Logical extensions of bathroom decision

[IndyDave1776]

Separate but equal is your idea of a "reasonable alternative"?

Equal but not lying about what it is would be the reasonable alternative.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

Yes, and I am going to start identifying as an Iowa-class battleship and start demanding DoD funding!

One word keeps rolling around in my head.

Mothballs.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

I'm waiting for a a decent boy's bteam to decide they are girls and want to play girl's basketball. I am also looking forward to some track and field boys deciding they are girls and cleaning out all the state girl's records in a few seasons.

 

[The Meach]

Damn you're talented at being willfully obtuse. The numbers are irrelevant. The point at issue is that after one particularly contentions fight, they were offered a reasonable alternative assigning everything but legislative imprimatur through the use of the word 'marriage', and they vocally rejected equal rights throwing a f**king sh*t fit until they got legislated imprimatur tantamount to policing thought. That was enough to take me from a modicum of sympathy to none whatsoever, but I understand that you are going to scream up a lung following the leftist line to the end.

Since you apparently don't understand the point, let me reiterate. Equality does not include legislating and/or adjudicating social acceptance, and no one is entitled to government-enforced social acceptance, which so far as I can see is a major part of this issue.

I have to agree with you on the numbers, they were wholly irrelevant. The Supreme Court we pretty clear and the word "Marriage" was only part of the fight. But the gay marriage debate is meaningless at this point. It's over.

my only sticking point with your statement is your use of "government-enforced social acceptance". You are not being forced to accept anything. All these people got was legal standing and rights to certain bureaucratic procedures and privileges. A gay couples' marriage has literally nothing to do with you, and affects you and no way. You do NOT have to personally accept it. Heck I'm catholic, technically any married couple that hasn't gone through the Catholic sacrament and ceremony doesn't count to me. But i don't fight to prevent to prevent protestants from using the word marriage. Because that would be silly it doesn't affect me. And since my religion doesn't rule the country (thank God, us Catholics reeeeealy shouldn't be in charge of stuff) I think any public tax status or legal contract should be available to everyone equally.

 

[Lowe0]

Equal but not lying about what it is would be the reasonable alternative.

Personally, I would have preferred that we turn marriage over to the religious, and simply enact civil unions for all (gay or straight); it really makes no difference to me what the legal term for my relationship with my spouse is. But if we're not going to do that, then having separate statuses just leaves the door open for discrimination.

 

[HoughMade]

This whole thread is TL/DR, but I think I know what's going on.

When you have a bathroom decision to make, you ALWAYS install the elongated bowl. If you have a small bathroom...you remodel it and install the elongated bowl.

Period.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I have to agree with you on the numbers, they were wholly irrelevant. The Supreme Court we pretty clear and the word "Marriage" was only part of the fight. But the gay marriage debate is meaningless at this point. It's over.

my only sticking point with your statement is your use of "government-enforced social acceptance". You are not being forced to accept anything. All these people got was legal standing and rights to certain bureaucratic procedures and privileges. A gay couples' marriage has literally nothing to do with you, and affects you and no way. You do NOT have to personally accept it. Heck I'm catholic, technically any married couple that hasn't gone through the Catholic sacrament and ceremony doesn't count to me. But i don't fight to prevent to prevent protestants from using the word marriage. Because that would be silly it doesn't affect me. And since my religion doesn't rule the country (thank God, us Catholics reeeeealy shouldn't be in charge of stuff) I think any public tax status or legal contract should be available to everyone equally.

Stop. Take a step back. First, tell me how allowing government to redefine language is not a threat. They wouldn't cause any harm redefining 'marriage', just like there is not harm in redefining 'reasonable', 'regulate', or 'infringe'.

Second, refusing the entire package of rights aside from the word marriage indicates no reasonable explanation other than a demand for imprimatur. Once again, there is no right to legislated social acceptance.

Third, no one said anything about the rights but rather the redefinition of language and enforced acceptance.

Personally, I would have preferred that we turn marriage over to the religious, and simply enact civil unions for all (gay or straight); it really makes no difference to me what the legal term for my relationship with my spouse is. But if we're not going to do that, then having separate statuses just leaves the door open for discrimination.

I could go along with this for the most part, but it is patently obvious that the fight over language is first a demand for enforced acceptance at a level far beyond natural social change, and second and more important, opens unintended consequences by affording the government the authority it has never had to redefine language. Once again, we have already had enough trouble with this.

As for the toilet, if we are going to have a third gender, then build a third john and be done with it.

 

[The Meach]

Stop. Take a step back. First, tell me how allowing government to redefine language is not a threat. They wouldn't cause any harm redefining 'marriage', just like there is not harm in redefining 'reasonable', 'regulate', or 'infringe'.

Second, refusing the entire package of rights aside from the word marriage indicates no reasonable explanation other than a demand for imprimatur. Once again, there is no right to legislated social acceptance.

Third, no one said anything about the rights but rather the redefinition of language and enforced acceptance.

I could go along with this for the most part, but it is patently obvious that the fight over language is first a demand for enforced acceptance at a level far beyond natural social change, and second and more important, opens unintended consequences by affording the government the authority it has never had to redefine language. Once again, we have already had enough trouble with this.

As for the toilet, if we are going to have a third gender, then build a third john and be done with it.

Obergefell v. Hodges wasn't even about "approving" of gay marriage so i feel your continued use of the word imprimatur is not appropriate in this context. The 14th amendment argument in Obergefell v. Hodges was that the right for homosexuals to marry was inherent and inalienable. That any form of legislative or judicial "approval" was unnecessary because their right to marry is an inherent right and the unlawful act was the legislative attempt to strip them of that right. So no imprimatur sought or given, The right for homosexuals to marry was found to be as inalienable a right as free speech or the right to bear arms.

Remember in our country our rights are not granted by the state. They are inherent and inalienable, endowed unto us upon by the mere fact of our creation by our creator (whatever that means to you).

Obergefell v. Hodges didn't redefine language, it constrained the government from stripping the inalienable rights of our fellow citizens.

 

[Lowe0]

Stop. Take a step back. First, tell me how allowing government to redefine language is not a threat. They wouldn't cause any harm redefining 'marriage', just like there is not harm in redefining 'reasonable', 'regulate', or 'infringe'.

Second, refusing the entire package of rights aside from the word marriage indicates no reasonable explanation other than a demand for imprimatur. Once again, there is no right to legislated social acceptance.

Third, no one said anything about the rights but rather the redefinition of language and enforced acceptance.



I could go along with this for the most part, but it is patently obvious that the fight over language is first a demand for enforced acceptance at a level far beyond natural social change, and second and more important, opens unintended consequences by affording the government the authority it has never had to redefine language. Once again, we have already had enough trouble with this.

How is the government supposed to enforce the law if they don't define the language? If religion defines marriage, then the government becomes the enforcement arm of the church. Better the law be repealed entirely than let that happen.

 

[IndyDave1776]

How is the government supposed to enforce the law if they don't define the language? If religion defines marriage, then the government becomes the enforcement arm of the church. Better the law be repealed entirely than let that happen.

OK, let's get all three brains cells in gear and wrap them around the fact that rights, equal rights, can be afforded without redefining a particular definition that has been a consistent heterosexual phenomenon throughout human history. Much in the same way that we did not resolve equal rights among races by declaring to all minority persons that they are now white, redefining the language is not the solution here either.

 

[Lowe0]

OK, let's get all three brains cells in gear and wrap them around the fact that rights, equal rights, can be afforded without redefining a particular definition that has been a consistent heterosexual phenomenon throughout human history. Much in the same way that we did not resolve equal rights among races by declaring to all minority persons that they are now white, redefining the language is not the solution here either.

I already said that I'd be behind a solution that wouldn't involve redefining anything. But that didn't end up happening, so we're stuck with the present situation for the foreseeable future.

Besides, "we've always done it this way" is hardly a compelling argument. We also used to only let men be in charge and let people own other people. Just because those were traditions didn't make them the best, or even particularly good, ideas.

 

[actaeon277]

I have to agree with you on the numbers, they were wholly irrelevant. The Supreme Court we pretty clear and the word "Marriage" was only part of the fight. But the gay marriage debate is meaningless at this point. It's over.

my only sticking point with your statement is your use of "government-enforced social acceptance". You are not being forced to accept anything. All these people got was legal standing and rights to certain bureaucratic procedures and privileges. A gay couples' marriage has literally nothing to do with you, and affects you and no way. You do NOT have to personally accept it. Heck I'm catholic, technically any married couple that hasn't gone through the Catholic sacrament and ceremony doesn't count to me. But i don't fight to prevent to prevent protestants from using the word marriage. Because that would be silly it doesn't affect me. And since my religion doesn't rule the country (thank God, us Catholics reeeeealy shouldn't be in charge of stuff) I think any public tax status or legal contract should be available to everyone equally.

Over?
Like debate on the 2nd amendment?
Like the legality of abortion?


There is no over. I think Marx actually had that one right. Politics is a constant battle.

 

[actaeon277]

Crap.
I wasn't going to speak in this thread.

 

[The Meach]

OK, let's get all three brains cells in gear and wrap them around the fact that rights, equal rights, can be afforded without redefining a particular definition that has been a consistent heterosexual phenomenon throughout human history. Much in the same way that we did not resolve equal rights among races by declaring to all minority persons that they are now white, redefining the language is not the solution here either.

ok I think I'm starting to understand our base disconnect here.

To start, fundamentally we agree. The Government does not have the right to redefine language. Specifically the government does not have the right to redefine marriage. Again on that topic we agree.

our separation comes from our perspective on what occurred to get us to this point. from what I am understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) You belive the government has operated outside it scope by, without authorization by the people, redefining the very term marriage to something it previously wasn't. And thus created this situation we are in now. It that right?

Now here is my perspective (and the perspective of many others on the other side of the issue from you.) Government has NO ownership of language or culture in any way. We don't have a ministry of culture or a office of dictionary. So in the realm of culture and language the government must be reactive. Thats why many of our laws will have supporting documentation or exact definitions in the text, because our language changes over time. Now those on my side of the debate felt the government was overstepping it's bounds by trying to maintain the definition of marriage in the first place, with laws like DOMA and many pieces of state legislation. As people began to redefine the idea of marriage for themselves they felt it was not the governments place to interfere. So long as no other laws were being broken (age of consent, of right mind, ect.) they felt it it was not the governments place to prevent them from defining the relationships in their own life and seeking the same public contracts that are available to everyone else. The Supreme Court agreed, and decided not to define who a marriage could be between, but that the government couldn't define who a marriage could be between.

So we both agree that the government should not be controlling or manipulating language, we just disagree on what that actually means.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I already said that I'd be behind a solution that wouldn't involve redefining anything. But that didn't end up happening, so we're stuck with the present situation for the foreseeable future.

Besides, "we've always done it this way" is hardly a compelling argument. We also used to only let men be in charge and let people own other people. Just because those were traditions didn't make them the best, or even particularly good, ideas.

ok I think I'm starting to understand our base disconnect here.

To start, fundamentally we agree. The Government does not have the right to redefine language. Specifically the government does not have the right to redefine marriage. Again on that topic we agree.

our separation comes from our perspective on what occurred to get us to this point. from what I am understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) You belive the government has operated outside it scope by, without authorization by the people, redefining the very term marriage to something it previously wasn't. And thus created this situation we are in now. It that right?

Now here is my perspective (and the perspective of many others on the other side of the issue from you.) Government has NO ownership of language or culture in any way. We don't have a ministry of culture or a office of dictionary. So in the realm of culture and language the government must be reactive. Thats why many of our laws will have supporting documentation or exact definitions in the text, because our language changes over time. Now those on my side of the debate felt the government was overstepping it's bounds by trying to maintain the definition of marriage in the first place, with laws like DOMA and many pieces of state legislation. As people began to redefine the idea of marriage for themselves they felt it was not the governments place to interfere. So long as no other laws were being broken (age of consent, of right mind, ect.) they felt it it was not the governments place to prevent them from defining the relationships in their own life and seeking the same public contracts that are available to everyone else. The Supreme Court agreed, and decided not to define who a marriage could be between, but that the government couldn't define who a marriage could be between.

So we both agree that the government should not be controlling or manipulating language, we just disagree on what that actually means.

This all sounds reasonable enough for the most part. I don't necessarily hold to the notion that 'because it's always been that way' is a justification, but when something has had a stable definition in every major culture throughout the entire length of human history, it requires careful thought before changing direction.

As distasteful as I find the subject matter at hand, that does not justify truncating the rights of others. I can accept equal rights to share worldly rights, privileges, and responsibilities. I also see it through the same lens as that through which I see that the original civil rights issue didn't stop with a president declaring, "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to announce that today I signed into law legislation making all citizens equal. Effective immediately, you are ALL white!" We have manufactured an new phenomenon, and it should be treated as such, and not conflated with something else.

I also have to emphasize that not only do I see an element of policing thought behind the redefinition of the word 'marriage' as opposed to assigning a new arrangement its own identity, but also a great deal of potential for malfeasance in the course of redefining other language.

It is also important to consider that there has been considerable overreach of constitutional authority on the part of the federal government. Using the Equal Protection clause as a justification would allow for the demand of equal rights, but not redefinition of language with no apparent purpose other than applying government imprimatur and by extension policing thought.

 

[Lowe0]

I also have to emphasize that not only do I see an element of policing thought behind the redefinition of the word 'marriage' as opposed to assigning a new arrangement its own identity, but also a great deal of potential for malfeasance in the course of redefining other language.

You would think that firearm owners, of all people, would understand the importance of judging something on its merits instead of assuming that a thing must be banned because someone, somewhere, could possibly do something bad with it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

You would think that firearm owners, of all people, would understand the importance of judging something on its merits instead of assuming that a thing must be banned because someone, somewhere, could possibly do something bad with it.

Bad things are already being done with redefinition. In 1789-speak, 'regulate' meant to facilitate something or make it work properly, not to control, constrain, or micromanage it, and certainly not prohibit it. 'Militia' was the sum total of armed citizens who happened not to be participating in a standing army. 'Reasonable' has also taken a beating. We are continuing to push the door open farther by insisting on redefining marriage into something it has never in world history been operating under the falsehood that it is the same thing when it is not. I fail to see why a little truth in advertising is an unreasonable expectation, except, of course, it does not help a certain subset of the population achieve government-sponsored acceptance for the purpose of furthering an agenda.

 

[The Meach]

This all sounds reasonable enough for the most part. I don't necessarily hold to the notion that 'because it's always been that way' is a justification, but when something has had a stable definition in every major culture throughout the entire length of human history, it requires careful thought before changing direction.

As distasteful as I find the subject matter at hand, that does not justify truncating the rights of others. I can accept equal rights to share worldly rights, privileges, and responsibilities. I also see it through the same lens as that through which I see that the original civil rights issue didn't stop with a president declaring, "My fellow Americans, I am pleased to announce that today I signed into law legislation making all citizens equal. Effective immediately, you are ALL white!" We have manufactured an new phenomenon, and it should be treated as such, and not conflated with something else.

I also have to emphasize that not only do I see an element of policing thought behind the redefinition of the word 'marriage' as opposed to assigning a new arrangement its own identity, but also a great deal of potential for malfeasance in the course of redefining other language.

It is also important to consider that there has been considerable overreach of constitutional authority on the part of the federal government. Using the Equal Protection clause as a justification would allow for the demand of equal rights, but not redefinition of language with no apparent purpose other than applying government imprimatur and by extension policing thought.

Thanks for the awesome reply. I feel like we really understand eachothers positions now, and we just disagree on some stuff. But I think we agree on a lot more then we disagree on.

I totally agree with you that long standing pillars of civilization should be thoroughly discussed before we start moving things. And while I feel that the people that needed their rights addressed had that done, the conversation isn't over and will likely last a generation.

I wholeheartedly agree that we need to keep a watchful eye to an emboldened left-leaning party that feels like it "won" and is using it like a mandate to try and force it's vision of social change down the throats of the unwilling.

And I too see the thought police storming down the street trying to cleanse us of our impurity. As an elder millennial I spend a lot of time chastising my younger dumber fellow countrymen on their safesspace bull****.

And I agree that the judicial could easily jump out of line. the 9th and 14th Amendments have been adopted then corrupted by some federal judges as a blank check. and we need to rein that in.

 

[Jludo]

Interesting story about a trans person who became a man at 52, he said legally he had to use the womans bathroom and hes had young kids ask their parents why hes in the woman's room.
Interesting how it cuts both ways

 

[IndyDave1776]

Interesting story about a trans person who became a man at 52, he said legally he had to use the womans bathroom and hes had young kids ask their parents why hes in the woman's room.
Interesting how it cuts both ways

I am going to say that there is plenty of blame to go around. It is easy to point to the law with its obvious unintended consequences, but then again, had the other side accepted a bit of "if it's not broken, don't fix it" and perhaps a shade of "don't ask, don't tell", we likely would have been able to bypass this problem. Imperfect as it is, the law was an understandable response to a temper tantrum which was not necessary, again, resting on asserting a right to acceptance and to run roughshod over the majority which cannot be reasonably believed to actually exist. The unintended consequences include laws like this, persons complying and making others really wonder why they are in the john they are in on account of conforming to their genetic gender, and opening a door wide open for secondary effects particularly including court decisions that not only upend traditional gender divisions, but also throw the door wide open for pervs to ride piggyback. It is also of concern to me that those pushing this agenda apparently don't give a flying f**k about the latter issue so long as they can run roughshod over everyone else.

At this point, I would say that the best workable solution would be a third facility for trans person. The problem is that the temper tantrum won't stop. There was a school corporation a few years back that had a boy in high school decided that he was a girl, and pursued court action for access to the girls' facilities claiming to feel uncomfortable in the boy's room. The school countered by offering use of the single-user staff facilities. The response was continued legal action demanding access to the girls' facilities, which the courts eventually granted in spite of the problem having been address through a reasonable compromise in which no one could reasonably claim to be harmed aside from not being granted official imprimatur on transgender status. This is another case that served to eliminate my sympathy.

At the end of the day, the other side is not interested in peacefully coexisting or finding workable compromises with everyone else but rather are willing to accept only running roughshod over everyone else and having government-sponsored endorsement of their position.