awm, on Nov 10 2008, 12:16 AM, said:
I don't think there are a lot of gay people who, when they find out that they will not get any of the legal benefits associated with marriage with their gay partner, decide to turn straight. Regardless of whether homosexuality is genetic or environmental or some combination of the two, it's not just a choice you make. And even if it were a choice, what religion people follow is certainly a choice and yet the government guarantees protection even for people belonging to "deviant" religions.
It's worth mentioning that churches have long held the right to refuse to marry people. Catholic churches will not marry a couple if one of them is non-catholic, or if either has had a previous catholic marriage (non-annulled). Orthodox Jewish temples will not marry a couple unless they are both jewish. There have been few, if any, lawsuits associated with this and certainly no successful ones. Separation of church and state more or less guarantees that religions can marry (or refuse to marry) whomever they please. The legality of gay marriage has nothing to do with requiring churches to marry gays.
Marriage also has little to do with having children. People who are unable to have children (for a wide variety of reasons) are still allowed to marry. People who just don't want to have children are allowed to marry. There is no law requiring married couples who are able to have children to do so. And there is also nothing preventing unmarried women from having children. The fact that two people of the same gender are unable to conceive a child together really has no relevance.
The major issue with pharmacies is that basic medical care really should be a universal right. If I decide that I want to purchase an Apple computer and walk into my local electronics store and they don't carry Apple products, I'm out of luck. In fact, even if they do carry Apple products but decide not to sell one to me, even if this decision is based on my age or race or gender, it's not clear that I should be able to sue a private company for this. But medical care is different -- a hospital can't refuse to give me medical care because of my age or race or even ability to pay. There's a difference between "necessities of life" which should be always available, versus luxury items.
Abortion can easily be argued either way -- it hinges on whether you believe a fetus should have the same rights as a person. There is not an "obvious" answer to this really. But what does seem obvious, is that virtually no one is pro-abortion (being "pro-choice" is not the same as being pro-abortion). Rather than trying to criminalize abortion, shouldn't the goal be to make sure that no one wants an abortion in the first place? And what easier way to do this than to make birth control (and education about how to use birth control) easily available to everyone? The government doesn't have to fund it -- there are non-government non-profit organizations like planned parenthood which are happy to do so. Government just has to allow it. It seems unbelievably stupid that in some cases they won't.
I don't disagree with most of your conclusion Adam, but I think your medical/pharmaceutical example is poorly chosen.
The point that Ming was trying to make (I think) was that society makes certain choices eg as between the beneficial recipients of organ donations based on "discrimination" other than life-threatening bases
eg expected longevity of recipient if successful (contrast the needs of an 85 year old and a 15 year old for the same organ to take an extreme example)
- ability to pay (at least in USA as I understand it if the 85 year old has sufficient money the organ will be found....)
Just because it is a matter of life and death ("necessity") does not obviate the need to make choices and allocate resources between people who compete for them.
Ming (effervesce) was not stipulating that the options taken in his examples are "correct" - merely that such decisions which effectively involve discrimination/subsidy/tax ARE taken as a matter of course - and are a necessary part of government (to gauge this, one only need observe that the failure to make a positive decision is a decision , a position that everyone involved with gametheory positions is familiar).
Which decisions, and to what extent they are made to regulate and/or intervene in what might otherwise occur is precisely the role of government.
Anyone may legitimately argue about any single decision's merit, but I thought Ming meant that decisions in general were the business of government in its role in society (and in a democracy the unpopular decisions will have the effect of determining a government's fate).
It is unfortunate that popularity which comes into sway at fairly regular intervals marked by elections (as opposed to longterm good decisionmaking) is the arbiter of the system. That of course is the problem with democracy: it lets the people vote
In fact to paraphrase Churchill, democracy is an awful system - it is just that all the others are worse (unless you accept ME as your benevolent tyrant - but perhaps my benevolence may not last based on historical precedent
Disclaimer: To the extent that I have misrepresented anyone's views or words I apologise.
Please note prior to the flamethrowers' actions that heretofore I have not actually specified a single policy - just a process and perhaps clarification of others' words.
Oh yes incidentally I happen to be in favour of equal rights (to the extent that "marriage" confers benefits) for gays - and just about any other group too!
OTOH I am sufficiently "out there" that I believe that humans' desire to reproduce has not slackened overall, but that the resources of the planet are such that there is no need to subsidise additional reproduction: the one thing we have too many of in this world is people!
Hence, I would not subsidise "baby bonus" schemes which have become prevalent (as opposed to safety nets and welfare for the children who did not possess an option as opposed to the parents who did!).
You see it is possible to be logically opposed to anything: even a "motherhood" proposition!
regards