Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I guess my point is, that if it really is an arbitrary line, who decides how far we move it? And if we're willing to move it for one group, can we say no to the next group?
The slippery slope argument can pretty much be used to argue against anything - If we have the death penalty for convicted serial rapist-killers today who is to say that we won't impose it on people who don't pay their cable bill tomorrow? I think in this case society could continue to require informed consent, exsanguinity, and breathing as prerequisites to marriage without stepping on too many toes.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
think in this case society could continue to require informed consent, exsanguinity, and breathing as prerequisites to marriage without stepping on too many toes.
Ehh, fair enough.
Oakman wrote:
The slippery slope argument can pretty much be used to argue against anything
True, but this is the one time it actually seems applicable. Polygamists are already working on lining up a movement if the gay argument works. I don't think donkeys and blow-up ferrets are going to be an issue but... Personally I don't think it's an arbitrary line, but if gays get marriage it will mean the decision makers do believe it's an arbitrary line. And if you see it as arbitrary, you still have the very real problem of where that line should be. I don't think the slippery slope argument has any weight in the capital punishment issue. It's really easy to draw a logical line for it, repeat offenders of violent crimes showing no sign of rehabilitation. But this... I dunno, live and let live I suppose.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure it's the religious right who're going after your founding principles but the neo-conservative satanists who hide behind them have certainly been gong after your freedoms.
Sure, I have no problem with that distinction, I mean I don't know if your are correct, but I could certainly be wrong.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
One problem is the understanding of freedom itself
Well I think people pretend to not understand it, and/or they attempt to define it to their own purposes. Stan and (D)espeir are great examples of that. They propose that two men marrying infringes on their right/freedom to believe that two men should not marry, which is of course completely retarded and a great example of how bigots purposefully attempt to manipulate truth and reason to their own twisted ends. The fact that other less bigoted people are fooled into believing that their ugly intentions hidden behind intellectual prose passes for logic reason and truth is very sad. It's actually very simple. We all have the same rights, therefore very simply put one individuals freedoms or rights end anytime their implementation of what they believe is a freedom infringes upon someone else's, period. For example driving laws origin is safety because you don't have the right to endanger others, why? Not because it's wrong but because if you injure someone you have infringed upon their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, period.
led mike
led mike wrote:
It's actually very simple. We all have the same rights, therefore very simply put one individuals freedoms or rights end anytime their implementation of what they believe is a freedom infringes upon someone else's, period.
Unfortunately this is not quite as simple as you think and in practice doesn't work. My right to walk down the street naked because it makes me happy impinges on the right of someone else not to be appalled by my nakedness so I have to wear clothes but I'm butt ugly so it doesn't help very much so in fact for them not to want to throw-up I have to stay indoors which impinges on my right to go to Wal-Mart :doh: This rights based view of the world just fundamentally doesn't work. The doing what is right view of the world on the other hand where I wear the clothes for the benefit of others and they put up with my ugliness because it is the right thing to do works just fine. The problem with it is when some people don't want to play nice, which turns out to be just about everybody at one time or another, hence we have to have standards, norms and enforced rules to makes sure we all get along. That's the socialogical explanation anyway. In fact things turn out this way because of bundle of 'religious' truths about human nature, original sin, authority and morality. One of those truths is that homosexual intercourse is wrong and another is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Where Red and co go wrong is trying to argue a point from one paradigm using the language and ideas of another. The 'rights' based view of the world does not even connect with the 'religious' view because it is a very modern, entirely secular, and completely insupportable viewpoint. by accepting it as the framework in which to form their arguments they have already fouled their logic and lost the debate. It's a great pity because it's actually not a difficult debate to win.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
led mike wrote:
but at the end of the day you are just proposing oppression of individual freedoms of people that want to do things that you are 100% sure you will never want to do.
I am indeed proposing that. It is a question fundamental to our federalism itself. Should there be institutions within our society which have some degree of authority in defining the parameters of our culture other than government itself? Is religious sentiment as appropriate a means of determining ones democratic opinion and if the majority view reflects taht sentiment is it as valid a basis for our legal system as any other? Is discrimination against behavior a behavior that is allowed or is that to be the one kind of behavior the state can legitimately surpress? If you believe that government's appropriate role is to define behaviors and suppress attitudes against those behaviors, than you are a fascist. Such principles are part and parcel of fascist political idealogy. Since I am a Jeffersonian, I reject facist principles and thus believe that personal discrimination is a more basic and fundamental freedom than is butt fucking or other similar forms of behavior.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Since I am a Jeffersonian, I reject facist principles
You have never demonstrated more clearly how little you understand of Jefferson or Jefferson's philosophies. Equally, you have never demonstrated more clearly how much of a jack-boot fascist you are. Indeed you begin to make Cheney look like a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
led mike wrote:
Sorry but I fail to see how that answers my question.
Then I don't understand your question.:confused:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Then I don't understand your question
States are/have been attempting to create new legislation prohibiting same sex marriage. In theory, without any new legislation, same sex marriage is therefore legal. Now how does that force some priest to marry two men? Since you brought up the nurse scenario. States are/have been attempting to create new legislation prohibiting abortion. In theory, without any new legislation, abortion is therefore legal. Now how does that force a nurse, or anyone else to assist on an abortion?
led mike
-
It is none of that. I hear what you say. I accept that what you say is your view/belief. I do not agree your view/belief. It is no different than me saying "I accept his point of view without agreeing with it". There is no weakness in that statement.
Well there's the weaker form of the semantics of 'accept' and the inherant weakness of a belief system that does not inlcude, or acknowlege, the imperitive to propogate itself but apart form that no. :-D
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Oakman wrote:
think in this case society could continue to require informed consent, exsanguinity, and breathing as prerequisites to marriage without stepping on too many toes.
Ehh, fair enough.
Oakman wrote:
The slippery slope argument can pretty much be used to argue against anything
True, but this is the one time it actually seems applicable. Polygamists are already working on lining up a movement if the gay argument works. I don't think donkeys and blow-up ferrets are going to be an issue but... Personally I don't think it's an arbitrary line, but if gays get marriage it will mean the decision makers do believe it's an arbitrary line. And if you see it as arbitrary, you still have the very real problem of where that line should be. I don't think the slippery slope argument has any weight in the capital punishment issue. It's really easy to draw a logical line for it, repeat offenders of violent crimes showing no sign of rehabilitation. But this... I dunno, live and let live I suppose.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Polygamists are already working on lining up a movement if the gay argument works.
At least then Romney could come out of the closet. ;) (if you have ever spent any time in Utah, especially outside of SLC, you would be amazed as the number of unmarried sisters and (female) cousins that live with men and wives out there.) I really don't think the Republic is threatened by poly marriages. Although my own experience with marriage suggests that three or four would be compounding problems as well as solutions. By the way, I don't necessarily enjoy disagreeing with you, but I do enjoy the fact that when we disagree we are able to argue intelligently and respectfully.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Thats a valid point. The government's only interest in any cohabitation situation is the issue of dependency. If one individual is taking care of another individual, than they should probably have some accomodation of that effort from the government in regards to their taxes. Aside from that, it really makes no logical sense for the federal government to concern itself with why two people are living together.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Aside from that, it really makes no logical sense for the federal government to concern itself with why two people are living together.
It makes no sense for any government to concern itself as to why two people are living together. But we know you and Bubba want to peek through bedroom windows and tell your neighbors how to live. :doh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
led mike wrote:
It's actually very simple. We all have the same rights, therefore very simply put one individuals freedoms or rights end anytime their implementation of what they believe is a freedom infringes upon someone else's, period.
Unfortunately this is not quite as simple as you think and in practice doesn't work. My right to walk down the street naked because it makes me happy impinges on the right of someone else not to be appalled by my nakedness so I have to wear clothes but I'm butt ugly so it doesn't help very much so in fact for them not to want to throw-up I have to stay indoors which impinges on my right to go to Wal-Mart :doh: This rights based view of the world just fundamentally doesn't work. The doing what is right view of the world on the other hand where I wear the clothes for the benefit of others and they put up with my ugliness because it is the right thing to do works just fine. The problem with it is when some people don't want to play nice, which turns out to be just about everybody at one time or another, hence we have to have standards, norms and enforced rules to makes sure we all get along. That's the socialogical explanation anyway. In fact things turn out this way because of bundle of 'religious' truths about human nature, original sin, authority and morality. One of those truths is that homosexual intercourse is wrong and another is that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Where Red and co go wrong is trying to argue a point from one paradigm using the language and ideas of another. The 'rights' based view of the world does not even connect with the 'religious' view because it is a very modern, entirely secular, and completely insupportable viewpoint. by accepting it as the framework in which to form their arguments they have already fouled their logic and lost the debate. It's a great pity because it's actually not a difficult debate to win.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
My right to walk down the street naked
Sorry, public nudity is covered by common law predating the constitution and is therefore not relevant to the intent of unalienable rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Manufacturing a theoretical reason for the common law (1) in order to extend the reasoning onto a completely different issue is not an acceptable argument for eroding freedom in the United States of America.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
This rights based view of the world just fundamentally doesn't work.
It's a real shame you can't travel back to 1776 and convince the founding fathers of that. :rolleyes: And yet I am supposed to take your belief over theirs, I don't think so. The remaining segments of your post seem to be more ramblings similar to what I have seen over and over again which I guess are supposed to be based on your belief that your nudity argument proved something, it didn't.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
It's a great pity because it's actually not a difficult debate to win.
Then do it. :) (1)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
impinges on the right of someone else not to be appalled by my nakedness
I am seriously not trying to offend you but Matthew but you need to provide a citation for that. I mean as an assumption it is just as reasonable to assume that body covering origins were health and safety based like armor.
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Since I am a Jeffersonian, I reject facist principles
You have never demonstrated more clearly how little you understand of Jefferson or Jefferson's philosophies. Equally, you have never demonstrated more clearly how much of a jack-boot fascist you are. Indeed you begin to make Cheney look like a card-carrying member of the ACLU.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Sorry, but you are on the wrong side of history. Fascism is primarily the notion that government, and government alone should be the sole arbeter of what constitutes the social parameters which define a society. Jeffersonianism is the belief that such power should be invested in the hands of the people, limited only by a strict interpretation of the consitution. Therefore for example, if we the people amended the constitution to specifically define appropriate sexual behavior (ie "The right to butt fuck shall not be infringed") than it would be a right and could not be redefined by the people, otherwise, the power to define it rests exclusively with the people, not the courts. A federal judge saying that I must respect and tolerate the sexual behaviors that I disapprove of is an overt fascist act by our government. People like you and led mike simply do not understand that the model of government you are prmoting is predicated upon the evolution of progressivist thought in the late nineteenth and early 20th century which grew out of Marxist theory and finally morphed into fascism. Fascsm was an entirely accepted liberal philosophy until WWII when socialist were succesful at associating it exclusively with Hitlers rascism. Many liberals proudly claimed the term. MOst of the court decisions of the last 70 years have been predicated upon the those principles, not those of Jefferson, et al.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Oakman wrote:
Then I don't understand your question
States are/have been attempting to create new legislation prohibiting same sex marriage. In theory, without any new legislation, same sex marriage is therefore legal. Now how does that force some priest to marry two men? Since you brought up the nurse scenario. States are/have been attempting to create new legislation prohibiting abortion. In theory, without any new legislation, abortion is therefore legal. Now how does that force a nurse, or anyone else to assist on an abortion?
led mike
led mike wrote:
In theory, without any new legislation, same sex marriage is therefore legal. Now how does that force some priest to marry two men?
You are right. As I postulated it, there is no reason to assume that churches are going to be required to perform same sex marriages (though presumably in their charities they will be required to recognize same sex marriages and provide them with whatever special benefits they provide hetero marriages.)
led mike wrote:
Now how does that force a nurse, or anyone else to assist on an abortion?
At the urging of Planned Parenthood, the Nevada state Assembly approved an amendment in April to stop pharmacists with religious objections from refusing to fill prescriptions for any drug, including abortifacient contraceptives and the so-called "morning after" pill. New York City hospitals now require abortion training for all their OB/GYN resident doctors unless they invoke a narrowly written conscience clause. The Oregon Nursing Association has issued guidelines for assisted suicide that prohibit nurses from making "unwarranted, judgmental comments or actions" to patients, families or other colleagues when patients decide to kill themselves with doctor-prescribed lethal overdoses. also 2 NURSES SUE HOSPITAL OVER JOBS
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is a question fundamental to our federalism itself.
No, it's a question fundamental to our VERY FREEDOM itself. Try posing you intellectual bigot clap trap at someone who will buy into it, it's completely wasted on me.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Since I am a Jeffersonian
What crock of shit, you're nothing but a poser.
led mike
led mike wrote:
Try posing you intellectual bigot clap trap at someone who will buy into it, it's completely wasted on me.
Thats because you're a fascist. You even want to have totalitarian control over the terms of the debate. You cannot accept any alternative point of view that contradicts your own.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Aside from that, it really makes no logical sense for the federal government to concern itself with why two people are living together.
It makes no sense for any government to concern itself as to why two people are living together. But we know you and Bubba want to peek through bedroom windows and tell your neighbors how to live. :doh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Tim Craig wrote:
But we know you and Bubba want to peek through bedroom windows and tell your neighbors how to live.
No, I'm actually pretty sure the 4th amendment would prohibit that quite explicitely.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Well Oakman says your post is rational and intelligent. You have not yet pulled the wool over my eyes of course. ;) You can flower up your posts all you want, but at the end of the day you are just proposing oppression of individual freedoms of people that want to do things that you are 100% sure you will never want to do. As you are well aware we have had many past discussions regarding the constitutional support for freedom. I'm still not buying your bigoted bag of crap I don't care how fancy you wrap it up or how much perfumed prose you pour over it.
led mike
led mike wrote:
you are 100% sure you will never want to do.
The right wingers want to do those things. Look at how many of them get caught doing them. It's just they've been told they're bad and they shouldn't do them. If they can't do them, then obviously, no one else should. Reminds me of the story about how you should never take just one Baptist buddy fishing with you. If you do, he'll drink all your beer. You have to take at least two so they'll keep each other honest. :-D
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
-
led mike wrote:
Try posing you intellectual bigot clap trap at someone who will buy into it, it's completely wasted on me.
Thats because you're a fascist. You even want to have totalitarian control over the terms of the debate. You cannot accept any alternative point of view that contradicts your own.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
control over the terms of the debate.
I am not making any changes to the definition of debate from what I learned in school. In recognized debate fashion I have cited you and Jefferson as proof that you do not hold the same political beliefs as him, period. Now go ahead a spew some more intellectualized fiction as though you are offering proof of anything.
led mike
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
My right to walk down the street naked
Sorry, public nudity is covered by common law predating the constitution and is therefore not relevant to the intent of unalienable rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness). Manufacturing a theoretical reason for the common law (1) in order to extend the reasoning onto a completely different issue is not an acceptable argument for eroding freedom in the United States of America.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
This rights based view of the world just fundamentally doesn't work.
It's a real shame you can't travel back to 1776 and convince the founding fathers of that. :rolleyes: And yet I am supposed to take your belief over theirs, I don't think so. The remaining segments of your post seem to be more ramblings similar to what I have seen over and over again which I guess are supposed to be based on your belief that your nudity argument proved something, it didn't.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
It's a great pity because it's actually not a difficult debate to win.
Then do it. :) (1)
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
impinges on the right of someone else not to be appalled by my nakedness
I am seriously not trying to offend you but Matthew but you need to provide a citation for that. I mean as an assumption it is just as reasonable to assume that body covering origins were health and safety based like armor.
led mike
I see that you understood the point of my example if only by your scratching around for some excuse to dismiss it. I have no argument with the founding fathers, for whom I have, on the whole, profound respect. Neither do I have a right to go to Wal-Mart or a right to coffee that is hot enough but not too hot or a right to daycare or a right to jam-rolls or a right to not be told what's good for me because I don't want to listen...&c It is not me who is carrying the analogy too far but those who have taken the intent of the founding fathers and twisted it to give them a license to do as they please and a club with which to beat anyone who wants to stop them, even in their own best interest. I have a right to do what is right, no more and no less. How can anything else be a right? It follows that I don't have a right to do what is wrong. The question then becomes who gets to decide which is which. The founding fathers put a lot of work into making a reasonable system of government to do just that and they were very clear that it was to be based on Christian principles and morality. That system of government has unfortunately also now been distorted into a circus of corruption but that is another debate. If you want a debate about gay marriage I suggest you post a new topic but I won't be around to debate it until tomorrow UK time. right now it's time for tea. :) "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." - Patrick Henry
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Sorry, but you are on the wrong side of history. Fascism is primarily the notion that government, and government alone should be the sole arbeter of what constitutes the social parameters which define a society. Jeffersonianism is the belief that such power should be invested in the hands of the people, limited only by a strict interpretation of the consitution. Therefore for example, if we the people amended the constitution to specifically define appropriate sexual behavior (ie "The right to butt fuck shall not be infringed") than it would be a right and could not be redefined by the people, otherwise, the power to define it rests exclusively with the people, not the courts. A federal judge saying that I must respect and tolerate the sexual behaviors that I disapprove of is an overt fascist act by our government. People like you and led mike simply do not understand that the model of government you are prmoting is predicated upon the evolution of progressivist thought in the late nineteenth and early 20th century which grew out of Marxist theory and finally morphed into fascism. Fascsm was an entirely accepted liberal philosophy until WWII when socialist were succesful at associating it exclusively with Hitlers rascism. Many liberals proudly claimed the term. MOst of the court decisions of the last 70 years have been predicated upon the those principles, not those of Jefferson, et al.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Jeffersonianism is the belief that such power should be invested in the hands of the people, limited only by a strict interpretation of the consitution.
Stan, I hate to break it to you, but Town Meetings don't work too well when you are talking about 303,569,630 (as I typed) people. And the kicker is "interpretation of the Constitution." Who, besides you, gets to do the interpretation? You have already said that when judges do it, it becomes fascism.
Stan Shannon wrote:
People like you and led mike simply do not understand that the model of government you are prmoting is predicated upon the evolution of progressivist thought in the late nineteenth and early 20th century which grew out of Marxist theory and finally morphed into fascism.
You have no idea what form of Government I am promoting because I have never spoken in detail about what I think might be a good form of government. Just because Tim & I point out that you are holding a counterfeit ten dollar bill does not mean that we are promoting the further debasement of our currency by Bush, Cheney, et al.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
control over the terms of the debate.
I am not making any changes to the definition of debate from what I learned in school. In recognized debate fashion I have cited you and Jefferson as proof that you do not hold the same political beliefs as him, period. Now go ahead a spew some more intellectualized fiction as though you are offering proof of anything.
led mike
led mike wrote:
In recognized debate fashion I have cited you and Jefferson as proof that you do not hold the same political beliefs as him, period. Now go ahead a spew some more intellectualized fiction as though you are offering proof of anything.
I'm pretty sure that 200+ years of history is substantially more than intellectualized fiction. If you are correct, please explain why the courts were needed to change existing laws that had been established at the behest of the people after so long a period of time. Do you understand Jeffersonianism better than Jefferson did?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
led mike wrote:
you are 100% sure you will never want to do.
The right wingers want to do those things. Look at how many of them get caught doing them. It's just they've been told they're bad and they shouldn't do them. If they can't do them, then obviously, no one else should. Reminds me of the story about how you should never take just one Baptist buddy fishing with you. If you do, he'll drink all your beer. You have to take at least two so they'll keep each other honest. :-D
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
Tim Craig wrote:
If you do, he'll drink all your beer. You have to take at least two so they'll keep each other honest.
But then they'll throw you in the lake and tell you they won't let you back in the boat until you say you've been reborn. :-D
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Tim Craig wrote:
But we know you and Bubba want to peek through bedroom windows and tell your neighbors how to live.
No, I'm actually pretty sure the 4th amendment would prohibit that quite explicitely.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
No, I'm actually pretty sure the 4th amendment would prohibit that quite explicitely.
But how else can you prove that they're butt-fucking? And you can't start your progrom until you do.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Hmm, I'm not sure it's the religious right who're going after your founding principles but the neo-conservative satanists who hide behind them have certainly been gong after your freedoms.
Sure, I have no problem with that distinction, I mean I don't know if your are correct, but I could certainly be wrong.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
One problem is the understanding of freedom itself
Well I think people pretend to not understand it, and/or they attempt to define it to their own purposes. Stan and (D)espeir are great examples of that. They propose that two men marrying infringes on their right/freedom to believe that two men should not marry, which is of course completely retarded and a great example of how bigots purposefully attempt to manipulate truth and reason to their own twisted ends. The fact that other less bigoted people are fooled into believing that their ugly intentions hidden behind intellectual prose passes for logic reason and truth is very sad. It's actually very simple. We all have the same rights, therefore very simply put one individuals freedoms or rights end anytime their implementation of what they believe is a freedom infringes upon someone else's, period. For example driving laws origin is safety because you don't have the right to endanger others, why? Not because it's wrong but because if you injure someone you have infringed upon their right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, period.
led mike
led mike wrote:
It's actually very simple. We all have the same rights, therefore very simply put one individuals freedoms or rights end anytime their implementation of what they believe is a freedom infringes upon someone else's, period.
Sorry, but there is no such thing as the "right" to marry! If you can find where it says that in any Constitution, state or federal, I'd like to see it! We don't all have the same "rights" (criminals, illegal aliens, etc).
John P.