Page 16 of 26 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 160 of 253

Thread: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

  1. #151
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Quite a load there. Whether noble or voluntary, if a state college allocates admission based not only on merit but uses a racial/ethnic preference
    College admissions are not based upon merit, but upon compliance (i.e. grades, ability to afford expenses related to higher education before and during college, etc.). Competitive-admissions / "selective" colleges routinely REJECT the MAJORITY OF QUALIFIED APPLICANTS, period. Furthermore, grade and test score applicants are not more vs. less qualified than each other; they are either qualified (based upon comparing their scores and grades to minimum requirements) or not. For example, if applicants must have a 2.5 GPA or higher to apply, it is NOT the case that a student with a GPA of 3.8 is more qualified than one with a 3.4. They are both simply qualified, period.

    This would normally be the point where I being to explain that different groups of people (facing dramatically different obstacles) reaching the "same" standards is actually not a case of parallel achievement (those facing systemic obstacles have actually weathered and achieved MORE), but based upon your posts thus far I'm doubtful you're ready to hear that.

    Much as with jobs, the only way to know for sure if someone is qualified on grounds of merit is to admit or hire them first, and then look at their performance over time. This is absolutely NOT how the vast majority of college admissions or hiring processes actually work. Instead, there's a big game of make-believe where applicants and employers/colleges all pretend that grades reliably indicate competence, that ability to pay for things is equivalent to being able to do things (and conversely that being unable to afford them means being unable to do them), etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    then it CREARLY results in greater or equally qualified studends NOT getting accepted based on only being of the majority racial or ethnic group, that is NOT EQUAL PROTECTION.
    This may be a shocker to you, but admissions processes are not now meritocratic, and (in the context of the United States, at the very least) they never have been. Have you ever stopped to consider the fact that BEFORE school integration, and BEFORE piecemeal, lukewarm efforts at systemic inclusion (like AA), the admissions system wasn't meritocratic either?

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Just beacuse something is voluntary or seems right does not make it so
    I never equated voluntary with "right." My point, rather, was that there is a huge difference between AA and anti discrimination law...a difference almost all of the opponents of AA (or rather, the opponents of what is falsely misunderstood to be AA) either don't know about or deliberately ignore.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    UNLESS, as you said, there is a court order to do so.
    If a court ordered it...it is a matter of anti discrimination law. Your ignorance is showing.


    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    To assert that voluntary reverse discrimination
    There is no such thing as reverse discrimination. It's a conservative fantasy used to soothe any lingering doubts about casually pretending away massive white and male privilege. As described above, if you are genuinely concerned with people not getting into college per se, then I'd refer you to the fact that selective colleges routinely turn away the majority of qualified applicants OF ALL "RACES" AND GENDERS. If you really want all willing and qualified students to go to college, you have much bigger fish to fry than the phantom of the Poor Little (Paranoid) Persecuted White Male.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    is a price that morally (not by court order) "must be paid" ignores reality
    Indeed, it ignores reality, though not in the way you are suggesting. Rather, the ignorance is on at least two fronts:

    First, by framing AA as a "price" paid by white men...as if they are losing something they are presumptively entitled to. That's rather odd...I though the idea of admissions and hiring processes was that it was NOT known ahead of time who is going to be admitted or hired. Silly me.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    by attempting to fix 150 years of difference in 15, and using your argument to show 'qualified' has also caused the 'qualifications' to be drastically altered (usually simply reduced, but called "fair") to assure that a predetermined outcome (proportional representaion by race) will, in fact, occur.
    You are once again showing ignorance. Institutions may not be required to hire or admit X number of ANYTHING until and unless they first are tried and LOSE in an anti discrimination lawsuit. You don't seem to fathom what that means. It means that if you encounter one of the spectacularly rare institutions bound by such a ruling, it is because that institution was found guilty of having committed racist and/or sexist discrimination in its practices.

    AA is not anti discrimination law.
    AA is not a quota system.

    Quotas may only be required as the result of losing an anti discrimination lawsuit.

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    You obviously don't care about the rest of the 'unequal' examples I gave
    You're getting ahead of yourself. I care about many forms of inequality. My confidence in your ability to reason, and to differentiate between propaganda and facts, however, isn't particularly high at the moment. Show me a better side of yourself, and perhaps that might change, but you're not representing yourself or your stance especially well thus far.

    In fairness, I've found that rightist libertarians in particular have especially strong ideological blindnesses when it comes to anything operating above the level of the individual, and since efforts at remedying systemic discrimination ALL operate at above the individual level, it's hardly surprising that you're having such difficulty recognizing what's actually going on. What is not excusable, however, is taking preposterous rhetoric against AA at face value, which is something you have clearly done.

    ETA: It may surprise you to discover that I'm actually deeply critical of AA, but for radically different reasons. Basically, it's too timid, too easy to weasel out of, and those most frequently called upon to implement it are rarely held accountable for managing AA programs and policies effectively. At the very least, however, I insist upon having an accurate understanding of something before I criticize it...and sadly most opponents of AA aren't there yet (and may never be, at the current pace).
    Last edited by cmakaioz; 05-31-12 at 08:50 PM.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  2. #152
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    How about the desire for sexual reproduction, clearly a state interest by increasing the population/tax base.
    Well, since the federal government recognizes many opposite sex marriages that cannot or will not ever have children because they can't or just don't want to, this argument fails. And it fails more in the fact that the US government even recognizes those marriages where the state only allows the couples in question to legally marry if they cannot procreate.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  3. #153
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Then you would be wrong, especially in light of SS/Medicare. Economies depend on growth as well to expand the market base.
    You would be wrong. SS benefits for the spouse are based off the fact that the spouse was in the life of the other, likely doing the household work or something else for the marriage and did not earn enough for that fact to qualify for their own SS benefits. So then they are seen to actually have earned the right to have some of their spouse's SS because of the nature of many marriages, particularly ones involving only a single-income, where one spouse takes care of the domestic duties and the other works to pay the bills.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  4. #154
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    Then what compelling state interest is served by giving tax breaks to the married? Does that then not amount to simple discrimination against the non-married, if no compelling state interest is served by that discrimination? What compelling state interest is served by the taxation of those too young to vote (taxation w/o representation)?
    Stable families, even those that just involve two adults, benefit our society. You don't need to have children to benefit your community. Even the Army did a study that showed married soldiers, even those without children are much more likely to be productive and "settled" than their single counterparts.
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  5. #155
    Dungeon Master
    Hooter Babe

    DiAnna's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Northern California
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    32,611
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    I imagine by now the thread has been thoroughly derailed, so I won't bother reading it. I'll just say that this is wonderful, although not unexpected, news. DOMA is the final anthesis to the equality on which our nation was founded, so I'm thrilled by the ruling. I'm not as confident that SCOTUS will uphold the ruling as Dana is, but my hopes are nonetheless high!

  6. #156
    Sage
    Taylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    US
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:20 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,170

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by donsutherland1 View Post
    Invoking morality to impose one's preferences would be a recipe for totalitarianism. Using often abstract and subjective concepts to impose one's preferences would be no more beneficial to a free society than advocating the opposite extreme of abolishing all laws whatsoever.
    It seems to me that free society cannot exist without "abstract and subjective concepts" and the imposition of a moral code. It is "do onto others" morality - respect for others - that provides the basis for laws against rape & murder, respect for property, etc.

  7. #157
    Professor
    vendur's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    06-05-13 @ 08:35 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,250

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Interesting interpretation of:

    " Your own unique content to spur discussion"

  8. #158
    Sage
    roguenuke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Raleigh, NC
    Last Seen
    05-17-17 @ 05:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,935

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by Taylor View Post
    It seems to me that free society cannot exist without "abstract and subjective concepts" and the imposition of a moral code. It is "do onto others" morality - respect for others - that provides the basis for laws against rape & murder, respect for property, etc.
    Well since legal same sex marriage doesn't violate any of those things you mentioned , what's the problem?
    "A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

    Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.

  9. #159
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    But without financial reward there would be far, far less of them. Look at the statistics for out-of-wedlock childbirth after AFDC.
    Yes, people who hate each should stay together because they are forced to. That would fix alot, and society would be better. But, before explaining what a causal fallacy is, divorce and desertion will happen no matter the policy. So, it helps society to make sure we don't have children and women to distitute.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  10. #160
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Court: Heart of gay marriage law unconstitutional

    Quote Originally Posted by ttwtt78640 View Post
    As was your argument that adding SSM will somehow promote stability in society.
    No that was my argument, and not a strawman. I can provide definitions if that will help.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Page 16 of 26 FirstFirst ... 61415161718 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •