{"items": [{"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691190691192", "anchor": "fb-691190691192", "service": "fb", "text": "Which way do you think this tends to skew? Do more people think that things they disapprove should nevertheless be legal, or that things they personally approve of should nevertheless be illegal?", "timestamp": "1412775977"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1412779211"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691200012512", "anchor": "fb-691200012512", "service": "fb", "text": "@Josh: \"Do more people think that things they disapprove should nevertheless be legal, or that things they personally approve of should nevertheless be illegal?\"
I would expect skew in the direction of permitting things you disapprove of, though not as much skew as I would like.
(I can come up with many examples of things I disapprove of that I think should be legal -- drinking, fireworks, motorcycles, religion, swearing -- but coming up with things the other way around is much harder. Maybe speeding? Maybe doing your own electrical work? But probably neither; in as much as I approve of them I also think they should be legal.)", "timestamp": "1412780805"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691201494542", "anchor": "fb-691201494542", "service": "fb", "text": "Yeah, I'm not sure about \"personally approve, but should be illegal\" either -- that sounds in general a lot like \"things that it's fine for *me* to do, but not fine for *you*\", which is a little condescending.
Perhaps civil disobedience: I can approve of disruptive protesters, but still think that protesters who break the law should face the consequences.", "timestamp": "1412781424"}, {"author": "Perry", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691203270982", "anchor": "fb-691203270982", "service": "fb", "text": "There's a mix of religion intertwined here. While interracial marriage had SOME religious undertones, the 1960s were a time when we just ended segregation and Jim Crow, so the notion of intermarriage was brand new. The Christian right didn't wield the power back then that they do now. Today the mere disapproval factor is waning, but the Christian power is increasing, and that is where we get the notion that gay marriage should be illegal (or at least not recognized by the state).", "timestamp": "1412782327"}, {"author": "opted out", "source_link": "#", "anchor": "unknown", "service": "unknown", "text": "this user has requested that their comments not be shown here", "timestamp": "1412783061"}, {"author": "Jonah", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691205047422", "anchor": "fb-691205047422", "service": "fb", "text": "Jeff, you approve of speeding but disapprove of swearing?", "timestamp": "1412783169"}, {"author": "Jeff Kaufman", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691207756992", "anchor": "fb-691207756992", "service": "fb", "text": "@Jonah: I don't approve of speeding generally, but there are many cases where the speed limit is currently X, I'm fine with people driving X+10, and I think the speed limit should instead be X+10.", "timestamp": "1412784171"}, {"author": "Josh", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691208041422", "anchor": "fb-691208041422", "service": "fb", "text": "I think \"this law is bad and should be changed, and I approve of people breaking it meanwhile\" is maybe different from \"I'm fine with this law, but I also approve of people breaking it\". Civil disobedience is still the only example I've thought of for the latter. (I think it should be illegal to be a public nuisance; but I approve of people doing it anyway, and facing the consequences, to make a statement.)", "timestamp": "1412784366"}, {"author": "David Chudzicki", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691213849782", "anchor": "fb-691213849782", "service": "fb", "text": "The speeding-law situation is so widespread that presumably some people (not me) are happy with the status quo (unreasonable speeding laws, with a norm that it's okay to break them to some extent).", "timestamp": "1412787507"}, {"author": "Perry", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691214099282", "anchor": "fb-691214099282", "service": "fb", "text": "Perhaps I should have said that the notion of ACCEPTING interracial marriage was brand new at the time. There was a time when people didn't think of gay people getting married either. No one talked about it in the 1980s.", "timestamp": "1412787670"}, {"author": "Michael", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691216748972", "anchor": "fb-691216748972", "service": "fb", "text": "The closest I've seen to an argument for \"approve, but should be illegal\" is http://squid314.livejournal.com/331948.html", "timestamp": "1412788713"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691241085202", "anchor": "fb-691241085202", "service": "fb", "text": "Here's a map from Wikipedia showing the time of repeal or invalidation of anti-miscegenation laws.", "timestamp": "1412798899"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691241180012", "anchor": "fb-691241180012", "service": "fb", "text": "The last state to have an interracial marriage prohibition on the books (though not in force) was Alabama, until 2000.", "timestamp": "1412798944"}, {"author": "Robin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691255341632", "anchor": "fb-691255341632", "service": "fb", "text": "It's apples and oranges. Interracial marriage creates new genetic combinations. Gay marriage potentially leads to a lower population, or it leads to things like adoption and fertility technologies to increase.
BTW I am assuming the the purpose of (heterosexual) marriage is to create incentives for people to reproduce and have a stable environment for a child to be raised in. I do not know enough gay/lesbian people who have been married to proscribe any motivation to them, though clearly at least some want to have children.", "timestamp": "1412805634"}, {"author": "Suzette", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691377746332", "anchor": "fb-691377746332", "service": "fb", "text": "How can support for restricting marriage legality in the US to being only between a man and a women be about reproduction ? If it were so then infertile couples or those above reproductive age (my self included) or those choosing to remain childless would not have these benefits, Nor does it assure the stability of a 2 parent family being present to stay to raise the child.Those are arguments used by those who oppose same sex marriage but are not logical (many gay couples are very stable 2 person households). I think its a violation of separation of church and state as the country while founded with religious freedom as a basic right it is now governed with a majority of the legislature who hold religious beliefs (which they are free to hold) that they feel entitled to impose on all.. As public opinion on approval of marriage no longer being restricted to being only between a man and a woman changes the laws will change. The comparison to marriage across racial lines is that public opinion causes us to elect leaders who support legalizing things we approve of (provided social policy is the most pressing national issue at the time) and even after something is legal people can still disapprove in their own lives and social circles and never accept what is legal. Even prohibition demonstrates that. Some people will never have an interracial couple as their friends as some will neber befriend a gay couple even when the laws permit such.", "timestamp": "1412857780"}, {"author": "Robin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691378220382", "anchor": "fb-691378220382", "service": "fb", "text": "In terms of the implications of restricting marriage to young people...
Marriage law is old. It's based mainly on some biblical stuff but there are a few logical arguments in their. Back in the days of the bible, people had kids long past the age of when reproduction is feasible....", "timestamp": "1412858112"}, {"author": "Daniel", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691378335152", "anchor": "fb-691378335152", "service": "fb", "text": "also past the age when living is feasible...", "timestamp": "1412858237"}, {"author": "Suzette", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691378983852", "anchor": "fb-691378983852", "service": "fb", "text": "but laws in the US are not based on such times- not sure the oldest reported age of a birth mother since the founding of the US but there are (and should not be of course) restrictions on age for legally marrying- its my argument that ability to biologically reproduce ones own offspring is not logically able to be the basis for restrictions on same gender marriage- and when used as an argument it is illogical unless there are age and health restrictions (quite an absurd proposal). Secondly even those who'd refer to those times to say reproductive age is I am uncertain the years were counted the same.", "timestamp": "1412858624"}, {"author": "Robin", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691379782252", "anchor": "fb-691379782252", "service": "fb", "text": "laws are always based on something long in the past... I've been told that the US law was influenced by the Greek and Roman Classics. I've been told that it was influenced by the Iroquois Confederation. Everybody has their own opinion and there's no consensus. But laws aren't based on rationality, they're based on compromising many older laws and beliefs.", "timestamp": "1412859037"}, {"author": "Suzette", "source_link": "https://www.facebook.com/jefftk/posts/691189897782?comment_id=691382985832", "anchor": "fb-691382985832", "service": "fb", "text": "true about the basis of laws but its why laws are changed, why else would we have a legislative branch (lots of possible cynical answers to this but the purpose was to make laws reflect what serves people in current times. we had no need for daylight savings time before electricity for example- so laws need to adapt to the present day will of the majority of the populace.", "timestamp": "1412860883"}]}