Marriage is the one institution, the one voluntary association in which the Left or certain gender activists are okay with excluding women. Just try to form a legally sanctioned association while openly barring women from joining. Won’t be allowed. Unless that association is a marriage. The same lawyer who sues to force a male organization to accept women will sue to allow women to exclude men from a marriage. Why? Leftism is feelings-based, and the feelings of women and "minorities" are more important than those of white heterosexual men.
Great analogies are difficult for this topic because marriage is unique - at least, it is suppossed to be. That is part of the current issue at hand. I am convinced it is important to keep the legal definition of marriage in line with what human history universally demonstrated: marriage unites the sexes.
The issue is so polarizing now that it is difficult to convince the other side we're not bigots and do not hate people who identify as gay or lesbian or consider them less than worthy of having their rights protected. But I like to try.
There are different people providing the momentum to change the legal definition of marriage. There are the extreme Leftists who want to tear down just about any structure other than the state so that we'll be dependent on the state, and they figure anything that devalues true marriage is a good thing. If marriage means anything, it really means nothing. There are the radical homosexuality advocates who believe that having the term "marriage" legally affixed to same-sex couplings will advance their promotion of homosexual behavior as equal or even superior to heterosexual behavior. There are the ordinary gay/lesbian people who think that they are somehow being slighted because they can't get a state-issued marriage licensing with the person they love. There are the friends and families of these people who want to see their loved ones happy, and their loved ones have told them that applying the term "marriage" legally to their relationships will do it. And, finally, there are the profiteers who think they will make more money if more people can legally "marry" (like divorce lawyers).
Most of these people will not consider any defenses of the bride+groom licensing requirement. The people who might (and in some cases have) are the ordinary gay/lesbian people and their friends and families. Many still disagree, but some of them will see that our motive is not hate or bigotry.
One of the problems we have created as a society is that we have already devalued marriage through several channels. Socially, too many of us have reduced it to some sort of "next level" for any romantic relationship, as if that relationship was somehow more successful because it was "taken to the next level", even if it ends quickly in a divorce. I link this phenomenon to fornication, shacking up, and having/raising children out of wedlock. Some people think it is okay to fornicate and have kids out of wedlock if they plan to get married. There are women who shack up with men because they hope it will lead to marriage. A man and a woman can be doing everything that, traditionally, only married couples did with social acceptance, and they – more often prompted by the woman or by friends/family looking for a reason to pary – will decide they should take the relationship "to the next level" by getting married. Since they are already shacking up and raising kids, the feeling is that marriage is merely symbolic, but they still want that symbol to "vindicate" their fornication and shacking up. Writer David Mamet also cites shack-up couples marrying because it is the only way to get a divorce, and I think there is a lot of truth to that for some couples.
Therein comes an argument for the same-sex couple who wants that "symbolic" stamp of approval and recognition of their relationship. Since the rest of society has separated childbearing, sex, and cohabitation from marriage, then marriage is something unrelated to those things and it mostly about esteeming the romantic relationship, right?
But the thing is – a romantic relationship that doesn't end in marriage is a not automatically a failure. You can fail to keep your chastity, you can fail to keep your self-respect, you can fail to honor the other person and your future spouse – to be sure. Those are failures. But breaking up with someone who isn't right a fit for you beyond that moment does not mean the relationship was a failure, especially if you enjoyed each other in a wholesome way and grew and learned important things about yourself and life. My point is that not all relationships should involve marriage.
Conversely, marriage, from a legal perspective, is not about esteeming a romance. It is about perpetuating a stable society. The law really doesn't care if there is no romance or passion.
Now for some anologies.
HIV is a certain kind of disease. What if I were to form an organization with the purpose of fighting multiple sclerosis, and then demanded government funding and benefits assigned to HIV groups? Isn't fighting MS a valid cause? Isn’t MS a disease? Shouldn't I get the same access to the same funding and the same benefits and the same social standing as anti-HIV organizations? The answer to the first two questions is yes. The answer to the last question is no, because MS is not HIV. I am free to form an organization that fights HIV, no matter how much my heart is in fighting MS. That I choose to form an MS-fighting organization does not mean that HIV organizations should be forced to welcome my organization as one of theirs.
Nonprofits get certain benefits and can call themselves nonprofits, while for-profits can't use that designation. Why? Because they are different kinds of associations.
I couldn't get a fishing license and then go out and hunt a deer, no matter how much I prefer venison over fish.
It would be fraud for me to proclaim that I was organizing a Gay Pride parade and then only let anti-gay groups march.
I can't sell meat and claim that the dish is vegetarian. I can't sell pork and claim that it is kosher.
Why?
Words mean things. There is a reason the state issues marriage licenses.
I could get a really good lobbying effort going that would change the laws so that I could legally sell meat dishes with a vegetarian label, but would that make the dishes vegetarian? No. It would devalue the legal term by watering down its meaning, and the general rule of law would be damaged because it would be in conflict with reality.
The legal definition of marriage, throughout every known society, has always been about joining the two sexes. Only very recently in a handful of countries have the laws been changed to accomodate the freelings of a small behavioral minority. As marriage neutering advocates point to previous acceptances of polygamy, juridictions that marry first cousins, or prohibitions against "interracial" marriage, they actually draw attention to the fact that while laws about marriage have changed in the past, throughout all of those changes it has never been in doubt that marriage requires a bride and a groom.
When I am asked why I "oppose 'gay marriage'" I need to remember to explain that I'm in favor of keeping the law in line with reality and promoting good public policy, because marriage isn't about validating a relationship. It is about society and forming a microcosm of that society by including both of the sexes. I believe that both women and men are essential to society, and neither one should be excluded when forming that societal unit.
See "It Takes a Bride and a Groom to Make Marriage"
Great analogies are difficult for this topic because marriage is unique - at least, it is suppossed to be. That is part of the current issue at hand. I am convinced it is important to keep the legal definition of marriage in line with what human history universally demonstrated: marriage unites the sexes.
The issue is so polarizing now that it is difficult to convince the other side we're not bigots and do not hate people who identify as gay or lesbian or consider them less than worthy of having their rights protected. But I like to try.
There are different people providing the momentum to change the legal definition of marriage. There are the extreme Leftists who want to tear down just about any structure other than the state so that we'll be dependent on the state, and they figure anything that devalues true marriage is a good thing. If marriage means anything, it really means nothing. There are the radical homosexuality advocates who believe that having the term "marriage" legally affixed to same-sex couplings will advance their promotion of homosexual behavior as equal or even superior to heterosexual behavior. There are the ordinary gay/lesbian people who think that they are somehow being slighted because they can't get a state-issued marriage licensing with the person they love. There are the friends and families of these people who want to see their loved ones happy, and their loved ones have told them that applying the term "marriage" legally to their relationships will do it. And, finally, there are the profiteers who think they will make more money if more people can legally "marry" (like divorce lawyers).
Most of these people will not consider any defenses of the bride+groom licensing requirement. The people who might (and in some cases have) are the ordinary gay/lesbian people and their friends and families. Many still disagree, but some of them will see that our motive is not hate or bigotry.
One of the problems we have created as a society is that we have already devalued marriage through several channels. Socially, too many of us have reduced it to some sort of "next level" for any romantic relationship, as if that relationship was somehow more successful because it was "taken to the next level", even if it ends quickly in a divorce. I link this phenomenon to fornication, shacking up, and having/raising children out of wedlock. Some people think it is okay to fornicate and have kids out of wedlock if they plan to get married. There are women who shack up with men because they hope it will lead to marriage. A man and a woman can be doing everything that, traditionally, only married couples did with social acceptance, and they – more often prompted by the woman or by friends/family looking for a reason to pary – will decide they should take the relationship "to the next level" by getting married. Since they are already shacking up and raising kids, the feeling is that marriage is merely symbolic, but they still want that symbol to "vindicate" their fornication and shacking up. Writer David Mamet also cites shack-up couples marrying because it is the only way to get a divorce, and I think there is a lot of truth to that for some couples.
Therein comes an argument for the same-sex couple who wants that "symbolic" stamp of approval and recognition of their relationship. Since the rest of society has separated childbearing, sex, and cohabitation from marriage, then marriage is something unrelated to those things and it mostly about esteeming the romantic relationship, right?
But the thing is – a romantic relationship that doesn't end in marriage is a not automatically a failure. You can fail to keep your chastity, you can fail to keep your self-respect, you can fail to honor the other person and your future spouse – to be sure. Those are failures. But breaking up with someone who isn't right a fit for you beyond that moment does not mean the relationship was a failure, especially if you enjoyed each other in a wholesome way and grew and learned important things about yourself and life. My point is that not all relationships should involve marriage.
Conversely, marriage, from a legal perspective, is not about esteeming a romance. It is about perpetuating a stable society. The law really doesn't care if there is no romance or passion.
Now for some anologies.
HIV is a certain kind of disease. What if I were to form an organization with the purpose of fighting multiple sclerosis, and then demanded government funding and benefits assigned to HIV groups? Isn't fighting MS a valid cause? Isn’t MS a disease? Shouldn't I get the same access to the same funding and the same benefits and the same social standing as anti-HIV organizations? The answer to the first two questions is yes. The answer to the last question is no, because MS is not HIV. I am free to form an organization that fights HIV, no matter how much my heart is in fighting MS. That I choose to form an MS-fighting organization does not mean that HIV organizations should be forced to welcome my organization as one of theirs.
Nonprofits get certain benefits and can call themselves nonprofits, while for-profits can't use that designation. Why? Because they are different kinds of associations.
I couldn't get a fishing license and then go out and hunt a deer, no matter how much I prefer venison over fish.
It would be fraud for me to proclaim that I was organizing a Gay Pride parade and then only let anti-gay groups march.
I can't sell meat and claim that the dish is vegetarian. I can't sell pork and claim that it is kosher.
Why?
Words mean things. There is a reason the state issues marriage licenses.
I could get a really good lobbying effort going that would change the laws so that I could legally sell meat dishes with a vegetarian label, but would that make the dishes vegetarian? No. It would devalue the legal term by watering down its meaning, and the general rule of law would be damaged because it would be in conflict with reality.
The legal definition of marriage, throughout every known society, has always been about joining the two sexes. Only very recently in a handful of countries have the laws been changed to accomodate the freelings of a small behavioral minority. As marriage neutering advocates point to previous acceptances of polygamy, juridictions that marry first cousins, or prohibitions against "interracial" marriage, they actually draw attention to the fact that while laws about marriage have changed in the past, throughout all of those changes it has never been in doubt that marriage requires a bride and a groom.
When I am asked why I "oppose 'gay marriage'" I need to remember to explain that I'm in favor of keeping the law in line with reality and promoting good public policy, because marriage isn't about validating a relationship. It is about society and forming a microcosm of that society by including both of the sexes. I believe that both women and men are essential to society, and neither one should be excluded when forming that societal unit.
See "It Takes a Bride and a Groom to Make Marriage"
PW: "Marriage is the one institution, the one voluntary association in which the Left or certain gender activists are okay with excluding women."
ReplyDeleteI think this is among the weakest of your premises, because no advocate for change has suggested that women should not be permitted to marry. Where same-sex marriage is legal, women continue to marry. They are not excluded from the institution. All the women in male+female couples who wish to marry do so. So do women in female+female couples. No woman, in this reality, is excluded from the opportunity to marry.
No woman is excluded by government from marrying under the bride+groom requirement. She may decided she doesn't want to do that.
DeleteMy comparison stands because organizations, such as clubs and workplaces, that tried to exclude women were not permitted to do so by pointing out that other workplaces and clubs accepted women.
There is one lawyer in particular I can think of without doing research I know haw sued organizations for not including women, and yet also sued so that women COULD exclude men from their organization (in having that union legally recognized).
The bias is expressed easily on the face of it.
DeleteIn a certain circumstance, a person who is a mother of a child is excluded from marriage to the father, by the father, _because she is a woman_. They might have no other reason to avoid being married with that person _other than that she is a woman_, or any other woman who might be qualified.
That is, undeniably, gender discrimination.
PW writes: "No woman is excluded by government from marrying under the bride+groom requirement.
DeleteNor is any woman excluded by government minus the bride+groom requirement. In fact, there's a greater option for women to be included.
_PW writes: "No woman is excluded by government from marrying under the bride+groom requirement.
Delete[Search writes:] Nor is any woman excluded by government minus the bride+groom requirement._
That is like saying no blacks are excluded from schools by the government minus Brown v Board of Education.
Yet integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government.
As noted already...
he bias is expressed easily on the face of it.
In a certain circumstance, a person who is a mother of a child is excluded from marriage to the father, by the father, _because she is a woman_. They might have no other reason to avoid being married with that person _other than that she is a woman_, or any other woman who might be qualified.
That is, undeniably, gender discrimination.
1. About the ruling in Brown v.Board of Education.
Delete1a) Prior to the ruling, there were restrictive laws that block a minority group from attending certain specific schools.
1b) The ruling found those laws to be unconstitutional, under the 14th amendment's equal protection clause.
1c) As a result, local governments lost the power to force those minorities into so-calles "separate but equal" schools, and they were permitted to attend the schools from which they had previously been prohibited.
2) So where are the parallels with changing the legal definition of marriage?
2a) Prior to such a change, there remain restrictive laws that block a minority group from legally recognized marriage.
2b) Court rulings, voter initiatives and legislative actions all have the potential to strike down those restrictive laws.
2c) As a result, government loses the power to limit same-sex couples to so-called "separate but equal" civil unions or domestic partnerships (or no legal status whatsoever), and individuals in these same-sex couples are permitted the legal status and protections of the law that had been previously denied to them.
In both examples, the action removes a restriction. And in both cases, there are folks uncomfortable with the idea of removing those government imposed restrictions. Someone's discomfort isn't a compelling reason to maintain the status quo.
_there remain restrictive laws that block a minority group from legally recognized marriage_
DeleteThis is false on many levels. Blacks were specifically named in their exclusion from specific schools. Yet gays are not.
There is an argument that requiring integration (a man and a woman) can block gays from marrying but that is a stretch by any way you look at it. But even if it were true, the only parallel here would be how integrated schools "block a minority group" of racial segregationists from practicing segregation at their school.
Separate (man, man from woman, woman, or all white from all black) is not equal, even if it oppresses a group who identify themselves by their intolerance (what Search calls incompatibility in another thread) of the other race or gender.
_government loses the power to limit same-sex couples to so-called "separate but equal" civil unions or domestic partnerships_
Sure, even if those couples are two siblings, or if one of the people in that couple are married to someone else, etc... In both examples, the action removes a restriction. And in both cases, there are folks uncomfortable with the idea of removing those government imposed restrictions. Someone's discomfort isn't a compelling reason to maintain the status quo.
LAWN: "Blacks were specifically named in their exclusion from specific schools. Yet gays are not."
Delete#1, I didn't say that gays were "specifically named". don't respond as if I had.
#2, its irrelevant to my statement whether the minority in questions was specifically named or not. Just re-read the snippet you quoted: "there remain restrictive laws that block a minority group from legally recognized marriage".
_I didn't say that gays were "specifically named". don't respond as if I had._
DeleteSorry, the truth is not limited to your blinders, or how you craft your arguments to avoid inconvenient facts.
_its irrelevant to my statement whether the minority in questions was specifically named or not._
Wrong. Its unfortunate that to you "irrelevant" means "oops, my argument really doesn't work if we acknowledge that".
The fact is, if it doesn't name the group, they aren't restricted in the same way. In fact, I'd argue the minority group isn't restricted at all if they aren't named, and there is no defining test that completely identifies them to be completely restricted.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTry that premise. Acknowledge that blacks were explicitly named, but gays have not been.
DeleteJim Crowe laws EXPLICITLY exclude blacks from quality eduction.
Bride+groom requirements IMPLICITLY exclude gays from marriage.
There is a difference. Explain why the fact that one exclusion is EXPLICIT and the other is IMPLICIT is significant - On Lawn.
_Jim Crowe laws EXPLICITLY exclude blacks from quality eduction._
DeleteActually, lets play another game real quickly.
Lets look at all the ways Search dishonestly twisted the comment I made.
My comment, "Blacks were specifically named in their exclusion from specific schools."
Something as concrete as, "specific schools", gets changed into a general quality of education. Rules that specifically ban blacks from those schools turns into vague hand waving at "Jim Crow Laws". And the phrase "but gays have not been" is completely vague and incomplete.
Then, after making it as vague as he can challenges me to support it.
Nice try, Search.
That is embarassing enough as it is, if it weren't for the fact that the distinction between "specific schools" and schooling in general hadn't already been made...
"My comparison stands because organizations, such as clubs and workplaces, that tried to exclude women were not permitted to do so by pointing out that other workplaces and clubs accepted women." -- Playful Walrus
So Search, why such dishonesty?
It would be helpful to most readers if English was your first language, On Lawn.
DeleteAnd your gibberish protests have nothing to say about the realty: one minority is explicitly named, one minority is implicitly inferred, In either case, a minority (named or unnamed) is targeted. Is this too far above your head, Lawn?
LOL...
DeleteI see. Its not that "specifically named in their exclusion from specific schools" is changed when you recite it as "EXPLICITLY exclude blacks from quality eduction[sic]".
Its that I must not understand english well enough when I put it as I did. :-D
_In either case, a minority (named or unnamed) is targeted._
So if gays aren't at all mentioned or tested for in marriage, and isn't even individually banned from marriage, they are _targeted_.
And you get that because English is your first language... :-D
On Lawn,
Deleteyour ignorance is neither my problem nor my obligation. Answer 10 questions if you wish to ask 1.
Cheers!
-Searchcz
Search,
DeleteIgnorance, it seems to be one of those kinds of problems where people who suffer from it the most seem least capable of seeing it in themselves.
There's nothing I've said that was ignorant, and its funny you make such a blatantly false accusation and then run away entirely...
LOL...
ReplyDelete_from attending certain specific schools_
Lets compare parallels...
Search: _from legally recognized marriage_ as a whole.
Playful: My comparison stands because organizations, such as clubs and workplaces, that tried to exclude women were not permitted to do so by pointing out that other workplaces and clubs accepted women.
Which one is a real parallel? According to Search, "I think this is among the weakest of your premises, because no advocate for change has suggested that women should not be permitted to marry."
There you go, according to Search, the exclusion from marriage in general "is among the weakest" because its a poor parallel to what is really going on in marriage. That is closer to what Playful says, and it is the kind of discrimination specifically refuted in Brown v Board of education (enumerated parallel 1b) for schools.
When you get down to it, depending on which way Search is back-pedaling at the moment, even Search has argued that the best parallel to marriage is Brown v Board of education, and that is due to segregating genders from specific marriages makes a system that is separate but equal.
But that isn't where Search wants to go. Its simply where he did go back-pedaling away from it before he back pedaled again.
And what's the "club or workspace" that is trying to exclude women, On Lawn?
DeletePlayful's comment, "organizations, such as clubs and workplaces" ...
DeleteSearch's recitation, "what's the 'club or workspace' that is trying to exclude women".
LOL...
Lets compare parallels...
Search: _from legally recognized marriage_ as a whole.
Playful: My comparison stands because organizations, such as clubs and workplaces, that tried to exclude women were not permitted to do so by pointing out that other workplaces and clubs accepted women.
Which one is a real parallel? According to Search, "I think this is among the weakest of your premises, because no advocate for change has suggested that women should not be permitted to marry."
There you go, according to Search, the exclusion from marriage in general "is among the weakest" because its a poor parallel to what is really going on in marriage. That is closer to what Playful says, and it is the kind of discrimination specifically refuted in Brown v Board of education (enumerated parallel 1b) for schools.
When you get down to it, depending on which way Search is back-pedaling at the moment, even Search has argued that the best parallel to marriage is Brown v Board of education, and that is due to segregating genders from specific marriages makes a system that is separate but equal.
But that isn't where Search wants to go. Its simply where he did go back-pedaling away from it before he back pedaled again.
What's the club or workspace that is trying to exclue women?
DeleteWhat is "exclue" women mean?
DeleteAnd why are you asking that question at all?
Playful's comment, "organizations, such as clubs and workplaces" ...
Search's recitation, "what's the 'club or workspace' that is trying to exclude women".
LOL...
Lets compare parallels...
Search: _from legally recognized marriage_ as a whole.
Playful: My comparison stands because organizations, such as clubs and workplaces, that tried to exclude women were not permitted to do so by pointing out that other workplaces and clubs accepted women.
Which one is a real parallel? According to Search, "I think this is among the weakest of your premises, because no advocate for change has suggested that women should not be permitted to marry."
There you go, according to Search, the exclusion from marriage in general "is among the weakest" because its a poor parallel to what is really going on in marriage. That is closer to what Playful says, and it is the kind of discrimination specifically refuted in Brown v Board of education (enumerated parallel 1b) for schools.
When you get down to it, depending on which way Search is back-pedaling at the moment, even Search has argued that the best parallel to marriage is Brown v Board of education, and that is due to segregating genders from specific marriages makes a system that is separate but equal.
But that isn't where Search wants to go. Its simply where he did go back-pedaling away from it before he back pedaled again.
The question I asked, as yet unanswered:
DeleteAnd what's the "club or workspace" that is trying to exclude women, On Lawn?
Actually, the dishonesty is apparent.
DeleteThe quote, "club or workspace", does not appear in this thread except for in quotes originally provided by Search.
The question is, why am I being asked about a something I didn't write?
Are you misquoting, Search? :-D
On Lawn,
DeletePlease learn to read. The discussion of clubs and workspaces was initiated by our host, The Playful Walrus, here.
And you invoked that phrase when you started this thread here.
There's no dishonesty in me asking:
What's the club or workspace that is trying to exclue women?
Your inability to answer speaks volumes.
_Please learn to read._
DeleteLOL...
That must be the problem.
Its not that you are conflicting with the statement in fundamental ways, its that I haven't learned to read :-D
_The discussion of clubs and workspaces was initiated by our host, The Playful Walrus, here._
And quoted, here.
_There's no dishonesty in me asking:
What's the club or workspace that is trying to exclue women?_
What is "exclue" women mean?
And why are you asking that question at all?
Playful's comment, "organizations, such as clubs and workplaces" ...
Search's recitation, "what's the 'club or workspace' that is trying to exclude women".
LOL...
Lets compare parallels...
Search: _from legally recognized marriage_ as a whole.
Playful: My comparison stands because organizations, such as clubs and workplaces, that tried to exclude women were not permitted to do so by pointing out that other workplaces and clubs accepted women.
Which one is a real parallel? According to Search, "I think this is among the weakest of your premises, because no advocate for change has suggested that women should not be permitted to marry."
There you go, according to Search, the exclusion from marriage in general "is among the weakest" because its a poor parallel to what is really going on in marriage. That is closer to what Playful says, and it is the kind of discrimination specifically refuted in Brown v Board of education (enumerated parallel 1b) for schools.
When you get down to it, depending on which way Search is back-pedaling at the moment, even Search has argued that the best parallel to marriage is Brown v Board of education, and that is due to segregating genders from specific marriages makes a system that is separate but equal.
But that isn't where Search wants to go. Its simply where he did go back-pedaling away from it before he back pedaled again.
Your inability to have an honest conversation and question speaks volumes, lol...
What's the club or workspace that's trying to exclude women?
DeleteThere is no contemplated exclusion from the ability to marry that follows from permitting same-sex couples to marry.
DeleteBe honest, On Lawn. You are the one advocating for a *separate but equal* system. Or perhaps you're advocating for *separate but unequal*. Any legal protections you might give for same-sex couples would be separate and distinct from marriage. You can admit it.
You would preserve marriage as male+female, in the name of children's rights, even if no children (or potential children) are involved. And you would deny marriage to same-sex couples who have already made the commitment to one another and to the children they are raising.
For what purpose?
_There is no contemplated exclusion from the ability to marry that follows from permitting same-sex couples to marry._
DeleteYou should really read what you just wrote. LOL...
_You are the one advocating for a *separate but equal* system._
Which one is a real parallel? According to Search, "I think this is among the weakest of your premises, because no advocate for change has suggested that women should not be permitted to marry."
There you go, according to Search, the exclusion from marriage in general "is among the weakest" because its a poor parallel to what is really going on in marriage. That is closer to what Playful says, and it is the kind of discrimination specifically refuted in Brown v Board of education (enumerated parallel 1b) for schools.
When you get down to it, depending on which way Search is back-pedaling at the moment, even Search has argued that the best parallel to marriage is Brown v Board of education, and that is due to segregating genders from specific marriages makes a system that is separate but equal.
But that isn't where Search wants to go. Its simply where he did go back-pedaling away from it before he back pedaled again.
Your inability to have an honest conversation and question speaks volumes, lol...
_You would preserve marriage as male+female, in the name of children's rights, even if no children (or potential children) are involved._
Denial, its not just a river in Egypt.
On Lawn: "according to Search, [the exclusion from marriage in general] "is among the weakest" [because its a poor parallel to what is really going on in marriage]"
Deleteget this straight: "the exclusion from marriage in general" are On Lawn's words, not mine.
With a little more honesty and.or intelligence, you would have understood that my statement pertained to a false claim of exclusion from marriage. Same-sex marriage does not exclude any woman (or man) from marrying. Feel free to show otherwise, but you can stop misrepresenting my statements.
_get this straight: "the exclusion from marriage in general" are On Lawn's words, not mine._
DeleteSearch's words... "I think this is among the weakest of your premises, because no advocate for change has suggested that women should not be permitted to marry" which is an exclusion from marriage in general.
Search can't keep straight his multiple and conflicting denials.
According to On Lawn , not suggesting that women be excluded = an exclusion from marriage in general.
DeleteThis whole *segregation* angle is off the mark, because same-sex marriage leaves women and men free to marry a member of the opposite sex if they wish, just the same as they can today.
Just check states where same-sex marriage has been legalized. In those states, the marriage rate among heterosexual couples remains the same ( according to new findings by researchers at Portland State University's School of Community Health ).
Marriage remains a legally sanctioned association in which women are not barred from joining. And in which the participation rate for opposite-sex couples is unaffected by the option for same-sex couples to also marry. Nobody excluded.
AGAIN: On Lawn calls not being excluded "an exclusion in general" - in order to AGAIN invent a statement he can argue against. Its either dumb, or dishonest, or perhaps both. What a waste.
I wrote: "There is no contemplated exclusion from the ability to marry that follows from permitting same-sex couples to marry/"
DeleteOn Lawn thinks its worth re-reading, adding "LOL".
If you mean "laughing out loud", Lawn, you should either explain what's funny about people being permitted to marry, or admit that you're a joker who isn;t to be taken seriously.
Also, On Lawn writes: "you are conflicting with the statement in fundamental ways"
Now you're branching out from dishonest and/or unintelligent conversation to dishonest and/or lazy conversation. An accusation like that warrants some citations.
1) What statement do you mean when you refer to "the statement" ?
2) What have I written that you perceive as "conflicting" ?
3) Name a couple of the "fundamental ways" that the thing I've written conflicts with what you call "the statement".
Failing that, we can assume that your contribution to this conversation has again been lacking in honesty and intelligence.
Search, you are drunk again, I'm sure of it... LOL...
Delete_According to On Lawn , not suggesting that women be excluded = an exclusion from marriage in general._
Actually, what was equated was "the exclusion from marriage in general" and "women should not be permitted to marry" which is an exclusion from marriage in general.
_women and men free to marry a member of the opposite sex if they wish_
That doesn't break the analogy, but it is true that freedom of association is valued in society.
But since integration is the Brown v Board of education standard, then being able to integrate is equality.
Do you know of any group of people being told they cannot integrate with a member of the other gender?
That would be like private schools which tried to remain segregated long after public schools were integrated. They are also illegal.
Integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government.
As noted already...
he bias is expressed easily on the face of it.
In a certain circumstance, a person who is a mother of a child is excluded from marriage to the father, by the father, _because she is a woman_. They might have no other reason to avoid being married with that person _other than that she is a woman_, or any other woman who might be qualified.
That is, undeniably, gender discrimination.
An Lawn dishonestly cherry picks "women should not be permitted to marry", separating it from the context and inverting its meaning.
DeleteIn context, the quote reads: no advocate for change has suggested that women should not be permitted to marry.
So when Lawn equates "the exclusion from marriage in general" (something he wrote) with "women should not be permitted to marry" (something he cherry picked badly) he is, essentially, arguing with himself.
Also, Lawn, why do you keep writing "he bias is expressed easily on the face of it" ? What does that even mean? It looks like the kind of writing one would see on a Nigerian "Spanish Prisoner" scam letter.
On Lawn asks: "Do you know of any group of people being told they cannot integrate with a member of the other gender?"
DeleteThe question is, do you?
Search, you are drunk again, I'm sure of it... LOL...
Delete_According to On Lawn , not suggesting that women be excluded = an exclusion from marriage in general._
Actually, what was equated was "the exclusion from marriage in general" and "women should not be permitted to marry" which is an exclusion from marriage in general.
_women and men free to marry a member of the opposite sex if they wish_
That doesn't break the analogy, but it is true that freedom of association is valued in society.
But since integration is the Brown v Board of education standard, then being able to integrate is equality.
Do you know of any group of people being told they cannot integrate with a member of the other gender?
That would be like private schools which tried to remain segregated long after public schools were integrated. They are also illegal.
Integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government.
As noted already...
he bias is expressed easily on the face of it.
In a certain circumstance, a person who is a mother of a child is excluded from marriage to the father, by the father, _because she is a woman_. They might have no other reason to avoid being married with that person _other than that she is a woman_, or any other woman who might be qualified.
That is, undeniably, gender discrimination.
_So when Lawn equates "the exclusion from marriage in general" (something he wrote) with "women should not be permitted to marry" (something he cherry picked badly) he is, essentially, arguing with himself._
ReplyDeleteLOL!
Equating is the opposite of arguing...
Even when you try to act confused, you get even the very basic things wrong.
Clearly you are simply confused.
So I ask again, do you know of any group of people being told they cannot integrate with a member of the other gender?
That would be like private schools which tried to remain segregated long after public schools were integrated. They are also illegal.
Integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government.
As noted already...
The bias is expressed easily on the face of it.
In a certain circumstance, a person who is a mother of a child is excluded from marriage to the father, by the father, _because she is a woman_. They might have no other reason to avoid being married with that person _other than that she is a woman_, or any other woman who might be qualified.
That is, undeniably, gender discrimination.
I forgot, Lawn, you lack the capacity to connect two different concepts on your own. Let me spell it out for you then.
DeleteYou falsely attributed the concept that "women should not be permitted to marry" to me, as a result of your poor (or dishonest) cherry picking. You call this "equating", I call it lying.
Then you take this concept that you conjured, and re-spin it as "an exclusion form marriage in general" - another concept I never presented.
So whenever you comment on the concept "women should not be allowed to marry", or the phrase "an exclusion from marriage in general", you are commenting on things YOU introduced to the conversation. There are seven different posts on this page where you indulge in that waste of time.
Its a bad habit of yours, misquoting and distorting so you can indulge yourself rather than addressing the things actually presented here.
And another, Lawn. you write "even Search has argued that the best parallel to marriage is Brown v Board of education"
But that's not even close to what I wrote on the topic. Brown v. Board is a supreme court ruling. Marriage is a publicly recognized commitment between two adults.
The parallel drawn by my post is between the effect of Brown v. Board and the effect of enacting legal recognition of same-sex marriage. ( It does not draw a parallel between Brown v Board and marriage itself ). And how many posts did Lawn waste on this misinterpretation, Lawn? I count 5.
Lawn,
DeleteYou left another disconnected dot or two in your last post. You want to talk about individuals exercising freedom of choice in who they wish to marry, using the example of a man not wanting to marry a woman he impregnated. Tell us, what (if anything) this has to do with the force of law being used to exclude anyone from the institution of marriage?
Are you suggesting that the status quo of marriage, which expects (among other things) that both parties to a marriage are participating willingly and without coercion, ought to change?
_I forgot, Lawn, you lack the capacity to connect two different concepts on your own._
DeleteLOL...
You never cease to amuse.
Which one is a real parallel? According to Search, "I think this is among the weakest of your premises, because no advocate for change has suggested that women should not be permitted to marry."
There you go, according to Search, the exclusion from marriage in general "is among the weakest" because its a poor parallel to what is really going on in marriage. That is closer to what Playful says, and it is the kind of discrimination specifically refuted in Brown v Board of education (enumerated parallel 1b) for schools.
When you get down to it, depending on which way Search is back-pedaling at the moment, even Search has argued that the best parallel to marriage is Brown v Board of education, and that is due to segregating genders from specific marriages makes a system that is separate but equal.
But that isn't where Search wants to go. Its simply where he did go back-pedaling away from it before he back pedaled again.
Your inability to have an honest conversation and question speaks volumes, lol...
Simply put, the point sets straight all your attempts to bluster and badger, and all of your dishonest twists.
No, according to SearchCz, the fact that nobody is calling for women to be excluded from marriage makes this article one of PWs weakest. The premise that women would be excluded from marriage, when in fact they would retain the same options to marry that they have right now (and then some) is flawed.
DeleteOn Lawn: "Your inability to have an honest conversation and question speaks volumes"
My inability to have "question" ? Why don't you try that again, in English this time.
LOL...
DeleteYou never cease to amuse.
Which one is a real parallel? According to Search, "I think this is among the weakest of your premises, because no advocate for change has suggested that women should not be permitted to marry."
There you go, according to Search, the exclusion from marriage in general "is among the weakest" because its a poor parallel to what is really going on in marriage. That is closer to what Playful says, and it is the kind of discrimination specifically refuted in Brown v Board of education (enumerated parallel 1b) for schools.
When you get down to it, depending on which way Search is back-pedaling at the moment, even Search has argued that the best parallel to marriage is Brown v Board of education, and that is due to segregating genders from specific marriages makes a system that is separate but equal.
But that isn't where Search wants to go. Its simply where he did go back-pedaling away from it before he back pedaled again.
Your inability to have an honest conversation and answer questions speaks volumes, lol...
Simply put, the point sets straight all your attempts to bluster and badger, and all of your dishonest twists.
Lawn,
ReplyDeleteYou left another disconnected dot or two in your last post. You want to talk about individuals exercising freedom of choice in who they wish to marry, using the example of a man not wanting to marry a woman he impregnated. Tell us, what (if anything) this has to do with the force of law being used to exclude anyone from the institution of marriage?
Are you suggesting that the status quo of marriage, which expects (among other things) that both parties to a marriage are participating willingly and without coercion, ought to change?
That doesn't break the analogy, but it is true that freedom of association is valued in society.
DeleteBut since integration is the Brown v Board of education standard, then being able to integrate is equality.
Do you know of any group of people being told they cannot integrate with a member of the other gender?
That would be like private schools which tried to remain segregated long after public schools were integrated. They are also illegal.
Integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government.
As noted already...
he bias is expressed easily on the face of it.
In a certain circumstance, a person who is a mother of a child is excluded from marriage to the father, by the father, _because she is a woman_. They might have no other reason to avoid being married with that person _other than that she is a woman_, or any other woman who might be qualified.
That is, undeniably, gender discrimination.
On Lawn, you skipped the questions. They were:
Delete1) Tell us, what (if anything) this has to do with the force of law being used to exclude anyone from the institution of marriage?
2) Are you suggesting that the status quo of marriage, which expects (among other things) that both parties to a marriage are participating willingly and without coercion, ought to change?
Search,
DeleteWhat I wrote is sufficient to answer those questions.
That doesn't break the analogy, but it is true that freedom of association is valued in society.
But since integration is the Brown v Board of education standard, then being able to integrate is equality.
Do you know of any group of people being told they cannot integrate with a member of the other gender?
That would be like private schools which tried to remain segregated long after public schools were integrated. They are also illegal.
Integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government.
As noted already...
The bias is expressed easily on the face of it.
In a certain circumstance, a person who is a mother of a child is excluded from marriage to the father, by the father, _because she is a woman_. They might have no other reason to avoid being married with that person _other than that she is a woman_, or any other woman who might be qualified.
That is, undeniably, gender discrimination.
Anywhere someone is saying your identity requires you to discriminate against _the other gender_ in creating a marriage, is gender discrimination.
The law doesn't say that men can't marry women. The law doesn't say people have to be married.
But it does say that a man and a woman is a marriage, and that _is equality_ for genders. It also provides for equality between the man, woman, and child they potentially have together.
Anything that doesn't recognize the man and the woman, and their potential to create children, can't recognize, promote, protect all of the rights associated between all of them.
On Lawn says:
Delete"What I wrote is sufficient to answer those questions."
Very well. You've chosen not to answer, and instead wish to rely on what you've already written here. I would not characterize that as honest communication, but let's see what we have here.
I asked:
1) Tell us, what (if anything) this has to do with the force of law being used to exclude anyone from the institution of marriage?
On one hand we have segregation by force of law, something that was overturned (in the area of public education) in the case of Brown v Board of education. On the other hand, we have Lawn's example of a man being free to not marry somebody he does not wish to marry, which he also wants us to consider to be "gender discrimination". Lawn shows us no connection between the two, give us no reason to consider them jointly, and declines to answer what they might have to do with one another. We can only conclude that they have nothing to do with one another. This must be your answer, then, based on what you've written.
I also asked:
2) Are you suggesting that the status quo of marriage, which expects (among other things) that both parties to a marriage are participating willingly and without coercion, ought to change?
I don't see anything in Lawn's writing on this page suggesting that a man should be forced to marry a woman he has impregnated ... but his writing elsewhere leans in that direction. I would guess, based on the body of his writing (most of which he has taken offline so that you cannot review it), that Lawn would favor the biblical requirement that men and women must marry (or be stoned to death?) if they have sex.
Yet none of this has anything to do with the kind of forced segregation that is illegal under the 14th amendment, and which was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education.
And it has even less to do with same-sex couples gaining the option of having their unions legally recognized as marriages.
On Lawn: "Anywhere someone is saying your identity requires you to discriminate against _the other gender_ in creating a marriage, is gender discrimination."
Good thing nobody is saying that. What we are saying is that people should be free to choose the person they'll marry from eligible candidates whom they would want to marry. ( Not "required" to do so, but FREE to do so. Big difference. ) And since marriage already permits the choice of mate with whom reproduction isn't possible, permitting it for same-sex couples amounts to zero change in how marriage can "ecognize the man and the woman, and their potential to create children, can't recognize, promote, protect all of the rights associated between all of them".
_Very well. You've chosen not to answer, and instead wish to rely on what you've already written here._
DeleteLOL... that isn't a dichotomy.
That should read I've, "chosen to answer by pointing to what I've already written".
Because it obviously answers the question.
And no, your false dichotomy and complaints that insinuate I haven't answered are definitely signs you aren't communicating honestly (as usual).
_ On the other hand, we have Lawn's example of a man being free to not marry somebody he does not wish to marry, which he also wants us to consider to be "gender discrimination"._
Exactly...
In a certain circumstance, a person who is a mother of a child is excluded from marriage to the father, by the father, _because she is a woman_. They might have no other reason to avoid being married with that person _other than that she is a woman_, or any other woman who might be qualified.
That is, undeniably, gender discrimination.
_We can only conclude that they have nothing to do with one another._
No, we can conclude that you are getting lost again in the most basic of details.
In fact that seems to be what is going on.
All I see is that you don't see how discriminating against, literally a person excluding someone, of the other gender just because they are of a different gender, is discrimination.
Since you don't see how discrimination is discrimination, you are clearly confused (or just lying again :-) ).
_I don't see anything in Lawn's writing on this page suggesting that a man should be forced to marry a woman he has impregnated [...]_
Correct, you won't find that.
_his writing elsewhere leans in that direction._
Leans as far as "should do" and "should be forced to" mean the same thing.
I'm not totalitarian, I don't think what one should do in and of itself leans towards government force.
_Yet none of this has anything to do with the kind of forced segregation that is illegal under the 14th amendment, and which was overturned in Brown v. Board of Education._
But since integration is the Brown v Board of education standard, then being able to integrate is equality.
Do you know of any group of people being told they cannot integrate with a member of the other gender?
That would be like private schools which tried to remain segregated long after public schools were integrated. They are also illegal.
Integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government.
It is simply laughable that the government, in requiring gender integration, is practicing inequality based on what we've learned about equality from Brown v Board of Education...
LOL...
Anywhere someone is saying your identity requires you to discriminate against _the other gender_ in creating a marriage, is gender discrimination.
:-D
On Lawn: "Anywhere someone is saying your identity requires you to discriminate against _the other gender_ in creating a marriage, is gender discrimination."
Deletegen·der
noun /ˈjendər/
The state of being male or female (typically used with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones)
dis·crim·i·na·tion
noun /disˌkriməˈnāSHən/
Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another
So it is gender discrimination to recognize and understand the difference between male and female .. something you likely exercised when you chose the person you wanted to join your life to. Did anyone say your identity required you to do that ?
And, again, who is saying that anyone should be required to discriminate against the other gender in creating a marriage ?
On Lawn: "Do you know of any group of people being told they cannot integrate with a member of the other gender?"
I know that the legal recognition of same-sex marriage does not equate to telling any group of people that they cannot integrate with a member of the other gender. They remain free to do so if they wish, just like today. And they remain free not to do so if they wish, just like today.
On the note of gender discrimination...
DeleteIn a certain circumstance, a person who is a mother of a child is excluded from marriage to the father, by the father, _because she is a woman_. They might have no other reason to avoid being married with that person _other than that she is a woman_, or any other woman who might be qualified.
That is, undeniably, gender discrimination of a much more prejudiced nature.
Do you know of any group of people being told they cannot integrate with a member of the other gender?
That would be like private schools which tried to remain segregated long after public schools were integrated. They are also illegal.
Integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government.
It is simply laughable that the government, in requiring gender integration, is practicing inequality based on what we've learned about equality from Brown v Board of Education...
On Lawn: "That is, undeniably, gender discrimination of a much more prejudiced nature."
DeleteAnd when you decided to build your life together with a woman, was that also prejudiced gender discrimination? Or did the differences between men and women play no part in your decision?
Also, On Lawn, would you find it appropriate if the government told you that you were not permitted to make that choice?
Delete_was that also prejudiced gender discrimination_
DeleteLOL... against which gender does a marriage discriminate that includes both in equal value, and equal responsibility and recognition of rights?
_Also, On Lawn, would you find it appropriate if the government told you that you were not permitted to make that choice?_
Even funnier.
On Lawn: "LOL... against which gender does a marriage discriminate that includes both in equal value, and equal responsibility and recognition of rights?"
DeleteDiscriminate "against" ? Discrimination needn't be against anything. Have you not read The Playful Walrus's article on discrimination", or the definition of discrimination I posted (which is consistent with PW's artlicle) ?
dis·crim·i·na·tion
noun /disˌkriməˈnāSHən/
Recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another
Synonyms
distinction - discernment - differentiation
We discriminate between one thing and another whenever we recognize and understand the differences between them. Your use of the term "against" suggests an antagonism that needn't occur when we make distinctions, exercise discernment or differentiate between two things.
So, when you were contemplating building a life together with another person, I'm guessing that gender played a part in your decision making. Please do correct me if I'm wrong. And if gender did play a part, then the difference between men and women would have been something you recognized and understood. Correct?
That is the definition of gender discrimination.
_I'm guessing that gender played a part in your decision making._
DeleteYes it did.
_And if gender did play a part, then the difference between men and women would have been something you recognized and understood. Correct?_
Correct.
_That is the definition of gender discrimination._
So you admit that marriage including both genders does not discriminate against a gender.
On Lawn: "So you admit that marriage including both genders does not discriminate against a gender."
DeleteI'd say that in a marriage between two people of the opposite gender, both parties practice gender discrimination when they select their partner. In a way consistent with their sexual orientations, they discriminate in favor of members of the opposite gender.
Discrimination - recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another - is part of the selection process. If there wasn't this gender discrimination, people would be choosing their partners without regard to gender.
_That is the definition of gender discrimination._
DeleteSo you admit that marriage including both genders does not discriminate against a gender.
On Lawn: "Yet integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government."
ReplyDeleteThat's like saying that illumination is a powerful way to protect against darkness.
But since you are so keen on it, perhaps you could provide any example of successful forced government integration - along with the measure by which you consider it a success?
Me: >> "Yet integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government."
DeleteSearch: > "That's like saying that illumination is a powerful way to protect against darkness."
Why, yes it is a lot like that.
_But since you are so keen on it, perhaps you could provide any example of successful forced government integration - along with the measure by which you consider it a success?_
But since integration is the Brown v Board of education standard, then being able to integrate is equality.
Do you know of any group of people being told they cannot integrate with a member of the other gender?
That would be like private schools which tried to remain segregated long after public schools were integrated. They are also illegal.
Integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government.
It is simply laughable that the government, in requiring gender integration, is practicing inequality based on what we've learned about equality from Brown v Board of Education...
LOL...
Anywhere someone is saying your identity requires you to discriminate against _the other gender_ in creating a marriage, is gender discrimination.
How weird that you quote my question but decline to answer it. For your convenience, here it is again:
DeleteBut since you are so keen on it, perhaps you could provide any example of successful forced government integration - along with the measure by which you consider it a success?
How weird you notice I answer your question, but then deny it.
DeleteHere's the answer again for your convenience :-D
(Silly Search)...
Me: >> "Yet integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government."
Search: > "That's like saying that illumination is a powerful way to protect against darkness."
Why, yes it is a lot like that.
_But since you are so keen on it, perhaps you could provide any example of successful forced government integration - along with the measure by which you consider it a success?_
But since integration is the Brown v Board of education standard, then being able to integrate is equality.
Do you know of any group of people being told they cannot integrate with a member of the other gender?
That would be like private schools which tried to remain segregated long after public schools were integrated. They are also illegal.
Integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government.
It is simply laughable that the government, in requiring gender integration, is practicing inequality based on what we've learned about equality from Brown v Board of Education...
LOL...
Anywhere someone is saying your identity requires you to discriminate against _the other gender_ in creating a marriage, is gender discrimination.
On Lawn: "How weird you notice I answer your question, but then deny it.
DeleteHere's the answer again for your convenience :-D:
OK - let me read through that and see where you provide any example of successful forced government integration - along with the measure by which you consider it a success. that is what you were asked.
....
OK, I see that you mention "Brown v Board of education". Again. As you have already done numerous times.
But you don't identify that as something you consider "forced government integration". Nor do you tell us that you believe it was successful. Nor do you tell us upon which metric you measure that success. In short, you answer zero of the three questions asked.
So, no, contrary to your claim I did not notice that you answer my question. Because you do not, yet continue to claim that you have.
BYW, Lawn, if your communication was clear, explicit and unambiguous there would be no need for these 25 questions you refuse to answer. That's on you.
Search, you are just silly. But entertaining.
DeleteYou have to realize that this hoop jumping scheme is probably your most harassing and egregious of habits.
Still, anyone who doesn't recognize what Brown vs Board of Education is forced government integration, and whether or not that was a success story, is welcome to join Search in claiming the question isn't answered.
:-D
_But you don't identify that as something you consider "forced government integration"._
Because Search can't figure that one out on his own either... LOL..
Lawn: "Still, anyone who doesn't recognize what Brown vs Board of Education is forced government integration, and whether or not that was a success story, is welcome to join Search in claiming the question isn't answered."
DeleteBut the question isn't what I think about Brown v Board. The question was about what YOU think. And until yo tell us that you think it is successful forced government integration, we have no way to know if that is what you think.
I'll take this as your acknowledgement (finally) that you consider Brown v Board of Education to be an example of successful forced government integration.
You leave unanswered the measure by which you consider Brown v Board to have been a success.
And an aside: I think its hilarious that you consider Q&A to be "hoop jumping". Even more so considering that you spend so much time and energy running away from questions, when answering would be much more expedient and productive.
_But the question isn't what I think about Brown v Board._
DeleteActually, the question is what you think Brown v Board of education is that it doesn't represent government mandated integration, or isn't successful.
You are the one claiming it isn't.
You need to keep up your end of the conversation, silly Search.
_I think its hilarious that you consider Q&A to be "hoop jumping"._
In general, when people are having an honest conversation, it isn't hoop jumping.
LOL...
Lawn: "You're the one claiming it isn't"
DeleteYou're asserting, I believe, that I have either claimed that Brown v Board is not government mandated integration and/or that I've claimed that it has not been successful. Bothe of these would be fabrications of your imagination, as I have made neither claim.
I have only asked you to share your thoughts on the matter. And you have still failed to disclose the measure by which you consider Brown v Board to be a success.
You spend so much time and energy running away from questions, when answering would be much more expedient and productive.
_Bothe of these would be fabrications of your imagination, as I have made neither claim._
DeleteSo lets get this straight, the fact that I gave it as an answer, and that it fits the criteria as you see it, all of those obvious facts are ignored while you pursue some obscure hope that I only answered in mistake while I meant to not answer.
That. is. Hilarious .... :-D
_I have only asked you to share your thoughts on the matter._
And you claim I didn't share my thoughts on the matter?
LOL...
_when answering would be much more expedient and productive._
Answering, yes, that was simple all of those times you seem to claim I didn't :-D
I've seem people stonewall a question, but you might be the first I've see to stonewall the answer, according to what I'm reading here. :-D
And you have still failed to disclose the measure by which you consider Brown v Board to be a success. ( All the while claiming to have answered! )
DeleteBy what measure isn't it a success?
DeleteNope. Not going down that rabbit hole.
DeleteYou didn't answer the question. You're still evading it. You are free to answer, or not answer.
You can even pretend that you've answered. But you haven't.
_Nope. Not going down that rabbit hole._
DeleteYes, because that "rabbit hole" would be the one you need to go down to show that I didn't show integration that was a success. Either I showed one that was, or I didn't, and you aren't even going to contest that it isn't a success on _any_ measure.
You really don't care about supporting the accusations you make, just you hope they have some impact outside of reason and honesty.
Funny. So the fact that I gave it as an answer, and that it fits the criteria as you see it, all of those obvious facts are ignored while you pursue some obscure hope that I only answered in mistake while I meant to not answer.
That. is. Hilarious .... :-D
No - its a rabbit hole because you refuse to disclose by what measure you consider Brown v. Board to be a success. Fill in that blank and we may have something more to talk about re: your claim that "integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government."
DeleteFunny,
DeleteSo Search won't contest that it was a success, but for sure he doesn't think I know any reason it was a success.
Hilarious.
Lawn: "So Search won't contest that it was a success, but for sure he doesn't think I know any reason it was a success."
DeleteIncorrect, as usual. You probably have something in mind that makes you think of Brown v Board as "successful".
But you also had something in mind that made you think it was "forced integration", which it is not. I suspect you may also be mistaken, and perhaps even factually incorrect, regarding whatever metrics you have in mind that qualifies BvB as a success to you.
What's with the phony coy act anyways? Are yo really content leaving your claim that "integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government" unsubstantiated ?
LOL...
DeleteYou can ready below why Search thinks that Brown v Board of education didn't force integration.
I'll be honest, having gone to schools where students were bused in (me on some occasions, and others to schools I attended in others) in order to integrate schools, it is hilarious that Search wants to make the claims he did.
After George Wallace and other instances of federal vs state armies in the wake of Brown v Board of Education, it is hilarious his twists that he attempts to try to claim it isn't a successful case of integration.
Stick a fork in Search, his dishonest and twists are so evident to anyone now that there is no more need for me here.
He's discredited himself like all liars do, by trusting in increasingly incredible tactics to portray a different reality than what really exists.
Lawn: "I'll be honest, having gone to schools where students were bused [SIC] in (me on some occasions, and others to schools I attended in others) in order to integrate schools, it is hilarious that Search wants to make the claims he did"
DeleteForced bussing was a result of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (1971) and Milliken v. Bradley (1974).
DId you want to change your answer from Brown v Board to forced bussing - as your example of successful forced government integration? By what measure do you consider forced bussing to have been successful please?
On Lawn writes: "{SearchCz's] inability to have an honest conversation and answer questions speaks volumes, lol..."
ReplyDeleteSo, let's review the questions On Lawn has declined to answer here on this page so far:
a) And what's the "club or workspace" that is trying to exclude women, On Lawn?
I've asked you six times. After dishonestly pretending that a typo (exlude) had him stymied, he posted (IN THE SAME COMMENT):
Playful's comment, "organizations, such as clubs and workplaces" ...
Search's recitation, "what's the 'club or workspace' that is trying to exclude women"
Clearly illustrating that he had read the original question minus the typo. Yet, he still has not named a club or workspace.
b) re: Lawn's "separate but equal" idea that same-sex couples raising children in committed relationships ought to have the protections of marriage, but called by some different name, I asked "For what purpose?"
His response: a rant about "the real parallel" which includes blatant misrepresentations as a result of On Lawns dishonest cherry picking of my statements.
c) after Lawn wrote "you are conflicting with the statement in fundamental ways" I asked:
1) What statement do you mean when you refer to "the statement" ?
2) What have I written that you perceive as "conflicting" ?
3) Name a couple of the "fundamental ways" that the thing I've written conflicts with what you call "the statement".
(still no answer from Lawn)
d) Also, Lawn, why do you keep writing "he bias is expressed easily on the face of it" ? What does that even mean?
e) ["Do you know of any group of people being told they cannot integrate with a member of the other gender?"]
lawn's response response: he calls me drunk.
f) Tell us, what (if anything) [an individual having the freedom to choose who he will marry] has to do with the force of law being used to exclude anyone from the institution of marriage?
Lawn's response (which I've seen plenty of times elsewhere as well) "What I wrote is sufficient to answer those questions.". The question is about what Lawn wrote ... referring me back to the writing that caused the question is a non-answer.
f) Are you suggesting that the status quo of marriage, which expects (among other things) that both parties to a marriage are participating willingly and without coercion, ought to change?
g) So it is gender discrimination to recognize and understand the difference between male and female .. something you likely exercised when you chose the person you wanted to join your life to. Did anyone say your identity required you to do that ?
h) And, again, who is saying that anyone should be required to discriminate against the other gender in creating a marriage ?
i) Also, On Lawn, would you find it appropriate if the government told you that you were not permitted to make that choice?
j) And when you decided to build your life together with a woman, was that also prejudiced gender discrimination?
k) Or did the differences between men and women play no part in your decision?
l) perhaps you could provide any example of successful forced government integration - along with the measure by which you consider it a success?
m) Explain why the fact that one exclusion is EXPLICIT and the other is IMPLICIT is significant - On Lawn.
So that's about 15 inquiries I've made pertaining to your comments here that you've declined to answer. Your responses - comments like "LOL" and "you're drunk" or copy/paste a previous BS dismissal - are non-answers.
DeleteSo, if we're being honest, we should acknowledge that On Lawn habitually runs away from questions. Combine that with his blatantly misrepresentative cherry picking in citations, his dismissive "LOL" and "you're drunk" type responses, his misattributions, and what do you get? Certainly NOT honest (or forthright) communication.
You should be a little more reserved about accusations about dishonesty and failure to answer questions, given your miserable track record here, On Lawn.
And this is the point where Search thinks not only I am dumb enough to fall for his baseless accusations, but that you are too.
DeleteIt shows Search is desperate, having lost every single topic of debate and is now trying to pretend the debate never happened by rebooting back to the questions.
LOL...
Search, the world is not as dumb as you think it is. And to be honest, you just might be for assuming that.
I'll tell you what.
In the interest of time, tell me which of those you think is your best example of something I didn't answer, and I'll provide the quotes and links to where it was answered.
I know I can do that for all of them. Your cheap accusations are just a sign of your desperation.
Lawn : "In the interest of time, tell me which of those you think is your best example of something I didn't answer, and I'll provide the quotes and links to where it was answered."
DeleteThat's not honest communication, Lawn. You've already passed on that opportunity by habitually declining to answer questions in order to explain your position. YOu've done that roughly 25 times in our last two conversations. And then you have the gall to accuse me of not answering questions!
I wouldn't say that you're dumb, but you do present yourself as a hypocrite peddling double standards re: honest communication.
Search is hilarious...
DeleteI ask for him to give me the one of the 25 he thought was the best example of his complaint, and he calls that "not honest communication".
Is there something you are afraid of there Search?
I've not avoided any of the questions. If I did avoid every one of the 25 questions, any one Search points to would be verifiable. I'm offering him a very generous bargain.
But just note above where one of those was already dealt with, even with a half admission from Search that he was wrong in claiming it wasn't answered. (The other half was claiming that while he recognized it as an answer, he didn't see where I specified every aspect of it, even though the reason he knows it is through common knowledge anyway).
http://playfulwalrus.blogspot.com/2013/03/purposes-and-meaning-of-words.html?showComment=1371755874061#c6276776548072765808
So there you go. Search already knows he can't defend his accusation for any one of those, and instead tries to make up for quantity what he lacks in quality for any one of them.
LOL...
If you were communicating honestly, there wouldn't be 25 unanswered questions hanging out there.
Deletelawn: "even with a half admission from Search that he was wrong in claiming it wasn't answered"
Incorrect. The example you cite is me guessing at what you meant to be your answer. Which, by the way, is till incomplete."
_If you were communicating honestly, there wouldn't be 25 unanswered questions hanging out there._
DeleteExactly. They aren't unanswered.
Which means the point of dishonesty is in your accusation, silly Search... LOL...
_The example you cite is me guessing at what you meant to be your answer._
Funny. So the fact that I gave it as an answer, and that it fits the criteria as you see it, all of those obvious facts are ignored while you pursue some obscure hope that I only answered in mistake while I meant to not answer.
That. is. Hilarious .... :-D
I asked: But since you are so keen on it, perhaps you could provide any example of successful forced government integration - along with the measure by which you consider it a success?
DeleteYou responded: "But since integration is the Brown v Board of education standard, then being able to integrate is equality."
Notably absent in your response:
1) any acknowledgement that you perceive Brown v Board to be forced government integration. You just call it "integration", when the question calls for an example of "forced government integration".
2) any acknowledgement that yo consider Brown v Board to be successful
3) any indication of the measure by which you might call Brown v Board a success.
You still haven't mentioned what you consider the measure of success for Brown v Board - yet you want to pretend like the things you've written answer my questions. You are incorrect, sir.
Let's just agree that you've run away from repeated opportunities to illustrate your claim that government enforced integration is successful. I'm happy to leave it at that.
Funny. So the fact that I gave it as an answer, and that it fits the criteria as you see it, all of those obvious facts are ignored while you pursue some obscure hope that I only answered in mistake while I meant to not answer.
DeleteThat. is. Hilarious .... :-D
Your so called answer is merely a mention of Brown v Board. You don't call Brown v Board forced government integration, you don't call it successful, and you continue to run away from mentioning the measure of success you have in mind. I'm not going to guess that you meant any of those things. And you fail to state it.
DeleteFunny. So the fact that I gave it as an answer, and that it fits the criteria as you see it, all of those obvious facts are ignored while you pursue some obscure hope that I only answered in mistake while I meant to not answer.
DeleteThat. is. Hilarious .... :-D
On Lawn wrote: "Yet integration, especially enforced by the government, is a powerful way to protect against segregation and exclusion under government."
ReplyDeleteSo I asked: "perhaps you could provide any example of successful forced government integration - along with the measure by which you consider it a success?"
After much prodding, we finally get that On Lawn believes Brown v Board of Education (BvB) to be an example that supports his claim .... but he still won't tell us how he's measuring that "success" that he talks about.
But lets proceed with what we do know. On Lawn presents Brown v Board of Education as an example of forced integration. He is incorrect. BvB is an example of desegregation, which is not the same thing as integration.
de·seg·re·ga·tion [dee-seg-ri-gey-shuhn, dee-seg-]
noun
the elimination of laws, customs, or practices under which different races, groups, etc., are restricted to specific or separate public facilities, neighborhoods, schools, organizations, or the like.
BvB eliminated laws under which different races were restricted to certain schools. as a result, children were permitted to attend schools from which they had previously been restricted. They were not forced by BvB to do so.
Now, for contrast, consider racial integration. Racial integration is something that is permitted to happen when restrictive laws are removed. So one could say that BvB made integration possible, but it would be incorrect to say that it caused racial integration of schools. And certainly incorrect to claim that BvB forced integration in schools.
Would you like to pick another example, Lawn? Or shall we move on to "success" of BvB?
_BvB is an example of desegregation, which is not the same thing as integration._
ReplyDeleteOkay, for everyone here who thinks that desegregation isn't integration, they can follow you to believe I didn't answer the question :-D
_They were not forced by BvB to do so_
Again, everyone who believes Search in this can certainly chime in to support him :-D
Just remember folks, this is the same person who asks you to trust him on so many other issues about equality.
From the Wikipedia...
_______________
Local outcomes
The Topeka middle schools had been integrated since 1941. Topeka High School was integrated from its inception in 1871 and its sports teams from 1949 on.[22] The Kansas law permitting segregated schools allowed them only "below the high school level."[23]
Soon after the district court decision, election outcomes and the political climate in Topeka changed. The Board of Education of Topeka began to end segregation in the Topeka elementary schools in August 1953, integrating two attendance districts. All the Topeka elementary schools were changed to neighborhood attendance centers in January 1956, although existing students were allowed to continue attending their prior assigned schools at their option.[24][25][26] Plaintiff Zelma Henderson, in a 2004 interview, recalled that no demonstrations or tumult accompanied desegregation in Topeka's schools:
"They accepted it," she said. "It wasn't too long until they integrated the teachers and principals."[27]
The Topeka Public Schools administration building is named in honor of McKinley Burnett, NAACP chapter president who organized the case.
Monroe Elementary was designated a U.S. National Historic Site unit of the National Park Service on October 26, 1992.
_________________
And on the point of being forced...
________________
In 1957, Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus called out his state's National Guard to block black students' entry to Little Rock Central High School. President Dwight Eisenhower responded by deploying elements of the 101st Airborne Division from Fort Campbell, Kentucky, to Arkansas and by federalizing Arkansas's National Guard.[30]
Also in 1957, Florida's response was mixed. Its legislature passed an Interposition Resolution denouncing the decision and declaring it null and void. But Florida Governor Thomas LeRoy Collins, though joining in the protest against the court decision, refused to sign it arguing that the attempt to overturn the ruling must be done by legal methods.
In 1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace personally blocked the door to Foster Auditorium at the University of Alabama to prevent the enrollment of two black students. This became the infamous Stand in the Schoolhouse Door[31] where Wallace personally backed his "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" policy that he had stated in his 1963 inaugural address.[32] He moved aside only when confronted by General Henry Graham of the Alabama National Guard, who was ordered by President John F. Kennedy to intervene.
__________________________
If anyone agrees with Search, they are welcome to join him in claiming I didn't come up with an example of "forced governmetn integration".
If anyone is taking Search seriously at this point, please let me know.
For someone who is usually so picky about language, its sure curious that you decided to get sloppy now.
DeleteSegregation is a a forced separation of people based on some characteristic such a race or sex.
Desegregation is the dismantling of those restrictions.
Integration is the act of those separated people coming together, with or without a change in the law. ( as in Richard & Mildred Loving, whose integrated marriage defied the law, giving us an example of integration without desegregation )
Here are a few people - among them leaders of the US civil rights movement - who have already "chimed in" on the distinctions between desegregation and integration:
Morris J. MacGregor, Jr. in his paper "Integration of the Armed Forces 1940-1969" writes concerning the words integration and desegregation: "...In recent years many historians have come to distinguish between these like-sounding words.. The movement toward desegregation, breaking down the nation's Jim Crow system, became increasingly popular in the decade after World War II. Integration, on the other hand, Professor Oscar Handlin maintains, implies several things not yet necessarily accepted in all areas of American society."
Keith M. Woods writing on the need for precision in journalistic language: "Integration happens when a monolith is changed, like when a black family moves into an all-white neighborhood. Integration happens even without a mandate from the law. Desegregation," on the other hand, "was the legal remedy to segregation."
Henry Organ, identifying himself as a participant in the Civil Rights Movement on the Peninsula, wrote: "The term 'desegregation' is normally reserved to the legal/legislative domain, and it was the legalization of discrimination in public institutions based on race that many fought against in the '60s. The term 'integration,' on the other hand, pertains to a social domain; it does and should refer to individuals of different background who opt to interact."
James Farmer (1920-1999), a major figure in the civil rights movement of the 1950s and '60s, describes the distinction between integration and desegregation, two terms often used interchangeably and often confused. According to Farmer, who in 1965 was the national director of the Congress for Racial Equality (CORE), as the civil rights movement gained momentum, the demand that public facilities be open to African Americans evolved into a desire to see blacks dispersed throughout white America. In some cases this led to nearly comic ironies, like quotas to include only a certain number of blacks and no more; while in other cases it reflected negatively on black institutions and on blacks themselves. Farmer argues for desegregation, which would give African Americans the choice to integrate or live separately. In a desegregated society, the choice to live apart would not constitute segregation because it would be freely made and would carry no stigma of inferiority or subjugation. Thus the freedom afforded by desegregation would change the meaning of racial separation. Farmer's comments indicate that the civil rights movement was not a monolithic mass of like-minded activists but was rather as diverse as the beliefs of its participants. Farmer and others did not see integration as wholly beneficial to African Americans; he thought desegregation was, however. The difference between the two lies at the center
On Lawn: And on to the point of being forced
DeleteBvB eliminated laws under which different races were restricted to certain schools. as a result, children were permitted to attend schools from which they had previously been restricted. They were not forced by BvB to do so.
Nothing you posted disputed this. BvB meant that school districts were no longer permitted to segregate - they could not restrict students from a given school based on race. They were required to allow students to attend a school regardless of race. School districts were NOT required, under BvB, to force students of different races into the same school.
In 1957, in Little Rock Arkansas, the school board had already unanimously agreed to comply with Brown v. Board (BvB). Ike sent troops to stop the then-governor's illegal attempt at perpetuating illegal segregation, and to allow the school board to implement the plan it had agreed upon. Point being, neither the Little Rock school board, nor the students, nor the individual schools were being forced to integrate.
Similarly, in 1963, the governor of Alabama illegally attempted to stop the desegregation of schools, and was not allowed to do so. the so-called "stand at the schoolhouse door" culminated in the governor being told to step aside, after which the black students he had come there to block entered the school and enrolled. Again, neither the school nor the students were forced to integrate ... but the illegal attempt by the governor to perpetuate segregation was thwarted.
Search,
DeleteYour farce is simply evident on the face of it.
Only you remain convinced that in some small obscure way you _might_ be even remotely right on this.
Your splitting hairs is evident between desegregation an integration. The distinction between being forced by a ruling, and being forced by the enforcement of a ruling, is similarly laughable. Any difference between forced to accept students of different races, and being forced to find students of different races is probably the most hilarious of your attempts. Both, really, are forced integration, no matter what you want to claim you meant.
But not just laughable, but it shows just how much trust you put in such dishonest sophistry. You now have nothing to rely on except such dishonesty, and that just exposes it all the more.
Such is the orwellian, and sometimes carollwellian abuse of language that tries to conceal so many lies behind neutering "man and woman" from the definition of marriage.
On Lawn: "Only you remain convinced that in some small obscure way you _might_ be even remotely right on this. Your splitting hairs is evident between desegregation an integration."
DeleteIncorrect. I've provided citations of several people who also point out the distinction between desegregation and integration. Morris J. MacGregor, Jr., Keith M. Woods, Henry Organ and James Farmer all make that distinction. Perhaps you have a quote or citation from somebody involved in the civil rights movement saying that there is no difference between desegregation and integration? If so, please do share it. Until then, I think we need to rely on the quotes and citations I've provided. If it was important enough for the four gentlemen I cited to make the distinction, I'll not call it "splitting hairs".
Also - please pay attention as I repeat what I wrote earlier: the schools you mention in your claim of "forced integration" were prepared to comply voluntarily (if reluctantly) with Brown v Board. They did not need to be forced to comply. The force in the examples you cite was to counter illegal outside interference with schools that were prepared to comply with Brown v. Board's desegregation order.
This article is called Purposes and the Meaning of Words
DeleteAs Playful Walrus says, "words mean things". No matter how inconvenient that might be for you, On Lawn, words mean things.
How ironic that, in his responses here, On Lawn treats the words desegregation and integration as if they were the same words, with identical meanings. He does likewise with the words force and permit. And he complains when I point out that these are different words, with different meanings. Strange!