Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
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.
-
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
Oakman wrote:
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.
The funny thing is arguments such as that were virtually the cornerstone of fascist theory.
Oakman wrote:
Who, besides you, gets to do the interpretation? You have already said that when judges do it, it becomes fascism.
The three branches of the federal government were supposed to have equal poewr to interpret the constitution. The supreme court has largely usurped that authority and has been using it in an increasingly fascist way. Systematically imposing the views of a centralist elitist authority over the people.
Oakman wrote:
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.
In all honestly, I think you probably consider yourself to be some kind of a libertarian. I'm not, I'm a radical Jeffersonian extremist.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
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:
Should there be institutions within our society which have some degree of authority in defining the parameters of our culture other than government itself?
Why can't these "institutions" define the parameters of our culture by example? Why do you think it necessary for the parameters of culture to be codified in statute? The minute there is a law that enforces culture, isn't that the very definition of putting culture in the hands of government, and isn't that the very thing to which you are opposed?
-
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
That's what you call forcing? I guess forcing doesn't mean what I thought it did. Don't they have the freedom to quit those jobs and not participate in those activities that violate their religious principles? Your citations are actually arguing the opposite side of the issue you think they do. Those people chose a licensed medical career that requires they serve people medically in a country where discrimination is not tolerated. They are wrong in their actions short of quiting those jobs to avoid the conflict with their religious beliefs. Those laws should not be necessary if those religious people :rolleyes: had done the right thing. What's next? Some sick/injured child comes in on Halloween dressed like the devil so they refuse treatment? Don't discriminate, period, it's really not that difficult.
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:
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
-
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
Oakman wrote:
but I do enjoy the fact that when we disagree we are able to argue intelligently and respectfully.
Me too, I wish some others felt the same way. There's no reason to be disrespectful or leave civility behind, even on the big issues. Hell some here are hostile when you agree with them. But I suppose it requires all parties involved to be aware that their opinion isn't the only perspective and just might not be 100% right. Well that and at least a little respect and humility.
Oakman wrote:
I really don't think the Republic is threatened by poly marriages.
Nor do I. I think the biggest issue with polygamists is that those involved tend to have a penchant for being exploitive. Personally, I lean toward the religious argument. I'd rather not see gay marriage, mostly because I don't think it should be promoted. And, perhaps selfishly, I don't really want to have a discussion with my child about why little Johnny has two Dads. However, I also don't believe that gay people have a choice about which way the go any more than heteros do, and I doubt the country will slide into the ocean because of it. I believe the Bible encourages us to tell people when we feel they are going the wrong direction, then leave them the hell alone to decide what's right for them. If it was the other way around and we were looking at making gay marriage illegal, I think I'd probably still be on the status quo side. I'm somewhat conflicted on this issue and don't want to weight in too heavily though.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
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.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
I have a right to do what is right, no more and no less.
Wow so your argument is to rewrite the founding fathers. "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Patrick Henry was exactly correct. Notice that neither his statement nor any references to Christians or Jesus are found in the Declaration or Constitution. So while it is a great observation to be made it does nothing to change the words in the documents that "all the founding fathers" agreed on. In fact it seems to logically suggest the opposite. I mean given what Henry said is true they must have gone to great lengths to ensure no references to Christians, Jesus or God made it into the Constitution.
led mike
-
last time I'm asking you for citations, if you are incapable of performing basic debate there is no point in talking to you.
led mike
Citations for what? History? If you are correct, how did the laws that the courts overturned get there in the first place? Its a simple question. Were those laws always a violation of Jeffersonian democracy, or did some aspect of our understanding of Jeffersonianism change? If it did change, why, and what were the intellectual motivation for the change? I can give you citations for that if you like.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
I agree completely with you to that extent. The very notion of discrimination of any type is the only thing our society any longer has the moral fortitude to discriminate against. It is not merely an inherently ignorant intellectual position to assume, it is simply not sustainable culturally. Any other culture could easily kick our asses as long as they ain't us. It is ultimately a belief in nothingness altogether.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
The very notion of discrimination of any type is the only thing our society any longer has the moral fortitude to discriminate against.
Ah yes the old circular logic ploy, how novel and intellectual of you. Self defense is really an attack in political disguise. :zzz:
Stan Shannon wrote:
It is ultimately a belief in nothingness altogether.
I don't know about that but you are almost an example of nothingness.
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Should there be institutions within our society which have some degree of authority in defining the parameters of our culture other than government itself?
Why can't these "institutions" define the parameters of our culture by example? Why do you think it necessary for the parameters of culture to be codified in statute? The minute there is a law that enforces culture, isn't that the very definition of putting culture in the hands of government, and isn't that the very thing to which you are opposed?
Vincent Reynolds wrote:
Why do you think it necessary for the parameters of culture to be codified in statute? The minute there is a law that enforces culture, isn't that the very definition of putting culture in the hands of government, and isn't that the very thing to which you are opposed?
I don't. What I do think is that institutions independent of government should exist from which the people can derive intellectual, social and moral guidance and that the parameters which define our society which derive from those institutions should be as respected as any other in the establishement of the democratic will of our society and the legal system which it ultimately supports.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
modified on Wednesday, March 5, 2008 2:58 PM
-
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.
jparken wrote:
We don't all have the same "rights"
Good one :zzz: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
jparken wrote:
If you can find where it says that in any Constitution
I will start looking as soon as you show me where it says I have the right to eat apple pie :zzz: If your next reply doesn't do modestly better than this I will be ignoring 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.
Tim Craig wrote:
Look at how many of them get caught doing them.
What, 3 or 4? OK, it's more than that, especially if you start counting Catholic priests and tele-evangelists... But what's worse, keeping a standard that you can't always live up to, or having no standard at all.
Tim Craig wrote:
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.
Well, that's an over simplification and assumes that nobody on the right has a mind of their own or any valid points or perspectives. And it assumes they're all spiteful and vindictive. Which should be obviously silly to try to assert.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Citations for what? History? If you are correct, how did the laws that the courts overturned get there in the first place? Its a simple question. Were those laws always a violation of Jeffersonian democracy, or did some aspect of our understanding of Jeffersonianism change? If it did change, why, and what were the intellectual motivation for the change? I can give you citations for that if you like.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
jparken wrote:
We don't all have the same "rights"
Good one :zzz: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
jparken wrote:
If you can find where it says that in any Constitution
I will start looking as soon as you show me where it says I have the right to eat apple pie :zzz: If your next reply doesn't do modestly better than this I will be ignoring it.
led mike
And if the best answer you can come up with is this, don't bother replying --- it's a waste of both our time! :zzz: :zzz: I just love it when the best you can do is BEG THE QUESTION!
John P.