Re: re: POLITICS -- Disturbing article

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> >Look, I'm not defending the law as it stands by any means.

>

> Well, I think that you are, though indirectly.

I already explicitly opposed the law several times.

> >But there is a

> >fundamental difference between a law that is applied differently to two

> >groups,

> >and a law that is applied equally to two groups.

>

> True, and if you ignore my argument that the presuppositions behind viewing

> this law as equally applied are bigoted, then I'm not sure what to say.

I guess we're at a deadlock then. The law prescribes the exact same thing

for homosexuals and heterosexuals. You say that this is bigoted, because it

disallows homosexuals from marrying who they " want " to marry. But by that

logic,

*every* law is discriminatory-- against those who don't want to obey it.

> Obviously it's not worth going around in circles again. Other people have

> understood my argument - you seem totally oblivious to it. (this is

> independent of it being correct, or incorrect, naturally.)

I'm not oblivious to it; I just disagree with it. It's really just a matter

of semantics, so I'm not sure whether it's worth pursuing.

> >I think made the

> >point better than I'm making it, so I might as well just observe the two of

> >you

> >debate it.

>

> Well, he seems rather incapable of constructing an argument devoid of 'moral

> corruption', as suggests that I put it. I'd actually prefer 'logical

> corruption', but I am forbidden to use 'depraved'.

Well, from your perspective, as I understand it, " logical corruption " would

be more apt. To use " morally corrupt " would be somewhat logically... er...

morally?... corrupt.

> >As with Social Security, does a person's preference make them a

> second-class

> >when it is contrary to the established law? I don't think it does, but if

> you

> >do, we're using different definitions of the term.

>

> yawn

Didn't you just fault me for ignoring an argument?

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 18:39:30 EST

>

> Subject: Re: re: POLITICS -- Disturbing article

>

>

> Gene,

>

>

>>> Look, I'm not defending the law as it stands by any means.

>>

>> Well, I think that you are, though indirectly.

>

> I already explicitly opposed the law several times.

>

>>> But there is a

>>> fundamental difference between a law that is applied differently to two

>>> groups,

>>> and a law that is applied equally to two groups.

>>

>> True, and if you ignore my argument that the presuppositions behind viewing

>> this law as equally applied are bigoted, then I'm not sure what to say.

>

> I guess we're at a deadlock then. The law prescribes the exact same thing

> for homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Well, I'm saying that it does not really prescribe the same 'thing'.

Numerous examples have been given, by me and others of how a prescribed

action isn't the same for all concerned. You are confusing the law SAYING

the same thing, with it really being the same to both groups. I really don't

care if you shout to the hilltops that you are not defending the law - by

saying that it is equally applied, you ARE defending it, at least to a

degree.

> You say that this is bigoted, because it

> disallows homosexuals from marrying who they " want " to marry. But by that

> logic,

> *every* law is discriminatory-- against those who don't want to obey it.

>

That is just so ridiculous. You cannot see a difference here? I give up. You

have outlasted me again.

[Guest guest]

Gene Schwartz wrote:

> Well, I'm saying that it does not really prescribe the same 'thing'.

> Numerous examples have been given, by me and others of how a

> prescribed action isn't the same for all concerned. You are confusing

> the law SAYING the same thing, with it really being the same to both

> groups. I really don't care if you shout to the hilltops that you are

> not defending the law - by saying that it is equally applied, you ARE

> defending it, at least to a degree.

If you had gotten it into your head that you were going to take a knife

to a gun fight, and I tried to convince you that you could do better,

whom would I be defending?

[Guest guest]

>

>

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

> Reply-

> Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2004 00:07:03 -0800

> < >

> Subject: Re: re: POLITICS -- Disturbing article

>

>

> Gene Schwartz wrote:

>> Well, I'm saying that it does not really prescribe the same 'thing'.

>> Numerous examples have been given, by me and others of how a

>> prescribed action isn't the same for all concerned. You are confusing

>> the law SAYING the same thing, with it really being the same to both

>> groups. I really don't care if you shout to the hilltops that you are

>> not defending the law - by saying that it is equally applied, you ARE

>> defending it, at least to a degree.

>

> If you had gotten it into your head that you were going to take a knife

> to a gun fight, and I tried to convince you that you could do better,

> whom would I be defending?

I'm not sure of your point, first of all.

But to try to answer your question briefly...As far as you defending

someone, that is really ultimately a judgement that we make. You may be

intending to defend someone, but since your actions really cause harm, we

might say that you're in reality not defending someone. Or we might also say

that you're defending someone, but that your efforts are counterproductive.

In the example that you give, quite obviously your intent is to elicit the

answer that you would be defending me by telling me I should be better armed

for the confrontation. And so, perhaps, your point is that you are really

defending gay marriage by advising that the argument that the laws are

unequal isn't sufficient for the job, and one should be better 'armed'. You

could claim that I should see this despite the fact that I think that your

reasoning on the issue is flawed.

I see your point, but since I think that whether you are defending a

position or not is really open to judgement, and not simply a matter of your

declared intent, I would disagree. While some have claimed that this point

is trivial, I think, actually that it is quite essential - if one cannot see

that this is an issue of discrimination, then I think that one lacks an

understanding of the issue (whether out of stubborness or not is

inconsequential), and if one does not have a basic understanding of the

issue, then I think that one is probably 'defending' something else than

claimed.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/19/04 11:06:53 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Idol@... writes:

> Like 's seemingly-insupportable distinction between second-class

> relationships and second-class citizens, this seems like a very odd bit of

> mental gymnastics to go through. Using that logic couldn't we ban

> homosexual sex entirely and claim that we're just discriminating against

> homosexual relationships and that homosexuals are in no way either

> discriminated against or second-class citizens?

Umm, no because it's morrally repugnant. Why is it you consider baseless

discrimination between behaviors or extrinsic characteristics more just than

baseless discrimination between intrinsic characteristics, or consider the equal

application of an unjust law more just than the discriminatory application of

an unjust law?

Chris

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>the crux of the issue, which I don't think we'll come to

>an agreement on: whether the marriage laws discriminate specifically

>against a

>group of people, or discriminate between relationships.

Like 's seemingly-insupportable distinction between second-class

relationships and second-class citizens, this seems like a very odd bit of

mental gymnastics to go through. Using that logic couldn't we ban

homosexual sex entirely and claim that we're just discriminating against

homosexual relationships and that homosexuals are in no way either

discriminated against or second-class citizens?

-