Law School Discussion

I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #620 on: February 08, 2008, 11:38:18 AM »

Oh, I fully understand it is about civil marriage. What i'm trying to point out is, that by calling it marriage, it indirectly brings religious feelings and views into the discussion, a discussion that they do not need to be in. By agreeing to not call it marriage, we can eliminate religious feelngs, and therefore have a more rational discussion about the issue. There is no denying that America is still by and large a religious country, and by calling this institution marriage, indirectly brings up these sentiments, and is much more trouble than it is worth.

Also, for the religious that do these ceremonies, they are still the minority in the religious world. I don't know of any catholic or muslim sects that do this. I believe that the religions that do practice this are a sect of the Anglican church ( that is causing the church to splinter), The United Church of Christ ( ~1,000,000 members) and more liberal jewish sects.

If you are going to take that argument then you need to say that heterosexual couples, who do not have a religious ceremony/religious affiliation, can't call their commitment marriage either - because marriage is a "religious" word. We're talking about the government issuing licenses to couples. The government calls those licenses "marriage" licenses. There is nothing religious about that - maybe to you because you closely associate marriage with a religious ceremony - but not the the government.  They issue "marriage' licenses to people who do not have any religious affiliation or religious ceremony all of the time.

And you're incorrect. There are Catholic Priests who perform same sex marriage unions. Diginity USA (A Catholic Group) helps to perform them.

I don't remember anything in the US Constitution about Freedom of Religion for everyone except for minority religions  There are Churches that recognize same sex marriage. Just because they may be "smaller" or a "minority" compared to other churches does not mean they lose the protections of the US Constitution. With that said, the Anglican Church recognizes same-sex marriages. Do you know how big the Anglican Church is?  77 million members. That's the third largest communion in the world.

 I realize the federal government issues "marriage" licenses to people that are not religiously affliated. But, that does not upset the religious communities (seeing as they probably don't even think twice about it). I'm just saying, throughout history, marriage has been seen as a primarily religious institution. Jews viewed it that way 4000 years ago, Christians did 2000 years ago, even pagans and those who followed Greek and Roman religions did as well. most of these ceremonies invoked the blessing of some type of diety or being.

Also, i had never heard about that Catholic group. Also, although it is recognized by the Anglican Church, it is causing a split. Many sects of Anglicanism do not support it. The Church of England ( the orginal Anglicans) holds the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. So obviously, 77 million Anglicans are not all in favor of gay marriage. The number is probably about half, or maybe even less. I'm not trying to say that because the religions that support homosxual marriage should not have their opinions ignored. What I am trying to point out is, that by addition of the word marriage, it brings up a debate not necessary. By including marriage in this argument, the religious right ( by right i mean those that do not support homosexual marriage) can bring their religious views on this subject into the discussion, which would hamper anything getting done. the majority of the religious right will not change their views, and with such a large body of opposition, it hampers even a form of civil union being accomplished.  I'd be willing to bet that if the word marriage is removed from this concept, the process would be a lot smoother. the homosexuals would get their legal protection and benefits that the law provides married couples, while the religious right gets to keep their "sanctity" of the term marriage. It's a win-win for both sides. It's an effective middle ground.

BTW, glad there's some civility back in this discussion

You really don't want to bring the Greeks and Romans into this discussion, at least not on your side.  The Spartans encouraged men to have sex with other men, and as to the Romans:

"The marriage laws and customs of ancient Rome are not easily summarized, because they were rather varied and underwent significant changes in the course of time. Still, without simplifying the issue too much, one may say that marriage and divorce were always personal, civil agreements between the participants and did not need the stamp of governmental or religious approval." (http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/history_of_marriage_in_western.html)

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #621 on: February 08, 2008, 11:41:35 AM »
I don't doubt that you're right in predicting the current social climate...but why should they have to choose between two bad deals?  It's like a law school telling you, "You can't have an acceptance, so I'm assuming you'd rather have a non-priority waitlist than a rejection"

lol.

Honestly, I don't care what you call it. I don't care if you call it nothing at all and just give call couples the same benefits. But it just doesn't work that way. We've learned in California, NJ, Connecticut, NH, Vermont.... calling it something other than "marriage" isn't working. Employers/insurance companies are finding ways to deny people rights they've been granted under law.

Just as a human being (this is not to you emertian but people in general). Can you imagine what it would be like if your husband/wife / committed significant other were in a car accident or really sick and you couldn't see them in the hospital? And yes there are advanced directives in some states and powers of attorney but how horrible is it to get a call that the person you love could die and think to yourself - I need to go to my safety deposit box on the way to hospital to get my advanced directive and hope that will be enough to see them. On top of being horrifying that's just unrealistic. Could you imagine what it would be like, if god forbid your husband/wife died and you couldn't plan their funeral/bury them? Can you imagine buying a home with someone, living there together for 40 years and losing it because you weren't "married."  Can you imagine going to work everyday while your wife/husband is home raising your children and your health insurance doesn't cover them so you have to pay out of pocket $500+/per month on top of your own health insurance that you wouldn't have to pay if you were "married"?  Or can you imagine going to work every day knowing you could be fired just because you're gay? Because that's a reality in 26 states - you can be fired just because you're gay.

Just as humans, I don't know why people are so intent on making other people's lives so difficult. These are the realities that gay individuals/couples face every single day. I don't know what makes people so angry that this is somehow ok and justifiable. I don't think I'll ever understand how/why people feel such a need to mess with and complicate other peoples lives - b/c that's what they do when they support the constitutional amendments and this kind of discrimination. If you don't like gay marriage, fine ...then don't have one. But how giving two people who love one another the same protections/securities that you and your husband/wife have has anything to do with you or any impact on you, I'll never know.

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #622 on: February 08, 2008, 11:42:51 AM »
i thought i already put an end to this thread and this discussion last night. who started it back up again?

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #623 on: February 08, 2008, 11:44:43 AM »
Ender Wiggin.... I really hope you come to Penn :)

Linderman too...I like discussing this stuff with him.

Unfortunately, that is no longer possible.  I withdrew from Penn when they held me, since I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it meant less chance of a significant scholarship.  At my age, keeping debt down is important.  I don't want to die with student loans! 

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #624 on: February 08, 2008, 11:45:24 AM »
Ender Wiggin.... I really hope you come to Penn :)

Linderman too...I like discussing this stuff with him.

Unfortunately, that is no longer possible.  I withdrew from Penn when they held me, since I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it meant less chance of a significant scholarship.  At my age, keeping debt down is important.  I don't want to die with student loans! 

That sounded very naughty...

t...

  • ****
  • 2365
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #625 on: February 08, 2008, 12:09:59 PM »
Sure they can? But that's like saying "you don't think it's possible for someone to simply hold the value being left-handed is wrong"   I mean, sure people could believe it. But how do you justify it? Wrong according to who/what? It's just wrong to be left-handed? Ok....

okay well let's see if you can justify one of your own axioms.  killing other people is wrong.  how do you justify that?

I posed this to J way back when.

I suggested there is no intrinsic value to life, or something to that effect. I can't remember what else we argued about.

He didn't believe I held on to a belief that cornering.

I remember this stalemate.

I don't understand your last sentence though.


Yeah, I suck with words.

Basically you didn't believe I believed that.


Nah, I still think you were trolling a bit.

But I understood what you were getting at.  I'm just not as nihilistic as you.  Mores like "equality" would have no validity if your axiom was valid.


I was getting at what Stanley suggested in another thread - justifying (or substantiating) the view that there is intrinsic value in life is the challenge.

I stand by my "nihilism;" I justify my mores upon things like "social obligations" and "eh, this seems to work best."

Sorry - I'm at work and not able to fully concentrate on much besides the alt-tab keystroke.

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #626 on: February 08, 2008, 12:13:07 PM »
Ender Wiggin.... I really hope you come to Penn :)

Linderman too...I like discussing this stuff with him.

Unfortunately, that is no longer possible.  I withdrew from Penn when they held me, since I assumed (perhaps wrongly) that it meant less chance of a significant scholarship.  At my age, keeping debt down is important.  I don't want to die with student loans! 

Oh no...I hate to say it but think that was probably a premature assumption. You have awesome numbers. They probably "held" you for semi-yield protection reasons. I think you would have had a great shot at $$.  :-\

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #627 on: February 08, 2008, 12:20:08 PM »
Sure they can? But that's like saying "you don't think it's possible for someone to simply hold the value being left-handed is wrong"   I mean, sure people could believe it. But how do you justify it? Wrong according to who/what? It's just wrong to be left-handed? Ok....

okay well let's see if you can justify one of your own axioms.  killing other people is wrong.  how do you justify that?

I posed this to J way back when.

I suggested there is no intrinsic value to life, or something to that effect. I can't remember what else we argued about.

He didn't believe I held on to a belief that cornering.

I remember this stalemate.

I don't understand your last sentence though.


Yeah, I suck with words.

Basically you didn't believe I believed that.


Nah, I still think you were trolling a bit.

But I understood what you were getting at.  I'm just not as nihilistic as you.  Mores like "equality" would have no validity if your axiom was valid.


I was getting at what Stanley suggested in another thread - justifying (or substantiating) the view that there is intrinsic value in life is the challenge.

I stand by my "nihilism;" I justify my mores upon things like "social obligations" and "eh, this seems to work best."

Sorry - I'm at work and not able to fully concentrate on much besides the alt-tab keystroke.


I don't see the point of obligation if there's no value in human life. 

IIRC, what we're debating right now is quite different contextually from what we debated then.

t...

  • ****
  • 2365
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #628 on: February 08, 2008, 12:23:48 PM »
I agree - I can't remember the exact context.

(Wouldn't you differentiate between "value" and "intrinsic value?")

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #629 on: February 08, 2008, 12:40:59 PM »
I agree - I can't remember the exact context.

(Wouldn't you differentiate between "value" and "intrinsic value?")

Yeah, but that wouldn't change my argument.  It's part of it.

Meh.  I'm bored with that debate anyway.  I'm all about teh lawz now.