Iowa Supreme Court in Varnum v. Brien ruled this morning that same-sex marriage bans in Iowa were unconstitutional.
Before you start screaming "activist judges", I'll remind you that the judges ruling in Brown v. Board were also accused of so-called "judicial activism".
Friday, April 3, 2009
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
The Meaning of Marriage
The reason why I don't use "homosexuality" and "same-sex marriages" interchangeably, or why I don't include both in the same post, is because the two are only casually correlated.
If homosexuals can enter into opposite-sex marriages, which they do and which "traditional marriage" supporters would like homosexuals to do, why can't heterosexuals enter into same-sex marriages?
From my understanding, there is no good reason that heterosexuals can't enter into same-sex marriages. From my understanding, people fall in love with people's personalities, not just their bodies.
If we repeal DOMAs and other same-sex marriage bans, we send the message that love is born from commitment, security, and mental bonds. If we keep DOMAs and enforce same-sex marriage bans, we send the message that love is superficial and born solely towards animal characteristics (breeding) and gender roles.
Do you want to teach your children to fall in love with the one person who will give them commitment, security, mental bonds, and make them happy? Or do you want to teach your children to fall in love with someone for superficial reasons and so they can have as many babies as their coituses can handle?
(Note: I'm not saying that parents should teach their children to seek out members of the same sex, just as I didn't say that parents should teach their children to seek out members of the opposite sex. I'm saying that parents should think about what messages society is sending.)
If homosexuals can enter into opposite-sex marriages, which they do and which "traditional marriage" supporters would like homosexuals to do, why can't heterosexuals enter into same-sex marriages?
From my understanding, there is no good reason that heterosexuals can't enter into same-sex marriages. From my understanding, people fall in love with people's personalities, not just their bodies.
If we repeal DOMAs and other same-sex marriage bans, we send the message that love is born from commitment, security, and mental bonds. If we keep DOMAs and enforce same-sex marriage bans, we send the message that love is superficial and born solely towards animal characteristics (breeding) and gender roles.
Do you want to teach your children to fall in love with the one person who will give them commitment, security, mental bonds, and make them happy? Or do you want to teach your children to fall in love with someone for superficial reasons and so they can have as many babies as their coituses can handle?
(Note: I'm not saying that parents should teach their children to seek out members of the same sex, just as I didn't say that parents should teach their children to seek out members of the opposite sex. I'm saying that parents should think about what messages society is sending.)
Bailout?
Attended a guest speaking at CSU Dominguez Hills on Monday.
Speaker (whose name I cannot remember) talked about international policy with the US, and before, I was convinced that nobody, not even the banks, needed bailing out. Of course, I didn't realize just how much was tied to the banking system at the time.
Banks are the jumping-point for all kinds of financial transactions including investments, loans, pensions, etc. The simple question is this: If banks go under, who will take care of the investments, loans, pensions, etc.?
Answer: No one.
Q: If nobody takes care of these investments, loans, pensions, etc., what kind of message will that send to the American people (or foreign investors)?
A: That you can't count on banks to house your money. Or that you can't count on government to help you out in your hour of need. Or that you shouldn't invest. Or that, despite the fact that you work hard to support your family, your money can be wiped clean at any time because of somebody else's stupid mistake.
Speaker (whose name I cannot remember) talked about international policy with the US, and before, I was convinced that nobody, not even the banks, needed bailing out. Of course, I didn't realize just how much was tied to the banking system at the time.
Banks are the jumping-point for all kinds of financial transactions including investments, loans, pensions, etc. The simple question is this: If banks go under, who will take care of the investments, loans, pensions, etc.?
Answer: No one.
Q: If nobody takes care of these investments, loans, pensions, etc., what kind of message will that send to the American people (or foreign investors)?
A: That you can't count on banks to house your money. Or that you can't count on government to help you out in your hour of need. Or that you shouldn't invest. Or that, despite the fact that you work hard to support your family, your money can be wiped clean at any time because of somebody else's stupid mistake.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Illinois Family Institute Dangerously Misguiding
The Illinois Family Institute apparently is filled with ignorant people. Consider a passage from one of their articles:
Clearly, a treatise in gross ignorance.
The DOS requires that teachers either create activities around or exempt silent students from any activity that involves speaking.The irony is that they have already acknowledged that students can be required to answer questions during school time, and yet they still argue that teachers are "required" to "create activities around or exempt silent students" from classroom activities!
[...]
Higgins further emphasizes that "The worthy end of eliminating harassment does not justify the means of exploiting instructional time." The First Amendment already allows DOS participants to wear t-shirts or put up posters, but according to a document co-written by the ACLU and Lambda Legal, a "school can regulate what students say. . . and it can also insist that students respond to questions, make presentations, etc." Students and teachers should not be allowed to exploit instructional time to advance their socio-political goals.
Clearly, a treatise in gross ignorance.
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Not Interchangable Like Trains
The following passage comes from: Same-Sex Marriage: The Moral and Legal Debate. Eds. Robert M. Baird & Stuart E. Rosenbaum. Prometheus: Amherst, 2004.
Glenn T. Stanton makes various hilariously ridiculous arguments that shows he has no concept of Due Process, judicial hearings, basic logic, or common sense. I wish I could take the time to include the entire passage here, but I'll settle for one passage that really highlights his ignorance.
Indeed, they cannot! And how does a same-sex couple feel about their spouses or children? Perhaps the same? Or perhaps the children feel the same way about their parents?
In his quest to argue against same-sex marriages, Stanton finds himself accidentally arguing for them.
Glenn T. Stanton makes various hilariously ridiculous arguments that shows he has no concept of Due Process, judicial hearings, basic logic, or common sense. I wish I could take the time to include the entire passage here, but I'll settle for one passage that really highlights his ignorance.
In fact, Sosman concludes, the court “is persuaded that there are no differences between same-sex and opposite-sex couples” (emphasis added). But can any husband, wife, or child admit that his or her spouse or parent could be replaced by someone of any sex? Is emotional attachment all there is to these relationships? (p. 73)I think the question is misleading, because it asks an even more fundamental question: "Can any husband, wife, or child admit that his or her spouse or parent could be replaced by someone?"
Indeed, they cannot! And how does a same-sex couple feel about their spouses or children? Perhaps the same? Or perhaps the children feel the same way about their parents?
In his quest to argue against same-sex marriages, Stanton finds himself accidentally arguing for them.
Friday, February 20, 2009
"Compelling" Evidence
I was reading an article by George A. Rekers, Ph. D. in St. Thomas L. Rev. entitled "An Empirically-Supported Rational Basis for Prohibiting Adoption, Foster Parenting, and Contested Child Custody by Any Person Residing in a Household That Includes a Homosexually-Behaving Member." I thought one of the most compelling findings he presented against homosexually-behaving parents was as follows:
1) It's irrelevant. It's irrelevant with regards to whether or not these couples are fit to raise children. The evidence (and subsequent arguments) do not show that couples with DSM disorders are unfit to raise children.
2) It's an argument against disorders. Surely, a couple can be tested for DSM disorders if we're concerned about the mental health and abilities of the parents.
3) It doesn't explore why these disorders came about. Consider the following. All my life, I assume myself to be a male, but one day I make the startling discovery that I'm a female. Couldn't that be cause for exhibiting existential crises and accumulating temporary mental disorders?
4) The mental disorders are undefined in the article. Consider some of the following mental disorders from the DSM-IV*:
While the article does well in controlling for the habitat (in terms of acceptance of homosexuality), it still misleads by failing to give us enough information with regards to why same-sex couples should be barred from adoption, or what disorders were exhibited by homosexual persons.
- - - - - - - - - -
*Codes can be found here.
Incomplete list of disorders presented above can be found here.
In 2001, from a country long-recognized for its more tolerant acceptance of homosexuality, Theodorus Sandfort and colleagues published a study of a representative sample of the Dutch population (N=7076; aged 18-64 years), in which 5998 subjects could be classified as heterosexual or homosexual based on reported sexual behavior in the preceding year. 2.8% of men and 1.4% of women had same-sex partners. Reporting twelve-month prevalence rates, 21.1% of heterosexual men and 35.4% of homosexual men had one or more DSM diagnoses, and 22.4% of heterosexual women and 34.9% of homosexual women had one or more DSM diagnoses. Homosexual men had a higher twelve-month prevalence of mood disorders and anxiety disorders than heterosexual men. Homosexual women had a higher twelve-month prevalence of substance use disorders. Reporting life-time prevalence rates, 41.4% of heterosexual men and 56.1% of homosexual men had one or more DSM diagnoses, and 39.1% of heterosexual women and 67.4% of homosexual women had one or more DSM diagnoses. Homosexual women had a higher life-time prevalence rate of mood disorders than heterosexual women.At first glance, the evidence feels compelling, but I can think of four reasons why the evidence can be thrown out in a discussion of same-sex couples adopting.
1) It's irrelevant. It's irrelevant with regards to whether or not these couples are fit to raise children. The evidence (and subsequent arguments) do not show that couples with DSM disorders are unfit to raise children.
2) It's an argument against disorders. Surely, a couple can be tested for DSM disorders if we're concerned about the mental health and abilities of the parents.
3) It doesn't explore why these disorders came about. Consider the following. All my life, I assume myself to be a male, but one day I make the startling discovery that I'm a female. Couldn't that be cause for exhibiting existential crises and accumulating temporary mental disorders?
4) The mental disorders are undefined in the article. Consider some of the following mental disorders from the DSM-IV*:
- 625.8 Female hypoactive sexual desire disorder due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
- 608.89 Male hypoactive sexual desire disorder due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
- 302.71 Hypoactive sexual desire disorder
- 302.79 Sexual aversion disorder
- 302.72 Female sexual arousal disorder
- 302.72 Male erectile disorder
- 607.84 Male erectile disorder due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
- 302.73 Female orgasmic disorder
- 302.74 Male orgasmic disorder
- 302.75 Premature ejaculation
- 302.76 Dyspareunia (not due to a general medical condition)
- 625.0 Female dyspareunia due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
- 608.89 Male dyspareunia due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
- 306.51 Vaginismus (not due to a general medical condition)
- 625.8 Other female sexual dysfunction due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
- 608.89 Other male sexual dysfunction due to... [indicate the general medical condition]
- Sexual Abuse
- V61.1 Sexual abuse of adult
- 995.81 Sexual abuse of adult (if focus of attention is on victim)
- V61.21 Sexual abuse of child
- 995.5 Sexual abuse of child (if focus of attention is on victim)
- 302.9 Sexual disorder NOS
- 302.70 Sexual dysfunction NOS
While the article does well in controlling for the habitat (in terms of acceptance of homosexuality), it still misleads by failing to give us enough information with regards to why same-sex couples should be barred from adoption, or what disorders were exhibited by homosexual persons.
- - - - - - - - - -
*Codes can be found here.
Incomplete list of disorders presented above can be found here.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Cycles of Cash
Vox Day already had his comments about a certain article (in which he ripped the poor soul apart), but I have something quick to say about it as well.
The article in question criticizes the Austrian economist's view of how the bubble happened and what the US should do now. I really want to zero in on the following that Paul Krugman wrote:
The article I'm taking my ideas from might not be totally correct, but at the same time, it seems to make logical sense.
A bubble is created when investors see something, buy it, and sell it for more. Other investors buy it, turn around, and sell it for more, too. Pretty soon, investors see that the price of the thing is going up, so they too buy the thing, turn around, and sell it for more. At this point in time, it's a big happy party because prices go up as money flies everywhere. One might expect lamp shades to be atop everyone's heads (not just because people seem blind to the inevitable outcome).
However, eventually people find that the prices are too high, or don't think they can turn around and sell the thing for more than they're going to buy it for. Spending slows down. The people who have the things realize that they're not worth as much as the ticket they're holding says they're worth, so they desperately lower their prices in an attempt to get the stuff off their hands. Pretty soon, the party's over, and now all of that borrowed money or those future prospects of selling are gone. Kaput. No more future assets, and the current assets we have are grossly overvalued. That is, until they're reassessed and we realize that we're just trying to pawn off trash.
So yes, Mr. Krugman. It logically follows that recessions follow booms. But doesn't it follow that booms follow recessions as well? Doesn't it follow that we shouldn't tinker with the system, because it will eventually fix itself?
The article in question criticizes the Austrian economist's view of how the bubble happened and what the US should do now. I really want to zero in on the following that Paul Krugman wrote:
Call it the overinvestment theory of recessions, or "liquidationism," or just call it the "hangover theory." It is the idea that slumps are the price we pay for booms, that the suffering the economy experiences during a recession is a necessary punishment for the excesses of the previous expansion.It's funny, and I don't mean to bash on Paul Krugman or anything, but I wonder if he really does have a handle on how Wall Street bubbles are created.
[...]
Powerful as these seductions may be, they must be resisted—for the hangover theory is disastrously wrongheaded. Recessions are not necessary consequences of booms. They can and should be fought, not with austerity but with liberality—with policies that encourage people to spend more, not less.
The article I'm taking my ideas from might not be totally correct, but at the same time, it seems to make logical sense.
A bubble is created when investors see something, buy it, and sell it for more. Other investors buy it, turn around, and sell it for more, too. Pretty soon, investors see that the price of the thing is going up, so they too buy the thing, turn around, and sell it for more. At this point in time, it's a big happy party because prices go up as money flies everywhere. One might expect lamp shades to be atop everyone's heads (not just because people seem blind to the inevitable outcome).
However, eventually people find that the prices are too high, or don't think they can turn around and sell the thing for more than they're going to buy it for. Spending slows down. The people who have the things realize that they're not worth as much as the ticket they're holding says they're worth, so they desperately lower their prices in an attempt to get the stuff off their hands. Pretty soon, the party's over, and now all of that borrowed money or those future prospects of selling are gone. Kaput. No more future assets, and the current assets we have are grossly overvalued. That is, until they're reassessed and we realize that we're just trying to pawn off trash.
So yes, Mr. Krugman. It logically follows that recessions follow booms. But doesn't it follow that booms follow recessions as well? Doesn't it follow that we shouldn't tinker with the system, because it will eventually fix itself?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
