Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
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.
-
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
Stan Shannon wrote:
the cornerstone of fascist theory
Stan Shannon wrote:
than you are a fascist
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats because you're a fascist
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fascism is
Stan Shannon wrote:
morphed into fascism
Stan Shannon wrote:
Fascsm was
God help us, you've read Jonah Goldberg. Now, where you use to write "marxist" you now write "fascist". The more thing change, the more they stay the same - You're still wrong.
-
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
I have no idea how you would prove it. But if the only way was to peek in the window, that would be a direct violation of explicitely stated constitutional protections. Thats the way the system is supposed to work.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
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
It seems to me that the Jeffersonian goal of smaller government and less government interference in our day-to-day lives would preclude legislating matters that are just as well defined and enforced by other means.
-
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
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
Also representative democracy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The three branches of the federal government were supposed to have equal poewr to interpret the constitution. .
Don't be silly. The legislative branch was given the power to change the constitution and the executive branch was supposed to carry out the laws of the land. Why don't you read the constitution you so blithely misrepresent?
Stan Shannon wrote:
In all honestly, I think you probably consider yourself to be some kind of a libertarian.
It doesn't matter what you guess I am; your claim that I promote Marxism is simply ludicrous. Only someone who automatically labelst everyone who disagrees with them as a Marxist (in order not to deal with their arguments) would ever make themselves look foolish by doing so.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not, I'm a radical Jeffersonian extremist
Gee, that sounds all college economicsy. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
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:
Don't they have the freedom to quit those jobs and not participate in those activities that violate their religious principles
Strangely enough, yes. I consider the threat of firing someone to be a form of force. While it is true that ultimately we always have a choice, even if force is used or lethal force is threatened, we also live in a country which is founded in part on the idea that we will protect the rights and the freedom of the minority, not simply impose the latest political thinking on them. If a nurse chooses a career that will, she believes, allow her to be a helping person in childbirth, I do not think the state should require her to perform abortions, especially late term ones. Please understand that I am not arguing against abortion. Just the right of some people to provide OB-GYN nursing care without performing abortions. Among other things, giving them that right will give us more nurses.
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.
BoneSoft wrote:
Hell some here are hostile when you agree with them.
And some people make me re-examine my beliefs because I can't accept the idea that I agree with them about something :-D
BoneSoft wrote:
and just might not be 100% right
Hey I've been wrong - I remember, when I was 12, being wrong. I admit it.
BoneSoft wrote:
And, perhaps selfishly, I don't really want to have a discussion with my child about why little Johnny has two Dads.
I don't mind having that discussion. (had it with my son, actually, when I informed him that my business partner (son of an Admiral and rock-ribbed Republican) was (as he once put it) queer as a three dollar bill. I do mind the school system deciding to have that discussion before I think my kid is ready.
BoneSoft wrote:
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.
As you know I'm very aware that the Bible has been written and rewritten by men, often for purposes that had more to do with politics than with a Supreme Being. However, I'm very used to being told I am going in the wrong direction - and sometimes I even turn around.
BoneSoft wrote:
then leave them the hell alone to decide what's right for them.
too bad more people don't agree.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I have no idea how you would prove it. But if the only way was to peek in the window, that would be a direct violation of explicitely stated constitutional protections. Thats the way the system is supposed to work.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
But if the only way was to peek in the window, that would be a direct violation of explicitely stated constitutional protections. Thats the way the system is supposed to work.
Ah but once you have passed a law making sodomy illegal, all you have to do is get a warrant and you can peep all night long. :cool:
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
-
BoneSoft wrote:
Hell some here are hostile when you agree with them.
And some people make me re-examine my beliefs because I can't accept the idea that I agree with them about something :-D
BoneSoft wrote:
and just might not be 100% right
Hey I've been wrong - I remember, when I was 12, being wrong. I admit it.
BoneSoft wrote:
And, perhaps selfishly, I don't really want to have a discussion with my child about why little Johnny has two Dads.
I don't mind having that discussion. (had it with my son, actually, when I informed him that my business partner (son of an Admiral and rock-ribbed Republican) was (as he once put it) queer as a three dollar bill. I do mind the school system deciding to have that discussion before I think my kid is ready.
BoneSoft wrote:
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.
As you know I'm very aware that the Bible has been written and rewritten by men, often for purposes that had more to do with politics than with a Supreme Being. However, I'm very used to being told I am going in the wrong direction - and sometimes I even turn around.
BoneSoft wrote:
then leave them the hell alone to decide what's right for them.
too bad more people don't agree.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
And some people make me re-examine my beliefs because I can't accept the idea that I agree with them about something
Amen to that.
Oakman wrote:
Hey I've been wrong - I remember, when I was 12, being wrong. I admit it.
I've made mistakes... Most were haircuts and girls ;) , but there were a couple of other things I was wrong about.
Oakman wrote:
I do mind the school system deciding to have that discussion before I think my kid is ready.
That's my big issue... I don't think this is about marriage so much as it is about making the 'lifestyle' more openly wide spread and accepted. I don't really want to have that conversation with the boy, but it's my responsibility to do so at some point. And I don't want the school or anybody else taking it upon themselves to do it. Then again, he's going to run into it at some point, I guess I just don't want it to be too soon.
Oakman wrote:
too bad more people don't agree.
People have a real tendency to want to dictate what other people do. Some people can't deal with disagreement, usually because they REALLY believe that they are right so anybody who disagrees is wrong and must be converted. They can usually be spotted by their inability to argue civilly.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
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.
Also representative democracy.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The three branches of the federal government were supposed to have equal poewr to interpret the constitution. .
Don't be silly. The legislative branch was given the power to change the constitution and the executive branch was supposed to carry out the laws of the land. Why don't you read the constitution you so blithely misrepresent?
Stan Shannon wrote:
In all honestly, I think you probably consider yourself to be some kind of a libertarian.
It doesn't matter what you guess I am; your claim that I promote Marxism is simply ludicrous. Only someone who automatically labelst everyone who disagrees with them as a Marxist (in order not to deal with their arguments) would ever make themselves look foolish by doing so.
Stan Shannon wrote:
I'm not, I'm a radical Jeffersonian extremist
Gee, that sounds all college economicsy. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Also representative democracy.
Not ours.
Oakman wrote:
Don't be silly. The legislative branch was given the power to change the constitution and the executive branch was supposed to carry out the laws of the land. Why don't you read the constitution you so blithely misrepresent?
I have read it. It nowhere indicates that the Supreme court has exclusive authority to interpret the consitution. Jefferson himself assumed that each branch would have equal powers in that regard. Doing so creates the very ackward situation where one branch has no effective consitutional limitatoins upon its own power that it cannot interpret away. Which is precisely what the courts have done. They have invested themselves with true totalitarian authority.
Oakman wrote:
your claim that I promote Marxism is simply ludicrous.
There is only Jefferson and Marx. Marx is for centralized power, Jefferson is for decentralized, anti-federalism. Take your pick. Only Fascist believe in a Third Way.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Oakman wrote:
And some people make me re-examine my beliefs because I can't accept the idea that I agree with them about something
Amen to that.
Oakman wrote:
Hey I've been wrong - I remember, when I was 12, being wrong. I admit it.
I've made mistakes... Most were haircuts and girls ;) , but there were a couple of other things I was wrong about.
Oakman wrote:
I do mind the school system deciding to have that discussion before I think my kid is ready.
That's my big issue... I don't think this is about marriage so much as it is about making the 'lifestyle' more openly wide spread and accepted. I don't really want to have that conversation with the boy, but it's my responsibility to do so at some point. And I don't want the school or anybody else taking it upon themselves to do it. Then again, he's going to run into it at some point, I guess I just don't want it to be too soon.
Oakman wrote:
too bad more people don't agree.
People have a real tendency to want to dictate what other people do. Some people can't deal with disagreement, usually because they REALLY believe that they are right so anybody who disagrees is wrong and must be converted. They can usually be spotted by their inability to argue civilly.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
BoneSoft wrote:
Most were haircuts and girls
I once got a haircut that was so bad, I couldn't think about anything else and ended up going to work wearing two different shoes. I had to stand up on stage in front of about 60 fellow workers that day. . . :-O As for girls well, I spell those mistakes ex-wives. Hopefully thats not something you'll go through.
BoneSoft wrote:
they REALLY believe that they are right so anybody who disagrees is wrong and must be converted. They can usually be spotted by their inability to argue civilly.
and they call you Marxist Fascists. ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface