Total Posts:2|Showing Posts:1-2
Jump to topic:

I don't understand these arguments

Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 3:51:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are two arguments about controversial topics that I don't quite understand. I do not want this thread to be about either topic as a whole, just the specific arguments I lay out.

Abortion: Woman's right to privacy.
What does this mean? A woman has the right to a medical operation without anyone knowing? Okay, so who is telling? If the operation is illegal, the doctor who is performing it cannot divulge the information, as he, too, is committing a crime.

Furthermore, if the fetus were considered to have rights, its presence in the discussion between doctor and mother voids any privacy claim. Plus, if you and I are plotting an assassination attempt, can not our phones be tapped, thus violating our privacy?

So, how is privacy an issue?

Gay Marriage: Anti-SSM law are discriminatory.
I have problems with this argument, as a matter of legal principle. To make a claim for discrimination, one must show harm in the law.

1. Any man, gay or not, cannot marry another man. This is equal application of the law.
2. Any man, gay or not, is able to marry a woman of their choice. The fact that a gay man chooses not to marry a woman is immaterial to his ability to, in fact, get married. (This is not to say one chooses to be gay, just that people choose their spouse).

So, a gay man is not barred from marrying, nor is he subject to a separate rule (like a straight man being able to marry a man).

Now, does this have a discriminating effect? Yes. Gay men will opt not to marry as their spouse of choice is a man. But, the application of the law is not discriminatory.

Furthermore, if the effect is all it takes to make something discrimination as a legal matter, then what law isn't discrimination?
A man cannot go home and talk with his fists to his wife or child? This is discrimination to his ability to let of steam. However, we say that no one is allowed to assault others for no good reason. Equal application, but effects some negatively.

All things being equal, a single father pays less in taxes than I would as a single non-father. This is discrimination as he pays less than I do. However, all guardians have these deductions/credits at their disposal. Equal application, but effects some negatively. Additionally, why does someone making 10x as much as someone else pay more than 10x in taxes? Because anyone making $X pays $Y in taxes, period.

All things being equal, being arrested with possession of "an eighth" of weed will get me less time than someone arrested with five pounds. Possession is the crime that is applied equally, but the amount allows differing sentences.

The legal argument of discrimination means nothing if it is applied to the effects of laws, as every law will discriminate against someone. This is not to say that the layman's claim to discrimination has no merit (like in pressuring a business to offer health insurance to domestic partners), just not in the court of law.
My work here is, finally, done.
Posts: 8,158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/30/2013 8:36:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I agree that the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation argument doesn't hold water. I think that discrimination on the basis of sex is much more effective. Basically, the government is telling people who they can sign a marriage contract with based on the sex of the involved parties when there is no real state interest in making that distinction. In the end the supposed justification for such discrimination boils down to the raising of children, and the anti gay marriage crowd trots out the same old tired, ragtag group of studies that can be debunked in five minutes by any scientifically literate person who takes the time to read them. Either that or the argument goes in circles until the gay marriage supporter gives up, and their opponent declares victory in the classic chess-with-pigeons scenario.
"For a society in which the determinant mass of families were owners of capital and of land; for one in which production was regulated by self-governing corporations of small owners; and for one in which the misery and insecurity of a proletariat was unknown, there came to be substituted the dreadful moral anarchy against which all moral effort is now turned, and which goes by the name of Capitalism."
- Hilaire Belloc -