CE - Volume 2

[riley]

Did I just get kicked in the arse by a Republican? Wasn't much of a kick. Maybe it was a Red Wing fan...

[stratman19]

Ouch!

[Meursault]

My only problem with the Red Wings was Federov, just don't like him, no particularly good reason. They have Stevey Y though which makes them ok in my book.

[stratman19]

Atta boy Shane. And Federov is a prima donna and a big pussy.

[chrisfan]

Avalanche, Avalanche, Avalanche. And that's all I have to say about that.

[chrisfan]

Geez, you let those Candadians get in on the CE discussion, and look how quickly it focuses on hockey. I guess we'll get into the Labatts vs Molson debate from now until election day next, huh?

[riley]

Yes. Mission accomplished, and in the off season no less.

[Dr. Drum]

Nah, Molson sucks. And Labatts isn't much better, come to think of it.

[riley]

We'll leave the beer thing for next week some time.

[stratman19]

I curse you for that Avalanche post, Chrisfan.

[riley]

Second mission accomplished. We've got the conservative Yanks fighting with each other now, and over hockey no less. Strike quick while they're weak.

Thank the Canadians later ;D

[Dr. Drum]

Good day's work there, Riley.

[stratman19]

Damn Canadians...

[Mary]

Chrisfan said:

First, on the issue of "moral decay" and how, if at all, gay marriage applies to the issue -- I think that it does, only in that the most commonly heard arguments in favor of gay marriage are the same as I see for moral decay "but that's what makes me happy, so that's what I'm going to do". That line of thinking, IMO, is the problem that causes the moral decay that we're facing.

I think there's a bit of a logical flaw in this argument. Wanting to do something that makes you happy is only a moral problem if the thing you want to do is itself morally dubious.

For example, I want a new pair of rollerblades because it will make me happy. Is rollerblading contributing to the moral decay of society?

I'm also going to get my hair re-done next week. The only reason I'm doing this is because having dark hair makes me happy. Does that mean having my hair done is part of the moral decay of society?

Chrisfan, I'm sure that you also frequently do things for no other reason than that they make you happy. And you're absolutely right, your happiness would not justify doing something that was objectionable on its own terms. But that's the prior question. If the action isn't at all objectionable on its own terms, then there's nothing wrong with doing it for the sake of happiness.

I'm also not sure if this really is the argument offered by most gay rights advocates on behalf of gay marriage anyway. Far more common, from what I've seen, is an argument based on justice, which claims that the rights conferred by marriage on straight couples are being arbitrarily denied to gay couples. This is a claim about equality before the law, a fundamental value in all liberal-democratic societies, a part of our constitution (the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment), and a standard principle of just law systems at least since the time of Aristotle.

One could say that many of the movements for justice in this country were also about happiness—no doubt blacks felt like they'd be happier if people stopped lynching them in the early part of this century, and no doubt women in the suffragette movement felt like they'd be happier if they actually had a voice in electing the leaders and choosing the policies which affected their lives. Happiness is usually an unavoidable byproduct of getting something that we want. It does not follow that happiness is the goal or the only reason we want that thing. I think that by reducing the gay marriage movement to a movement for happiness, you're obscuring some of the deeper claims about justice.

And yeah, jllm, it's totally cool with me if gay couples get all the same rights as straight couples but it's not called marriage. The problem is, in this country, that can't be conferred by the states because immigration policy is a federal matter. Thus if civil unions are left to the states, no matter how far the states go toward conferring the same benefits on gay couples as straight couples, they can never, ever go all the way. You either need a federal civil union law or a federal Permanent Partners Immigration Act, but the exact same people who are saying to leave this issue up to the states would view that as a violation of the principle of federalism. So I think, at least in this country, because of our federal system, the issue of civil unions vs. marriage is quite a bit more complicated and can't be solved by state civil unions.

Cheers,
M

[rockysigman]

Avalanche? Well, there's a bandwagon jumper if I ever saw one.

Go watch your Blue Jackets lose and shut yer trap about the Avalanche, Chrisfan.