Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
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
-
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
led mike wrote:
Ah yes the old circular logic ploy, how novel and intellectual of you.
Says the man who claims that men are only truly free when they are butt fucking one another.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
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:
I consider the threat of firing someone to be a form of force.
That is similar to considering self defense an attack. The person that didn't quit the job that they felt they should not perform but rather refused to do their job is the one who attacked. They caused the situation and the reactions from legislators and/or management is self defense. I guess since you did not address my halloween scenario you believe the OB-GYN nurse scenario deserves some special consideration. Is it that you know one that is in this situation? We have people in this country that don't believe modern medicine should be used at all because it violates their religious beliefs. They don't believe in an appendectomy. I mean where do we draw the line? The only logical place to draw it is simple, don't discriminate ever, period. You are still free to believe that abortion should not have happened because God opposes it. But on earth you signed up as a "medical professional". I seem to remember the bible speaking to the issue of following the laws of men etc. right? This is a great example. I mean if your faith in God is so great you should not have a problem doing your job while simultaneously believing that the abortion should not be happening. If God does exist I believe he is powerful enough to handle that.
led mike
-
led mike wrote:
Ah yes the old circular logic ploy, how novel and intellectual of you.
Says the man who claims that men are only truly free when they are butt fucking one another.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Oakman wrote:
I consider the threat of firing someone to be a form of force.
That is similar to considering self defense an attack. The person that didn't quit the job that they felt they should not perform but rather refused to do their job is the one who attacked. They caused the situation and the reactions from legislators and/or management is self defense. I guess since you did not address my halloween scenario you believe the OB-GYN nurse scenario deserves some special consideration. Is it that you know one that is in this situation? We have people in this country that don't believe modern medicine should be used at all because it violates their religious beliefs. They don't believe in an appendectomy. I mean where do we draw the line? The only logical place to draw it is simple, don't discriminate ever, period. You are still free to believe that abortion should not have happened because God opposes it. But on earth you signed up as a "medical professional". I seem to remember the bible speaking to the issue of following the laws of men etc. right? This is a great example. I mean if your faith in God is so great you should not have a problem doing your job while simultaneously believing that the abortion should not be happening. If God does exist I believe he is powerful enough to handle that.
led mike
led mike wrote:
That is similar to considering self defense an attack.
"We had to attack first in self defense?"
led mike wrote:
The person that didn't quit the job that they felt they should not perform but rather refused to do their job is the one who attacked
The jobholder didn't change the rules, the state did, without making any provision of the beliefs of the minority.
led mike wrote:
I seem to remember the bible speaking to the issue of following the laws of men etc
Are you saying that you cannot have objections to abortion unless you believe in God? You might want to read up on some of the studies that Planned Parenthood has conducted on members of its own clinics. Plenty of humanists have trouble with late term abortions.
led mike wrote:
I guess since you did not address my halloween scenario
I assumed it was reductio ad absurdum and required no comment from me. More often than not this type of argument is based on opinion (this is equal to that) and not proven fact. We could debate whether your example is equal to mine, but since you originally asked for anyone forced to act against their beliefs, I chose to "dance with the girl I came with." As I pointed out to you a long time ago, my thesis doesn't require that the law force priests to marry gays, so unless you think it necessary to nail down some new point, I suggest we agree to disagree.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Oakman wrote:
I consider the threat of firing someone to be a form of force.
That is similar to considering self defense an attack. The person that didn't quit the job that they felt they should not perform but rather refused to do their job is the one who attacked. They caused the situation and the reactions from legislators and/or management is self defense. I guess since you did not address my halloween scenario you believe the OB-GYN nurse scenario deserves some special consideration. Is it that you know one that is in this situation? We have people in this country that don't believe modern medicine should be used at all because it violates their religious beliefs. They don't believe in an appendectomy. I mean where do we draw the line? The only logical place to draw it is simple, don't discriminate ever, period. You are still free to believe that abortion should not have happened because God opposes it. But on earth you signed up as a "medical professional". I seem to remember the bible speaking to the issue of following the laws of men etc. right? This is a great example. I mean if your faith in God is so great you should not have a problem doing your job while simultaneously believing that the abortion should not be happening. If God does exist I believe he is powerful enough to handle that.
led mike
led mike wrote:
f your faith in God is so great you should not have a problem doing your job while simultaneously believing that the abortion should not be happening.
What does faith in God have to do with not being willing to do what you consider to be murder? Why do you presume the reasons for refusal are religious rather than secular morality? Requiring someone to do what they regard as criminal in order to retain their job is discriminatory. It is no different than firing an employee who refuses to do a task that they honestly consider to be unethical.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Says the man who claims that men are only truly free when they are butt f***ing one another.
You got a quote for that? Oh right, I forget you're a quoteless wonder.
led mike
Its the logical conclusion of your reasoning. In your society, sexual liberty is the only true form of liberty. Freedom is something you do with your penis. Nothing else matters. Thats what all those brave young men died for on Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima and so many other places - so that men might someday be able to freely butt fuck. Yet never be allowed to met as free men and decide among themselves the moral parameters of their own communities. That power belongs only with those who have the wisdom to decide such things.
led mike wrote:
forget you're a quoteless wonder
I still have no idea what you want a citation for. Does this[^] help you?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
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
led mike wrote:
so your argument is to rewrite the founding fathers. "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
No my argument is that Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness ( the greatest good for the greatest number of people, not self-centered egoism ), are among the things that are right. They didn't need to write that you have a right to eat apple pie because they were stating a principle. The point is that unless you understand the principle the words are no use to you except to trip over.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
led mike wrote:
That is similar to considering self defense an attack.
"We had to attack first in self defense?"
led mike wrote:
The person that didn't quit the job that they felt they should not perform but rather refused to do their job is the one who attacked
The jobholder didn't change the rules, the state did, without making any provision of the beliefs of the minority.
led mike wrote:
I seem to remember the bible speaking to the issue of following the laws of men etc
Are you saying that you cannot have objections to abortion unless you believe in God? You might want to read up on some of the studies that Planned Parenthood has conducted on members of its own clinics. Plenty of humanists have trouble with late term abortions.
led mike wrote:
I guess since you did not address my halloween scenario
I assumed it was reductio ad absurdum and required no comment from me. More often than not this type of argument is based on opinion (this is equal to that) and not proven fact. We could debate whether your example is equal to mine, but since you originally asked for anyone forced to act against their beliefs, I chose to "dance with the girl I came with." As I pointed out to you a long time ago, my thesis doesn't require that the law force priests to marry gays, so unless you think it necessary to nail down some new point, I suggest we agree to disagree.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The jobholder didn't change the rules, the state did, without making any provision of the beliefs of the minority.
That's garbage. They didn't change anything about the fundamental concept that you are a medical professional and your job is to provide medical services. If you want your job to shape laws you should work in the legislature, or whatever.
Oakman wrote:
Are you saying that you cannot have objections to abortion unless you believe in God?
Of course not, however I see where my post might seem that way. I don't believe in or support abortion personally, I equally don't support legislation prohibiting it.
Oakman wrote:
Plenty of humanists have trouble with late term abortions.
Humanist or Catholic, I don't care, as a medical professional the time when you are supposed to medical service is not the appropriate time or means of addressing your trouble with abortion, period.
Oakman wrote:
We could debate whether your example is equal to mine
It's not meant to be equal, it does however address the very large problem associated to every attempt at social legislation, the slippery slope, or as I choose to present it, the where do you draw the line question?
Oakman wrote:
I suggest we agree to disagree.
Works for me. CYA
led mike
-
Its the logical conclusion of your reasoning. In your society, sexual liberty is the only true form of liberty. Freedom is something you do with your penis. Nothing else matters. Thats what all those brave young men died for on Omaha Beach and Iwo Jima and so many other places - so that men might someday be able to freely butt fuck. Yet never be allowed to met as free men and decide among themselves the moral parameters of their own communities. That power belongs only with those who have the wisdom to decide such things.
led mike wrote:
forget you're a quoteless wonder
I still have no idea what you want a citation for. Does this[^] help you?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its the logical conclusion of your reasoning.
Only when you pass the data through the (D)espeir logic prism. I guess he left that with you when he departed. I still crack up every time I see how hung up you are on sodomy. The Stan doth protest too much. Time for me to get out of the office. As usual Stan, it's been, well, something. CYA :-D
led mike
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Its the logical conclusion of your reasoning.
Only when you pass the data through the (D)espeir logic prism. I guess he left that with you when he departed. I still crack up every time I see how hung up you are on sodomy. The Stan doth protest too much. Time for me to get out of the office. As usual Stan, it's been, well, something. CYA :-D
led mike
led mike wrote:
Only when you pass the data through the (D)espeir logic prism. I guess he left that with you when he departed.
No, its unequivocally the logical conclusion of your reasoning. Your reasoning elevates it to a fundamental right. Its the same as speech or religon or the press, or any other right. If fact, its greater than those because neither freedom of speech or religion or the press may be used to discriminate against those who wish to have anal sex. It is their freedom and theirs alone which matters.
led mike wrote:
I still crack up every time I see how hung up you are on sodomy.
I could just as easily use abortion or flag burning. All are examples of the same statist use of authority to subvert the popular will. Both of those are done deals though, sodomy is merely the most recent example and the one that seems most alien to our traditional values.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization