Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

[Absent]

...how the heck did we get from AA to what is and isn't marriage? 0_0

The usual tstorm black hole. He posts in the Escapist solely to hammer extreme-right talking points, and they are all supported solely by his religion-wrapped egomania. So every discussion comes back to the same bastion : the christian fundamentals at the core of his sense of self. All the roads lead to Rome, quite literaly.

 

[tstorm823]

You are arguing that your traditions should dictate legal protections and the services that others are allowed access to.

On the contrary, you are arguing that all people should be obliged to participate in your desired institutions. The only reason we're talking about traditional definitions is because you want to deny that marriage traditions related to having children, something a gay marriage cannot produce.

Then you have misread somehow.

The Real Marriage Revolution | Origins

The demand that society legally recognize same-sex marriages is often called revolutionary. And so it is, but not in the way most people assume. The reason it is revolutionary is not because traditional marriage has always been "one man/one woman." Nor is there anything historically...

origins.osu.edu

^ male-male, female-female, human-ghost and human-dog marriages existing in traditions in the non-Christian world.

No, I can read just fine, the problem is that I'm not limited to seeing what you want me to see:

Their examples of same-sex marriages in that article are, as they admit, about a person taking on the other gender role. A male "wife" (though we are stretching terms here), is to fulfill the woman's role, which is caring for children. It's about the children. The female "husband" provides for the family, and the children are made part of her lineage. Ghost marriages, though not mentioned in this article, existed in China to secure and legitimize lineages and establish lines of ancestry.

Marriage is about children, even those different than Christian tradition. If a union between people from any culture wasn't about children, it never would have had the word "marriage" associated with it.

And best as I can tell, that dog thing is somewhere between totally made-up and a hefty exaggeration of an exceptional story or piece of folklore. Honestly, the suggestion that Native Americans married dogs carries some red flags of racism.

??? What a bizarre quibble, asking why it came up.

Some people tried to divorce their wives due to infertility. They took it to early Rabbinical authorities to consider. The religious authorities concluded that marriages are valid regardless of the ability to conceive.

Similarly, even the Catholic Church ruled

Are you unaware of the phrase "the exception that proves the rule"? The fact the people wanted infertility to invalidate a marriage demonstrates that fertility was the intended purpose of their marriage.

Unrelated to above, I notice you haven't said anything to defend the existence of early Orthodox same-sex marriage after I called the claim nonsense. If you just don't care about that particular point, I can respect that, but I suspect you attempted further research and discovered that whoever told you that had misled you.

...how the heck did we get from AA to what is and isn't marriage? 0_0

The Supreme Court releases more than one ruling at a time. A separate ruling from the Court was about whether a wedding website designer would have to make one for a gay wedding. This was brought up in the first page of the thread.

The usual tstorm black hole. He posts in the Escapist solely to hammer extreme-right talking points, and they are all supported solely by his religion-wrapped egomania. So every discussion comes back to the same bastion : the christian fundamentals at the core of his sense of self. All the roads lead to Rome, quite literaly.

The argument about gay marriage here went on for 3 pages before I said a word about it. The other people here enjoy these arguments, with or without me involved.

It's silly that you keep playing this game of pretending I'm just regurgitating right-wing talking points when multiple times now you've had to admit my position was entirely different than what you thought you were arguing with.

 

[Hawki]

having children, something a gay marriage cannot produce.

Um, IVF? Adoption? Infertility? Couples not wanting having children?

I don't have the time, energy, or interest in debating what is or isn't marriage, but it's asinine to say in the 21st century that marriage is defined by the ability to procreate. A marriage doesn't become 'lesser' if the couple can't/don't produce offspring.

 

[Absent]

when multiple times now you've had to admit my position was entirely different than what you thought you were arguing with.

This is in your imagination. We keep pointing out your hypocrisy and evasion when it comes to the actual core, motives and implications of your arguments. Like an ostritch, you keep believing that you've cunningly dodged it and that nobody suspects a thing.

 

[tstorm823]

Um, IVF? Adoption? Infertility? Couples not wanting having children?

I don't have the time, energy, or interest in debating what is or isn't marriage, but it's asinine to say in the 21st century that marriage is defined by the ability to procreate. A marriage doesn't become 'lesser' if the couple can't/don't produce offspring.

You apparently don't have much time at all, since you didn't read enough to know how the thread became what it's been for over 90% of the posts.

You can have that opinion of marriage if you want, this argument is about whether everyone is obligated by law to agree with you. The Supreme Court ruled that people don't have to hold the same conception of marriage as you. If someone sees marriage as an institution blessing the processes of childbearing and family building rather than two adults who want to share taxes, they are also allowed to act out their own understanding of marriage in their life.

This is in your imagination. We keep pointing out your hypocrisy and evasion when it comes to the actual core, motives and implications of your arguments. Like an ostritch, you keep believing that you've cunningly dodged it and that nobody suspects a thing.

That is a generous use of "we", as you contribute nothing but meta-criticism about how I'm some Nazi Christian nationalist. You aren't participating in the actual discussion.

 

[Silvanus]

On the contrary, you are arguing that all people should be obliged to participate in your desired institutions. The only reason we're talking about traditional definitions is because you want to deny that marriage traditions related to having children, something a gay marriage cannot produce.

Nobody is being obliged to partake in my definition of marriage. Whereas you are trying to legalise discrimination against people on the basis of yours.

Their examples of same-sex marriages in that article are, as they admit, about a person taking on the other gender role. A male "wife" (though we are stretching terms here), is to fulfill the woman's role, which is caring for children. It's about the children. The female "husband" provides for the family, and the children are made part of her lineage. Ghost marriages, though not mentioned in this article, existed in China to secure and legitimize lineages and establish lines of ancestry.

Marriage is about children, even those different than Christian tradition. If a union between people from any culture wasn't about children, it never would have had the word "marriage" associated with it.

Raising children. Not procreation.

So you're fine with gay marriages provided they adopt?

And best as I can tell, that dog thing is somewhere between totally made-up and a hefty exaggeration of an exceptional story or piece of folklore. Honestly, the suggestion that Native Americans married dogs carries some red flags of racism.

Incredulity, then, in the face of examples directly addressing what you asked for.

Are you unaware of the phrase "the exception that proves the rule"? The fact the people wanted infertility to invalidate a marriage demonstrates that fertility was the intended purpose of their marriage.

...they wanted it to, made the claim, and it was rejected by the religious authorities, who ruled that conception is not required.

Unrelated to above, I notice you haven't said anything to defend the existence of early Orthodox same-sex marriage after I called the claim nonsense. If you just don't care about that particular point, I can respect that, but I suspect you attempted further research and discovered that whoever told you that had misled you.

You very often just snip out part of a post and fail to provide specific rebuttals. But fine: that nugget comes from a book authored by the aforementioned family historian Stephanie Coontz, so I can't handily cite it.

 

[Trunkage]

...how the heck did we get from AA to what is and isn't marriage? 0_0

Well, someone started talking about cakes as that happened in this season of Supreme Court Justice with the AA decision

Also, there has been a challenge to same sex marriages which will probably be thrown up to the Supreme Court quickly. So prepare for that

 

[Absent]

That is a generous use of "we", as you contribute nothing but meta-criticism about how I'm some Nazi Christian nationalist. You aren't participating in the actual discussion.

I don't play along with your dishonesty. The people who politely engage with you as if you were "discussing", as if you were about to take new data in account or to evaluate your position, are fools. They don't recognize circular fanaticism when they see it, they don't understand how it operates. This isn't an exchange at some academic arguments level (you even openly dismissed ethics and logic in favor of religious onanism, which disqualifies all your discourses : you're not even trying to engage with reality). This is simply you, shielded behind your ignorance, megalomania and medieval religious dogmatism, blindly spouting out your dogma. The divergence is upstream from what is discussed here. What has to be addressed is your implicit motive and your way of functioning, not the explicit level of discussion. Playing along with your charade just fuels it, it validates your fiction, feeds your trolling. It's more than pointless, it sustains your toxicity by contributing to mask what is actually going on.

The same happens whenever tv debates pit scientists against obscurantists (in discussions about astrology, homeopathy, ancient astronauts, climate denialism, etc), it just legitimizes the wackos by presenting them as valid interlocutors, giving them and the public the impression that they are voicing a legitimate alternative. They are incapable of formulating a scientific reasoning, but their mere time of empty rhetorics, their presence and their recognition generate the impression that their ideas weight just as much, and that these matters are still active controversies. The content is void, but the device, the acceptation in the theater of pseudo-discussions, is flattering and enabling. Whereas, a honest, productive discussion would concern other matters : the prerequisite definition of scientific reasoning, the production of knowledge, the social/psychological stakes in embracing a belief, the true drives behind the positions. All the things that are truly at play, hidden behind the spectacle like a couple ostensibly squibbling about frivolities without adressing the real underlying gripes and motives.

That's what happens here. It's a perpetual dialogue of the deaf, because no argument, no information, no syllogism, can have any traction on your views - they are not about that. They are about your own ass, about the crucifix planted in it, about your narcissism and its symbiosis with your social circle, your social identity and the cheap self-definition that a sect allows. It's what detaches you from reality, allows you to chase your own tail, sacrificing the outside world on the altar of, actually, your own image. The only thing that matters for you. The imaginary sky daddy who tells you that you and your cult are always right, even when the world's reality contradicts you and requires to be reshaped through arbitrary re-definitions or violent oppression.

Those who argue with the points you make are deluded if they think you care, hear or process what they say. If they think the issue is understanding or information. The issue is caring. Is honesty, benevolence and curiosity. Everything you oppose, driven by your self-induging evil and delusion of grandeur (which you paint in their orwellian opposites - hate is love, megalomania is humility, stupidity is intelligence, bigotry is objectivity, etc). Even adressing your incapacity for coherent reasoning is pointless. The only thing pupeteering all this pretend discussion is your intent. This is never about the world. It's about yourself, how you're chosen to instrumentalize the world and why.

Whenever you pop up, you should be the only thing discussed.

But instead, the bulls are just too happy to charge your little red muleta, all surprised to never find anything behind.

 

[Hawki]

You can have that opinion of marriage if you want, this argument is about whether everyone is obligated by law to agree with you. The Supreme Court ruled that people don't have to hold the same conception of marriage as you. If someone sees marriage as an institution blessing the processes of childbearing and family building rather than two adults who want to share taxes, they are also allowed to act out their own understanding of marriage in their life.

People can imagine marriage however they want, that's their prerogative. But I find your apparent outrage baffling at best and hypocritical at worst, considering that:

1: No-one really uses magic to solidify allegiance anymore since much of the world has moved away from dynastic rule

2: It was outright illegal for same sex marriage to occur in many Western countries within our lifetimes (only became legal in Oz in the 2010s), and is still illegal in dozens of countries around the world, so complaining about...whatever it is you're claiming about is pretty rich.

3: It's very rich to argue about being "forced to agree" from a religious perspective since organizations like the Catholic Church have wielded disproportionate influence over the world for centuries, said influence including the homophobia that's part and parcel of Abrahamic religions. For my money, Catholics and any religious community can define marriage how they want within their own institutions, I just don't see why everyone outside said religious body should be expected to follow them. From a practical standpoint, if Adam and Eve get married on Monday, and Adam and Steve get married on Tuesday, I don't see how the marriage between Adam and Eve is "lessened" or jeprodized ipso facto by Adam and Steve tying the knot.

 

[tstorm823]

Nobody is being obliged to partake in my definition of marriage. Whereas you are trying to legalise discrimination against people on the basis of yours.

It is going to be discrimination one way or another. Some people are married, some are not, and we are distinguishing between them. You want it to be illegal to discriminate in a different way than you. You want to compel people through the state to act out your beliefs.

Raising children. Not procreation.

So you're fine with gay marriages provided they adopt?

I appreciate people who want to adopt. It's still not going to be a Catholic marriage, but it's not my place to decide for other people whether or not they are married in their own hearts and minds.

Incredulity, then, in the face of examples directly addressing what you asked for.

If the example is fake, incredulity is the correct response. Tells me again how native americans married dogs. Challenge yourself to find a reliable source for that claim. When you can't, you should probably have some more incredulity in your system.

...they wanted it to, made the claim, and it was rejected by the religious authorities, who ruled that conception is not required.

You very often just snip out part of a post and fail to provide specific rebuttals. But fine: that nugget comes from a book authored by the aforementioned family historian Stephanie Coontz, so I can't handily cite it.

I do that, and I meant it when I said I can respect the desire to just not bother with a point.

There a near certainty that comment is in reference to adelhopoiesis, which even if you subscribe to the questionable idea that it was an erotic union, it's still quite deliberately not called marriage.

so complaining about...whatever it is you're claiming about is pretty rich.

It's the topic of conversation. I know people have had stronger disagreements about more important things, that's hardly a reason to withdraw from this conversation.

 

[tstorm823]

Those who argue with the points you make are deluded if they think you care, hear or process what they say. If they think the issue is understanding or information. The issue is caring. Is honesty, benevolence and curiosity. Everything you oppose, driven by your self-induging evil and delusion of grandeur (which you paint in their orwellian opposites - hate is love, megalomania is humility, stupidity is intelligence, bigotry is objectivity, etc).

Don't insult these people. We're not deluded about what is going on here, we're enjoying the argument. If you imagine: a fencer is not trying to stab their opponent to death, nor to force them to lay down the sabre for good. You want an opponent who will continue to fight, the joy is in the competition. We're not here to change minds, we're here cause it's fun to argue. It's an intellectual competition that we do in our free time because we want to. The only delusion of grandeur here is in the person who thinks that they and they alone are going to change the course of history with the mean things they say in the basement of the Escapist.

 

[Absent]

Don't insult these people. We're not deluded about what is going on here, we're enjoying the argument. If you imagine: a fencer is not trying to stab their opponent to death, nor to force them to lay down the sabre for good. You want an opponent who will continue to fight, the joy is in the competition. We're not here to change minds, we're here cause it's fun to argue. It's an intellectual competition that we do in our free time because we want to. The only delusion of grandeur here is in the person who thinks that they and they alone are going to change the course of history with the mean things they say in the basement of the Escapist.

First of all, it is not an intellectual competition. Your arguments and reasoning are inane, you simply block out data and reasonings to keep on your track, basically plugging your ears and repeating your mantra. It's got nothing to do with intelligence or articulated thoughts. It's, again, like these pseudo-debates between people who stick to rigorous reasonings and those who simply support pseudo-scientific stances through empty rhetorics. They only pretend to dialogue, while failing to articulate their points to each other. It's like playing chess with only one side following rules. Secondly, that fact that, on your side, it's a simple competition of bad faith, is a debasement of what actual discussions and dialogues should be, that is a honest co-construction, a joint path towards a consensus. It's very internet-y, to treat disagrement as a goal and a reward, but it's a really perverse way to treat discussions, which trains people to think more about "scoring points" (and all the nauseating war-like metaphors of rhetorics : win/lose ground, etc) instead of caring for reality, and the consequence of it is very real. Faking discussions is more than a stupid game, it's a cultural mindset and, as such, a civilizational disease that is killing the planet. Partisan bad faith is literaly destroying us. Thirdly, the matter of these exchanges aren't futile, they aren't consequence-less or neutral like UFOs or fictional archeology, they are about enforced policies that truly destroy lives. It is no joke. And there's two issues with that, on an internet forum. Not only it fills pages and pages with hate speech content, as if the internet didn't provide too much of that already (The Escapist forums are, in practice, a huge public chalkboard for your heinous delirums), but also, while you're certainly tolerated here due to your "specimen in a jar" status, the moment a bunch of similar twats will arrive and feel enabled to echo the same beliefs here, the place will certainly turn quite hostile and unbreathable for your targets (and their friends), whose rights you -and your kind- publicly contest. So no, the trash you're being encouraged to spread here is no innocent game.

And yes, the only thing that impacts human life is culture. That is mankind's collective, shifting norms and values. They spread, get reinforced or changed through socialization, each micro and macro interaction and peer influences. That's what unltraconservatives framed as a "culture war". It takes place in all everyday interactions and communications, deliberately or unconsciously, that's simply how worldviews function. The stake is the same here and elsewhere.

And lastly, the only delusion of grandeur here is from the guy who, despite having the most primitive, self-indulgent, ignorant and evil views of all around here, explicitely describes himself as "very very smart". Not unsurprisingly, supporting another "very stable genius" of the same ilk, because clearly, this kind of psychological disorder is a fundamental trait in that political current.

 

[Hawki]

It is going to be discrimination one way or another. Some people are married, some are not, and we are distinguishing between them. You want it to be illegal to discriminate in a different way than you. You want to compel people through the state to act out your beliefs.

Who's being discriminated against? Traditionally, same sex couples have been, the same can't be said for heterosexual couples.

It's the topic of conversation. I know people have had stronger disagreements about more important things, that's hardly a reason to withdraw from this conversation.

I'm not withdrawing, you're sidestepping.

We can debate what is and isn't marriage, but you seem fixated on discrimination, despite the fact that you're not at any risk of it. Since this grew out of the supreme court, um, okay:

Texas judge who doesn’t want to perform gay marriage ceremonies hopes web designer’s Supreme Court case helps her fight

McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley filed a lawsuit after a state agency warned her about refusing to marry gay couples. She hopes a recent U.S. Supreme Court case about religious freedom helps her cause.

www.texastribune.org

This is an example of actual marriage discrimination, and it's not discrimination against heterosexual couples, nor is it discrimination against the judge. If a religious institution was compelled to conduct a same-sex marriage, yes, that could be called discrimination in the sense that it's going against their teachings, but that's already a privilage afforded to them.

 

[tstorm823]

Secondly, that fact that, on your side, it's a simple competition of bad faith, is a debasement of what actual discussions and dialogues should be, that is a honest co-construction, a joint path towards a consensus.

Consensus is not the inevitable end result of co-construction. The fencers improving their skills do not lead them to fight less.

Nor is it a competition of bad faith. There is such a thing as honest disagreement.

I'm not withdrawing, you're sidestepping.

I didn't accuse you of withdrawing, I was referring to myself. Why should I withdraw from the conversation was the question.

We can debate what is and isn't marriage, but you seem fixated on discrimination...

Well, you see, that's what Silvanus is talking about, so that is what I'm responding to.

This is an example of actual marriage discrimination, and it's not discrimination against heterosexual couples, nor is it discrimination against the judge. If a religious institution was compelled to conduct a same-sex marriage, yes, that could be called discrimination in the sense that it's going against their teachings, but that's already a privilage afforded to them.

I would bet that you, like most here, are of the opinion that religion does not deserve any special privileges. So why would you want to allow a church to choose what marriages to celebrate and not offer the same freedom to the cake maker?

 

[Hawki]

I would bet that you, like most here, are of the opinion that religion does not deserve any special privileges. So why would you want to allow a church to choose what marriages to celebrate and not offer the same freedom to the cake maker?

It's not a question of what I want, it's a question of realpolitk. Religious bodies enjoy special privilages. Frankly, I don't think those privilages are earned, but I'm not overly fussed about that in the grander scheme of things. I'm not in any position of power to remove those privilages, nor am I about to start campaigning for them. However, an independent business owner, as things currently stands, generally isn't allowed to discriminate against who they serve, since they're operating within the bounds of secular, liberal society, where anti-discrimination laws exist.

If anything, you could argue that the cake owner has a better case to refuse service as an independent business owner, on the premise that if they refuse to serve X, they lose out on the business, so in a sense, they're shooting themselves in the foot. However, I'm very wary of that argument. There's times when a business owner could reasonably refuse to serve a customer, but refusing to serve someone on the basis of their sexuality doesn't really cut the mark.

 

[Absent]

Nor is it a competition of bad faith. There is such a thing as honest disagreement.

But it is not what happens here. You are not an intellectually honest person. Your arguments are dishonest, your hypocrisy is pointed out again and again, you're by your own admission not bound by ethics or logic (handy but makes a serious discussion pointless), and you're "playing fencing" in an empty sophistic rethorical game. Which is the opposite of a discussion leading to consensus or "honest disagrement".

But also, you're dishonest about the nature of the disagreement and its motive. Which are precisely avoided by keeping the discussion "downstream" from it, in an area where no argument impacts anything because it is not the area where the true stakes and the true reasons for your views are at play.

 

[tstorm823]

There's times when a business owner could reasonably refuse to serve a customer, but refusing to serve someone on the basis of their sexuality doesn't really cut the mark.

Which is only what is happening if you consider gay marriage to be indistinguishable from your conception of marriage, which it isn't if you view marriage as a celebration of the blessings of fertility.

You're by your own admission not bound by ethics or logic

You keep saying this. Did you make this up entirely, or is there actually something I said that you mangled so absurdly in your mind as to reach this conclusion?

 

[Hawki]

Which is only what is happening if you consider gay marriage to be indistinguishable from your conception of marriage, which it isn't if you view marriage as a celebration of the blessings of fertility.

This is barely an argument.

First, my "conception of marriage" is pretty irrelevant to the provision of a service. I might "concieve" of Pluto as being a planet for instance, but I'd be going against the scientific consensus if I told people there were 9 planets in the Sol system rather than 8. But on the topic of hand, how I feel about marriage isn't grounds to refuse service to an individual. I can flip this around for instance - I have little love for religion, but if someone comes to the library and asks me for directions to (insert religious text here), I don't have jurispudence in denying them service. I'm professionally obliged to do so, and refusing service based on personal belief wouldn't make me anything other than an asshole.

Second, if marriage is a celebration of the "blessings of fertility," okay, and? If the couple is infertile, or tells me that they have no plans to concieve children, am I thus entitled to deny them service because it doesn't meet my definition of marriage?

Third, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you'd agree it would be morally and legally wrong to refuse service for someone based on traits such as ethnicity, nationality, etc., but when it comes to sexuality, that's where people are able to discriminate?

 

[Silvanus]

It is going to be discrimination one way or another. Some people are married, some are not, and we are distinguishing between them. You want it to be illegal to discriminate in a different way than you. You want to compel people through the state to act out your beliefs.

Treating people equally is not discrimination. You are the only one here wanting to deny services and access to legal protections to some on the basis of their characteristics.

I appreciate people who want to adopt. It's still not going to be a Catholic marriage, but it's not my place to decide for other people whether or not they are married in their own hearts and minds.

Alrighty then, so it's specifically procreation for you, not raising children.

Either way, we can clearly show that many past traditions-- some predating Christianity-- did not follow that tradition, and did not require procreation.

If the example is fake, incredulity is the correct response. Tells me again how native americans married dogs. Challenge yourself to find a reliable source for that claim. When you can't, you should probably have some more incredulity in your system.

I consider a well respected family historian to be a more credible source than a random Internet commentator.

 

[Trunkage]

But it is not what happens here. You are not an intellectually honest person. Your arguments are dishonest, your hypocrisy is pointed out again and again, you're by your own admission not bound by ethics or logic (handy but makes a serious discussion pointless), and you're "playing fencing" in an empty sophistic rethorical game. Which is the opposite of a discussion leading to consensus or "honest disagrement".

But also, you're dishonest about the nature of the disagreement and its motive. Which are precisely avoided by keeping the discussion "downstream" from it, in an area where no argument impacts anything because it is not the area where the true stakes and the true reasons for your views are at play.

I'd note that I don't think Tstorm is being dishonest. He actually believes this

Also, all this is like White Supremacy but for religion. Christian Supremacy if you will. He has stated many times in this thread that he literally believes Christians deserve to be treated better than non-Christians

Yes, it is hypocrisy. That's by design and very intentional. Pointing Tstorm's hypocrisy is not a negative for them. It's very specifically not designed to be equal