Supreme Court extends same-sex marriage nationwide
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 8 years, 11 months ago to Government
Well there you have it folks. Another decision that has the effect of complicating and distorting our language.
I personally have no problems with what the LGBT people do. It is only a matter of definitions and giving new meaning to existing words that bothers me. I believe that a new word should have been created and that equal rights in every way should be granted. Unfortunately now the word marriage will be less descriptive and specific. This has been the case of several decisions lately that only confound our language. The court believes it can re-write Webster's dictionary.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Addendum: Some final thoughts
After contemplating the arguments presented, I wish it understood that since I have no strong religious convictions on this matter, I have no personal problems with this ruling other than a minor irritation with the effective changing of the definition of the word marriage. I will have little difficulty adjusting my language and accepting the outcome. However, others of a contrary nature and the undoubted turmoil that will ensue for our nation will not likely foster comity. After all there are a very large number of people of religious convictions that will not wish to have their rights to practice and live by their beliefs abrogated.
I accept the absolute right of free association that is involved, but free association as a right cannot exist without its corollary of disassociation. One cannot objectively avoid recognition that this ruling will lead to the violation of rights of those that hold a contrary view by forcing them into associations they would otherwise avoid.
The problem’s origin seems to stem from the fact that the government has bestowed upon holders of a “marriage” license, benefits that others were not granted. This is unequal treatment and thus unjust. This is the crux of the problem and should be rectified and could be done easily by eliminating those benefits or granting them to everyone regardless of possession of such a license. It would seem that it is largely the result of government getting into something it should not have in the first place and as usual producing unanticipated consequences.
Is acquisition of this license in and of itself a fundamental right? If this were so, would it not apply to a driver’s license also? It has been understood that such a license is a privilege, which by definition one must qualify for. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, would not this line of reasoning lead one to conclude that any license or even contract that someone else can acquire is equally a right for all regardless of criteria? For instance should one demand that since some have contracts with the NBA that it should be the right of all so desiring? This is of course reductio ad absurdum.
What precedent for our nation and the effects upon states rights and the tenth amendment will this have? The implications are incalculable. The more cases that redefine the meaning of words, the more cases of the past will be in jeopardy. Without unchanging meanings we become a nation not of written laws, but of the whims of men and the political winds of the time. The fact that some words already have ambiguity is not a persuasive argument for acceptance of more of the same done with purpose born of temporary convenience or political correctness.
Some say (as the majority opinion did) that this is necessary to grant dignity and respect for the pro gay marriage crowd. This argument is specious since no government issued paper can grant dignity. Dignity is a reflection/matter of approval and acceptance of one's peers and the community.
Ultimately our nation will likely suffer further division and struggle with this issue just as we still do with Roe v. Wade. This is unfortunate since there were other alternatives. I hope it is not more than our ever more fragile peace between factions can handle. Frankly I hope I am wrong in this matter and we can move past it, but it does seem inevitable that our courts will be needlessly filled with cases where some “rights” are pitted against others. The mark of a legitimate fundamental right is that it does not conflict with others.
In closing, I would like to thank all those that have participated in this conversation and invite the reader to comment further as they desire.
Respectfully,
O.A.
I personally have no problems with what the LGBT people do. It is only a matter of definitions and giving new meaning to existing words that bothers me. I believe that a new word should have been created and that equal rights in every way should be granted. Unfortunately now the word marriage will be less descriptive and specific. This has been the case of several decisions lately that only confound our language. The court believes it can re-write Webster's dictionary.
Respectfully,
O.A.
Addendum: Some final thoughts
After contemplating the arguments presented, I wish it understood that since I have no strong religious convictions on this matter, I have no personal problems with this ruling other than a minor irritation with the effective changing of the definition of the word marriage. I will have little difficulty adjusting my language and accepting the outcome. However, others of a contrary nature and the undoubted turmoil that will ensue for our nation will not likely foster comity. After all there are a very large number of people of religious convictions that will not wish to have their rights to practice and live by their beliefs abrogated.
I accept the absolute right of free association that is involved, but free association as a right cannot exist without its corollary of disassociation. One cannot objectively avoid recognition that this ruling will lead to the violation of rights of those that hold a contrary view by forcing them into associations they would otherwise avoid.
The problem’s origin seems to stem from the fact that the government has bestowed upon holders of a “marriage” license, benefits that others were not granted. This is unequal treatment and thus unjust. This is the crux of the problem and should be rectified and could be done easily by eliminating those benefits or granting them to everyone regardless of possession of such a license. It would seem that it is largely the result of government getting into something it should not have in the first place and as usual producing unanticipated consequences.
Is acquisition of this license in and of itself a fundamental right? If this were so, would it not apply to a driver’s license also? It has been understood that such a license is a privilege, which by definition one must qualify for. Taken to its ultimate conclusion, would not this line of reasoning lead one to conclude that any license or even contract that someone else can acquire is equally a right for all regardless of criteria? For instance should one demand that since some have contracts with the NBA that it should be the right of all so desiring? This is of course reductio ad absurdum.
What precedent for our nation and the effects upon states rights and the tenth amendment will this have? The implications are incalculable. The more cases that redefine the meaning of words, the more cases of the past will be in jeopardy. Without unchanging meanings we become a nation not of written laws, but of the whims of men and the political winds of the time. The fact that some words already have ambiguity is not a persuasive argument for acceptance of more of the same done with purpose born of temporary convenience or political correctness.
Some say (as the majority opinion did) that this is necessary to grant dignity and respect for the pro gay marriage crowd. This argument is specious since no government issued paper can grant dignity. Dignity is a reflection/matter of approval and acceptance of one's peers and the community.
Ultimately our nation will likely suffer further division and struggle with this issue just as we still do with Roe v. Wade. This is unfortunate since there were other alternatives. I hope it is not more than our ever more fragile peace between factions can handle. Frankly I hope I am wrong in this matter and we can move past it, but it does seem inevitable that our courts will be needlessly filled with cases where some “rights” are pitted against others. The mark of a legitimate fundamental right is that it does not conflict with others.
In closing, I would like to thank all those that have participated in this conversation and invite the reader to comment further as they desire.
Respectfully,
O.A.
There was no healthy debate, there was only you making unsupportable claims and eventually admitting that I had successfully refuted everything you said.
I can understand your inability to comprehend the thinking of a male who prefers other males over women because there isn't any thinking at all involved with my attraction to men. It's an emotional and physical reaction just the same as your reaction to women.
Here's what I call a perversion: engaging in any sexual activity without the consent of the other party(ies) involved. I'm surprised to hear that you're an atheist because the concept of perversion is a religious one. Regarding anarchy and lawlessness without the guilt trip of religion to guide us, I know lots of atheists and I can't think of a single one that looks forward to anarchy and lawlessness.
And now that you've abandoned the entire "animals only do it by accident" claim we're back to homosexuality being natural and not accidental. It's late so I'll accept that your original post was ill-considered.
Obviously, neither your existence, nor that of any other homosexual is a perversion of nature. You're all still human...just "wired" differently than most.
I will admit that when a young boy, I "experimented" with other young boys. The difference is that I found that I vastly preferred girls (though, my sisters were off limits). Hence, my inability to comprehend the thinking of a male who prefers other males over women and vice versa. I think I can even understand bisexuals who like to swing both ways, but still prefer the opposite sex, overall.
I wonder what you would consider "perversion", if you're not ready to accept the Merriam Webster view? To me, it seems that a lifestyle that fails to propagate it's followers (like an isolated island populated entirely by homosexual couples) would be a perversion because the entire population would eventually, naturally, disappear from the world. Not exactly Sodom and Gomorrah, but with the same end results. Which brings me to...
In response to your comments, I don't believe The Bible to be the "word of God". I don't believe in God, hence, I don't look forward to going to Heaven, nor dread going to Hell. On the contrary, I believe that book to be written by intelligent men of great wisdom, as a guide for man to live by. Sure, a healthy dose of "morality" was added, but we have the freedom to ignore some of those constraints. My concern is that society should choose to totally abandon the good teachings, along with the bad...simply "because" it's The Bible. Total anarchy and lawlessness would ensue, much to the harm of mankind, overall. That is why I refuse to call myself an Atheist. So, with that out of the way, we can dispense with biblical references and focus on the natural order of things.
As for bulls and cows...aw, I'm willing to abandon that one. It really wasn't going anywhere, anyway.
But I will not debate the morality of homosexuality on this thread. It's a dead-end.
I will finish with two points:
You make many claims that are unsubstantiated: "blacks are more highly represented in our prisons because..." Etc. correlation does not prove causation. I could claim that 90% of people who die in car accidents have eaten carrots within 30 days of the accident. But that correlation does not mean there is a link between carrots and auto accidents. Had you considered that maybe black fathers are out of the home because they are in jail, not in jail because they are out of the home? Abandoning traditional gender roles also does not mean abandoning you child. It means maybe the dad stays home while mom works, or that the women doesn't need to be subservient to her husband, etc. You can eschew tradition in gender while still being responsible for your offspring. That was a false dichotomy.
I place the war on drugs as a MUCH higher determining factor in black incarceration rates than bein raised in a single-parent household. Culturally, black Americans do not have the same negative attitude towards drugs as white Americans. This means more will be arrested if the drugs are prohibited. I am certainly not placing all the blame on the war on drugs, but simply pointing out that your analysis leaves much to be desired and proves nothing.
Finally, no two things are identical. Should we have a different word for every iteration of every single item in the world? No two grains of sand are the same composition, no two apples are the same color or exactly the same flavor. No two women are exactly alike in personality, body shape, DNA, etc. we draw connections and find similarities between things to create concepts. While reality defines things like chemical composition of sand, and the size of a woman's dress, it does not define our concepts. The limits of a concept are highly flexible and are not immutable. We constantly experience new precepts and incorporate them into our existing concepts, or if they do not fit then we build new ones.
I am positing that your concept of a marriage being gender specific is not based in reality, as if it were a law of nature, but arbitrary and based purely in tradition. You state that the purpose of marriage is to create a family. Why? Why is a union that is purely for love and companionship that does not produce children not a marriage?
In the end, all I have really heard from you is that this is the way it's always been done, and that is how it should be done. Then you blame societal ills on changes in the way things are down with not causal proof, only conjecture through correlation.
Yes, men and women are different. So why does that mean unions of different gender compositions must be considered separate concepts? I go back to the chair example. Is not a chair made of wood, paper, plastic, metal, or ice still a chair? As long as it conforms to certain basic things like holding human weight, having legs and a back, meant for sitting upon, etc?
Tell me why a marriage MUST be a union between a man and a woman, rather than just a union between two people. Tell me what is so drastically different between them that requires completely separate consideration, like the difference between a coupe and a tractor trailer.
Your statement means one of two things. First, I am basically, by my very existence, a perversion of nature. LOTS of people believe that about gays. Maybe you can understand my reaction to that possible meaning.
The second option is that you're calling my physical acts of sexual activity with men a perversion. I can, to some extent and with great damage to my mental health, choose not to engage in sexual activities with men. I cannot control that I am attracted to men, that's just part of me. Let's assume someone demanded that you refrain from sexual activities with women. Your only option was no sexual activity at all or activity that requires no other participants? How long could you remain, well, sane?
And regarding my acts being perverted, you never addressed the list of items that the bible bans that today are all common among the entire population, OR those that the bible heartily approves of that our society has deemed absolutely taboo. If my acts are perversions (which they are solely because Leviticus says they are) then your acts are equally perverted. Unless you don't actually believe the bible is the word of god and can discard which ever parts you find inconvenient. At least I'm up-front that I'm a hardcore atheist and am unconstrained by biblical bullying.
No matter how you slice it, referring to the SCOTUS ruling as finally granting Consitutional protection to a perversion is about as offensive as you can get. Thus, a-hole.
Lastly, you wrote, ".I've seen bulls attempt to mount other bulls and it wasn't just because they preferred bulls over cows...believe me. No argument...just a fact." You've now, at least twice, made a statement and then attempted to shut down the discussion by proclaiming that it's "just a fact." That the Earth revolves around the sun is just a fact. That the Statue of Liberty is covered with copper is just a fact. Your assertion that bulls attempting to mount other bulls wasn't because they preferred bulls over cows may be a fact or it may not be a fact. We need evidence. Why were the bulls trying to mount other bulls? And can you be sure that in every case throughout history and in the future it's not because the mounter prefers the mountee over cows?
Assuming you know the answer to at least the first question about why,there still remains the fact (I can point to proof) that you claimed such acts were accidental. I'm trying to see how one bull jumping on the back of another bull is accidental. Was he aiming for a cow and experienced an epic fail? Was he blind, smelled a cow in estrus, and mounted the first bovine organism he encountered? Had someone surreptitiously fitted him with the latest Virtual Reality goggles and made him see a hot little Guernsey when he was actually approaching a hunky piece of Angus stud?
(As for education, I have a 4-year BS in Engineering. Larnin' ain't the issue, logical thought is the issue. Anyone can do that.)
You can't even see the contradiction in these two sentences can you? You simultaneously recognize the inherent differences and then immediately attempt to dismiss that the difference exists! It is simple contradictions like this that completely undermine any argument you seek to make on the matter. Reality is not subject to equivocation.
Umm, that is the entire argument made by this Supreme Court decision when they cited the 14th Amendment, because once that distinction is acknowledged, all claims of disparate treatment disappear. The entire body of your argument is similarly based on trying to make the two equivalent so as to confer the status of the one upon the other. This statement is clearly an avoidance.
You seek to conveniently ignore that the basic and fundamental definition of marriage is not about age or love, but about gender - about the complimentary pairing of the sexes in order to form families. All else is a distraction.
"This is just a continuation of the trend of society no longer caring about the differences in the sexes..."
+1 for finally recognizing truth! Society's desire to spurn reality, however, does not mean that reality has changed!
"...and abandoning traditional gender roles as the irrelevant and arbitrary artificial constructs they are."
3 in 4 black men are born and raised without a father in the home. Blacks are also more highly represented in the populations of our prisons because growing up without a father is the single most defining factor in predicting future incarceration. See Thomas Sowell's work on this for more. We have also seen the explosion of STD's as the "free love" movement of the '60's has taken off. See the CDC for incidence rates. Society similarly rejects the basic principles of economics, and we find ourselves in debt as a nation with many enslaved by the Federal Government - all because they abandoned _traditional_ economics in favor of the Keynesian fad! I can go on and on, citing education of children, propensity for being on welfare, juvenile delinquency, etc. - all because of society's abandonment of traditional values. An objective viewpoint would be to compare what works and what doesn't - not to judge them based on age with a bias toward the fad of youth.
"There is no actual reason to refuse to call a same-sex Union anything different from an opposite-sex Union unless you have a problem with the Union itself or if you have a reason for willfully separating the two."
Actually, it is the converse which is true. One identifies A as being A - not merely similar to A. A cube is not a sphere though they are both shapes. A man is not a woman though they are both human beings. One may walk into a carnival's hall of mirrors to see all manner of distortions of reality. But has the thing changed? No.
Can homosexuality and heterosexuality receive similar treatment under the law? Easily. All that had to have been done was to use some other term such as "civil union" to describe a homosexual pairing. It would have recognized the real differences in the two and allowed for accommodations for both. But that wasn't ever what this debate was about. It was about transferring the moral legitimacy associated with the term marriage to cover homosexuality.
"He is bound by the same rules and laws as the universe and thus a part of it. He would not be supernatural... But natural."
Precisely, and I completely agree.
"And specifically on the concept of the judeo Christian God, we must either accept that His omnipotence is either a contradiction or it means we cannot use reason as our absolute."
The first is false because human beings contain only limited reasoning capabilities. We do not have the capabilities to mentally manipulate all of the variables involved in charting ocean currents or weather patterns, but to deny that something else _could_ have that capacity or capability which we do not? It is nothing short of hubris to think that man is the be-all and end-all of capability, don't you think? Our science fiction is full of uber-powerful entities: from Star Trek: the Next Generation's Q to a whole host of others, all postulate forces beyond human comprehension and yet not an eyelash is batted. It seems arrogant to me that simply pulling one of these entities into the realm of "religion" automatically ignites a host of immediate denials!
I think you hit upon something crucial in your second point. Neither intuition nor inspiration are deduction-based. Both spawn from pure creativity from which the source is unknown. If one accepts only deductive reasoning, one cuts themselves off from these other entirely real methods of inquiry. If we postulate that God holds characteristics far beyond that of a normal human being, should we also not recognize that it may take more than our human logic to comprehend it: that perhaps our own limitations in deduction are our greatest stumbling block to a more thorough investigation of the matter?
Interesting. Some clergy are considered agents of the state since they often witness signing of marriage licenses and officiate over the filing of the papers. This may make them beholding to the state and this opens the possibility of the state forcing them to act against their conscience. The implications?
Regards,
O.A.
Many of us here have read her novels and at least some of her philosophical writing. We know and understand the most basic underpinnings of the philosophy and how it was extended, rationally and logically, to address more complicated concepts. If you need or want a more thorough explanation then please ask. I do not claim to be an expert and when I'm having a serious conversation I always claim to be an Objectivist according to my current understanding of the philosophy. There's much more reading for me to do and I didn't even understand everything I've read so far.
Your accusation that "Your immediate leap in the discussion is to attempt to classify what is unknown to you as unknowable" is a vicious and blatant untruth. Reread what he wrote.
Everything you wrote following that was accurate but was related to science, not philosophy. Scientists, which I consider myself one of, continually seek to prove theories wrong. It's the only way to increase the level of confidence that a theory is right. In fact, it is a requirement for something to be called a theory that there could be a method to prove that it's wrong. We may not know the method, but we must know that one is possible. (I'm not sure I'm happy with the clarity of that I just wrote but it's my best effort right now.)
In science, and in logic, proving a negative is impossible. But as we study an issue using the scientific method we will either discover the thing we thought didn't exist (and be very happy to have increased our knowledge) or we will increase our confidence level that the "negative" is correct.
When Ayn Rand discusses why god can't exist she carefully defines her terms and logically explains why a supernatural creator of the universe is impossible. (The word supernatural figures into in, as I recall.)
One clarification. I am not religious, but I must tolerate and live among a majority of religious people. I wish for domestic tranquility. I have no doubt been exposed to a very provincial socialization. I can and will easily adapt, but it won't happen overnight. I will need a week :) and many will find it much more difficult. Some will never make the adjustment. :(
Until now, in my eyes, I have seen enough conceptual differences between a man and woman union and one composed of two of the same sex as to deserve a new word. Because I am learning, tolerant and adaptable, I will adjust.
You must understand from the perspective of many, a demand by those that wish to ascribe new non--traditional meaning to the same word when they see these unions as different as a duck or a goose, will be equally seen by some as a "tantrum" (your word, which I would otherwise avoid) by a militant group of gays that wish the mantle and title of something they see as so conceptually different.
You can make your case and argument without ad-hominem and the terms "childish" and "tantrum." They only serve to diminish the strength of your considerable arguments. I prefer to keep the arguments academic. I will not tolerate ad- hominem on my Blog. This is my house. When directed at me, I see them as an attempt to belittle and condescend on a personal level. I find them to be effrontery and offensive. If one persists in this type of argument I seriously consider whether to use my editing powers to hide one's contributions. This is a shame, sad and painful to me. Especially when one such as yourself brings so much content that otherwise is most deserving of contemplation and consideration.
Please be courteous and patient with me and other contributors on my blogs, as we will all not likely come to the same positions in the same time. Some of us need more exposure to arguments such as yours and time to absorb them.
You may be interested in my reply nearby to JohnConnor352.
With all due respect,
O.A..
I believe you are correct and struck upon the essence of the problem regarding definition from my admittedly provincial perspective. I may be too old and set in my ways, but I will adjust. Most people, I believe, as well as my self, have been exposed to the concept of marriage with the traditional definition. My societal influences have been rural and not very progressive. I live in flyover country and do not have much experience with large city societies. The ascribing of what I see as new meaning to a union that is a very foreign concept is just something we will have to adjust to. I am willing.
I would also have preferred this be handled legislatively as I believe that to be the legitimate method as proscribed by the Constitution. It is undoubtedly the fair thing to do ultimately but I believe many people will have difficulty accepting such a decision so rapidly and widespread by what appears to many as an activist political decision by the court. It would have been better received if handled legislatively. I wish for domestic tranquility and the rapidity of such a decision is undoubtedly going to create turmoil. I must live among a large number of religious people, though I do not share their zeal. In order for me to live in tranquility I must practice a great deal of tolerance. Their views and beliefs cause them great anxiety about the implications.
Thank you for your contributions,
O.A.
That wouldn't be true of contracts, I suppose, because they don't include definitions of most of their terms (except for usual "I/we will refer to A, etc"). However, as when statutes fail to define a term (which happens often enough) we can refer to Black's Law Dictionary which leaves pretty much no stone unturned. And even if a contract doesn't define a term the statutory or case law that applies to the contract probably does, so you can refer to that.
Her argument is not against religion, as you suggest, but against the existence of something outside of existence. Read it. You don't have to agree, but at least understand her reasoning and position a little better.
And specifically on the concept of the judeo Christian God, we must either accept that His omnipotence is either a contradiction or it means we cannot use reason as our absolute. If He can do anything, then he can defy the laws of nature and of reason... He can make a contradiction actually exist. If he cannot do such a thing, then he is not actually omnipotent. He is bound by the same rules and laws as the universe and thus a part of it. He would not be supernatural... But natural. Just something to chew on.
just another statist and destructionist, but how many people unwittingly are supporting her?
There's no reason for a believer to be offended when someone calls [his/any] religion irrational. First, refer to the dictionary. Second, Jesus preached that faith is the entire basis for religion. To require proof, or even evidence, diminishes the believer. What kind of reputation does "doubting Thomas" have because he wanted proof? Not a good one!
However, perhaps you would explain your justification is referring to me as an "a-hole" for expressing my original opinion? I would be curious in hearing what it was, in my post, that really set you off.
Oh...just one other response to your post that "a critter doesn't trip and accidentally have sex with another critter"...I've seen bulls attempt to mount other bulls and it wasn't just because they preferred bulls over cows...believe me. No argument...just a fact.
Your definition of supernatural leaves much to be desired because it is a straw man. You choose to define supernatural to be anything outside of reality when that is not the general use of the word, which is in fact something not readily explained by the five senses. Your immediate leap in the discussion is to attempt to classify what is unknown to you as unknowable instead of attempting to postulate what could be and search for evidence of its existence. That's why I believe agnosticism would have been a more scientific route to choose. It leaves open the possibility of discovery instead of attempting to close off an important debate that is going to happen whether one thinks the matter is solved anyway.
With all that science has uncovered including the postulation of alternate universes, alternate dimensions, and quantum physics, we still have a long way to go. We still can not interact with or study dark matter, though we are pretty sure it exists. If you want to decide that the case for God is closed in spite of all the things we still do not understand, that is certainly your decision. I am an advocate of open discussion, however.
In short, if I may be so bold, it's that anything supernatural must mean that it exists outside of existential reality, by definition, or we could observe and measure it. If it exists outside of reality, it is not real. The end.
The purpose of family is not the offspring that are produced from the intercourse of those in the family, but the love and companionship which is shared among those involved, including if involved, but not necessarily requiring the involvement of children.
I hope this clarifies my prior comments.
Normally I'd don't really pay attention to who I saying what, and it nearly bit me hard here. I usually just read the post and go from there. Quite glad I caught it this time!
Load more comments...