Text 9311, 121 rader
Skriven 2006-10-12 17:52:38 av Vorlonagent
Ärende: Re: My Presidential Pick for 2006
=========================================
From: "Vorlonagent" <nojtspam@otfresno.com>


"Angelika Tobisch" <kamyra@arcor.de> wrote in message 
news:452e546a$0$21737$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net...
>    [ The following text is in the "ISO-8859-15" character set. ]
>    [ Your display is set for the "ISO-8859-1" character set.  ]
>    [ Some special characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]
>
> Vorlonagent schrieb:
>
>>>> You want me to accept gays and gays marrying, give me a reason.
>>>
>>> No, no, no and no again. You want me to accept being discriminated
>>> against and to not be able to marry, you give _me_ a reason. Why, oh
>>> why, is it so hard to get that?
>>
>> I may not have made myself clear.
>>
>> If you read my whole post, you no doubt found the part where I said I 
>> support gay marriage (Just disagree with how its proponents go about 
>> legalizing it) so my meaning is neither as simplistic or prejudiced as it 
>> may have come off.
>
> I did read that. I was just hijacking your rhetorics and didn't mean to
> address you personally.

Ah.  OK.  Got it.

>> A reason to accept gays can be as simple as "they're human beings."  I 
>> find that reason rather persuasive, personally.  In the end, that's all 
>> the justfication that can be offered for you, me or anyone, really.  Very 
>> few of us can get into Heaven on our own merits.
>>
>> As you can see, I am not asking anybody to accept any form of 
>> discrimmination.
>>
>> Gay marriage is a slightly different issue in that marriage is not a the 
>> same sort of right as acceptance and no-discrimination.
>
> Thing is, if you (or whoever) can't give a very good reason for treating
> a group of people differently than the rest, then that's what defines
> discrimination. Which is why "You want me to accept gays and gays
> marrying, give me a reason." completely misses the point. Whoever
> insists on a difference being made is the one who has to give reasons.

Fair point.

The problem you run into is that of home-field advantage.  Hereosexual 
marriage has existed for a very long time.  You are asking the world to 
accept something new.  We aren't starting from zero and weighing sameness 
and difference in a vacuum.  Social custom has a degree of intertia to it 
and that's simply the way things work.  Thus gays are put in the position of 
having to make a case for marriage.  It's not fair, strictly speaking, that 
they have to, but they have to anyway.  It is simply the cards gays have 
been dealt.

The task is not insurmountable by any means.  It requires awareness from and 
engagement with the rest of the population.  Aggressive tactics have gotten 
gays the awareness that they seek, but also impede engagement by alienating 
gays from non-gays.


>> Again, I have no personal problem with gay marriage.  But there is no 
>> basis for gay mariage in the law.  That needs to be changed because 
>> legalizing gay marriage is a legislative function.  You want ti changed, 
>> you go to the people and the legislature that represents them and GIVE 
>> THEM A REASON.  The reason, "They're people too" could be all you need, 
>> but you need to make your case, not default to judicial strong-arm 
>> tactics whever you can't get your way. That's an abuse of the judiciary.
>
> Unfortunately (in this case) going through legislature means you need a
> majority supporting you. Justice, however, is not or at least shouldn't
> be about majorities, but about what's right. Call me simplistic, but not
> allowing gays to marry is discrimination and discrimination is wrong.

I agree.  That was never the issue.

The issue is: "Is the end (ending discrimmination against gays) justified by 
any means?"

Delenn makes the point that how and why you do something is as important as 
what you're doing, so the "B5-based" answer appears to be no, the ends do 
not justify the means.  There are right and wrong ways of going about 
things.  We can then discuss whether a given means is an appropriate route 
to a given end.  I don't think appropriating judicial authority to create 
social policy is an appropriate means, but you may disagree.

Building a majority in the legislature will no doubt take time, but the work 
making friends among political allies, common people and (especially) 
political enemies will also pay dividends down the road that an exercise of 
naked power will not.

> Now, it may not always be wise to go through the judiciary, but it is
> definitely not abuse.

I disagree because it is asking the judiciary to act like a 
shadow-legislature, trumping the real legislature and undermining the 
Separation of Powers by which this country (and most states) function.


-- 
John Trauger,
Vorlonagent


"Methane martini.
Shaken, not stirred."


"Spirituality without science has no mind.

Science without spirituality has no heart."

-Methuselah Jones 




--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2
 * Origin: *READ ONLY* rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (3:640/1010)