The End Of Objective Rationality

[Steve R.]

Time for a new thread based on Rx's post.

Denver Colorao passed every tax increase from sales tax to providing a Nanny for adults.
I live 4 houses outside of Denver. No new taxes. The California immigrants moved inside the city of Denver.
We also got our first openly Polygmist Governor.
The media claimes he is openly gay. OK fine. His political advertisements show his wife and children. He he has more wives, just because they are male still makes him a Polygmist. .... Right!

We are currently witnessing the abandonment of any objective rationality when it comes to the ever growing illogic of "identity politics". Just recently; "Dutch man sues to lower his age by 20 years on birth certificate". The guy is obviously "gaming the system"; but it points to the ever growing propensity to expand, beyond any objective reality, what it means to be (fill in the blank).

For example, Elizabeth Warren asserted she identified with being Cherokee. She apparently used that to her advantage, but a recent DNA test failed to prove that she had significant Native American heritage. An even more absurd example is that of Rachel Dolezal who claimed to be Black, because she felt that way. So is it acceptable for either Ms Warren or Ms Dolezal to benefit from programs that serve minority interests, such as Affirmative Action?

Then there is Charlotte, NC that passed a law that one could use the bathroom of your choice based on gender identification instead of actual DNA biology. So if a man "felt" female "she" could use the woman's bathroom. (Why was the law passed in this manner? The simple obvious way would have been to make all bathrooms gender neutral. Seems that this law was passed to pander to a specific group of people and not to really serve the public interest.)

The question of who can "benefit" based on playing the subjective "identity politics" game is now making its way into the US Supreme Court with: "Justice Dept. Backs Suit Accusing Harvard of Discriminating Against Asian-American Applicants".

Concluding with a reference back to Rx's post. A few years ago, when same sex marriage was first recognized by the courts as being legitimate, I posted that polygamous marriage should also be recognized as legitimate. A person unknown to me (who may have been gay) was very enthusiastic about the legitimization of same sex marriage responded with disgust that polygamous marriages were illegal.:banghead: This demonstrates the slippery slope and extreme illogic of "identity politics".

 

[Minty]

I'd like to contribute, but think that the words "Worms Of Can" when rearranged will give the answer we all know.

We have two problems - one as eloquently described above, and the other of complete "political correctness" gone mad.

I would say I'm as ambivalent about most of this stuff as I could be. In the UK the other day there was an interview with the someone representing the "Black Police Officers Support Group" on some news item. It made me wonder if there was a "White Police Officers Support Group" and if not why not?.
Then there is the other side - "White" mans gets "Ethinic" support https://www.theguardian.com/comment...hony-lennon-theatre-director-white-mixed-race even though he openly says - "I'm white"

Other newspaper links should be read - The Gruniad does have a political bent.

 

[Galaxiom]

A few years ago, when same sex marriage was first recognized by the courts as being legitimate, I posted that polygamous marriage should also be recognized as legitimate. A person unknown to me (who may have been gay) was very enthusiastic about the legitimization of same sex marriage responded with disgust that polygamous marriages were illegal.:banghead: This demonstrates the slippery slope and extreme illogic of "identity politics".

Opponents of same sex marriage in Australia also tried to conflate marriage equality with legalising polygamy and even bestiality.

The legalisation of same sex marriage is about ending the discrimination that denied some people the same rights afforded to other people. Nobody is allowed to commit polygamy nor bestiality so the claims of a "slippery slope" are ridiculous.

Frankly, I find such ignorant attitudes reprehensible.

 

[Steve R.]

The legalisation of same sex marriage is about ending the discrimination that denied some people the same rights afforded to other people. Nobody is allowed to commit polygamy nor bestiality so the claims of a "slippery slope" are ridiculous.

Moral relativism. If the LGBT community can claim a certain definition of "marriage" that suites them, why not the Islamic and Mormon communities?

The LGBT community claimed that the traditional Western interpretation of marriage was antiquated and needed to be modernized to reflect LGBT values. Apparently they succeed, despite claims that this definition of "marriage" was not appropriate. Now that they got what they wanted, some have abandoned being "progressive", take the newly defined status quo interpretation, and don't want other ethnic/religious groups to have an expanded interpretation of "marriage" that would allow them to enjoy the benefits of marriage.

Polygamy has been recognized for a long period of time as a valid form of marriage. So why should these communities be discriminated against and denied the same rights afforded to other people.

 

[Vassago]

What's wrong with polygamy between consenting adults, for that matter?

I think as long as legally defined adults are consenting, who cares? Stop telling adults who they can and cannot love!

Why is the government even involved in marriage in 2018? I think we've moved well beyond the need.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Polygamy? I can hardly keep up with the one wife I have!

The government is involved in marriage only to prevent some other group (like the clergy) from co-opting it.

That excessive religious influence is also why the government is in the business of blocking abortions despite the existence of religious groups that DO NOT agree with conception as the start of life. There ARE groups that say "First Breath" and others that say "Severing the Umbilicus" as the religious start of life - but that 3rd trimester ban disenfranchises those religions.

That excessive religious influence is ALSO the reason that stores like Hobby Lobby can ignore federal benefits law.

 

[Galaxiom]

Moral relativism. If the LGBT community can claim a certain definition of "marriage" that suites them, why not the Islamic and Mormon communities?

It isn't a matter of the definition of "marriage". Same sex attracted people were being denied the exact identical rights afforded to other people simply on the basis of gender.

The LGBT community claimed that the traditional Western interpretation of marriage was antiquated and needed to be modernized to reflect LGBT values.

It wasn't until 2004 that the marriage act in Australia was changed to mean "between a man and a woman". Prior to this same sex marriages could have been recognised in Australia.

 

[Steve R.]

Laws are not immobile. They can be changed in response to public solicitations. Those in favor of same sex marriage are simply one of many public interest groups. Currently, they have achieved their goal of legitimizing same sex marriage. Interest groups that desire a different definition of what constitutes a legal marriage and even those opposed to same sex marriage have a right to propose modifications to marriage law. Of course they may or may not succeed.

It isn't a matter of the definition of "marriage". Same sex attracted people were being denied the exact identical rights afforded to other people simply on the basis of gender.

Essentially, based on the values of various special interest groups your quote can be generically rewritten as: "(fill in the blank) people were being denied the exact identical rights afforded to other people simply on the basis of (fill in the blank)".

Your post also reminded me of an emerging concern that I initially overlooked for this new thread, that of transgender biological males (now female) participating in female sports. As one example: In the era of equality, how will sports handle transgender athletes?. Another example: Time to dispense with the male/female binary in sport? Analysis of the cases of Laurel Hubbard and Mack Beggs.

As a side note the assertion has already been made that if transgender persons can participate in athletics based on their identified gender that performance enhancing drugs (doping) should then be allowed for any athlete irrespective of sex. A example that if one barrier is breached then others are open for breaching too. (Finally found an article on this: Champion transgender wrestler prompts questions about fairness, steroids)

As with what constitutes a legal marriage; the transgender issue raises the concern over what constitutes being valid male or a valid female. The drum beat of various special interest groups demanding legislation/rights for there members has resulted in pretzel logic that obfuscates objective rationality.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

that of transgender biological males (now female) participating in female sports.

Case in point from MANY years ago (1970s): Renee Richards, a tennis player, born Richard Raskind. After full transition surgery, she played on the pro tennis circuit for a while. Standing 6'1", she had a devastating leverage advantage on overhead slams and serves but was otherwise only a slightly-above-average player.