Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Diavlog comments
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Diavlog comments Post comments about particular diavlogs here.
(Users cannot create new threads.)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-08-2010, 09:00 PM
Bloggingheads Bloggingheads is offline
BhTV staff
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,936
Default The Readiness Is All (Michelle Goldberg & Dayo Olopade)

Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 08-09-2010, 12:34 AM
chamblee54 chamblee54 is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 319
Default Re: The Readiness Is All (Michelle Goldberg & Dayo Olopade)



chamblee54
__________________
Chamblee54
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 08-09-2010, 02:45 AM
Wonderment Wonderment is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Southern California
Posts: 5,694
Default Abe Foxman...

Michelle is right to suggest that the upside of the ADL scandal is to help expose Abe Foxman for the raving lunatic that he is.

Please see Yoav Shamir's brilliant Israeli documentary "Defamation" if you need any further confirmation of the wildly self-righteous paranoia of Foxman and the nefarious influence of the ADL. Trailer here.
__________________
Seek Peace and Pursue it
בקש שלום ורדפהו
Busca la paz y síguela
--Psalm 34:15
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 08-09-2010, 10:33 AM
Freddie Freddie is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 110
Default Re: The Readiness Is All (Michelle Goldberg & Dayo Olopade)

I find it hard to react to the way Michelle Goldberg talks about the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust. On the one hand, I certainly understand the need to discuss the ethnic and religious makeup of the Holocaust with great sensitivity. On the other hand, I am very disturbed by the kind of hand waving, footnoting reference to the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust of the kind Goldberg makes here. It's quite common but very unfortunate; the most conservative estimates place the number of non-Jewish victims at above 5 million people. They deserve more than that kind of dismissive parenthetical.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 08-09-2010, 11:47 AM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: The Readiness Is All (Michelle Goldberg & Dayo Olopade)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freddie View Post
I find it hard to react to the way Michelle Goldberg talks about the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust. On the one hand, I certainly understand the need to discuss the ethnic and religious makeup of the Holocaust with great sensitivity. On the other hand, I am very disturbed by the kind of hand waving, footnoting reference to the non-Jewish victims of the Holocaust of the kind Goldberg makes here. It's quite common but very unfortunate; the most conservative estimates place the number of non-Jewish victims at above 5 million people. They deserve more than that kind of dismissive parenthetical.
I think that Michelle was only making reference to people that had been in Auschwitz and not to the total number of Holocaust victims. Here is a reference:

Quote:
The camp's first commandant, Rudolf Höss, testified after the war at the Nuremberg Trials that up to three million people had died there (2.5 million exterminated, and 500,000 from disease and starvation),[3] a figure since revised to 1.1 million, around 90 percent of them Jews.[4] Others deported to Auschwitz included 150,000 Poles, 23,000 Roma and Sinti, 15,000 Soviet prisoners of war, and tens of thousands of people of diverse nationalities.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 08-09-2010, 12:13 PM
Freddie Freddie is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 110
Default Re: The Readiness Is All (Michelle Goldberg & Dayo Olopade)

Ah, that would be a much more charitable reading. Thanks for pointing that out, my apologies.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 08-09-2010, 12:25 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default No rational argument against gay marriage?

Michelle seems to believe there are no rational arguments against gay marriage. Here is at least one that deserves consideration:

According to anthropology, the purpose of marriage is to establish the family as a stable institution for the nurture and acculturation of children. Families, not schools, are the primary institutions that transmit the values of a culture and civilization to the next generation.

This, it seems to me, is the moral issue at stake -- whether our liberal traditions could be undermined by changes that undermine the stability of the family as a biological and cultural institution.

No fault divorce certainly had that effect and probably needs to be reconsidered for that very reason. Gay marriage could also if, as a number of gay-marriage advocates have been arguing, it leads to a more "open" understanding of the nature of marriage as a cultural institution. (Hat tip Mollie Ziegler Hemingway)

In other words this is about the interests of society and of future generations, not the individual.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will see it that way. Otherwise I can foresee a broad popular movement to amend the U.S. Constitution.

Last edited by BornAgainDemocrat; 08-09-2010 at 01:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 08-09-2010, 12:39 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
Michelle seems to believe there are no rational arguments against gay marriage. Here is at least one that deserves consideration:

According to anthropology, the purpose of marriage is to establish the family as a stable institution for the nurture and acculturation of children. Families, not schools, are the primary institutions that transmit the values of a culture and civilization to the next generation.

This, it seems to me, is the moral issue at stake -- whether our liberal traditions could be undermined by changes that undermine the stability of the family as a biological and cultural institution.

No fault divorce certainly had that effect and probably needs to be reconsidered for that very reason. Gay marriage could also if, as a number of gay-marriage advocates have been arguing, it leads to a more "open" understanding of the nature of marriage as a general institution.

In other words this is about the interests of society and of future generations, not the individual.

Hopefully the Supreme Court will see it that way. Otherwise I can foresee a broad popular movement to amend the U.S. Constitution.
Gay marriage could strengthen family values and social stability by taking men off the street. That is, one of the traditional advantages of marriage, according to some, is too 'domesticate' or 'civilize' men in need of some lovin' and a purpose. Two men raising a biological child or adopting a child would serve the same purpose, along with contributions by home ownership, contribution to the tax base, and bad ass nursery decorating.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 08-09-2010, 01:41 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
Gay marriage could strengthen family values and social stability by taking men off the street. That is, one of the traditional advantages of marriage, according to some, is too 'domesticate' or 'civilize' men in need of some lovin' and a purpose. Two men raising a biological child or adopting a child would serve the same purpose, along with contributions by home ownership, contribution to the tax base, and bad ass nursery decorating.
I haven't listened to this yet, but a similar argument, which I actually find convincing, is that the absence of gay marriage represents a greater threat to the conservative family structure. The reason is that the acceptance of gay relationships in a lot of areas has let to efforts to make things easier for people in such relationships (or to appeal to people in them due to financial motives). For example, many companies have offered benefits to partners (and not simply the tradition inclusion of spouse) in order to address gay employees, and to prevent conflict or suits have across the board included such partner benefits, whether gay or straight. The effect of this is to normalize living together arrangements, whether gay or straight. Arguably the same thing will ultimately result if we create a common "domestic partner" option as an alternative to civil marriage.

Given that there are a lot more straight people likely to be in unmarried relationships than gay people who end up getting married, the effect seems much greater. (This is especially true as the argument that the supposedly different on average form of gay marriages affecting straight marriages strikes me as extremely weak. It's not like gay people in such relationships can't already hold themselves out as married or that straight people in such relationships don't exist already.)
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 08-09-2010, 01:45 PM
Ocean Ocean is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: US Northeast
Posts: 6,784
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
I haven't listened to this yet, but a similar argument, which I actually find convincing, is that the absence of gay marriage represents a greater threat to the conservative family structure. The reason is that the acceptance of gay relationships in a lot of areas has let to efforts to make things easier for people in such relationships (or to appeal to people in them due to financial motives). For example, many companies have offered benefits to partners (and not simply the tradition inclusion of spouse) in order to address gay employees, and to prevent conflict or suits have across the board included such partner benefits, whether gay or straight. The effect of this is to normalize living together arrangements, whether gay or straight. Arguably the same thing will ultimately result if we create a common "domestic partner" option as an alternative to civil marriage.

Given that there are a lot more straight people likely to be in unmarried relationships than gay people who end up getting married, the effect seems much greater. (This is especially true as the argument that the supposedly different on average form of gay marriages affecting straight marriages strikes me as extremely weak. It's not like gay people in such relationships can't already hold themselves out as married or that straight people in such relationships don't exist already.)
Interesting point. I hadn't heard about that, but it makes sense. Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 08-09-2010, 03:07 PM
Florian Florian is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 2,118
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
For example, many companies have offered benefits to partners (and not simply the tradition inclusion of spouse) in order to address gay employees, and to prevent conflict or suits have across the board included such partner benefits, whether gay or straight. The effect of this is to normalize living together arrangements, whether gay or straight. Arguably the same thing will ultimately result if we create a common "domestic partner" option as an alternative to civil marriage.
Interesting and valid point. That is exactly what has happened in France. Civil unions (PACS), which were originally created to allow gay couples to enjoy the same civil rights as straight couples, have had the (unintended?) effect of providing a legal alternative to marriage to heterosexual couples. It is easier to dissolve a civil union than a marriage, and it appeals to the younger generation.

I don't have any statistics, but my impression is that civil unions (PACS) have been embraced more by heterosexual couples than by homosexual couples in France. French gays like most European gays, have little interest in the institution of marriage, which is (rightly in my opinon) seen as religious in essence.

Last edited by Florian; 08-09-2010 at 03:08 PM.. Reason: correction: not suppressed
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 08-09-2010, 06:47 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
The effect of this [accepting gay relationships] is to normalize living together arrangements, whether gay or straight. Arguably the same thing will ultimately result if we create a common "domestic partner" option as an alternative to civil marriage.
I rather like the idea of a common domestic partner option where children are not involved. But that is neither here nor there. The question is whether these are constitutional issues for the Supreme Court to decide or matters of social policy for legislatures to decide.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 08-09-2010, 08:03 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
The question is whether these are constitutional issues for the Supreme Court to decide or matters of social policy for legislatures to decide.
That's a different question than I thought we were discussing, but okay. Legally, there's still some burden the state must meet to demonstrate a basis for the distinction made between gay and straight marriage, which is what I understood you to be trying to establish. (Prop 8 says that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Thus, it specifically distinguishes between marriage between same sex couples and those between men and women. It does not define marriage as inherently involving only man-woman couples, which potentially could end up being relevant.)

How much of a burden depends on what standard applies to laws resticting marriage and, most likely even more importantly, to distinctions based on sex or on sexual orientation. Even if the lowest test, rational basis, applies, it's not enough to say it's all based on what the legislature thinks best, although in that case there will be a question as to whether the judge required too much.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 08-09-2010, 09:43 PM
AemJeff AemJeff is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 7,750
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
I rather like the idea of a common domestic partner option where children are not involved. But that is neither here nor there. The question is whether these are constitutional issues for the Supreme Court to decide or matters of social policy for legislatures to decide.
You're moving the goalposts. Your opening gambit was in direct reference to "rational arguments against gay marriage" - not Constitutional issues.
__________________
-A. E. M. Jeff (Eponym)
Magnets - We know how they work!
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 08-10-2010, 12:17 AM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
I haven't listened to this yet, but a similar argument, which I actually find convincing, is that the absence of gay marriage represents a greater threat to the conservative family structure. The reason is that the acceptance of gay relationships in a lot of areas has let to efforts to make things easier for people in such relationships (or to appeal to people in them due to financial motives). For example, many companies have offered benefits to partners (and not simply the tradition inclusion of spouse) in order to address gay employees, and to prevent conflict or suits have across the board included such partner benefits, whether gay or straight. The effect of this is to normalize living together arrangements, whether gay or straight. Arguably the same thing will ultimately result if we create a common "domestic partner" option as an alternative to civil marriage.
To play devil's advocate, we can extend your example to include same-sex, non-gay friends, one of whom has a great benefits package. The quid pro quo could be bennies in exchange for childcare, housework, etc. You know, the old saw of the harried business woman who needs a wife...

Edit: I also meant to add the environmental aspects of shared home ownership; perhaps some sort of tax break, kind of like being allowed to drive in the HOV lane.

Last edited by look; 08-10-2010 at 12:32 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:25 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
To play devil's advocate, we can extend your example to include same-sex, non-gay friends, one of whom has a great benefits package.
I'm not following. Against what is this intended to argue? Are you suggesting that an argument against gay marriage is that non-gay people might decide to "marry" their friends?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:42 PM
look look is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,886
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
I'm not following. Against what is this intended to argue? Are you suggesting that an argument against gay marriage is that non-gay people might decide to "marry" their friends?
No, although it's entirely possible.

I was commenting on:

Quote:
The effect of this is to normalize living together arrangements, whether gay or straight. Arguably the same thing will ultimately result if we create a common "domestic partner" option as an alternative to civil marriage.
It put me in mind of the scenario I described...non-sexual life joining, for want of a better phrase.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:50 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
It put me in mind of the scenario I described...non-sexual life joining, for want of a better phrase.
I didn't understand why you were describing yourself as being a devil's advocate. It sounded as if you were trying to argue against some position, and I didn't understand that in light of my post and your comments on it. It still doesn't actually sound like an argument.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 08-09-2010, 01:56 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by look View Post
Gay marriage could strengthen family values and social stability by taking men off the street. That is, one of the traditional advantages of marriage, according to some, is too 'domesticate' or 'civilize' men in need of some lovin' and a purpose. Two men raising a biological child or adopting a child would serve the same purpose, along with contributions by home ownership, contribution to the tax base, and bad ass nursery decorating.
Fair enough. I do not deny that there are rational arguments in favor of gay marriage. However, as I understand it, the judge in California based his ruling on the supposition that there were no rational arguments against gay marriage and that therefore there were no compelling societal interests involved.

The fact there are rational arguments on both sides of the question only shows that the federal courts should not decide this issue as a simple matter of individual rights. In fact it shows they should not be deciding the issue at all.

It is for legislatures to decide policy in this area, including laws that are designed to strengthen traditional forms of marriage and the family when parents and their biological children are involved. If the federal courts rule otherwise then their decision can and should be overturned, in my opinion, by means of established legal procedures for amending the Constitution.

As long as we live in a constitutional democracy based on the rule of law -- and that is the liberal tradition which we should be trying to preserve -- there is no other way. Let us hope it does not come to that -- or that we do not fail the test if it does.

Last edited by BornAgainDemocrat; 08-09-2010 at 02:44 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 08-09-2010, 02:10 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
The fact there are rational arguments on both sides only shows ...
Sorry, but no. Your assertion notwithstanding, this is not a matter of fact.

Further, in my judgment at least, the arguments in favor of denying some people equal rights are all based on emotion -- clinging to tradition, "oh won't someone think of the children," the ick factor, etc. They are not rational.
__________________
Brendan

Last edited by bjkeefe; 08-09-2010 at 02:13 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 08-09-2010, 02:26 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

How is it not a matter of fact? The State of California argued for Prop 8 right... because the people of California voted for Prop 8, yes?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 08-09-2010, 03:56 PM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: Nobody can even pretend that there is a rational argument against gay marriage?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
How is it not a matter of fact?
Re-read my response to BADem. To restate it: in my judgment, all arguments in favor of denying equal rights to gays are emotional ones. (NB: I am not saying this makes them therefore unworthy; I am just saying it is wrong to say, as BADem did, that it's a fact that they are rational arguments.)

Quote:
The State of California argued for Prop 8 right... because the people of California voted for Prop 8, yes?
Surely you are not insisting that all laws, ballot initiatives, and arguments that end up in court are nothing but purely rational, based only on facts. If you are ... well, I don't see how we can discuss it further. It would mean that our views of reality do not sufficiently overlap.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 08-09-2010, 04:47 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default bjkeefe says Barack Obama is irrational

Emotion has nothing to do with being rational or irrational. Isn't it rational to be emotional at times? And what is irrational to you is quite rational to some, yes?

You do yourself ill when you try to pooh pooh an argument by claiming irrationality on the part of someone you disagree with. Most Americans don't support gay marriage. Barack Obama doesn't support gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act is Federal law. Not supporting same-sex marriage is all very rational to them, for whatever reason... whether or not you agree or disagree with them. I mean it's just fucking wrong to accuse all non-supporters of same-sex marriage as only acting on their "emotions". Really, people who think marriage should only be between a man and a woman is based on emotion? Not because religious communities should get to decide who to marry and who not to marry? Or because only men and women can procreate, and they would argue the natural family is that of a man and a woman raising their children?
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 08-09-2010, 06:01 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: bjkeefe says Barack Obama is irrational

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
Emotion has nothing to do with being rational or irrational. Isn't it rational to be emotional at times? And what is irrational to you is quite rational to some, yes?

You do yourself ill when you try to pooh pooh an argument by claiming irrationality on the part of someone you disagree with. Most Americans don't support gay marriage. Barack Obama doesn't support gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act is Federal law. Not supporting same-sex marriage is all very rational to them, for whatever reason... whether or not you agree or disagree with them. I mean it's just fucking wrong to accuse all non-supporters of same-sex marriage as only acting on their "emotions". Really, people who think marriage should only be between a man and a woman is based on emotion? Not because religious communities should get to decide who to marry and who not to marry? Or because only men and women can procreate, and they would argue the natural family is that of a man and a woman raising their children?
Our system presupposes that just because a law is passed and supported by public opinion doesn't make it rational. That's why laws can be unconstitutional because they fail the rational basis test. That's also why one of the questions for Walker was whether the state met it's burden of showing a rational basis, and, based on the evidence presented, he found it did not.

Seems like BAD is taking issue with that finding, although he hasn't been all that specific as to whether he thinks CA failed to present the relevant evidence (which is not Walker's problem, or the Plantiffs) or whether Walker failed to properly weigh the evidence presented.

But simply saying that the law is passed does not make it rational, and it's in no way an insult to the people who supported it to argue that it fails to pass muster.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 08-09-2010, 07:16 PM
BornAgainDemocrat BornAgainDemocrat is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: near Chattanooga
Posts: 826
Default Re: bjkeefe says Barack Obama is irrational

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
one of the questions for Walker was whether the state met it's burden of showing a rational basis, and, based on the evidence presented, he found it did not.
I agree the state failed in this regard. But should that failure be binding on the whole United States?
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 08-09-2010, 08:07 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: bjkeefe says Barack Obama is irrational

Quote:
Originally Posted by BornAgainDemocrat View Post
I agree the state failed in this regard. But should that failure be binding on the whole United States?
If it's based on the failure of evidence, it may not be. It's possible the ultimate result here could end up being CA/Prop 8 specific. (I'm not predicting that, but unlike Althouse, apparently, I think the final result here is up in the air in a lot of different ways.)
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:55 AM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default bjkeefe just wants to belittle people like Obama

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Our system presupposes that just because a law is passed and supported by public opinion doesn't make it rational. That's why laws can be unconstitutional because they fail the rational basis test. That's also why one of the questions for Walker was whether the state met it's burden of showing a rational basis, and, based on the evidence presented, he found it did not.
Yes, and conversely the 9th Circuit or Scotus might overturn Judge Walker's ruling on California's failure to support a compelling state interest for Prop 8. Maybe they'll only uphold the ruling on equal protection or due process.

Who cares about the law though. bjkeefe just wants to belittle people like President Obama... people who believe marriage should be only be between a man and woman. Just because same-sex marriage will likely be held to be constitutional on some ground (probably not the rational basis grounds... weakest part of the holding, imho) doesn't mean it is irrational for people to think that marriage should only be granted to a man and a woman. I mean, that relationship is the foundation of life. I mean, dick in the ass won't ever beget a child. I've tried it and no baby has ever popped out of the pooper. Dick in the proper hole and a baby might actually spring forth. That people recognize this as special is completely rational.

That the law will change, does not make people like Obama and BornAgainDemocrat irrational or stupid. Just on the wrong side of future law.


edit: where I write compelling state interest I mean legitimate state interest. Stupid me.

Last edited by Lyle; 08-10-2010 at 06:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 08-10-2010, 01:57 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: bjkeefe just wants to belittle people like Obama

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
Who cares about the law though. bjkeefe just wants to belittle people like President Obama... people who believe marriage should be only be between a man and woman. Just because same-sex marriage will likely be held to be constitutional on some ground (probably not the rational basis grounds... weakest part of the holding, imho) doesn't mean it is irrational for people to think that marriage should only be granted to a man and a woman. I mean, that relationship is the foundation of life. I mean, dick in the ass won't ever beget a child. I've tried it and no baby has ever popped out of the pooper. Dick in the proper hole and a baby might actually spring forth. That people recognize this as special is completely rational.
Come on now. You might be crude and irritating here, but you're not stupid enough to be unaware of the obvious counterarguments to what you're saying.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:02 AM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default make an counter argument good sir

Like what counterarguments? Oooh, I love sword fights... en garde!!
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 08-10-2010, 02:03 AM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: make an counter argument good sir

Read the damn thread, Lyle.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 08-10-2010, 04:17 AM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: make an counter argument good sir

No, you're going to make your arguments to me. You said you have arguments. So make some arguments.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 08-10-2010, 03:01 AM
bjkeefe bjkeefe is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Not Real America, according to St. SaŽah
Posts: 21,798
Default Re: bjkeefe just wants to belittle people like Obama

You know what I said before?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
Who cares about the law though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
bjkeefe just wants to belittle people like President Obama
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
I mean, dick in the ass won't ever beget a child. I've tried it and no baby has ever popped out of the pooper.
Looks like we've got a trifecta.
__________________
Brendan
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 08-10-2010, 03:21 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: bjkeefe just wants to belittle people like Obama

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
Yes, and conversely the 9th Circuit or Scotus might overturn Judge Walker's ruling on California's failure to support a compelling state interest for Prop 8. Maybe they'll only uphold the ruling on equal protection or due process.
The state interest analysis is part of the due process/equal process one. But, sure, unlike you I believe that it's not at all sure what the SC will ultimately rule on this. Doesn't change the fact that CA needs to justify the law with at least a rational basis beyond "people voted for it." Thus, your assertion that that fact alone is sufficient is false.

Michelle annoyed me a few times in this diavlog, but I didn't see her comments as about "belittling" anyone, but raising this question and the fact that people don't seem to even try seriously to address it. (I do think she somewhat overstated the point, especially in trying to paint this judge as some major conservative who can be assumed to be as opposed as anyone possibly could be.) Nor did I read BJK that way.

Instead, it seemed to me that you were trying to twist a comment about the basis of Prop 8 and its legal merits (no rational basis for the law) into an insult against the people who supported the law. I think various laws that have been passed are not valid for various reasons, that doesn't mean that I'm insulting the people who voted for them. That's just silly.

Last edited by stephanie; 08-10-2010 at 03:24 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 08-10-2010, 05:21 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: bjkeefe just wants to belittle people like Obama

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
The state interest analysis is part of the due process/equal process one. But, sure, unlike you I believe that it's not at all sure what the SC will ultimately rule on this. Doesn't change the fact that CA needs to justify the law with at least a rational basis beyond "people voted for it." Thus, your assertion that that fact alone is sufficient is false.
Right, but just because Judge Walker holds that California didn't have a compelling state interest to not allow same-sex marriage, doesn't mean there isn't a compelling state interest to not allow same-sex marriage. Right now, that's only true in California... but some other judge, in some other Federal district court, might would find a compelling state interest in denying same-sex marriage, right?

Quote:
Michelle annoyed me a few times in this diavlog, but I didn't see her comments as about "belittling" anyone, but raising this question and the fact that people don't seem to even try seriously to address it. (I do think she somewhat overstated the point, especially in trying to paint this judge as some major conservative who can be assumed to be as opposed as anyone possibly could be.) Nor did I read BJK that way.
Well, I guess we disagree then. Cause I'm pretty sure bjkeefe was trying to belittle BornAgainDemocrat.

Quote:
Instead, it seemed to me that you were trying to twist a comment about the basis of Prop 8 and its legal merits (no rational basis for the law) into an insult against the people who supported the law. I think various laws that have been passed are not valid for various reasons, that doesn't mean that I'm insulting the people who voted for them. That's just silly.
I don't know what you're talking about here. I've been pointing out how bjkeefe is belittling people who don't support the legalizing of same-sex marriage. He's made the point before that all people opposed to same-sex marriage are wingnuts. That would mean people like President Obama are wingnuts... since President Obama doesn't support same-sex marriage.

edit: where I write compelling state interest, I mean legitimate state interest... very stupid me

Last edited by Lyle; 08-16-2010 at 01:17 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 08-10-2010, 05:29 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: bjkeefe just wants to belittle people like Obama

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
I don't know what you're talking about here. I've been pointing out how bjkeefe is belittling people who don't support the legalizing of same-sex marriage. He's made the point before that all people opposed to same-sex marriage are wingnuts. That would mean people like President Obama are wingnuts... since President Obama doesn't support same-sex marriage.
Well how about this: none of the people opposed to SSM hold that position for rationally defensible reasons. In Obama's case, I don't know if he opposes SSM for religious reasons or out of practical political concerns, but either way his position is irrational while still being fairly normal behavior for even a good national politician.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 08-10-2010, 06:13 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Obama is a wingnut?

I disagree. I think it is entirely rational for people to not support same-sex marriage. I'm not one of them, but I don't think they're irrational.

Just so we're clear... you think Obama is irrational and/or a wingnut?
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 08-10-2010, 10:20 PM
Don Zeko Don Zeko is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Exiled to South Jersey
Posts: 2,436
Default Re: Obama is a wingnut?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
Just so we're clear... you think Obama is irrational and/or a wingnut?
As I said above, I think that Obama has not reached his position on gay marriage through reasoned consideration of the merits. Instead, I suspect that a combination of religious belief, cultural hang-ups and political calculation have led him to the wrong position. You'll find that, like most Liberals, I like Obama without thinking he's a saint.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 08-10-2010, 05:52 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: bjkeefe just wants to belittle people like Obama

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
Right, but just because Judge Walker holds that California didn't have a compelling state interest to not allow same-sex marriage, doesn't mean there isn't a compelling state interest to not allow same-sex marriage.
Walker said no rational basis either. No one would be able to meet a compelling state interest test on the question (they are hard to meet). Could someone hypothetically meet a rational basis test -- especially with the right judge? Sure. (That's something on which I disagree with Michelle.) My narrow point was that you were wrong to insist that a rational basis test could be met merely because a majority of voters voted for the law.

Quote:
I don't know what you're talking about here. I've been pointing out how bjkeefe is belittling people who don't support the legalizing of same-sex marriage.
It seemed to me that you were trying to present people arguing for same-sex marriage, people saying things like "no rational basis for the law," as inherently insulting the people who voted for the law. If not, never mind. If this is some convoluted old fight with BJK, eh.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 08-10-2010, 06:19 PM
Lyle
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: bjkeefe just wants to belittle people like Obama

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephanie View Post
Walker said no rational basis either. No one would be able to meet a compelling state interest test on the question (they are hard to meet). Could someone hypothetically meet a rational basis test -- especially with the right judge? Sure. (That's something on which I disagree with Michelle.) My narrow point was that you were wrong to insist that a rational basis test could be met merely because a majority of voters voted for the law.
I meant legitimate state interest. I got strict scrutiny mixed up with rational basis. Stupid me.

edit: oh, I'm not sure I made the narrow argument that majority vote alone was enough to reach the rational basis test. point that argument out to me.

Quote:
It seemed to me that you were trying to present people arguing for same-sex marriage, people saying things like "no rational basis for the law," as inherently insulting the people who voted for the law. If not, never mind. If this is some convoluted old fight with BJK, eh.
No, I was responding to bjkeefe's specific belittling of BornAgainDemocrat.

Last edited by Lyle; 08-10-2010 at 06:23 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 08-10-2010, 06:51 PM
stephanie stephanie is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,921
Default Re: bjkeefe just wants to belittle people like Obama

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle View Post
edit: oh, I'm not sure I made the narrow argument that majority vote alone was enough to reach the rational basis test. point that argument out to me.
Okay. I wasn't sure precisely what you (or BornAgainDem) meant, so would have accepted that answer initially. I was responding to your 25 and 40, and set out what I was talking about in my 47. That the rationality question as about the Constitutional issue was confirmed in my mind when BornAgainDem said he wanted to talk about whether there was a basis for Court action, not merely whether it was a good law, but I was never quite sure what your point was, as opposed to his.

Frankly, I don't care whether the law is "rational" or not except with respect to the Constitutional question, so I don't know why it would be something to argue about. I don't agree that a law must be rational because people voted for it. People vote for stupid stuff all the time. (I even recall agreeing with Unit about this with respect to some laws pushed by the Democratic Party in particular, so this is not a politically-biased comment.)

Your argument sounded to me like the spin of this as anti voter or elitist -- the judge said that the law fails to meet the rational basis test and there's no legitimate state interest for it. He's saying you are IRRATIONAL! Elitist activist judge!

Now, why you'd make such an argument, I dunno. You strike me as sometimes liking to make such arguments, apart from your actual view on the topic in question. (I like to make long (and, I fear, boring) arguments in defense of things I don't necessarily agree with if I think the argument to which I'm responding is unfair, so I'm not saying you are any more irrational than me, for the record.)
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.