Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
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
-
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.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
and I believe it expressly contradicts it.
I didn't say I believed it, I said I showed that it fits by changing the words. You can believe whatever you want but my replacement of words shows what it shows, period.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
As it's my stated logic
Logic is Logic, it's not yours. You made the statement in an attempt to prove something and the statement was turned against your argument, period. If your not capable of comprehending that I don't see use in further attempts at rational debate with you.
led mike
-
I agree completely with that. I don't think that local communites should have such laws and I would vote against them if they were brought up anywhere that I live. I'm simply saying that as long as there is no violation of specific rights as clearly defined in the constitution the right to define their legality rest with the states and the people. The subversion of such classical liberalism is, in fact, the lingering intellectual legacy of the influence of the very philosophies which were roundly and proudly touted as being 'fascist' by the left in the first few decades of the 20th century.
Please excuse my refusal to participate in the suicide of western civilization
While I disagree strongly that a philosophy rooted in Locke in any way constitutes fascism, and would argue -- and have argued -- that the ideals stated in the Declaration of Independence can and should be used as a litmus for both legislation and interpretation of the Constitution, you do make a good point.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
and I believe it expressly contradicts it.
I didn't say I believed it, I said I showed that it fits by changing the words. You can believe whatever you want but my replacement of words shows what it shows, period.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
As it's my stated logic
Logic is Logic, it's not yours. You made the statement in an attempt to prove something and the statement was turned against your argument, period. If your not capable of comprehending that I don't see use in further attempts at rational debate with you.
led mike
If you can't see that replacing something true with something false invalidates a logical expression then you clearly are not capable of
led mike wrote:
further attempts at rational debate with you.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
If you can't see that replacing something true with something false invalidates a logical expression then you clearly are not capable of
led mike wrote:
further attempts at rational debate with you.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Now that is provably false and shows once again your utter lack of understanding of the idea of anything greater than yourself.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Because there isn't.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Neither does it say that we are not. Atoms have been photographed and there's pretty good evidence for them, although not necessarily for the traditional model of how they work, so why wouldn't I believe in them. Spirits have also been photographed and there is far more and more evidence for them but I guess you don't believe in such things. So which of us is consistent?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Yes. I know atoms exist. No. Spirits have not been photographed. Many of them are even known to be hoaxes/fakes. The technique to make them is commonly known.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
with something false
And where is your evidence proving it's false?
led mike
That is exactly what we're debating. "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." does not include things that are wrong. It cannot be intepretted to do so or it is meaningless as it then potentially includes everything that is right and things that are wrong and no boundary condition to prevent that including everything that is wrong, making this statment equivalent to total license which was unarguably against the principles of the founding fathers. So if they only intended to include things that are right, or possibly even a subset of things that are right if any had totalitarian leanings, which I doubt, then the question becomes did they consider same sex marriage ( a non concept but we've already had that debate elsewhere ) to be right. I think you can probably work that one out for yourself. The vital assumption in this argument as pointed out elsewhere is a belief in objective right and wrong, without which of course all debate, philosophy and frankly life, is futile. Replacing 'eating apple pie', something that can be right or wrong depending on the circumstances and is a second or third order moral issue with 'same sex marriage', a non concept that is wrong in all cases and has primary social consequences is the equivalent of rewriting e = mc^2 as e = m0^2 and claiming the two are equivalent.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
These are your opinions and they are both ignorant and incorrect.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Those are not opinions. Those are facts. What part is wrong?
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?