Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
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
That reminds me of the old SA, in the 70's, where police went to great lengths to catch people of different races having sex.
-
That reminds me of the old SA, in the 70's, where police went to great lengths to catch people of different races having sex.
The first time the Supreme Court got involved in determining whether state marriage laws were constitutional was when they struck down Virginia's anti-miscegenation law. A black and a white who had married elsewhere were being forced to leave the state or face jail. Stan, of course, regards this as a clear case of fascist judicial interference with the rights of the majority to oppress the minority.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
It's right there in the early chapters of Genesis, a man will leave his parents and be joined to his wife, they will become one flesh. I don't have it in front of me. This is the basis and orgination of marriage. The ceremony and state recognition and everything we have added on top is simply an acknowledgement of a fact already recognised by God.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
That seems more like an observation of a very natural and probable phenomenon.
-
yeah, all five of 'em.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
yeah,
Good to see you recognize that Fascism is authoritarianism of the right.
-
That seems more like an observation of a very natural and probable phenomenon.
Indeed, until you consider that all natural phenomena are the creation of God, including probability. This was God saying how it would be, not describing what already was. The same God who spoke the universe into existence. His words carry the authority of law, as in a law of nature. This is not of course to deny that both man and nature are fallen, see Genesis 3.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
And it assumes they're all spiteful and vindictive. Which should be obviously silly to try to assert.
Hey, if the foo shits..... :laugh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
OK, so you're main interest is perpetuating partisan BS. Just checking.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I dunno, live and let live I suppose.
Funny how you say this but in the one case you claim it's a slippery slope and that means the line is arbitrary because you disagree with where the line should be moved and in the other it's easy to establish the line because you want it at a certain point. :doh:
Doing my part to piss off the religious right.
You're right, to some extent my line for capital punishment can be argued as arbitrary. But it's not quite that simple. It's very common in many cultures to feel that the punishment should fit the crime. And most people who support capital punishment only want it as a punishment for murder. So virtually anybody with an opinion on capital punishment wants it in either no situation, or only in the case of murder and severe violent crimes. Not all that arbitrary really is it. On the other hand, who should be allowed to marry isn't so black and white. Well actually it is if you have religion. But since we have this growing movement of faithless people who really want to piss on the beliefs of those who do have religion, now the age old standard has to be questioned. And only when you remove the religious context from marriage, which has probably just about always been an integral part of it, then it turns completely arbitrary. The only thing that makes the current suggestion any more logical than including polygamy or other things to come, is that it's maybe the closest next step out from the standard. So, 1) for you to claim that the current suggestion is not arbitrary, would seem to mean that it's the first step in an intentional slippery slope. In which case, you'd probably fight the slippery slope argument fervently since loosing that argument would betray your actual intent. Or, 2) despite the fact that allowing gay marriage and not polygamy is completely arbitrary, you really want gay marriage so you'll dishonestly argue that it's not arbitrary for the same reason as #1. In either case, by starting this and insisting on removing the religious context you've made it completely arbitrary. And it is arbitrary, far more so than believing that murderers should be put to death. But life is change, and personally I'm not that concerned with what other people choose to do. There are valid arguments on both sides. But sure, to some extent you could argue that any decision on any issue is arbitrary. That's just my 2 yen.
Try code model generation tools at BoneSoft.com.
-
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.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
They didn't need to write that you have a right to eat apple pie marry a person of the same sex because they were stating a principle.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The point is that unless you understand the principle the words are no use to you except to trip over.
And some people choose to believe that the principle is that a sub-set of the population can and should restrict the freedoms of other sub-sets of the population, remember slavery? I for one do not believe that in any way whatsoever reflects the principles stated.
led mike
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
They didn't need to write that you have a right to eat apple pie marry a person of the same sex because they were stating a principle.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
The point is that unless you understand the principle the words are no use to you except to trip over.
And some people choose to believe that the principle is that a sub-set of the population can and should restrict the freedoms of other sub-sets of the population, remember slavery? I for one do not believe that in any way whatsoever reflects the principles stated.
led mike
Don't misquote me, that's at least forum abuse if not outright liable, the two statments are not equivalent. You clearly demonstrate though that you have not understood the principle. What some people choose to believe completely at random and with no reasonbale excuse, or association with the constitution beyond their assertion that there is one, is totally irrelevant.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
I don't see why someone has to down-vote you for that without even saying why. Bugger.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
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.
First I apologize for the delayed reply, this thread just went crazy and I have technical forum threads which I give priority over soapbox. Also you hit my leaving the office time yesterday. Ok I've run out of excuses :-D
Rob Graham wrote:
Why do you presume the reasons for refusal are religious rather than secular morality?
I agree, while it predominantly is it is definitely not exclusive.
Rob Graham wrote:
not being willing to do what you consider to be murder?
Rob Graham wrote:
Requiring someone to do what they regard as criminal in order to retain their job is discriminatory.
I disagree. The choice to enter the field is a choice, no one forced you. It does not seem at all unreasonable given the nature of modern medicine that one could anticipate there could arise situations that don't align with your personal beliefs. However since you chose to be a professional in that field you do your job, period. If you want to address changing the definition of murder then you do it through the appropriate mechanisms, not by refusing to do your job, otherwise you a flirting with being an anarchist.
led mike
-
Thats all your comment warrented. We currently live in the society that hundreds of thousands of young men sacrificed their lives to acheive, and that society has elevated sexual liberty to a status of fundamental freedom on a par and even exceeding that of our traditional rights - speech, religion, the press. This is what they were fighting for. Providing a list of famous perverts is hardly an intelligent reply.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats all your comment warrented.
Yes given you believe the appropriate approach to debate has nothing to do with facts and evidence.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Providing a list of famous perverts is hardly an intelligent reply.
You were the one that stated 200 years of history was in fact very important. Of course you are unable to actually provide any facts as Oakman did. And his list is only the ones we know about. Given how many modern republicans are exposed as gays all the time I have do doubts that Oakmans list is just the tip of the asshole, so to speak. But back to facts. You just make the claim that history supports your POV, what you can't do is prove it. What I don't yet know is if you can't prove it because history doesn't support your claims or because you have no concept of what proof is.
led mike
-
Don't misquote me, that's at least forum abuse if not outright liable, the two statments are not equivalent. You clearly demonstrate though that you have not understood the principle. What some people choose to believe completely at random and with no reasonbale excuse, or association with the constitution beyond their assertion that there is one, is totally irrelevant.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Don't misquote me
Where did I do that?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
if not outright liable
Wow, hysterical much?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You clearly demonstrate though that you have not understood the principle.
And I believe you have done that, so we have surprisingly (sarcasm) arrived at the same place two people that disagree about what the founders meant by "liberty" always arrive at. In case you're interested I am not voting on your posts. I almost never vote other than abuse votes in tech forums and an occasional 5 for funny stuff. :)
led mike
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Don't misquote me
Where did I do that?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
if not outright liable
Wow, hysterical much?
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
You clearly demonstrate though that you have not understood the principle.
And I believe you have done that, so we have surprisingly (sarcasm) arrived at the same place two people that disagree about what the founders meant by "liberty" always arrive at. In case you're interested I am not voting on your posts. I almost never vote other than abuse votes in tech forums and an occasional 5 for funny stuff. :)
led mike
led mike wrote:
Where did I do that?
When you wrote "eat apple pie marry a person" into the middle of a quote in your previous post.
led mike wrote:
we have surprisingly (sarcasm) arrived at the same place two people that disagree about what the founders meant by "liberty" always arrive at.
Indeed, the difference is that my interpretation is consistent with who they were and what they, as far as it can be established, believed. It is not based merely on semantic games played with the text of a single document in the abstract as so many modern 'interpretations' are.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
Thats all your comment warrented.
Yes given you believe the appropriate approach to debate has nothing to do with facts and evidence.
Stan Shannon wrote:
Providing a list of famous perverts is hardly an intelligent reply.
You were the one that stated 200 years of history was in fact very important. Of course you are unable to actually provide any facts as Oakman did. And his list is only the ones we know about. Given how many modern republicans are exposed as gays all the time I have do doubts that Oakmans list is just the tip of the asshole, so to speak. But back to facts. You just make the claim that history supports your POV, what you can't do is prove it. What I don't yet know is if you can't prove it because history doesn't support your claims or because you have no concept of what proof is.
led mike
led mike wrote:
es given you believe the appropriate approach to debate has nothing to do with facts and evidence.
I still don't have a clue what you are referring to. You seem to want proof that the hisotry you are complaining about did not exist. But if it did not exist, what do you have to complain about? You seem to want me to provide proof that what you are complaining about is true while I am agreeing with you the entire time that it was true. There really were anti-sodomy laws in a Jeffersonian society. My only question for you is, if those laws were anti-Jeffersonian how did they get there? If anti-abortion laws were anti-Jeffersonian, how did the get there? If laws against flag burning were anti-Jeffersonian, how did they get there? If laws against interracial marriage were anti-Jeffersonian, how did they get there?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
hundreds of thousands of young men sacrificed their lives to acheive,
Yep and at tens of thousands of which were gay. You think they weren't hoping that that they could become first class citizens?
Stan Shannon wrote:
Providing a list of famous perverts is hardly an intelligent reply.
lets see, you don't like Indians, Blacks, homosexuals, people to the left of Richard Nixon - how do you feel about Asians?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Yep and at tens of thousands of which were gay. You think they weren't hoping that that they could become first class citizens?
They already were first class citizens.
Oakman wrote:
lets see, you don't like Indians, Blacks, homosexuals, people to the left of Richard Nixon - how do you feel about Asians?
How about an actual original argument? What have I ever said to imply that I don't like those people? I'm only saying that social problems should be dealt with in a Jeffersonian way, not a fascist way. Are there racist in Jeffersonian society? Of course. But there are also racist facists, Adolph Hitler for example. Neither philosophy has an exclusive appeal to racist sentiments. My problem with your ilk, is that you essentially want to employ the same basic political principles of Hitler to do good things. And no, I'm not calling you a Nazi. Fascism was created so that good people could do good things in a controlled centralized way because the common man simply could not be trusted to do such things in a decentralized way. Jeffersonian principles makes exactly the opposite claim, that good men can best assert themselves if they are not controlled by a centralized authority. That concept is classical, pre-Marxist, liberalism, and I believe in it and that does not make me a racist or a homophobe or anything else.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
-
Tim Craig wrote:
Oh, damn. Drag me into this
We're gonna fight him till the last ounce of your blood!
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
led mike wrote:
Where did I do that?
When you wrote "eat apple pie marry a person" into the middle of a quote in your previous post.
led mike wrote:
we have surprisingly (sarcasm) arrived at the same place two people that disagree about what the founders meant by "liberty" always arrive at.
Indeed, the difference is that my interpretation is consistent with who they were and what they, as far as it can be established, believed. It is not based merely on semantic games played with the text of a single document in the abstract as so many modern 'interpretations' are.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
When you wrote "eat apple pie marry a person" into the middle of a quote in your previous post.
No, that was an implicit replacement "by me" of your quote to show how it fits your stated logic for the other issue. That's why the strikeout font is used to show your original words followed by my replacement.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Indeed, the difference is that my interpretation is consistent with who they were and what they, as far as it can be established, believed. It is not based merely on semantic games played with the text of a single document in the abstract as so many modern 'interpretations' are.
Of course I would say the same thing so how does that further anything? Neither of us is going to change the others mind about what the founders meant by their words referencing freedom and rights, period.
led mike
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
When you wrote "eat apple pie marry a person" into the middle of a quote in your previous post.
No, that was an implicit replacement "by me" of your quote to show how it fits your stated logic for the other issue. That's why the strikeout font is used to show your original words followed by my replacement.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Indeed, the difference is that my interpretation is consistent with who they were and what they, as far as it can be established, believed. It is not based merely on semantic games played with the text of a single document in the abstract as so many modern 'interpretations' are.
Of course I would say the same thing so how does that further anything? Neither of us is going to change the others mind about what the founders meant by their words referencing freedom and rights, period.
led mike
led mike wrote:
Neither of us is going to change the others mind about what the founders meant by their words referencing freedom and rights, period.
It's your perogative to be closed to argument but not to put your words in quotes next to my name, for your own sake as much as mine. You believe it
led mike wrote:
fits your stated logic for the other issue
and I believe it expressly contradicts it. As it's my stated logic I think I get the benefit of the doubt on that one although I'm sure you diagree. We may not agree on an interpretation but we might agree on the consequences of a particular interpretation especially if there's enough historical data to prove it out. That might help separate a poor interpretation from a better one in terms of outcome at least. Unfortunately my knowledge of US history and internal affairs especially pre Word War 2 is non good enough to sustain such a debate.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
led mike wrote:
es given you believe the appropriate approach to debate has nothing to do with facts and evidence.
I still don't have a clue what you are referring to. You seem to want proof that the hisotry you are complaining about did not exist. But if it did not exist, what do you have to complain about? You seem to want me to provide proof that what you are complaining about is true while I am agreeing with you the entire time that it was true. There really were anti-sodomy laws in a Jeffersonian society. My only question for you is, if those laws were anti-Jeffersonian how did they get there? If anti-abortion laws were anti-Jeffersonian, how did the get there? If laws against flag burning were anti-Jeffersonian, how did they get there? If laws against interracial marriage were anti-Jeffersonian, how did they get there?
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
The same way slavery got there, through the oppression of few for the benefit of few. It was wrong then, wrong now, period, end of story. As for citing history, the Roe decision cites common law on abortion and that abortion legislation was relatively modern. Also we already fought one war against isolationist ideals of some Americans. I guess you think you will win this time. Now you can get back to your dreams of the good old days of burning witches, inquisitions and slavery.
led mike