marked by immorality

and perversion; depraved.'.

I agree to try to tone it down, but I'm just not sure I can discern this

finely as to which term is more confrontational than the other. I mean, you

just agreed publicly, and your the moderator, that his reasoning is

described by a term that seems pretty equivalent to the one that I used.

'depraved' does seem more colorful, though, don't you think? 'Morally

corrupt' is so retro, you know?

Gene

From: Idol <Idol@...>

Reply-

Date: Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:07:09 -0500

Subject: Re: Legal asymmetry - POLITICS (was: disturbing article)

Gene-

>I said that your reasoning was depraved. I see no need to retract that.

While I agree with your disagreements with 's reasoning -- even up

to characterizing it as morally corrupt due to bigoted foundational

assumptions -- I'd appreciate it if you'd tone down the rhetoric you're

using to describe it. " Depraved " is a more heated term than " morally

corrupt " .

-