The Flat Earth Society
Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Rama Set on June 26, 2015, 03:31:16 PM
-
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/u-s-supreme-court-rules-in-favour-of-same-sex-marriage-1.3127280
Welcome to the party! It's fabulous!
-
A great day for freedom. It'll be our turn soon (probably, or at least hopefully).
-
Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!
-
The fact that it took this long is still ridiculous, but glad it happened finally. This will be one of the things people look back on in 50 years and wonder what the hell was wrong with people, similar to the civil rights movement.
-
Society values tend to have quite a lot of inertia and sometimes it takes a while before significant changes can be realized.
-
I'm offended by it simply because I don't think a court should legislate it. I think the States should decide on it. If I were a State that opposed it, I would tell the Court to fuck itself, and refuse to issue the licenses. They would have to send in the military to force my State to do it, if I was the Governor of such a State. And then I would order all State workers to strike, and not allow any one of them to come to work. The military would have to run all the offices of the State indefinitely.
-
I'm offended by it simply because I don't think a court should legislate it. I think the States should decide on it. If I were a State that opposed it, I would tell the Court to fuck itself, and refuse to issue the licenses. They would have to send in the military to force my State to do it, if I was the Governor of such a State. And then I would order all State workers to strike, and not allow any one of them to come to work. The military would have to run all the offices of the State indefinitely.
I don't think you understand how the United States government works. I suggest taking a high school level civics course.
-
Reading the highlights of the dissenting opinion is kinda interesting. It boils down to "We shouldn't tell marriage what it is" and "This is a horrible court".
I'm offended by it simply because I don't think a court should legislate it. I think the States should decide on it. If I were a State that opposed it, I would tell the Court to fuck itself, and refuse to issue the licenses. They would have to send in the military to force my State to do it, if I was the Governor of such a State. And then I would order all State workers to strike, and not allow any one of them to come to work. The military would have to run all the offices of the State indefinitely.
Or you'd be arrested for violating federal law and your deputy governor would take over, with the fear of arrests.
Or they'd just remove all federal funding from your state then watch you spiral into ruin. :D
-
And the State would declare independence and start Civil War II. Frankly, on a personal level, I don't care who marries whom; but I believe in States' Rights. I would also call up the State National Guard to kill on sight any Federal agent, military or otherwise, who attempted to enter the State to enforce a law that violates the Constitution of my State and that of the USA.
-
But I'm not the Governor, and my State already allows it.
-
enforce a law that violates the Constitution of my State and that of the USA.
Please explain, with quotes from the Constitution, how the Supreme Court interpreting the law is unconstitutional.
-
enforce a law that violates the Constitution of my State and that of the USA.
Do you feel the same about the currently existing Defense of Marriage Act?
-
Yes, legislating civil rights is always good practice... Brilliant.
-
I don't have to. Just read the dissenting opinion. And DOMA was invalidated a few years ago. Neverthless, that was constitutional. Enforcing existing understings that go back 25,000 years is one thing. Summarily changing those understandings against the will of a sovereign State is an entirely different matter. To paraphrase the Constitution, any power not explicitly given to the Federal Government is retained by the States. Marriage is one of those. Marriage laws are enforced and instituted by States. One does NOT go to a Federal office to get a marriage license. One goes to a State office. This makes it a State, not a Federal matter. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction on the matter.
-
I don't have to. Just read the dissenting opinion. And DOMA was invalidated a few years ago. Neverthless, that was constitutional. Enforcing existing understings that go back 25,000 years is one thing. Summarily changing those understandings against the will of a sovereign State is an entirely different matter. To paraphrase the Constitution, any power not explicitly given to the Federal Government is retained by the States. Marriage is one of those. Marriage laws are enforced and instituted by States. One does NOT go to a Federal office to get a marriage license. One goes to a State office. This makes it a State, not a Federal matter. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction on the matter.
Take a look at Loving v. Virginia. This gay marriage ruling isn't the first time the Supreme Court had to "redefine" marriage for states that just couldn't help discriminating against their citizens.
Your position is flawed, and quite frankly ridiculous. I also find it interesting that your reaction is that there should be bloodshed over this. I'm really glad your kind of people are fading and will be proven again to be on the wrong side of history.
-
I don't have to. Just read the dissenting opinion. And DOMA was invalidated a few years ago. Neverthless, that was constitutional. Enforcing existing understings that go back 25,000 years is one thing. Summarily changing those understandings against the will of a sovereign State is an entirely different matter. To paraphrase the Constitution, any power not explicitly given to the Federal Government is retained by the States. Marriage is one of those. Marriage laws are enforced and instituted by States. One does NOT go to a Federal office to get a marriage license. One goes to a State office. This makes it a State, not a Federal matter. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction on the matter.
Seems basing the decision on the 14th amendment is pretty sound to me.
-
I don't have to. Just read the dissenting opinion. And DOMA was invalidated a few years ago. Neverthless, that was constitutional. Enforcing existing understings that go back 25,000 years is one thing. Summarily changing those understandings against the will of a sovereign State is an entirely different matter. To paraphrase the Constitution, any power not explicitly given to the Federal Government is retained by the States. Marriage is one of those. Marriage laws are enforced and instituted by States. One does NOT go to a Federal office to get a marriage license. One goes to a State office. This makes it a State, not a Federal matter. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction on the matter.
Seems basing the decision on the 14th amendment is pretty sound to me.
Agreed. I mean, if a black and white person can fall in love, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry like the rest of us?
-
And then I would order all State workers to strike, and not allow any one of them to come to work. The military would have to run all the offices of the State indefinitely.
I would also call up the State National Guard to kill on sight any Federal agent, military or otherwise, who attempted to enter the State to enforce a law that violates the Constitution of my State and that of the USA.
Do you seriously think that governors have the power to do these ridiculous things?
I don't have to. Just read the dissenting opinion. And DOMA was invalidated a few years ago. Neverthless, that was constitutional. Enforcing existing understings that go back 25,000 years is one thing. Summarily changing those understandings against the will of a sovereign State is an entirely different matter. To paraphrase the Constitution, any power not explicitly given to the Federal Government is retained by the States. Marriage is one of those. Marriage laws are enforced and instituted by States. One does NOT go to a Federal office to get a marriage license. One goes to a State office. This makes it a State, not a Federal matter. The Federal Government has no jurisdiction on the matter.
First of all, states aren't sovereign. They're not even close to sovereign. Second of all, you're confusing the powers of the federal government (as in, the laws that Congress can pass and the executive can enforce) with the scope of the Supreme Court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has full authority over pretty much every legal issue in the country (hence its name). What Congress can or can't do is irrelevant to the Court's power to hear and rule on any appeal it receives.
-
And the State would declare independence and start Civil War II. Frankly, on a personal level, I don't care who marries whom; but I believe in States' Rights. I would also call up the State National Guard to kill on sight any Federal agent, military or otherwise, who attempted to enter the State to enforce a law that violates the Constitution of my State and that of the USA.
Even if the governor had the authority to declare war on the rest of the US (which they don't), the state National Guard can be federalized under order from the president. Famously, Kennedy did this to stop the governor of Alabama from disobeying the Supreme Court's order to desegregate schools.
Also, you would be a terrible leader. Your response to things you disagree with is "kill everyone who disagrees with me" an uncomfortable amount of the time.
-
First off, you are assuming I agree with Loving v. Virginia. I don't. I think SCOTUS exceeded its authority there, too. I think the Sovereign States should have been left to make that decision. And no, I disagree with you. The only reason States aren't sovereign (any more) is the South's loss of the Civil War, and earlier, the Anti-Federalists' loss in the creation of the American government.
And personally, although I don't presume to tell two people who can marry whom, I don't personally like interracial marriage. Miscegenation, to be quite frank, offends my sensibilities. If you want to do it, feel free, but don't ask me to fucking like it.
And yes, the National Guard can be Federalised. They can also refuse to be Federalised, by refusing to follow an order they consider to be in violation of their own State's constitution.
-
First off, you are assuming I agree with Loving v. Virginia. I don't. I think SCOTUS exceeded its authority there, too. I think the Sovereign States should have been left to make that decision. And no, I disagree with you. The only reason States aren't sovereign (any more) is the South's loss of the Civil War, and earlier, the Anti-Federalists' loss in the creation of the American government.
And personally, although I don't presume to tell two people who can marry whom, I don't personally like interracial marriage. Miscegenation, to be quite frank, offends my sensibilities. If you want to do it, feel free, but don't ask me to fucking like it.
Dude, what the fuck?
And yes, the National Guard can be Federalised. They can also refuse to be Federalised, by refusing to follow an order they consider to be in violation of their own State's constitution.
Technically this is possible, sort of, but it also would never happen, especially in the hypothetical instance you're proposing.
-
Again, legislating civil rights doesn't work when the majority is fine with discrimination.
-
Again, legislating civil rights doesn't work when the majority is fine with discrimination.
What do you mean? The passing of the Civil Rights Act did wonders for the racial wage gap, and with this new ruling Texan gays can get married. Bigots still exist (look at Yaakov!), and this probably won't change anyone's minds, but it still has a profound impact on the lives of the people affected. I'd call that working.
-
First off, you are assuming I agree with Loving v. Virginia. I don't. I think SCOTUS exceeded its authority there, too. I think the Sovereign States should have been left to make that decision. And no, I disagree with you. The only reason States aren't sovereign (any more) is the South's loss of the Civil War, and earlier, the Anti-Federalists' loss in the creation of the American government.
And personally, although I don't presume to tell two people who can marry whom, I don't personally like interracial marriage. Miscegenation, to be quite frank, offends my sensibilities. If you want to do it, feel free, but don't ask me to fucking like it.
Dude, what the fuck?
Hey. I didn't bring it up. I just responded to it. I don't particularly like miscegenation. I don't believe in mistreating anyone. That kind of shit is entirely unnecessary. Everyone should be afforded equal opportunities no matter what they look like. But I don't have to agree with the practice, and I don't. Just because you want to do it doesn't mean I have to fucking like it.
And yes, the National Guard can be Federalised. They can also refuse to be Federalised, by refusing to follow an order they consider to be in violation of their own State's constitution.
Technically this is possible, sort of, but it also would never happen, especially in the hypothetical instance you're proposing.
The Guard has only been Federalised once. So we don't know if it would ever refuse, do we?
I'm still hoping a Governor or two will have the cajones to refuse to do the whole gay thing. And frankly, I tried the interracial thing. Didn't have kids. But I almost married a girl who had four kids. All by the same father. She was Black, quite beautiful, so were the kids. It didn't work out, and for damn good reason. We chose to separate on good terms. And there were good reasons for the separation. I don't know how she feels about the idea of interracial business now. But I know how I feel about it. I was even married to a Chinese. No kids again. Again, a bad idea.
Now I am married to a lilly white girl. Smartest move I ever made.
-
...
I mean, you have the right to your own opinion. It's just kind of a fucked up opinion, is all.
-
Okay, if the legal arguments in this thread have sunk to "well maybe the military will mutiny," then there's really nothing left to discuss.
Also, oy vey, I'm such a Jew! Jew Jew Jew! Have I mentioned I'm a Jew today? Jew!
-
...
I mean, you have the right to your own opinion. It's just kind of a fucked up opinion, is all.
I think the Sovereign States should make all social decisions. The Federal Government is in the business of conducting commerce, fighting wars against foreign nations, and levying taxes in support of same. It has NO business doing anything else. The States are, or at least should be, Sovereign Nations in all respects except those basic things in which they are too small to act for themselves. Making social decisions is certainly within their ability.
And Saddam, you're a fucking idiot. What does my ethno-religious status have to do with any of this, aside from the the fact that you are obviously an anti-Semitic fuck for bringing it up at all?
-
Again, legislating civil rights doesn't work when the majority is fine with discrimination.
What do you mean? The passing of the Civil Rights Act did wonders for the racial wage gap, and with this new ruling Texan gays can get married. Bigots still exist (look at Yaakov!), and this probably won't change anyone's minds, but it still has a profound impact on the lives of the people affected. I'd call that working.
Maybe there was some confusion regarding my point. Yes, legislation that protects civil rights is greatly beneficial. However, overcoming discriminatory legislation is difficult and you often have to drag people kicking and screaming into the future where minorities can actually receive equal protection. This is one of the reasons the Supreme Court is needed, because if you leave it up to the majority, they tend to historically favor discrimination.
-
... the Anti-Federalists' loss in the creation of the American government.
So basically your entire argument is:
The US government was created in a way I don't like and thus it's wrong.
Here's a tip:
Move to Israel. You'll like it there.
-
Why would you ask the state for permission when you want to live together with a wo(man)?
You would have to ask the state for permission again when you want to end the relationship.
How stupid is that?
-
Why would you ask the state for permission when you want to live together with a wo(man)?
You would have to ask the state for permission again when you want to end the relationship.
How stupid is that?
There are legal ramifications to marriage so to have it regulated is a good idea. If you want it deregulated then you have to strip all the benefits such taxation and legal privilege away.
-
Why would you ask the state for permission when you want to live together with a wo(man)?
You would have to ask the state for permission again when you want to end the relationship.
How stupid is that?
There are legal ramifications to marriage so to have it regulated is a good idea. If you want it deregulated then you have to strip all the benefits such taxation and legal privilege away.
Marriage is all about money and financial security. In order to have these benifits, you turn over your power to the state (and some power to your partner).
How stupid is that?
-
Why would you ask the state for permission when you want to live together with a wo(man)?
You would have to ask the state for permission again when you want to end the relationship.
How stupid is that?
There are legal ramifications to marriage so to have it regulated is a good idea. If you want it deregulated then you have to strip all the benefits such taxation and legal privilege away.
Marriage is all about money and financial security. In order to have these benifits, you turn over your power to the state (and some power to your partner).
How stupid is that?
What power is being turned over? You are being asked to fill out some paper work and pay a nominal fee. Regardless, that is not all marriage is about. Who said that or why would you think that? All I am saying is that if the government decides to confer some benefit for marriage on to its citizens, it seems perfectly reasonable that they have some way to track who are receiving those benefits and who is not, doesn't it?
-
Why would you ask the state for permission when you want to live together with a wo(man)?
You would have to ask the state for permission again when you want to end the relationship.
How stupid is that?
There are legal ramifications to marriage so to have it regulated is a good idea. If you want it deregulated then you have to strip all the benefits such taxation and legal privilege away.
Marriage is all about money and financial security. In order to have these benifits, you turn over your power to the state (and some power to your partner).
How stupid is that?
What power is being turned over? You are being asked to fill out some paper work and pay a nominal fee. Regardless, that is not all marriage is about. Who said that or why would you think that? All I am saying is that if the government decides to confer some benefit for marriage on to its citizens, it seems perfectly reasonable that they have some way to track who are receiving those benefits and who is not, doesn't it?
I'm not against it, but I'm just pointing out that you ask the state for permission to marry and have to ask the state for permission to divorce. You have to ask and pay a lawyer and the state (judge) will decide if you can separate from someone else and who gets what (children, money, etc).
I think it's pretty stupid to hand over this power to the state. The state will decide what you can do with your life and what not.
-
Don't register your marriage with the State then. You can do that, you just won't get any recognition or benefit from the State. Simple no? Much simpler than you are making it out to be.
-
Don't register your marriage with the State then. You can do that, you just won't get any recognition or benefit from the State. Simple no? Much simpler than you are making it out to be.
You get it!
-
Don't register your marriage with the State then. You can do that, you just won't get any recognition or benefit from the State. Simple no? Much simpler than you are making it out to be.
You get it!
Why were you making a big deal then?
-
Don't register your marriage with the State then. You can do that, you just won't get any recognition or benefit from the State. Simple no? Much simpler than you are making it out to be.
You get it!
Why were you making a big deal then?
big????? maybe for you.
-
Off-topic discussion split into AR.
-
Why should gay marriage be legal?
-
Why should gay marriage be legal?
The decision was actually that denying homosexuals a marriage was discriminatory and in violation of the 14tj amendment rights. It was not a positive legislation for same sex marriage. Nice try though :-*
-
Tom did a thing on this before. See, gay couples can't procreate, meaning that they can't produce any eventual taxpayers, and so gay marriage must therefore remain illegal.
-
Why should gay marriage be legal?
Because the state has no business regulating people's personal lives one way or another.
-
Why should gay marriage be legal?
The decision was actually that denying homosexuals a marriage was discriminatory and in violation of the 14tj amendment rights. It was not a positive legislation for same sex marriage. Nice try though :-*
Why should gay marriage be legal?
Because the state has no business regulating people's personal lives one way or another.
Over the years the courts have barred polygamists from marrying, from adopting, and even cohabitating in some states. Why is gay marriage so great that it deserves an exception in the law? Every argument in favor of gay marriage can be applied towards polygamy as well.
-
Over the years the courts have barred polygamists from marrying, from adopting, and even cohabitating in some states. Why is gay marriage so great that it deserves an exception in the law? Every argument in favor of gay marriage can be applied towards polygamy as well.
Like I said, the state has no business running people's lives for them. That applies to polygamy as well as homosexuality.
-
Like I said, the state has no business running people's lives for them. That applies to polygamy as well as homosexuality.
Gays don't simply want a piece of paper, they want all of the financial benefits and tax breaks that go with marriage. Why isn't it the state's business where the state's money should go and what it should support?
-
Gays don't simply want a piece of paper, they want all of the financial benefits and tax breaks that go with it. Why isn't it the state's business where the state's money should go and what it should support?
The state doesn't have any money. It seizes money from its subjects and then doles it back out to them again. This process implies a value judgment by the government about the citizens it purportedly serves; those who pay the most tax per dollar earned are seen as least valuable, while those who pay the least tax are seen as most valuable. This is interference in our lives just as surely as legislation regarding homosexuality is.
Why should those who don't marry be forced to subsidise those who do? Marriage is a personal choice; the state needn't be involved at all, let alone take sides. The way to resolve this problem is to abolish the government benefits associated with marriage and cut taxes for everyone.
-
Why should gay marriage be legal?
To test whether or not the Roman empire really did fall because it was too gay.
-
Gays don't simply want a piece of paper, they want all of the financial benefits and tax breaks that go with it. Why isn't it the state's business where the state's money should go and what it should support?
The state doesn't have any money. It seizes money from its subjects and then doles it back out to them again. This process implies a value judgment by the government about the citizens it purportedly serves; those who pay the most tax per dollar earned are seen as least valuable, while those who pay the least tax are seen as most valuable. This is interference in our lives just as surely as legislation regarding homosexuality is.
Why should those who don't marry be forced to subsidise those who do? Marriage is a personal choice; the state needn't be involved at all, let alone take sides. The way to resolve this problem is to abolish the government benefits associated with marriage and cut taxes for everyone.
Regardless of your views that taxes should be abolished or changed, that is not the current situation. The current situation is that homosexuals are demanding money for being homosexual.
Marriage between and man and a woman is the foundation of a stable union, of a stable family, and creates tax payers and consumers. It makes sense that a state would support the stability of that union with tax breaks and other benefits. It directly affects the prosperity of society.
What does not make sense is forcing the state to support gay marriage, which does not create life, does not benefit society as much, and which has been considered a mental illness for much of history. Homosexuality is certainly not "normal," and assuredly, a homosexual union does not bring as much benefit to society as a heterosexual union.
Why does homosexual marriage deserve equal benefits without providing equal benefit to society? That is not fairness. That is the complete opposite of fairness. Homosexuals do not contribute as much to society as heterosexuals, and so do not deserve as much. What they are asking for is literally a hand out for being homosexual, not "equal treatment". They are not equals.
-
Regardless of your views that taxes should be abolished or changed, that is not the current situation. The current situation is that homosexuals are demanding money for being homosexual.
No, the current situation is that the government is already unfairly distributing wealth from non-married couples to married couples. The metrics used to qualify as a married couple are irrelevant; it's unfair to expect taxpayers to support the institution of marriage if they choose not to partake in it, regardless of whether those they are subsidising are heterosexual or homosexual. This issue is separate from and unrelated to the issue of same-sex marriage, but while this unfair practice exists, it should be extended equally to gay and straight couples alike.
Marriage between and man and a woman is the foundation of a stable union, of a stable family, and creates tax payers and consumers. It makes sense that a state would support the stability of that union with tax breaks and other benefits. It directly affects the prosperity of society.
A state does not exist to enforce prosperity. A state exists to protect the rights of individuals and organisations, thus enabling them to prosper in a free market. There is no justification for a state deciding which lifestyle is best for society on behalf of the populace.
What does not make sense is forcing the state to support gay marriage, which does not create life, does not benefit society as much, and which has been considered a mental illness for much of history. Homosexuality is certainly not "normal," and assuredly, a homosexual union does not bring as much benefit to society as a heterosexual union.
Indeed, the state should not support it. It is none of the state's business how consenting adults choose to live their lives.
Why does homosexual marriage deserve equal benefits without providing equal benefit to society? That is not fairness.
Correct. The whole point of my previous post was to point out the unfairness of providing benefits to married couples. I'm glad we agree.
-
Tom, your premise does not hold up. There are more heterosexual married couples who cannot have kids than there are gay couples in the U.S. From your argument, these heterosexual couples are also not contributing and shouldn't be allowed to marry and benefit from it.
-
He knows it doesn't hold up. He just knows it's not cool to be blatantly homophobic so he tries for utlitarian discrimination.
-
No, the current situation is that the government is already unfairly distributing wealth from non-married couples to married couples. The metrics used to qualify as a married couple are irrelevant; it's unfair to expect taxpayers to support the institution of marriage if they choose not to partake in it, regardless of whether those they are subsidising are heterosexual or homosexual. This issue is separate from and unrelated to the issue of same-sex marriage, but while this unfair practice exists, it should be extended equally to gay and straight couples alike.
What are you talking about? It is fair and we do have a say. It's called a democracy. Our ELECTED OFFICIALS spend public money on things deemed beneficial. The state spends our money on everything from Agriculture to Space Travel.
It was determined that the long term health of our economy depends on stable nuclear families creating future workers and taxpayers. Therefore, heterosexual unions were rewarded and homosexual unions were not.
A state does not exist to enforce prosperity. A state exists to protect the rights of individuals and organisations, thus enabling them to prosper in a free market. There is no justification for a state deciding which lifestyle is best for society on behalf of the populace.
The state regulates lifestyle choices of all stripes. The state regulates drugs, prostitution, and pedophilia. The state places limits on words, dress codes, and many other things. The justification is that we elected our government to do so. This regulation is what the public consensus wants.
The state decided that heterosexual marriage was best for society, not homosexual marriage, and that trend has been upheld for many years, through many election cycles, cementing in the undeniable fact that it is what the public wants as well.
Indeed, the state should not support it. It is none of the state's business how consenting adults choose to live their lives.
The state does have business telling us what we can and can't do and how we are to live our lives. We elected them into power to do that! I want to live safely in my neighborhood, I want to go to the store without worrying about seeing indecency, and I want my tax money to go towards things that are beneficial. The state provides guidance in the form of laws and tax benefits to ensure that we live in a safe and prosperous society.
-
Tom, your premise does not hold up. There are more heterosexual married couples who cannot have kids than there are gay couples in the U.S. From your argument, these heterosexual couples are also not contributing and shouldn't be allowed to marry and benefit from it.
The purpose of hunting is to kill and/or capture an animal. If you carry weapons into the wilderness, stalk prey, take shots at them, etc., but you never bag an animal, you are still engaging in hunting.
Shooting bullets into cardboard, on the other hand, is a completely different game with different outcomes.
It is easy to see why hunting might have one set of rules and regulations, or even given its own government sponsored benefits, and why target practice might have its own rules and no benefits. It would be ridiculous, no doubt, for people playing target practice to demand the same benefits that hunters get.
-
@Tom-The purpose of marriage is not children, the purpose of sex is children. That should be the lynch pin of your argument. Marriage is no longer a stable arrangement so there is not much point in rewarding it. Instead, if you are going to be brutally utilitarian you reward sexual unions that produce children or adopt with the largest portion of the bonus coking when the child gets its first job or professional certification.
All this talk of marriage is for kids and economically beneficial is totally beside the point and your stance becomes even less relevant when you accept that the government has a role to play in guiding people's lives.
The other thing I find really confusing is that no where in your analysis is there room for quality of life. Acceptance by a larger society is generally beneficial to a person's well-being and should be encouraged, indeed it is somewhat entrenched in the American Constitution.
While I am at it: homosexuality is totally natural and in fact is present in the behavior of many animal species that are studied.
-
Tom, your premise does not hold up. There are more heterosexual married couples who cannot have kids than there are gay couples in the U.S. From your argument, these heterosexual couples are also not contributing and shouldn't be allowed to marry and benefit from it.
The purpose of hunting is to kill and/or capture an animal. If you carry weapons into the wilderness, stalk prey, take shots at them, etc., but you never bag an animal, you are still engaging in hunting.
Shooting bullets into cardboard, on the other hand, is a completely different game with different outcomes.
It is easy to see why hunting might have one set of rules and regulations, or even given its own government sponsored benefits, and why target practice might have its own rules and no benefits. It would be ridiculous, no doubt, for people playing target practice to demand the same benefits that hunters get.
Tom, that is a false equivalency at best, and nonsensical at worst. The analogy doesn't hold up at all. Using the same silly thought process, infertile heterosexual couples would be more akin to hunters knowing they were shooting with blanks, but still going out anyway. Does that make sense? No, of course not, because the entire analogy doesn't make sense.
-
The state decided that heterosexual marriage was best for society, not homosexual marriage, and that trend has been upheld for many years, through many election cycles, cementing in the undeniable fact that it is what the public wants as well.
Nope.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx
-
@Tom-The purpose of marriage is not children, the purpose of sex is children. That should be the lynch pin of your argument. Marriage is no longer a stable arrangement so there is not much point in rewarding it. Instead, if you are going to be brutally utilitarian you reward sexual unions that produce children or adopt with the largest portion of the bonus coking when the child gets its first job or professional certification.
But that would reward all of the struggling single mothers who got knocked up at a young age, and we don't really care about them. We want stable nuclear families.
All this talk of marriage is for kids and economically beneficial is totally beside the point and your stance becomes even less relevant when you accept that the government has a role to play in guiding people's lives.
The other thing I find really confusing is that no where in your analysis is there room for quality of life. Acceptance by a larger society is generally beneficial to a person's well-being and should be encouraged, indeed it is somewhat entrenched in the American Constitution.
What you are asking for is a handout to homosexuals. If I were a state I would see no reason for rewarding homosexuals for their anti-prosperous activities. If they want to help society out in some other way, such as getting into farming, then sure, the state will reward them with farming subsidies.
The mere fact that a man may fall in love with another man is not a justification that they should receive financial benefits. Homosexuals need to provide benefit for the system in order to get something out of it.
While I am at it: homosexuality is totally natural and in fact is present in the behavior of many animal species that are studied.
Murder, rape, and cannibalism is also natural among many species.
-
Tom, your premise does not hold up. There are more heterosexual married couples who cannot have kids than there are gay couples in the U.S. From your argument, these heterosexual couples are also not contributing and shouldn't be allowed to marry and benefit from it.
The purpose of hunting is to kill and/or capture an animal. If you carry weapons into the wilderness, stalk prey, take shots at them, etc., but you never bag an animal, you are still engaging in hunting.
Shooting bullets into cardboard, on the other hand, is a completely different game with different outcomes.
It is easy to see why hunting might have one set of rules and regulations, or even given its own government sponsored benefits, and why target practice might have its own rules and no benefits. It would be ridiculous, no doubt, for people playing target practice to demand the same benefits that hunters get.
Tom, that is a false equivalency at best, and nonsensical at worst. The analogy doesn't hold up at all. Using the same silly thought process, infertile heterosexual couples would be more akin to hunters knowing they were shooting with blanks, but still going out anyway. Does that make sense? No, of course not, because the entire analogy doesn't make sense.
When you get caught hunting illegally, try telling the park ranger that your gun was shooting blanks. He isn't going to care. You were still engaging in hunting and you're still going to jail.
The state simply doesn't have the resources to determine who is shooting blanks or who has lousy ammunition. The laws and potential benefits or penalties are designed for the activity of hunting, regardless if you are doing it right or not.
The state decided that heterosexual marriage was best for society, not homosexual marriage, and that trend has been upheld for many years, through many election cycles, cementing in the undeniable fact that it is what the public wants as well.
Nope.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/169640/sex-marriage-support-reaches-new-high.aspx
I don't see a state by state comparison. We are not a nation state. We are a nation of autonomous states with their own cultures and laws. What is popular in one state can be unpopular in another. Try comparing California Vs. Louisiana.
-
But that would reward all of the struggling single mothers who got knocked up at a young age, and we don't really care about them. We want stable nuclear families.
Why don't we care about struggling single mothers?
-
But that would reward all of the struggling single mothers who got knocked up at a young age, and we don't really care about them. We want stable nuclear families.
Why don't we care about struggling single mothers?
Because they produce undesirable offspring who are at a disadvantage in life. They will earn less and consume less.
-
Wow, sounds like you're advocating a master race... Screw everyone less fortunate, right?
Also, the nuclear family of the 50's has been dead for ages. You can't claim family stability when heterosexual marriages have a divorce rate of 50%.
-
Wow, sounds like you're advocating a master race... Screw everyone less fortunate, right?
The less fortunate are allowed to marry.
Also, the nuclear family of the 50's has been dead for ages. You can't claim family stability when heterosexual marriages have a divorce rate of 50%.
What does it matter if marriages are not for life? People get bored of eating the same thing every day. Many parents split up after the kids are teenagers, or have gone to college, and that's fine. If they sense that their kids are at a point where they will be okay without them, they'll split. The parents are free to remarry and start new families. A man raising multiple families in his life, opposed to just one, is even better for society.
None of this negates the fact that it is better for the parents of children to be committed and married than not.
-
Wow, sounds like you're advocating a master race... Screw everyone less fortunate, right?
The less fortunate are allowed to marry.
Also, the nuclear family of the 50's has been dead for ages. You can't claim family stability when heterosexual marriages have a divorce rate of 50%.
What does it matter if marriages are not for life? People get bored of eating the same thing every day. Many parents split up after the kids are teenagers, or have gone to college, and that's fine. The parents are free to remarry and start new families. A man raising multiple families in his life, opposed to just one, is even better for society.
None of this negates the fact that it is better for the parents of children to be committed and married than not.
So then what did you mean when you said... We want stable nuclear famii
?
It sounds like you are now advocating behavior that leads to many single mothers. You are very confusing.
-
We want stable nuclear families to raise children in. But if the kids are grown, it doesn't matter whether the parents stay together or not. It is more beneficial to society if the man leaves the woman to go start another family with a younger, fitter wife who will bear his seed.
-
Misogyny at its finest. That's a pretty miserable viewpoint. Regardless, the entire argument is irrelevant, because gay marriage is now legal, just as it should be.
-
An answer to my question of why gay marriage should be legal, and why the same benefits should be given, has yet to be issued. The States argued that the ban on gay marriage has nothing to do with love.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/loving-v-marriage/391730/
Gays and lesbians—bless their naïve hearts—believe that marriage is about love, about commitment, about mutual support in sickness and health as long as we both shall live. But government, Bursch explained, knows that this is not true. Bursch was representing four states—Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee—whose constitutions ban same-sex marriage. The challengers are residents of those states, all involved in—or survivors of—committed and stable same-sex relationships. Except for their gender, they are models of the kind of family life Americans once believed to be menaced by the emergence of gay America from the shadows. But they should not win, Bursch said, because they falsely believe that “that marriage is all about love and commitment. And as a society, we can agree that that's important, but the State doesn't have any interest in that.”
The State simply rewards things that are beneficial to society. Agriculture is important, so the state gives farming subsidies to farmers. Education is important, so the state gives out grants to schools. The roads are important, so the state funds the roads. But how is homosexual love important to a society as to warrant financial benefit?
-
You can't seriously be this gullible, junker.
-
You can't seriously be this gullible, junker.
It's his MO, but it still doesn't make it less ridiculous.
-
How is homosexual love so important to a society, as to warrant financial benefit?
-
How is homosexual love so important to a society, as to warrant financial benefit?
Irrelevant.
-
How is homosexual love so important to a society, as to warrant financial benefit?
They can't have kids (although that's actually untrue these days), but that just makes them orders of magnitude more likely to adopt, which takes pressure off of the foster care system. That's behavior worth rewarding.
-
How is homosexual love so important to a society, as to warrant financial benefit?
They can't have kids (although that's actually untrue these days), but that just makes them orders of magnitude more likely to adopt, which takes pressure off of the foster care system. That's behavior worth rewarding.
Gays may be able to adopt, but so can anyone. If you want to jointly adopt a child with your sister, platonically, that is admissible. The state will allow two related, unmarried people to adopt. Does it follow that you and your sister should receive marriage benefits? The state will also let you adopt alone as a single person. Should single people get marriage benefits?
The benefits of homosexual love must be looked at as a whole. The fact that 93% of opposite sex married people have children, and that the only 11% of gay couples adopt (census.gov (https://web.archive.org/web/20111125070411/https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/acsbr10-03.pdf)), is enough for us to disregard the idea that homosexual love should be rewarded simply because they can adopt.
Furthermore, according to a New Family Structures Study at the University of Texas (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/08/samesex_adoption_not_as_harmless_as_portrayed.html) an adopted child of a lesbian couple has a 69% chance of ending up on welfare, compared to 17% of those with normal married parents.
Edit: fixed dead link
-
Bear in mind, people, that we're going to need to increase our numbers to fight the upcoming wars with Russia and China. We need to be discouraging the homosexuals from pursuing their unproductive lifestyles and get them breeding like everyone else.
-
Tom, like always, has some very good points.
-
Tom, like always, has some very good points.
Sarcasm?
-
What are you talking about? It is fair and we do have a say. It's called a democracy. Our ELECTED OFFICIALS spend public money on things deemed beneficial. The state spends our money on everything from Agriculture to Space Travel.
Democracy is rule by majority. Are you suggesting it is fair that the majority gets to forcibly take money away from the minority and choose how to spend it for them?
It was determined that the long term health of our economy depends on stable nuclear families creating future workers and taxpayers. Therefore, heterosexual unions were rewarded and homosexual unions were not.
It was also determined that you can tell if a woman is a witch by drowning her.
The state regulates lifestyle choices of all stripes. The state regulates drugs, prostitution, and pedophilia. The state places limits on words, dress codes, and many other things. The justification is that we elected our government to do so. This regulation is what the public consensus wants.
The fact that the powers that be have done a bad job in the past is no reason for them to continue doing a bad job in the future. Your appeal to public consensus is circular logic; if we all have to accept that public consensus is justification for a decision being the right one, then none of us can question established consensus, and public consensus can never change.
If the best you can do to counter my points is "the majority of people disagree with you", I'll take that in stride.
The state decided that heterosexual marriage was best for society, not homosexual marriage, and that trend has been upheld for many years, through many election cycles, cementing in the undeniable fact that it is what the public wants as well.
Even if you assume that our democratic process is flawless (it's not, even in Australia where things are a lot better than in the US), and that this implies most people are satisfied with all government decisions (in a representative democracy, it doesn't), the only fact this cements is that it is what more than 50% of the public wants. Why should 51% of the population dictate how the other 49% are allowed to live?
The state does have business telling us what we can and can't do and how we are to live our lives. We elected them into power to do that! I want to live safely in my neighborhood, I want to go to the store without worrying about seeing indecency, and I want my tax money to go towards things that are beneficial. The state provides guidance in the form of laws and tax benefits to ensure that we live in a safe and prosperous society.
No, nobody elects representatives to tell them how to live their lives. Some people do, however, feel the need to elect representatives to tell other people how to live their lives. When the majority do this, the minority have to play along, even if they never wanted the people in charge to be there.
The state only has business interfering when what we do stands to harm others. You can live safely in your neighbourhood because it is the state's prerogative to protect us from criminals. On the other hand, it is not the state's prerogative to prevent you from seeing "indecency". Are you suggesting that people would suddenly stop caring about social acceptability and walk around naked if the government made it legal? If so, is it really that disturbing to you if they do? You may wish to consider finding a hobby, in that case.
Everyone wants their tax money to go towards things that are beneficial. Very few people ever agree with what the government thinks is beneficial. Therefore, the only way to accomplish that goal is to lower taxes and let people spend their money the way they want to.
-
Democracy is rule by majority. Are you suggesting it is fair that the majority gets to forcibly take money away from the minority and choose how to spend it for them?
Yes, absolutely. Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people. The majority rule represents the interests of the people, and must be upheld beyond all else.
The minority cannot rule the majority, as minority rule is antithetical to the concept of democracy. The founders of the United States worried that the majority could abuse its powers, as easily as a king, and so a framework called the Bill of Rights was drafted to preserve the basic human rights of the minority, and preserve the necessary rights to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections.The Bill of Rights establishes the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable searches, right to due process, trial by jury, and protection from excessive bails and fines.
It was also determined that you can tell if a woman is a witch by drowning her.
1600's America and England were ruled under a Monarchy, not a Democracy.
The fact that the powers that be have done a bad job in the past is no reason for them to continue doing a bad job in the future. Your appeal to public consensus is circular logic; if we all have to accept that public consensus is justification for a decision being the right one, then none of us can question established consensus, and public consensus can never change.
If the best you can do to counter my points is "the majority of people disagree with you", I'll take that in stride.
Our society is operated on a democracy. Right or wrong, that's the way things are. Our laws and regulations are the consequence of that democracy, and that is justification in and of itself.
Even if you assume that our democratic process is flawless (it's not, even in Australia where things are a lot better than in the US), and that this implies most people are satisfied with all government decisions (in a representative democracy, it doesn't), the only fact this cements is that it is what more than 50% of the public wants. Why should 51% of the population dictate how the other 49% are allowed to live?
No, nobody elects representatives to tell them how to live their lives. Some people do, however, feel the need to elect representatives to tell other people how to live their lives. When the majority do this, the minority have to play along, even if they never wanted the people in charge to be there.
You have it all wrong. The majority dictates certain things, but cannot inhibit certain freedoms. The Bill of Rights preserves basic human rights. There are certain inalienable rights the majority cannot touch.
There is nothing about homosexuals having the right to marry or receiving compensation for their activities in the Bill of Rights.
In fact, the 10th amendment of the Constitution even specifically states that any limits or rights not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is to be decided by the States. The topic of marriage is certainly not mentioned in either document, and so it is arguably unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to dictate anything about gay marriage to the States.
The state only has business interfering when what we do stands to harm others. You can live safely in your neighbourhood because it is the state's prerogative to protect us from criminals. On the other hand, it is not the state's prerogative to prevent you from seeing "indecency". Are you suggesting that people would suddenly stop caring about social acceptability and walk around naked if the government made it legal? If so, is it really that disturbing to you if they do? You may wish to consider finding a hobby, in that case.
Everyone wants their tax money to go towards things that are beneficial. Very few people ever agree with what the government thinks is beneficial. Therefore, the only way to accomplish that goal is to lower taxes and let people spend their money the way they want to.
It doesn't matter what I agree with, or what you agree with. Our taxes currently exist, and nothing is going to change that. Marriage benefits are certainly not going away.
The matter at hand, today and now, is that homosexuals are demanding money for being homosexual, despite providing nothing to society as a group. The question posed, of which you have yet to answer in a straight manner as a supporter of marriage equality, is why must we grant homosexuals monetary rewards for the incongruous act of shacking up with another homosexual? Why should society be impressed with that?
If you are a supporter of gay marriage equality, as you appear to be, then you must justify the opinion that gays deserve all the same privileges as heterosexuals, or otherwise admit they are different, unequal, and do not deserve the same privileges.
-
Yes, absolutely. Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people. The majority rule represents the interests of the people, and must be upheld beyond all else.
The minority cannot rule the majority, as minority rule is antithetical to the concept of democracy. The founders of the United States worried that the majority could abuse its powers, as easily as a king, and so a framework called the Bill of Rights was drafted to preserve the basic human rights of the minority, and preserve the necessary rights to seek to become the majority and possess all the rights necessary to compete fairly in elections.The Bill of Rights establishes the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, the right to bear arms, protection from unreasonable searches, right to due process, trial by jury, and protection from excessive bails and fines.
I am not asking how democracy works, nor did I suggest that the minority be allowed to rule the majority. All I asked is whether you consider majority rule, as it applies to spending other people's money, to be fair. If the answer is "yes", as it seems to be, then we have reached an impasse.
You have it all wrong. The majority dictates certain things, but cannot inhibit certain freedoms. The Bill of Rights preserves basic human rights. There are certain inalienable rights the majority cannot touch.
There is nothing about homosexuals having the right to marry or receiving compensation for their activities in the Bill of Rights.
In fact, the 10th amendment of the Constitution even specifically states that any limits or rights not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is to be decided by the States. The topic of marriage is certainly not mentioned in either document, and so it is arguably unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to dictate anything about gay marriage to the States.
I'm not sure how any of this is relevant. Whether it is a federal or state matter has no bearing on your original question as to why same-sex marriage should be legal, nor does it in any way detract from my question as to why the majority should be allowed to dictate how minorities live their lives and spend their money. As I understand it, all of the states of the USA are democracies themselves, so the level at which that mechanism operates is hardly pertinent.
It doesn't matter what I agree with, or what you agree with. Our taxes currently exist, and nothing is going to change that. Marriage benefits are certainly not going away.
The matter at hand, today and now, is that homosexuals are demanding money for being homosexual, despite providing nothing to society as a group. The question posed, of which you have yet to answer in a straight manner as a supporter of marriage equality, is why must we grant homosexuals monetary rewards for the incongruous act of shacking up with another homosexual? Why should society be impressed with that?
No, that isn't the matter at hand. The question you asked was:
Why should gay marriage be legal?
My answer to which is:
Because the state has no business regulating people's personal lives one way or another.
We then danced around in circles for a while, with you dismissing every answer I provided and then asking the question again with some slight variation on the wording. Now we have the question you just claimed to be the one posed all along, which is asking about a case most people would not attempt to defend.
Since you seem to have lost track of the conversation somewhere along the line, let me remind you that I agreed with your point that providing marriage benefits to same-sex couples is unfair, but only to the extent that it is also unfair for mixed-sex couples. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is even more unfair than spending other people's money, so for as long as that unfair policy exists, it should be applied to same-sex couples as well.
If you are a supporter of gay marriage equality, as you appear to be, then you must justify the opinion that gays deserve all the same privileges as heterosexuals, or otherwise admit they are different, unequal, and do not deserve the same privileges.
Actually, I don't need to justify anything. To use your own words:
Our society is operated on a democracy. Right or wrong, that's the way things are. Our laws and regulations are the consequence of that democracy, and that is justification in and of itself.
Similarly, gay marriage in the US is legal. Right or wrong, that's the way things are, and that is justification in and of itself.
-
I am not asking how democracy works, nor did I suggest that the minority be allowed to rule the majority. All I asked is whether you consider majority rule, as it applies to spending other people's money, to be fair. If the answer is "yes", as it seems to be, then we have reached an impasse.
Yes, it is fair. We all have a say. If you don't like the government spending your money to support one lifestyle over another, and if you don't like the government telling you how to live your life, you are welcome to start or join a political group around those ideals.
You have it all wrong. The majority dictates certain things, but cannot inhibit certain freedoms. The Bill of Rights preserves basic human rights. There are certain inalienable rights the majority cannot touch.
There is nothing about homosexuals having the right to marry or receiving compensation for their activities in the Bill of Rights.
In fact, the 10th amendment of the Constitution even specifically states that any limits or rights not mentioned in the Constitution or Bill of Rights is to be decided by the States. The topic of marriage is certainly not mentioned in either document, and so it is arguably unconstitutional for the Supreme Court to dictate anything about gay marriage to the States.
I'm not sure how any of this is relevant. Whether it is a federal or state matter has no bearing on your original question as to why same-sex marriage should be legal, nor does it in any way detract from my question as to why the majority should be allowed to dictate how minorities live their lives and spend their money. As I understand it, all of the states of the USA are democracies themselves, so the level at which that mechanism operates is hardly pertinent.
It is pertinent because you are whining about the majority dictating the lives of the minority. The Bill of Rights ensures certain fundamental freedoms are upheld, regardless of the opinions of the wants of the majority.
If the right to marry whomever you please was truly an inalienable right, it should be in there. But such laws granting true equality to all fetishes and desires are unworkable. Such a broad right would allow incest, child marriages, bestiality, and society must set its limits somewhere.
No, that isn't the matter at hand. The question you asked was:
Why should gay marriage be legal?
My answer to which is:
Because the state has no business regulating people's personal lives one way or another.
And your answer was rebuffed with examples of where the government does have business regulating our personal lives.
Certain things are seen as detrimental to society. Drugs, for example, at first glance may only seem detrimental to the individual, and one is tempted to say that it is their own business for anyone who wants to live as a druggie. But as a whole the problem of drugs fosters violence, addiction, job loss, family issues, and is all around bad for society. Are you to argue that the government should not attempt to control drugs in society?
But even on the topic of gay marriage, the topic is moot. The States have already tolerated gay unions for many years. They called it Civil Unions. It allowed gays to celebrate their love and get a piece of paper in recognition. Under a Civil Union their love is celebrated and acts as an officious document which unites two people.
Civil Unions did not come with the financial benefits of a heterosexual marriage, but that was the best the State could offer. No one was preventing gays from being together. Gay love was recognized. But then gays started demanding the full title of marriage, will all of the rights and privileges thereof.
So yes, the homosexuals are absolutely demanding money for being homosexuals, and are not merely seeking a recognition of their love. It is purely a power play. Since we were already giving homosexuals recognition, celebrating their love, and all of those happy things, the question is why do you believe that the government is trying to "regulate lifestyles" on this subject?
We then danced around in circles for a while, with you dismissing every answer I provided and then asking the question again with some slight variation on the wording. Now we have the question you just claimed to be the one posed all along, which is asking about a case most people would not attempt to defend.
Since you seem to have lost track of the conversation somewhere along the line, let me remind you that I agreed with your point that providing marriage benefits to same-sex couples is unfair, but only to the extent that it is also unfair for mixed-sex couples. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is even more unfair than spending other people's money, so for as long as that unfair policy exists, it should be applied to same-sex couples as well.
Your argument that none of it is fair and no one should get any benefits is simply outside of the scope of discussion. That is not the reality. The reality is that the state already recognized gay unions, but now the gays want money for it.
Your answer that all government benefits should be abolished, and democracy as a whole is unfair, is like answering the question of how the US should respond to an attack on the Naval base Perl Harbor with an argument for how we should all live in peace and harmony and why we should abolish our military completely. That is an argument outside of scope, outside of reality, and does not provide suitable resolution to the matter at hand.
-
I notice you've ignored this part of my response:
If you are a supporter of gay marriage equality, as you appear to be, then you must justify the opinion that gays deserve all the same privileges as heterosexuals, or otherwise admit they are different, unequal, and do not deserve the same privileges.
Actually, I don't need to justify anything. To use your own words:
Our society is operated on a democracy. Right or wrong, that's the way things are. Our laws and regulations are the consequence of that democracy, and that is justification in and of itself.
Similarly, gay marriage in the US is legal. Right or wrong, that's the way things are, and that is justification in and of itself.
Before we go any further, please explain why something being the status quo is sufficient justification in your argument, but not mine.
-
It is pertinent because you are whining about the majority dictating the lives of the minority. The Bill of Rights ensures certain fundamental freedoms are upheld, regardless of the opinions of the wants of the majority.
Yes, and the Supreme Court decision was that disallowing gay marriage is a breach of the 14th Amendment. While the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights, it is part of the U.S. Constitution all the same (which is the actual document you should be referencing here anyway), and holds the same weight as the Bill of Rights.
Now, if you don't like the 14th Amendment, I'm sure you can start a political group to get rid of it; but until then, right or wrong, your country has deemed that denying gay marriage is a breach of Americans' fundamental freedoms.
-
I notice you've ignored this part of my response:
If you are a supporter of gay marriage equality, as you appear to be, then you must justify the opinion that gays deserve all the same privileges as heterosexuals, or otherwise admit they are different, unequal, and do not deserve the same privileges.
Actually, I don't need to justify anything. To use your own words:
Our society is operated on a democracy. Right or wrong, that's the way things are. Our laws and regulations are the consequence of that democracy, and that is justification in and of itself.
Similarly, gay marriage in the US is legal. Right or wrong, that's the way things are, and that is justification in and of itself.
Before we go any further, please explain why something being the status quo is sufficient justification in your argument, but not mine.
You asked for justification for why the majority should rule over the minority. I explained that our laws and regulations are the consequence of the democracy in which we live. I further suggested that if you do not like the situation, that you have options to enact change.
I asked you what reason is there for gay marriage to be legal and why we should grant them monetary benefits, and you simply answered that gay marriage is now legal. But this is not an answer to the question of why. My questions were not addressed with that statement. If no good answers can be given to the question of why, the foundation will be revealed as flawed.
-
You asked for justification for why the majority should rule over the minority. I explained that our laws and regulations are the consequence of the democracy in which we live. I further suggested that if you do not like the situation, it is your duty to start or join political groups which support those ideals.
Precisely. Your answer to "why should democracy extend as far as it does?" was "democracy currently extends as far as it does" ...
I asked you what reason is there for gay marriage to be legal and why we should grant them monetary benefits, and you simply answered that gay marriage is now legal. But this is not an answer to the question of why. The questions were not addressed. If no good answers can be given to the question of why, the foundation will be revealed as flawed.
... and my answer to "why should gay marriage be legal?" was "gay marriage is currently legal".
If you want to avoid a double standard, you'll either need to redact your circular reasoning in favour of American democracy, or else substantiate it with a reason why things should be as they are.
-
The argument has been made that the State should not be involved in marriage at all. This is BS. The State should indeed be in the business of maintaining stable, healthy family dynamics. and little Sally growing up with two Dads is not a healthy dynamic. Allowing children to think that homosexuality is in any way "cool" or appropriate is analogous to letting them think that smoking is "cool" or healthy.
Smoking gives you severe medical problems. Homosexuality likewise gives you medical problems (men who take it in the can often wind up wearing a bag in later years), not counting the AIDS and HIV that started in their population before moving to the Straight population by going through the Bis first.
Aside from that, you have the emotional turmoil that homosexuals live each day, knowing that they are outcasts in a society that does not, and never will, accept them. It would be far better for them if they just strove to be happy in a straight relationship or, if that is not possible, then gave their lives to G-d in the holy sacrifice of celibacy.
No, I am not one of those who believes in "Pray the Gay Away", or hormone therapy. I think that both of those usually wind up in causing further emotional damage to the gay person, and in the latter case, possibly physical damage as well.
But I do believe in self-discipline and self dignity. Just because you are minded to do it doesn't make it dignified. A person might be minded to look at porn. That doesn't make it ok to look at the stuff. There are all kinds of things that people are minded to do that don't have any moral integrity to at all, and in fact may be morally bankrupt. So the fact that they are morally minded to do those things doesn't make those things right. Homosexuality is just one of those things.
***EDIT***
We are having a similar conversation at the other site. This was my latest contribution there. Tom, you keep right on going my man!
-
Tom, your premise does not hold up. There are more heterosexual married couples who cannot have kids than there are gay couples in the U.S. From your argument, these heterosexual couples are also not contributing and shouldn't be allowed to marry and benefit from it.
The purpose of hunting is to kill and/or capture an animal. If you carry weapons into the wilderness, stalk prey, take shots at them, etc., but you never bag an animal, you are still engaging in hunting.
Shooting bullets into cardboard, on the other hand, is a completely different game with different outcomes.
It is easy to see why hunting might have one set of rules and regulations, or even given its own government sponsored benefits, and why target practice might have its own rules and no benefits. It would be ridiculous, no doubt, for people playing target practice to demand the same benefits that hunters get.
I know this post is a little old, but sticking with this analogy, when the government has decided a cull needs to happen, you don't get money for shooting at deer/coyotes, you only get money when you show up with a carcass.
Why not only give benefits to people caring for children instead of married couples, if that's the goal?
-
Tom, your premise does not hold up. There are more heterosexual married couples who cannot have kids than there are gay couples in the U.S. From your argument, these heterosexual couples are also not contributing and shouldn't be allowed to marry and benefit from it.
The purpose of hunting is to kill and/or capture an animal. If you carry weapons into the wilderness, stalk prey, take shots at them, etc., but you never bag an animal, you are still engaging in hunting.
Shooting bullets into cardboard, on the other hand, is a completely different game with different outcomes.
It is easy to see why hunting might have one set of rules and regulations, or even given its own government sponsored benefits, and why target practice might have its own rules and no benefits. It would be ridiculous, no doubt, for people playing target practice to demand the same benefits that hunters get.
I know this post is a little old, but sticking with this analogy, when the government has decided a cull needs to happen, you don't get money for shooting at deer/coyotes, you only get money when you show up with a carcass.
Why not only give benefits to people caring for children instead of married couples, if that's the goal?
Because the government wants to reward committed and stable relationships that can foster a family.
If the government simply gave a woman a dollar amount every time she popped out a child, that would encourage the wrong type of behavior. Women are popping out children all the time, married or unmarried, and the government knows this.
Single mothers put a strain on welfare, whereas married couples typically do not. The government wants to encourage one type of behavior over the other.
-
You asked for justification for why the majority should rule over the minority. I explained that our laws and regulations are the consequence of the democracy in which we live. I further suggested that if you do not like the situation, it is your duty to start or join political groups which support those ideals.
Precisely. Your answer to "why should democracy extend as far as it does?" was "democracy currently extends as far as it does" ...
I asked you what reason is there for gay marriage to be legal and why we should grant them monetary benefits, and you simply answered that gay marriage is now legal. But this is not an answer to the question of why. The questions were not addressed. If no good answers can be given to the question of why, the foundation will be revealed as flawed.
... and my answer to "why should gay marriage be legal?" was "gay marriage is currently legal".
If you want to avoid a double standard, you'll either need to redact your circular reasoning in favour of American democracy, or else substantiate it with a reason why things should be as they are.
I have no reason to redact anything. You did not ask any question specifically, but expressed concern over the concept of majority rule and I justified that we presently live in a democracy and also mentioned the Bill of Rights as the key framework which limits the extent of majority rule. The founders put much thought into the American system of government, and many countries adopted their own constitutions and guarantees of rights, modeled directly after the system of the United States.
I asked why gay marriage should be legal, and why we should pay gays money, and I was given an unsatisfactory answer that it is now legal. I already knew that. That does not answer the question.
-
I asked why gay marriage should be legal, and why we should pay gays money, and I was given an unsatisfactory answer that it is now legal. I already knew that. That does not answer the question.
It should be legal for the same reason hetero marriage is legal.
-
Women are popping out children all the time, married or unmarried, and the government knows this. Single mothers put a strain on welfare, whereas married couples typically do not. The government wants to encourage one type of behavior over the other.
Thats probably why Enigma didn't say anything about giving money to women for popping out babies
-
Women are popping out children all the time, married or unmarried, and the government knows this. Single mothers put a strain on welfare, whereas married couples typically do not. The government wants to encourage one type of behavior over the other.
Thats probably why Enigma didn't say anything about giving money to women for popping out babies
He should provide a clearer argument, then. "Caring for children" could mean by a single parent or by a couple.
But greater benefits are already given for married people who do more than simply get married, and who choose to raise children together as a family. Marriage is the first step towards a stable family unit and so that first step is incentivised with tax benefits, just like the subsidies given to farmers who buy empty acres of land. It fosters stability and encourages further activity.
Once a child is brought into the world, the married couple will then receive a greater amount of tax benefits than the tax benefits single parents receive, which goes on top of the base benefits they receive for simply being married.
If you are a single mother living on your own you can claim your daughter as a dependent, and receive money for that. The father who lives separate from the home cannot receive money for that, as the rules for dependents are such that the child must live in his household and he must support the majority of the child's needs. If the mother and father were to marry, on the other hand, the government allows married couples to both claim the child as a dependent and receive twice the money than they would have otherwise separated. The same doubling of benefits is identical for child tax credits and perhaps some other child related things.
So, the conception and caring of children by married couples is already rewarded on a yearly basis by the tax system, as a level 2 benefit, and the argument is null.
-
There's literally no valid argument against gay marriage. You can try invoking your "it's icky" standpoint, and when that fails, try to make it about something else. In fact, some studies show gay parents are better parents than hetero parents, therefore they should be given additional tax benefits over hetero couples for providing a better, more stable family.
-
It is pertinent because you are whining about the majority dictating the lives of the minority. The Bill of Rights ensures certain fundamental freedoms are upheld, regardless of the opinions of the wants of the majority.
Yes, and the Supreme Court decision was that disallowing gay marriage is a breach of the 14th Amendment. While the 14th Amendment is not part of the Bill of Rights, it is part of the U.S. Constitution all the same (which is the actual document you should be referencing here anyway), and holds the same weight as the Bill of Rights.
Now, if you don't like the 14th Amendment, I'm sure you can start a political group to get rid of it; but until then, right or wrong, your country has deemed that denying gay marriage is a breach of Americans' fundamental freedoms.
Here is the pertinent section of the 14th Amendment the Supreme Court thinks applies to Gay Marriage:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
How does that equate to "Gay Marriage should be legal"? Does the right to marry anyone you please fall under the right to life, liberty or property? I certainly did not read anything about that in the Bill of Rights.
The States already gave the gays the right to life together. It was called Civil Union. No one was standing in the way of homosexual love.
If we look through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights we find that "marriage" is not mentioned anywhere. The words "life" and "liberty" are the closest we get.
The 10th Amendment states that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is to be determined and regulated by the States:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
I submit, therefore, that the Supreme Court's instructions towards the States to allow Gay Marriage is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court cannot tell the States anything in regards to Gay Marriage. That is a topic they must decide on for themselves.
-
I certainly did not read anything about that in the Bill of Rights.
Yes, Tom, we've already established that the 14th Amendment is not part of the first 10 amendments. 14 is, indeed, a higher number than 10. Your obsession with the first 10 amendments is entirely unexplained and unsubstantiated.
If we look through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights we find that "marriage" is not mentioned anywhere. The words "life" and "liberty" are the closest we get.
I suppose the word "privileges" escaped you. The Supreme Court produced a rather lengthy document discussing their decision. Numerous news sources provided a more concise elaboration. If you really want to find out what guided their decision, I'd recommend those as starting points.
The 10th Amendment states that anything not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is to be determined and regulated by the States
Yes, we've already established that 10<14. We can infer that 10!=14. The Supreme Court decision does, in fact, discuss the usurpation of the 10th Amendment laws caused by this change.
I submit, therefore, that the Supreme Court's instructions towards the States to allow Gay Marriage is unconstitutional.
In that case, I suggest that you follow due process and take the Supreme Court to the Supreme Court, pointing out to them that you dislike Article III of the Constitution.
-
Does the right to marry anyone you please fall under the right to life, liberty or property?
That's the due process clause. What prohibiting gay marriage violates is the equal protection clause, namely "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
-
I have no reason to redact anything. You did not ask any question specifically, but expressed concern over the concept of majority rule and I justified that we presently live in a democracy and also mentioned the Bill of Rights as the key framework which limits the extent of majority rule. The founders put much thought into the American system of government, and many countries adopted their own constitutions and guarantees of rights, modeled directly after the system of the United States.
Irrelevant. You still used the existence of democracy as justification for democracy. That's like me expressing concern over the Charleston shooting, and you providing justification that there are currently racists in America.
I asked why gay marriage should be legal, and why we should pay gays money, and I was given an unsatisfactory answer that it is now legal. I already knew that. That does not answer the question.
It is satisfactory to precisely the same extent as your "justification" for democracy. Either my case is unsatisfactory, and so is yours, or they are both satisfactory. You can't have your cake and eat it too.
-
I suppose the word "privileges" escaped you. The Supreme Court produced a rather lengthy document discussing their decision. Numerous news sources provided a more concise elaboration. If you really want to find out what guided their decision, I'd recommend those as starting points.
I took a look at the supreme court documents. Here is what Chief Justice Roberts has to say on the matter in his dissent:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/scotus-opinion-document-obergefell-hodges/index.html
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
I respectfully dissent.
-
Does the right to marry anyone you please fall under the right to life, liberty or property?
That's the due process clause. What prohibiting gay marriage violates is the equal protection clause, namely "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Chief Justice Roberts has basically admitted that the Supreme Court went rogue and the decision has nothing to do with the Constitution. They had a desired goal, and they achieved it.
-
I took a look at the supreme court documents. Here is what Chief Justice Roberts has to say on the matter in his dissent:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/scotus-opinion-document-obergefell-hodges/index.html
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
I respectfully dissent.
Yes, there was a vote, and those who disagreed expressed disagreement. Are you going to start responding to points anytime soon?
-
why
Because DOMA's exclusion of same-sex marriage does not further an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2181517
To be clear, biology is and has been relevant to establishing and recognizing parenthood and family status. Moreover, one could argue plausibly that historically the government sought to channel childbearing and childrearing into marital relationships. Advocates of biological primacy, however, totalize this history and ignore counternarratives demonstrating that family formation and recognition have not been limited to families comprised of only biologically related members.
[...]This analysis reveals that in a vast array of federal benefits programs, eligibility is not conditioned on a child’s biological connection with his or her parent(s). Instead, Congress long has both implicitly and explicitly extended benefits to biologically unrelated children.
First, many biologically unrelated children are implicitly included as beneficiaries of federal family-based benefits by virtue of Congress’s incorporation of state family law as an eligibility standard. As the Supreme Court recently explained, biology is not and has not been a prerequisite to legal parentage under state law. Second, and even more persuasively, in these and other federal family-based benefits programs, Congress explicitly and deliberately included as potential beneficiaries two classes of children known to be biologically unrelated to their parents: stepchildren and adopted children. Congress did so despite the fact that even today, stepchildren are entitled to relatively little protection under state family law.
Congress therefore was not obligated to extend protections to these biologically unrelated children and in fact bucked the trend by doing so. Moreover, Congress took swift and decisive actions to “correct” attempts by executive officials and agencies to limit the scope of protections for stepchildren and adopted children. This history undermines responsible procreation, which is premised on the notion that the federal government long sought to limit federal family-based benefits to only families with biologically related children.
The history uncovered in this Article is both timely and important, as the Supreme Court will weigh on the validity of Section 3 in the near future. With such a decision looming, it is particularly important to take responsible procreation seriously and subject it to careful scrutiny. Even under rational basis review, a permissible classification must at least “find some footing in the realities of the subject addressed by the legislation.” Given that responsible procreation is founded on a mythical and inaccurate history of federal policy, the argument fails even this basic test.
And also for the same entirely reasonable warrants you've already been given.
-
I took a look at the supreme court documents. Here is what Chief Justice Roberts has to say on the matter in his dissent:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/scotus-opinion-document-obergefell-hodges/index.html
If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today's decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it.
I respectfully dissent.
Yes, there was a vote, and those who disagreed expressed disagreement. Are you going to start responding to points anytime soon?
There was a vote, yes, however, the Justices were not acting as Judges answering legal questions, but were on a path to achieve a desired goal.
Justice Scalia clarifies:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/26/politics/scotus-opinion-document-obergefell-hodges/index.html#document/p69
Judges are selected precisely for their skills as lawyers; whether they reflect the policy views of a particular constituency is not (or should not be) relevant. Not surprisingly then, the Federal Judiciary is hardly a cross-section of America. Take, for example, this Court, which consists of only nine men and women, all of them successful lawyers who studied at Harvard or Yale Law School. Four of the nine are natives of New York City. Eight of them grew up in east-and west-coast states. Only one hails from the vast expanse in-between. Not a single South-westerner, or even, to tell the truth, a genuine Westerner (California does not count). Not a single Evangelical Christian (a group that compromises one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination. The strikingly unrepresentative character of the body voting on today's social upheaval would be irrelevant if they were functioning as judges, answering the legal question whether the American people had ever ratified a constitutional provision that was understood to proscribe the traditional definition of marriage. But of course the justices in today's majority are not voting on that basis; they say they are not. And to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.
-
Justice Scalia continues with some good points:
But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today's majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification and Massachusetts' permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a "fundamental right" overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds -- minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly -- could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their "reasoned judgement". These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as the government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres with what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgement of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
-
Like SexWarrior said, it is hardly surprising that the dissenters dissent. In regards to the idea that the Supreme Court is wielding power improperly I would refer you to your viewpoints on democracy: the Supreme Court justices are ultimately approved by an elected body of the people, for the people, by the people; it is democratically arrived at. If you do not like this, you can join an ideologically pleasing party and try to change it but this is your government working as intended.
Ultimately the judiciary is not a branch that is even intended to make decisions that are representative of the people's wishes, they are there to interpret the meaning, implicit and explicit, of the constitution and statutes of the country. They ultimately serve justice first and the people second.
-
Justice Scalia continues with some good points:
But what really astounds is the hubris reflected in today's judicial Putsch. The five Justices who compose today's majority are entirely comfortable concluding that every State violated the Constitution for all of the 135 years between the Fourteenth Amendment's ratification and Massachusetts' permitting of same-sex marriages in 2003. They have discovered in the Fourteenth Amendment a "fundamental right" overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds -- minds like Thomas Cooley, John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., Learned Hand, Louis Brandeis, William Howard Taft, Benjamin Cardozo, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter, Robert Jackson, and Henry Friendly -- could not. They are certain that the People ratified the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow on them the power to remove questions from the democratic process when that is called for by their "reasoned judgement". These Justices know that limiting marriage to one man and one woman is contrary to reason; they know that an institution as old as the government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until 15 years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance or bigotry. And they are willing to say that any citizen who does not agree with that, who adheres with what was, until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgement of all generations and all societies, stands against the Constitution.
Justice Scalla has written an appalling rationale replete with appeals to authority and popularity. He is basically implying that notions of justice do not change with time which is absurd. If you believe that that is the case then you are denying the progression of the rule of law from barbarism to the fairly civil society we live in today.
-
There was a vote, yes, however, the Justices were not acting as Judges answering legal questions
Yes, they were acting as the Supreme Court. Jesus, Tom, you're really trying too hard there.
-
Tom has finally stopped responding to me. I guess that's one way to resolve a double standard.
-
It should have been left to the States. By forcing the States to lose (more) of their Sovereignty, the Federal Government has just proven what a dictatorial organisation it is. It really needs to be abolished as soon as possible. It is no longer serving any purpose. It needs to be replaced by either nothing at all, or a weak confederal system.
The Constitution specifically states that any power not specifically granted to the Government is to be assumed by the States. Marriage is not a power that is granted to the Federal Government. In fact, it is explicitly denied it. It is the State, not the Federal Government, that issues licenses to marry. Ergo, it is the State that should be making law on who can or cannot marry.
Well, first its queers. Next it will be plural marriage (this is already being discussed by some jurists). Eventually it will be your cat. Prepare for the deluge.
-
I don't understand how permitting same-sex marriages to receive the same federal marriage benefits as traditional marriages is paying people to be gay.
As I understand it, dependency exemptions are a subset of federal marriage benefits that only extend to married couples who have children. If I get traditional-married and don't have any children, I'll receive all of the federal marriage benefits (and tax deductions) except for the ones related to actually having a child.
In that regard, my traditional marriage isn't any different than a same-sex marriage. I get some benefits related to being married, but none for the children I don't have. I don't get why same-sex couples are less deserving of the benefits related to marriage or why they shouldn't receive the same adoption benefits.
It's still 1850, right?
No.
-
Even if I had said that, which I didn't, perhaps it should be. The fact is, this country long ago betrayed the nature upon which it was founded. The only thing left for it to do is to hurry the hell up and blow itself to smithereens, so the rest of us, who know what we're about, can rebuild it the way it was meant to be. The libtards have destroyed the place. I just wish they would get on with eliminating themselves so the rest of us don't have to put up with their sorry asses. Of course, if I were made dictator for a a year, I could resolve the problem.
Anyone who was in any gang over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.
Anyone who crossed the border illegally over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.
Anyone who committed any offence with a weapon and was over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.
Any person cought "tagging" a piece of property would be arrested. If the sign was determined to be a gang sign the tagger would be shot.
The police would not issue warning shots. If two people were committing a crime, your warning shot would be the other guy dropping dead next to you. That would be your recommendation to stop what you were doing if you cared to live to be arrested.
For a solid year, the country would be under martial law. The military would run things. Anyone who challenged that would be killed, without trial or question. After that year, all States would be granted their independence, the Government would be abolished, and if the States wished it, there would be a new Constitutional Convention to consider the idea of a new Constitution that would be MUCH weaker than the one we currently have, in order to guarrantee the Rights of the States.
-
Please just ignore him. He's not even trying at this point.
-
Please just ignore him. He's not even trying at this point.
Sounds like someone needs a nap, and maybe a blanket too.
-
oy vey
-
Don't forget to tuck him in.
-
Even if I had said that, which I didn't, perhaps it should be. The fact is, this country long ago betrayed the nature upon which it was founded. The only thing left for it to do is to hurry the hell up and blow itself to smithereens, so the rest of us, who know what we're about, can rebuild it the way it was meant to be. The libtards have destroyed the place. I just wish they would get on with eliminating themselves so the rest of us don't have to put up with their sorry asses. Of course, if I were made dictator for a a year, I could resolve the problem.
Anyone who was in any gang over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.
Anyone who crossed the border illegally over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.
Anyone who committed any offence with a weapon and was over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.
Any person cought "tagging" a piece of property would be arrested. If the sign was determined to be a gang sign the tagger would be shot.
The police would not issue warning shots. If two people were committing a crime, your warning shot would be the other guy dropping dead next to you. That would be your recommendation to stop what you were doing if you cared to live to be arrested.
For a solid year, the country would be under martial law. The military would run things. Anyone who challenged that would be killed, without trial or question. After that year, all States would be granted their independence, the Government would be abolished, and if the States wished it, there would be a new Constitutional Convention to consider the idea of a new Constitution that would be MUCH weaker than the one we currently have, in order to guarrantee the Rights of the States.
In reality, this doesn't merit a response because it is so absurd. But, I will play along. Yes, the country is not the same as it was when it was founded. Not only is that a great thing, it is what the founders intended. They knew society would change, which is why there are instruments for changing/adding/repealing laws.
Your entire societal diatribe is exactly what we have come to expect from you. It is literally nothing new. You want everyone killed for every offense. The states aren't free to do what they want, sorry. That is never going to be the case. I am sure you can find a super oppressive regime in a lot of parts of the world, feel free to go live our your authoritarian wet dream there.
The country is becoming more socially progressive, and it is not turning back. Those of you yearning for the good ol' days are going to to be disappointed day after day. Your kind has literally been around for every major social change. Women's suffrage, civil rights movement, gay marriage, etc. It isn't new or interesting, but good luck playing out that fantasy in your head.
-
Apparently four members of our Supreme Court disagree with you on what the Founding Fathers wanted. All it will take to reverse this absurd decision will be a death or retirement of a Justice, and the appointment of a conservative. That will happen, in time.
Or the destruction of the USA, one of the two. I'm actually betting the second will happen first.With increasing toleration of perversion, I don't expect us to make it long. Most of the world recognises homosexuality for the perversion that it is, and thank G-d for that. At least when the perverts fall, there will be something left to rebuild with.
-
>gays love people of the same sex because they are perverts.
-
Apparently four members of our Supreme Court disagree with you on what the Founding Fathers wanted. All it will take to reverse this absurd decision will be a death or retirement of a Justice, and the appointment of a conservative. That will happen, in time.
Or the destruction of the USA, one of the two. I'm actually betting the second will happen first.With increasing toleration of perversion, I don't expect us to make it long. Most of the world recognises homosexuality for the perversion that it is, and thank G-d for that. At least when the perverts fall, there will be something left to rebuild with.
Well, if a conservative dies first, which is statistically more likely, then you are back where you started, at best. For the record there is more tolerance for homosexuality globally than anytime in history, so your rally cry is pretty ineffectual.
-
I believe that it goes against the original wishes of the US to not allow these people to, by law, show that they love each other.
-
Apparently four members of our Supreme Court disagree with you on what the Founding Fathers wanted. All it will take to reverse this absurd decision will be a death or retirement of a Justice, and the appointment of a conservative. That will happen, in time.
Or the destruction of the USA, one of the two. I'm actually betting the second will happen first.With increasing toleration of perversion, I don't expect us to make it long. Most of the world recognises homosexuality for the perversion that it is, and thank G-d for that. At least when the perverts fall, there will be something left to rebuild with.
Well, if a conservative dies first, which is statistically more likely, then you are back where you started, at best. For the record there is more tolerance for homosexuality globally than anytime in history, so your rally cry is pretty ineffectual.
[/quote
Tolerance where? In the degraded nations of Western Europe and the United States? Your point being?
-
Even if I had said that, which I didn't, perhaps it should be. The fact is, this country long ago betrayed the nature upon which it was founded. The only thing left for it to do is to hurry the hell up and blow itself to smithereens, so the rest of us, who know what we're about, can rebuild it the way it was meant to be. The libtards have destroyed the place. I just wish they would get on with eliminating themselves so the rest of us don't have to put up with their sorry asses. Of course, if I were made dictator for a a year, I could resolve the problem.
Anyone who was in any gang over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.
Anyone who crossed the border illegally over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.
Anyone who committed any offence with a weapon and was over the age of sixteen would be shot on sight.
Any person cought "tagging" a piece of property would be arrested. If the sign was determined to be a gang sign the tagger would be shot.
The police would not issue warning shots. If two people were committing a crime, your warning shot would be the other guy dropping dead next to you. That would be your recommendation to stop what you were doing if you cared to live to be arrested.
For a solid year, the country would be under martial law. The military would run things. Anyone who challenged that would be killed, without trial or question. After that year, all States would be granted their independence, the Government would be abolished, and if the States wished it, there would be a new Constitutional Convention to consider the idea of a new Constitution that would be MUCH weaker than the one we currently have, in order to guarrantee the Rights of the States.
I really love your character troll, but I feel like this is a bit on-the-nose
_________
Tom, Scalia's argument is a huge pile of bullshit unbecoming of a supreme court justice. Your metaphorical 6 year old could see the flaws in his dissent. It reads like an angry noob's first post. If you're going to make an argument against the decision, you can't rely on his dissent.
-
Tausami, if you had ever read the Constitution, you would realise that Scalia, and the three Justices that agreed with him, were right,but you probably never have. Marriage is a matter for the States to decide. The Federal Government does not handle marriage laws or licensing. Ergo, they have no control over the subject. Whatever powers and laws are not explicitly granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution shall be reserved to the States. This is one of those.
-
Apparently four members of our Supreme Court disagree with you on what the Founding Fathers wanted. All it will take to reverse this absurd decision will be a death or retirement of a Justice, and the appointment of a conservative. That will happen, in time.
Or the destruction of the USA, one of the two. I'm actually betting the second will happen first.With increasing toleration of perversion, I don't expect us to make it long. Most of the world recognises homosexuality for the perversion that it is, and thank G-d for that. At least when the perverts fall, there will be something left to rebuild with.
Well, if a conservative dies first, which is statistically more likely, then you are back where you started, at best. For the record there is more tolerance for homosexuality globally than anytime in history, so your rally cry is pretty ineffectual.
Tolerance where? In the degraded nations of Western Europe and the United States? Your point being?
That progress is away from the fear-based bigotry you espouse.
Tausami, if you had ever read the Constitution, you would realise that Scalia, and the three Justices that agreed with him, were right,but you probably never have. Marriage is a matter for the States to decide. The Federal Government does not handle marriage laws or licensing. Ergo, they have no control over the subject. Whatever powers and laws are not explicitly granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution shall be reserved to the States. This is one of those.
So do you think the five assenting justices have read the constitution? Are you claiming to know the constitution better than a Supreme Court justice? Is it your degree in British history that qualifies you?
-
Apparently four members of our Supreme Court disagree with you on what the Founding Fathers wanted. All it will take to reverse this absurd decision will be a death or retirement of a Justice, and the appointment of a conservative. That will happen, in time.
Or the destruction of the USA, one of the two. I'm actually betting the second will happen first.With increasing toleration of perversion, I don't expect us to make it long. Most of the world recognises homosexuality for the perversion that it is, and thank G-d for that. At least when the perverts fall, there will be something left to rebuild with.
Well, if a conservative dies first, which is statistically more likely, then you are back where you started, at best. For the record there is more tolerance for homosexuality globally than anytime in history, so your rally cry is pretty ineffectual.
Tolerance where? In the degraded nations of Western Europe and the United States? Your point being?
That progress is away from the fear-based bigotry you espouse.
Tausami, if you had ever read the Constitution, you would realise that Scalia, and the three Justices that agreed with him, were right,but you probably never have. Marriage is a matter for the States to decide. The Federal Government does not handle marriage laws or licensing. Ergo, they have no control over the subject. Whatever powers and laws are not explicitly granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution shall be reserved to the States. This is one of those.
So do you think the five assenting justices have read the constitution? Are you claiming to know the constitution better than a Supreme Court justice? Is it your degree in British history that qualifies you?
Given how offensively liberal the five are, I expect they were legislating from the Bench, which is an all-too-common practice in our courts today. They imagine themselves legislators rather than judges.
And yes, given the fact that in British history, you have to study the entire origin of constitutional law, I expect I probably do know the concept of Anglo-American Common Law, and Precedent, better than our liberal Justices, who are driven by causes, such as feminism, and a new-found sense of an appeal to rights that do not exist in the American Constitution and never have, more than they are basic historic law and constitutional limitations.
-
Tausami, if you had ever read the Constitution, you would realise that Scalia, and the three Justices that agreed with him, were right,but you probably never have. Marriage is a matter for the States to decide. The Federal Government does not handle marriage laws or licensing. Ergo, they have no control over the subject. Whatever powers and laws are not explicitly granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution shall be reserved to the States. This is one of those.
I already responded to this argument. The federal government isn't allowed to create laws that are exclusively the domain of the states. That doesn't mean that state laws are immune to judicial review or that federal courts have no power to interpret their constitutionality. This was all established very early in this country's history, with the Judiciary Act of 1789, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, etc. Not even the dissenting justices tried to argue this point, because they know it's not how the courts work.
-
Tausami, if you had ever read the Constitution, you would realise that Scalia, and the three Justices that agreed with him, were right,but you probably never have. Marriage is a matter for the States to decide. The Federal Government does not handle marriage laws or licensing. Ergo, they have no control over the subject. Whatever powers and laws are not explicitly granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution shall be reserved to the States. This is one of those.
I already responded to this argument. The federal government isn't allowed to create laws that are exclusively the domain of the states. That doesn't mean that state laws are immune to judicial review or that federal courts have no power to interpret their constitutionality. This was all established very early in this country's history, with the Judiciary Act of 1789, Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, etc. Not even the dissenting justices tried to argue this point, because they know it's not how the courts work.
That is, at the least, a debatable point. One has to determine whether or not redefinition of marriage (ie, given that marriage for 25,000 [twenty-five thousand] years has been opposite sex partners) is within the power of the court. Given the nature of the VAST majority of human society, I think most reasonable persons would say no. The fact that a few nations in Western Europe and the USA disagree is completely beside the point.
In fact, I find it VERY interesting that the same whiners, like all of you, who complain about European white domination of the world, are more than happy to expect the world to follow Western Europe on this perverse subject. How utterly illogical. Not that that surpises me per se.
So all of you may choose to let human society degrade itself with perversion and sickness. I choose not to. Your choice, not mine.
-
What it ultimately comes down to is the following: after all the constitutional arguments have been won and lost, the following will always be the case, and that is that playing the game of Hide the Sausage is, has always been, and always will be against Natural Law when you are attempting to hide it in someone's poop-chute, male or female. Other unusual activities with your Package involving other males of the species are also in violation if Natural Law. The same is true when animals do it. So the fact that America and a few other perverted countries give into the need for disgusting behaviour doesn't excuse ssid behaviour. Its vile, and should be treated as vile, no matter what. Who said animals can't have mental trouble? I certainly don't see why they can't.
-
What it ultimately comes down to is the following: after all the constitutional arguments have been won and lost, the following will always be the case, and that is that playing the game of Hide the Sausage is, has always been, and always will be against natural law when you are attempting to hide it in someone's poop-chute, male or female. Other unusual activities with your Package involving other males of the species are also in violation if Natural Law. The same is true when animals do it. So the fact that America and a few other perverted countries give in the need for disgusting
quoted for great truth
-
Its vile, and should be treated as vile, no matter what.
Why?
-
I'm pretty sure animals have been found to have sex with a member of the same sex and they don't slaughter each other over it. In fact, my grandma used to have a dog that would try to get a bj from anything with four legs, no matter the species or sex. Therefore it's not against Nature's Law as you put it.
-
I'm pretty sure animals have been found to have sex with a member of the same sex and they don't slaughter each other over it. In fact, my grandma used to have a dog that would try to get a bj from anything with four legs, no matter the species or sex. Therefore it's not against Nature's Law as you put it.
You'll find he doesn't actually mean "Nature's Law" but really means "my spiteful God's law" instead. And then he will progress to the "it's icky" argument/fallacy.
-
The natural law argument is a useless one until you can justify the existence of that law. Typically it just invokes a teleology when there is no reason to suppose one.
-
Actually, no, it does violate the Natural Law. Humans have higher reasoning functions, for one thing. But even if we didn't, animals can be mentally ill, just as humans can be. Ever heard of dogs on pyschiatric meds? I have. Homosexuality is a mental illness. The fact remains, you are not suppose to pack the fudge.
-
Actually, no, it does violate the Natural Law. Humans have higher reasoning functions, for one thing. But even if we didn't, animals can be mentally ill, just as humans can be. Ever heard of dogs on pyschiatric meds? I have. Homosexuality is a mental illness. The fact remains, you are not suppose to pack the fudge.
Do you have any evidence to support your outlandish claims?
-
Ever heard of the fact that if you pack your pork in someone's bunghole, of either gender, too frequently, you end up wearing a bag in later years?
-
Well, seeing as there are plenty of gay couples who've done just that all their lives and are doing just fine...
-
Ever heard of the fact that if you pack your pork in someone's bunghole, of either gender, too frequently, you end up wearing a bag in later years?
So, no evidence then. Gotcha.
-
I think the fact that you are not supposed to pack your Pork up your neighbour's Poop Chute is an indicator of the unnatural state of homosexual behaviour. Adding to that that two men, or two women, cannot produce offspring, which is fundamentally the purpose of sex. I am sorry that you, in your urge to sing "kum-bay-ya" with your neighbour, no matter how perverted he may be, are unable to see this fact. Of course, I am prepared for you to next sing the praises of zoophilia. But that is your business.
-
I think the fact that you are not supposed to pack your Pork up your neighbour's Poop Chute is an indicator of the unnatural state of homosexual behaviour. Adding to that that two men, or two women, cannot produce offspring, which is fundamentally the purpose of sex. I am sorry that you, in your urge to sing "kum-bay-ya" with your neighbour, no matter how perverted he may be, are unable to see this fact. Of course, I am prepared for you to next sing the praises of zoophilia. But that is your business.
None of this has to do with "natural law" or gay marriage. I understand you think it's gross, that isn't evidence. And, in typical fashion, you bigots squeeze in a false equivalency relating to animals.
-
None of this has to do with "natural law" or gay marriage. I understand you think it's gross, that isn't evidence. And, in typical fashion, you bigots squeeze in a false equivalency relating to animals.
Of course, the ad hom from the one who can't maintain an argument. the violation of Natural Law applies with animals and with men being with men. Or women being with women. The fact is, you can't produce children in either case. Ergo, it is not natural, and should be forbidden by Public Morality, although what people do behind closed doors should not be regulated. But it certainly should not receive sanction from the State.
-
Are infertile people also violating natural law by having sex?
-
Blanko, that is an illogical statement, and you know it. You should be ashamed of yourself. Infertility is something controlled by G-d and G-d alone. Deliberate perversion of the sexual power is something else entirely.
-
But you defined perversion of sexual power as not being able to produce offspring through sexual intercourse. If you're making arbitrary exceptions to that rule, then it's a meaningless rule.
Besides, even if God does control infertility but does not control homosexuality (which you wouldn't know), why would that mean infertile people aren't being perverse when having sex?
-
But you defined perversion of sexual power as not being able to produce offspring through sexual intercourse. If you're making arbitrary exceptions to that rule, then it's a meaningless rule.
Besides, even if God does control infertility but does not control homosexuality (which you wouldn't know), why would that mean infertile people aren't being perverse when having sex?
I have time for one more answer, and then I really must eat breakfast. Sex is for two purposes, both equal, being procreation and the sharing of love. The fact that a man and a woman can have babies and share love makes sex licit between them. If they are infertile, then sex is still licit for the second reason. The fact that they can't beget children is not their fault.
By their nature, men and men or women and women cannot have babies. They are acting against divine ordinance when they engage in their perverse behaviours. The fact that they can't beget children is indeed their fault, because they are engaging in an activity that by its very nature makes that impossible.
Fundamentally, a homosexual person has two options. He or she should either try to be happy in an opposite-sex relationship, or if that is not possible, should consecrate his or her life to G-d in sacred celibacy, offering up his or her energies in G-d's service.
I for one do not believe in the "pray the gay away" or hormone therapy business. I believe that both are emotionally destructive to the gay person, and in the case of the second, may be physically destructive as well. As hard as the life of a gay person would be, and as much as I do not envy them their lot in life, I encourage them to offer themselves a living sacrifice to G-d, in dedication and service.
-
Gays apply to the second purpose as well, and infertile people by their nature cannot have babies. Again, where's the arbitrary distinction? I don't even know why you bother rationalising it when you could just say that God has a bad case of homophobia.
Then again, this is all purely rhetorical, since God doesn't actually exist and your archaic beliefs have no place in political decisionmaking. (◕‿◕✿)
-
Fundamentally, a homosexual person has two options. He or she should either try to be happy in an opposite-sex relationship, or if that is not possible, should consecrate his or her life to G-d in sacred celibacy, offering up his or her energies in G-d's service.
I can think of at least two other options.
-
None of this has to do with "natural law" or gay marriage. I understand you think it's gross, that isn't evidence. And, in typical fashion, you bigots squeeze in a false equivalency relating to animals.
Of course, the ad hom from the one who can't maintain an argument. the violation of Natural Law applies with animals and with men being with men. Or women being with women. The fact is, you can't produce children in either case. Ergo, it is not natural, and should be forbidden by Public Morality, although what people do behind closed doors should not be regulated. But it certainly should not receive sanction from the State.
Maintain what argument? The best you can come up with is that it offends the sensibilities of your invisible sky fairy, and yourself. That is not an argument. When you say it "violates natural law," I assume you're insinuating it cannot or should not occur in nature, which is demonstrably false. The concept of an invisible, all-powerful sky person is much less natural than homosexuality. That is what should be forbidden by "Public Morality."
I see you're invoking a double standard with Blanko. God controls infertility, but not homosexuality. How convenient. You should tell your God to stop letting straight couples produce Gay children.
-
Gays apply to the second purpose as well, and infertile people by their nature cannot have babies. Again, where's the arbitrary distinction? I don't even know why you bother rationalising it when you could just say that God has a bad case of homophobia.
Then again, this is all purely rhetorical, since God doesn't actually exist and your archaic beliefs have no place in political decisionmaking. (◕‿◕✿)
We have already proven in an argument that has not been satisfactorily refuted that G-d exists.
-
Gays apply to the second purpose as well, and infertile people by their nature cannot have babies. Again, where's the arbitrary distinction? I don't even know why you bother rationalising it when you could just say that God has a bad case of homophobia.
Then again, this is all purely rhetorical, since God doesn't actually exist and your archaic beliefs have no place in political decisionmaking. (◕‿◕✿)
We have already proven in an argument that has not been satisfactorily refuted that G-d exists.
Of course, why would anything not feeding into your confirmation bias be satisfactory? I'm assuming you're talking about Anselm's argument, which is completely ridiculous to probably everyone other than you.
-
No one has satisfactorily refuted said argument.
-
Actually, it's been refuted so much that nobody considers it a serious argument anymore. Not that it matters, since it's no more proof for your homophobic sky daddy than it is for the flying spaghetti monster. So can we get back on topic?
-
Actually, it's been refuted so much that nobody considers it a serious argument anymore. Not that it matters, since it's no more proof for your homophobic sky daddy than it is for the flying spaghetti monster. So can we get back on topic?
The problem is that any argument with religious fundies always degrades back to "you can't disprove God." It always happens because arguments made by these people get torn apart for being illogical, so they fall back on "God says so." And by God, of course only their Abrahamic God, because that is the correct one even though he's a carbon copy of the many Gods and creation stories that preceded him.
-
Actually, it's been refuted so much that nobody considers it a serious argument anymore. Not that it matters, since it's no more proof for your homophobic sky daddy than it is for the flying spaghetti monster. So can we get back on topic?
Ooh, such a big mean atheist. You realise that your kind only make up about 10% of the planetary population, right? And that only that ten percent are convinced by the thoroughly illogical arguments against G-d's existence?
Actually, it's been refuted so much that nobody considers it a serious argument anymore. Not that it matters, since it's no more proof for your homophobic sky daddy than it is for the flying spaghetti monster. So can we get back on topic?
The problem is that any argument with religious fundies always degrades back to "you can't disprove God." It always happens because arguments made by these people get torn apart for being illogical, so they fall back on "God says so." And by God, of course only their Abrahamic God, because that is the correct one even though he's a carbon copy of the many Gods and creation stories that preceded him.
You realise that such a statement betrays a fundamental ignorance of Judaism. 1, there is no such thing as a Jewish fundamentalist. The Hebrew Bible is read on so many literal and non-literal levels simultaneously that to take it only one literal way would be stupid. 2, we don't claim that others have to agree with us. You don't have to be a Jew to be saved, or any of that crap. But homosexuality violates the Seven Laws of Noah given to all mankind, Jews and non-Jews alike.
In sum, Junker, before opening your yap and making a blanket statement about all Abrahamic religions, I would make sure I knew what I was talking about. Its painful to embarrass yourself, is it not?
-
Ooh, such a big mean atheist. You realise that your kind only make up about 10% of the planetary population, right? And that only that ten percent are convinced by the thoroughly illogical arguments against G-d's existence?
Ooh, such a big mean Jew. You realise that your kind only make up about 0.2% of the planetary population, right? And that only that point two percent are convinced by the thoroughly illogical arguments favoring Judaism?
Srsly tho you're super smart.
-
Actually, it's been refuted so much that nobody considers it a serious argument anymore. Not that it matters, since it's no more proof for your homophobic sky daddy than it is for the flying spaghetti monster. So can we get back on topic?
Ooh, such a big mean atheist. You realise that your kind only make up about 10% of the planetary population, right? And that only that ten percent are convinced by the thoroughly illogical arguments against G-d's existence?
Actually, it's been refuted so much that nobody considers it a serious argument anymore. Not that it matters, since it's no more proof for your homophobic sky daddy than it is for the flying spaghetti monster. So can we get back on topic?
The problem is that any argument with religious fundies always degrades back to "you can't disprove God." It always happens because arguments made by these people get torn apart for being illogical, so they fall back on "God says so." And by God, of course only their Abrahamic God, because that is the correct one even though he's a carbon copy of the many Gods and creation stories that preceded him.
You realise that such a statement betrays a fundamental ignorance of Judaism. 1, there is no such thing as a Jewish fundamentalist. The Hebrew Bible is read on so many literal and non-literal levels simultaneously that to take it only one literal way would be stupid. 2, we don't claim that others have to agree with us. You don't have to be a Jew to be saved, or any of that crap. But homosexuality violates the Seven Laws of Noah given to all mankind, Jews and non-Jews alike.
In sum, Junker, before opening your yap and making a blanket statement about all Abrahamic religions, I would make sure I knew what I was talking about. Its painful to embarrass yourself, is it not?
Fundamentalism has been defined by George Marsden as the demand for a strict adherence to certain theological doctrines.
You believe that all 613 mitzvot should be kept including stoning/killing Israelites who transgress some of them.
If that's not fundamentilistic what is.
But, you are a hypocrite, as with a non-jewish wife I'm sure you don't keep many mitzvots/commandments yourself.
The seven laws of Noah are made up. Even in the torah you cannot find them.
-
Gary, since we are an ethnic group that has our own religio-philosophical way of looking at the world, and don't seek converts (although we do accept those who show sincere interest and effort) that is a false equivalency.. Atheists have tried to convert people by pursuasion and by brute force, killing millions in the process. We haven't pulled that shit since the conquest of Canaan.
-
In sum, Junker, before opening your yap and making a blanket statement about all Abrahamic religions, I would make sure I knew what I was talking about. Its painful to embarrass yourself, is it not?
There's nothing embarrassing about it. They're all the same. Sure, some details are different because different groups spun off from the original, but it's all the same nonsense, copied from previous religions and creation myths.
I get it, you want all the effort you put into your studies to mean something. It doesn't. It does have value from a historical and cultural perspective, but in modern day to day life, it is meaningless.
-
Tom, grow up. The 7 Laws are very clear. Do not blaspheme. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not commit sexual immorality. Do not rip the limb of living animal for food. Establish courts of justice. I never remember the seventh. They are all there except the sixth, and that is derived as necessary to enforce the others.
It is not fundamentalist to insist on obedience to Halacha. I would advise you to quit whining. It sounds like your definition needs work.
-
Tom, grow up. The 7 Laws are very clear. Do not blaspheme. Do not kill. Do not steal. Do not commit sexual immorality. Do not rip the limb of living animal for food. Establish courts of justice. I never remember the seventh. They are all there except the sixth, and that is derived as necessary to enforce the others.
It is not fundamentalist to insist on obedience to Halacha. I would advise you to quit whining. It sounds like your definition needs work.
The seven laws of Noah are made up. Even in the torah you cannot find them.
Besides, you fundamentalists claim that the torah is for the Jewish/Israelite/converts people only.
Your statements are really ridiculous.
Btw, you are a hypocrite, as with a non-jewish wife I'm sure you don't keep many mitzvots/commandments yourself.
Let's start with one:
For example, you post on this forum on the Shabbat.
-
What is the definition of work? Is it lighting a fire? Yes. Does posting here do that? No. Could it be called writing? Perhaps. But is writing the same work it was in the Bronze Age? No. I said I was a traditional Jew of Orthodox tendencies. I did not say I was strictly Orthodox. You are going to have to wake up earlier in the morning if you hope to win any pilpul arguments with me.
-
What is the definition of work? Is it lighting a fire? Yes. Does posting here do that? No. Could it be called writing? Perhaps. But is writing the same work it was in the Bronze Age? No. I said I was a traditional Jew of Orthodox tendencies. I did not say I was strictly Orthodox. You are going to have to wake up earlier in the morning if you hope to win any pilpul arguments with me.
Halacha is pretty clear about using a computer on Shabbat.
So, don't talk about, I quote you: "insist(ing) on obedience to Halacha" if you don't obey it yourself.
There are many more mitzvots/commandments you don't keep. You know that!
You are a hypocrite!
-
What is the definition of work? Is it lighting a fire? Yes. Does posting here do that? No. Could it be called writing? Perhaps. But is writing the same work it was in the Bronze Age? No. I said I was a traditional Jew of Orthodox tendencies. I did not say I was strictly Orthodox. You are going to have to wake up earlier in the morning if you hope to win any pilpul arguments with me.
Halacha is pretty clear about using a computer on Shabbat.
So, don't talk about, I quote you: "insist(ing) on obedience to Halacha" if you don't obey it yourself.
There are many more mitzvots/commandments you don't keep. You know that!
You are a hypocrite!
Don't worry Tom, he also cherry picks when it is important to interpret the Torah literally and when it is not with no clear standard either. Hypocrisy is where the mind of Yaakov lives.
-
What is the definition of work? Is it lighting a fire? Yes. Does posting here do that? No. Could it be called writing? Perhaps. But is writing the same work it was in the Bronze Age? No. I said I was a traditional Jew of Orthodox tendencies. I did not say I was strictly Orthodox. You are going to have to wake up earlier in the morning if you hope to win any pilpul arguments with me.
Halacha is pretty clear about using a computer on Shabbat.
So, don't talk about, I quote you: "insist(ing) on obedience to Halacha" if you don't obey it yourself.
There are many more mitzvots/commandments you don't keep. You know that!
You are a hypocrite!
Don't worry Tom, he also cherry picks when it is important to interpret the Torah literally and when it is not with no clear standard either. Hypocrisy is where the mind of Yaakov lives.
Exactly, he is just unlucky that someone here knows a lot about Judaism.
His behaviour is strange, as (real) Jewish people don't exhibit their Jewishness, let alone proselyte their religion.
-
Halacha can be, and has been, interpreted, and reinterpreted, many times over the 3800 years of our existence. What does it say now? What will it say later? What do I do now? What will I do later?
Remember, Judaism is a ladder of observances. No one starts from nothing and goes to complete obedience in a day. That is not the point. You don't know my personal history. Yes, my parents are Jews. But haven't you ever wondered why my wife is not?
Think about it? I realise you may not be that bright, but give it some thought.
Consider the following narrative. My parents were completely and totally non-Observant. In fact, the first experience I had with religion was Roman Catholicism. Even though I am an ethnic Jew, the first time I worshipped was as a Catholic, because my friends were Catholic (given that they were all Mexicans in Southern California, this shouldn't surprise you). I grew up in a town with no synagogue, with maybe 9 Jews in the entire population. And my family being part of the nine were completely non-Observant.
When I was 19 I became Church of England Episcopal. In fact, I nearly became a monk and priest. All this in spite of the fact that I am an ethnic Jew. My father's Hebrew name is indeed Abraham. But he is completely non-Observant. So is my mother. They at least had Hebrew names. Hers is Rut. But they have secular names that they have always used, and they didn't even bother to give us kids Hebrew names.
It wasn't until 11 years ago that I finally found the Faith of my Fathers. I mean, I always knew I was an ethnic Jew, but I never explored that part of my background. After all, how could I, growing up with no experience of it? I lived a completely Gentile life.
Did I convert to Judaism? No. I didn't have to in the formal sense. In the informal sense, I might as well have. Why do you think, that although my knowledge of theology is excellent, my knowledge of Hebrew is poor. Take a good guess, Brilliance. If you had any brains, you would have figured some of this out.
So don't sit there and judge me. I found my way to the Faith of my Fathers and embraced it. You, on the other hand rejected what was yours by inheritance. You are a disgrace to your people, and yes, you should be killed outright for what you have done. So, you don't like me, or approve? That's your problem. I don't believe in hell (most Jews don't, as you may or may not know), but, you can go there, just for being obnoxious.
-
Exactly, he is just unlucky that someone here knows a lot about Judaism.
His behaviour is strange, as (real) Jewish people don't exhibit their Jewishness, let alone proselyte their religion.
Except I don't proselyte my Faith, I merely explain it. And you, my friend, know nothing about Judaism. You are an arrogant pig, but you know nothing at all.
-
Do not kill.
But stoning is cool, apparently.
-
Halacha can be, and has been, interpreted, and reinterpreted, many times over the 3800 years of our existence. What does it say now? What will it say later? What do I do now? What will I do later?
Remember, Judaism is a ladder of observances. No one starts from nothing and goes to complete obedience in a day. That is not the point. You don't know my personal history. Yes, my parents are Jews. But haven't you ever wondered why my wife is not?
Think about it? I realise you may not be that bright, but give it some thought.
Consider the following narrative. My parents were completely and totally non-Observant. In fact, the first experience I had with religion was Roman Catholicism. Even though I am an ethnic Jew, the first time I worshipped was as a Catholic, because my friends were Catholic (given that they were all Mexicans in Southern California, this shouldn't surprise you). I grew up in a town with no synagogue, with maybe 9 Jews in the entire population. And my family being part of the nine were completely non-Observant.
When I was 19 I became Church of England Episcopal. In fact, I nearly became a monk and priest. All this in spite of the fact that I am an ethnic Jew. My father's Hebrew name is indeed Abraham. But he is completely non-Observant. So is my mother. They at least had Hebrew names. Hers is Rut. But they have secular names that they have always used, and they didn't even bother to give us kids Hebrew names.
It wasn't until 11 years ago that I finally found the Faith of my Fathers. I mean, I always knew I was an ethnic Jew, but I never explored that part of my background. After all, how could I, growing up with no experience of it? I lived a completely Gentile life.
Did I convert to Judaism? No. I didn't have to in the formal sense. In the informal sense, I might as well have. Why do you think, that although my knowledge of theology is excellent, my knowledge of Hebrew is poor. Take a good guess, Brilliance. If you had any brains, you would have figured some of this out.
So don't sit there and judge me. I found my way to the Faith of my Fathers and embraced it. You, on the other hand rejected what was yours by inheritance. You are a disgrace to your people, and yes, you should be killed outright for what you have done. So, you don't like me, or approve? That's your problem. I don't believe in hell (most Jews don't, as you may or may not know), but, you can go there, just for being obnoxious.
WHY CAN YOU NOT HAVE ONE ARGUMENT WITHOUT INSULTING SOMEONE?
EVEN IF YOU ARE JEWISH, YOU ARE A DISGRACE!!!
-
You call me a hypocrite, and do not expect a response? Pot, meet Kettle.
-
You are a hypocrite. You insist on obeying Halacha and in the next post you say that you are obeying it gradually.
Meaning? You are not obeying Halacha. If you keep insisting that every Jew has to obey Halacha (your version???), you are condemning yourself or a hypocrite.
The seven Noachidic laws are fictions as well, so stop condemning other people, you hypocrite!
-
You are a hypocrite. You insist on obeying Halacha and in the next post you say that you are obeying it gradually.
Meaning? You are not obeying Halacha. If you keep insisting that every Jew has to obey Halacha (your version???), you are condemning yourself or a hypocrite.
The seven Noachidic laws are fictions as well, so stop condemning other people, you hypocrite!
Find me, in the Torah, any reference to the use of computers on Shabbat. I can find, with the exception of establishing courts of justice, every one of the seven Noahide laws in Torah. And the Seventh, establishing courts of justice, is evident as being necessary to enforce the others. I insist that every Jew attempt to do their best. If that is being done, then you will get no judgement from me. But you should be killed outright for denying your faith altogether.
-
My wife needs the computer. TTYL.
-
You are a hypocrite. You insist on obeying Halacha and in the next post you say that you are obeying it gradually.
Meaning? You are not obeying Halacha. If you keep insisting that every Jew has to obey Halacha (your version???), you are condemning yourself or a hypocrite.
The seven Noachidic laws are fictions as well, so stop condemning other people, you hypocrite!
Find me, in the Torah, any reference to the use of computers on Shabbat. I can find, with the exception of establishing courts of justice, every one of the seven Noahide laws in Torah. And the Seventh, establishing courts of justice, is evident as being necessary to enforce the others. I insist that every Jew attempt to do their best. If that is being done, then you will get no judgement from me. But you should be killed outright for denying your faith altogether.
There has never been a Noah nor an Ark and there are no Noachidic Laws, even not in the Torah. It is fiction!
Concerning the Halacha of the Shabbat, see http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/95907/jewish/The-Shabbat-Laws.htm
Now you know, don't do it again!
More mitzvots you want to discuss?
Do you wear peyot and tzitzit?
Do you keep kosher with separate kitchens?
Do you touch your wife while she is in her period?
Other ones you would like to discuss?
http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/756399/jewish/The-613-Commandments.htm
Don't forget number 122, 125 and 162. And of course number 454!
Good Luck!
-
Of course I wear fringes. I do not trim the beard, although I don't wear peyot. The cutting the corners of the beard has been interpreted at least four different ways that I am aware of. The Torah itself states not to physically touch your wife during her monthly. Because of our increased understanding of medical science, many Jews, even among the more Traditional, have gone to interpreting that as not having sex with her. Understanding this as a reinterpretation, nevertheless, it is still deemed as appropriate.
Regarding kashrus, as I am unable to obtain kosher meat in my city, there is certainly no need to keep separate kitchens.
Again, I am ascending the ladder of obedience. You have descended the ladder to atheism. While I laud any Jew who starts at nothing, as I did, and works his way up, you should be killed outright.
Remember too that I live in a city that is not exactly conducive to Jewish living. If I lived in a Jewish neighbourhood in New York, where I could get kosher meat, of course I would keep kashrus laws to their utmost degree. You can't do that here. Judaism has ALWAYS made clear that what you are unable to do, you are not required to do. Evidently, for someone who supposedly knows a lot about Judaism, you actually know very little. I am uncertain whether your lack of knowledge comes from a lack of intellect or willful failure to comprehend.
And, much as there are some things I respect about Chabad, I am NOT a Chabadnik, thank you very much. In fact, I am not even Hasidic. So quoting hasidim won't get you far with me. It only makes you look more foolish than I already perceive you to be. I have made it clear that I am Traditional, without being strictly Orthodox. 'Nuff said, I should think.
EDIT: Message rephrased in the interests of not being insulting.
EDIT: Whether there was an Ark or a Noah is beside the point. The Noahide Laws are in the Torah. They apply to all of mankind. Certainly the first 11 chapters of Genesis may be legendary. But that is not the point. To be honest, I am not sure where I stand on those chapters, as they can be interpreted in many ways, and have been in the last 3800 years. But the Laws coming from them are still valid, and the Noahide Laws still hold. Grow up. Act your age, rather than like a child who can't get everything it wants, and insists on being a spoiled infant. That is not an insult. Your crying rebellion against G-d is getting you nowhere. He is not noticing or caring. All you are succeeding in doing is making a fool of yourself.
-
Of course I wear fringes. I do not trim the beard, although I don't wear peyot. The cutting the corners of the beard has been interpreted at least four different ways that I am aware of. The Torah itself states not to physically touch your wife during her monthly. Because of our increased understanding of medical science, many Jews, even among the more Traditional, have gone to interpreting that as not having sex with her. Understanding this as a reinterpretation, nevertheless, it is still deemed as appropriate.
Regarding kashrus, as I am unable to obtain kosher meat in my city, there is certainly no need to keep separate kitchens.
Again, I am ascending the ladder of obedience. You have descended the ladder to atheism. While I laud any Jew who starts at nothing, as I did, and works his way up, you should be killed outright.
Remember too that I live in a city that is not exactly conducive to Jewish living. If I lived in a Jewish neighbourhood in New York, where I could get kosher meat, of course I would keep kashrus laws to their utmost degree. You can't do that here. Judaism has ALWAYS made clear that what you are unable to do, you are not required to do. Evidently, for someone who supposedly knows a lot about Judaism, you actually know very little. I am uncertain whether your lack of knowledge comes from a lack of intellect or willful failure to comprehend.
And, much as there are some things I respect about Chabad, I am NOT a Chabadnik, thank you very much. In fact, I am not even Hasidic. So quoting hasidim won't get you far with me. It only makes you look more foolish than I already perceive you to be. I have made it clear that I am Traditional, without being strictly Orthodox. 'Nuff said, I should think.
EDIT: Message rephrased in the interests of not being insulting.
All your arguments are about insulting the other person and accusing him that he knows little and is stupid.
What is wrong with you?
The halacha is very clear, chabad or some other orthodox cult. You can discuss here if you can use a computer/internet on Shabbat:
http://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/8968/is-using-the-internet-on-shabbat-against-melachos
The oral tradition is as important as the written one. Read your talmuds and commentaries!
You are using excuses for not keeping the mitzvots properly (halachically). You are condemning yourself and are a hypocrite.
I really don't care. Do what you like. It's just ridiculous that you are condemning other people for doing something while you yourself are very selective about what to do and what not.
Do what you want and leave the rest of humanity alone!
-
Understanding this as a reinterpretation, nevertheless, it is still deemed as appropriate.
What else is reinterpretable? Who decides what can and cannot be reinterpreted?
-
This is getting ridiculous. If you guys are going to have long winded arguments about Judaism then relegate them to the thread in which questions about your Jewishness are to be discussed.
-
Understanding this as a reinterpretation, nevertheless, it is still deemed as appropriate.
What else is reinterpretable? Who decides what can and cannot be reinterpreted?
Fair question. To be honest, its up to the individual Jew. My personal practice is to not judge another practicing Jew. As disgusted as I am with people like Tom, who have rejected Judaism, and in my opinion, should be killed outright, I have a strict practice of not judging another Jew's practice of his Faith. I admit, when it comes to EXTREMELY Liberal Judaism, that practice slips a bit, as I find that form of the Faith to be rather distasteful. But personally, I can take just about anything, from Chabad (which most non-Jews would consider ultra-Orthodox) to Classical Reform (which to a Non-Jew looks almost like Lutheranism without Jesus) and consider it respectable. I may not agree with it, but I can respect it as at least an attempt at trying to be Jewish. It is the Jew who rejects his Faith, like Tom, that just flat pisses me off, and to be honest, makes me want to rip his throat out.
He has abandoned and disgraced his people. In his own way, he is worse than Hitler, because he would give Hitler a posthumous victory, by destroying Judaism from within. The self-hating Jew, the Jew who hates Judaism, is worthy of nothing but the lowest contempt.
-
Understanding this as a reinterpretation, nevertheless, it is still deemed as appropriate.
What else is reinterpretable? Who decides what can and cannot be reinterpreted?
Fair question. To be honest, its up to the individual Jew. My personal practice is to not judge another practicing Jew. As disgusted as I am with people like Tom, who have rejected Judaism, and in my opinion, should be killed outright, I have a strict practice of not judging another Jew's practice of his Faith. I admit, when it comes to EXTREMELY Liberal Judaism, that practice slips a bit, as I find that form of the Faith to be rather distasteful. But personally, I can take just about anything, from Chabad (which most non-Jews would consider ultra-Orthodox) to Classical Reform (which to a Non-Jew looks almost like Lutheranism without Jesus) and consider it respectable. I may not agree with it, but I can respect it as at least an attempt at trying to be Jewish. It is the Jew who rejects his Faith, like Tom, that just flat pisses me off, and to be honest, makes me want to rip his throat out.
He has abandoned and disgraced his people. In his own way, he is worse than Hitler, because he would give Hitler a posthumous victory, by destroying Judaism from within. The self-hating Jew, the Jew who hates Judaism, is worthy of nothing but the lowest contempt.
this is outragious insulting. Unacceptable!
-
No worse than what you have said about me.
-
No worse than what you have said about me.
Well you wished death on him so it really is.
-
I simply wished halachic regulation to be fulfilled. I did not suggest doing it myself, although I admit that I am angry enough to want to. I made no threats. so, no, it isn't.
-
I simply wished halachic regulation to be fulfilled. I did not suggest doing it myself, although I admit that I am angry enough to want to. I made no threats. so, no, it isn't.
I never said that you threatened him or that you wanted to do it yourself did I? I said you wished death on him, which you do, whether just or not, whereas he wished shame on you and perhaps some sort of ethical standard. Does that seem equal to you?
-
I simply wished halachic regulation to be fulfilled. I did not suggest doing it myself, although I admit that I am angry enough to want to. I made no threats. so, no, it isn't.
I never said that you threatened him or that you wanted to do it yourself did I? I said you wished death on him, which you do, whether just or not, whereas he wished shame on you and perhaps some sort of ethical standard. Does that seem equal to you?
In Judaism, attempting to shame someone in public is akin to murder, as he should well know. And this forum is "in public", more or less. And I have an ethical standard. The fact that you do not agree with it, and that he might not, does not mean that I don't have one. But shaming someone in public or disgracing their character is a sin second only to outright murder, so yes, I think it is equal.
-
Regarding kashrus, as I am unable to obtain kosher meat in my city, there is certainly no need to keep separate kitchens.
I think the appropriate thing to do would be to abstain from meat if you cannot find anything kosher.
I think it'd be equivalent to buying pork tenderloin because they were all out of chicken when you went to the store, and you had to get something.
-
Regarding kashrus, as I am unable to obtain kosher meat in my city, there is certainly no need to keep separate kitchens.
I think the appropriate thing to do would be to abstain from meat if you cannot find anything kosher.
I think it'd be equivalent to buying pork tenderloin because they were all out of chicken when you went to the store, and you had to get something.
*GRIN* Kosher ham, huh? How entertaining! A lot of Jews do exactly what you are suggesting. My Rabbi I think does that. At this point, I am on the ladder of observance where I consume appropriate animals, and find kosher ones as often as I can. It is an interesting thing. Even when I was totally non-observant, I always found pork repulsive, except for pepperoni which I loved. I do miss that stuff. The rest of it I never had to miss, because I always thought it nasty.
My wife's family is big on pork, but they have learned to buy me something else for cookouts, and they at the very least keep it separate from the pork. Granted, the grill has been used for pork before, so its by NO means strictly kosher, but they do at least clean it, and keep the juices from mixing as much as possible. Well, one does what one can. Of course, Tom will call me a hypocrite. And I shall say that he should be killed.
-
I simply wished halachic regulation to be fulfilled. I did not suggest doing it myself, although I admit that I am angry enough to want to. I made no threats. so, no, it isn't.
I never said that you threatened him or that you wanted to do it yourself did I? I said you wished death on him, which you do, whether just or not, whereas he wished shame on you and perhaps some sort of ethical standard. Does that seem equal to you?
He did threaten me and make me feel ashamed as I don't obey his War God.
He has been insulting me all the time. It is unacceptable!
-
I simply wished halachic regulation to be fulfilled. I did not suggest doing it myself, although I admit that I am angry enough to want to. I made no threats. so, no, it isn't.
I never said that you threatened him or that you wanted to do it yourself did I? I said you wished death on him, which you do, whether just or not, whereas he wished shame on you and perhaps some sort of ethical standard. Does that seem equal to you?
He did threaten me and make me feel ashamed as I don't obey his War God.
He has been insulting me all the time. It is unacceptable!
I didn't threaten you at all. A threat involves me suggesting that I personally will hunt you down and exact personal vengeance upon you. Much as that would satisfy me, I won't, because I don't believe in vigilantism. Grow up.
And as I said, I didn't insult you any more than you have me. POT, MEET KETTLE.
-
Furthermore, if we killed everybody that pissed us off, there would be very few people alive in the world, since pretty much every human pisses somebody off at some point to the point such that that person wants to kill him or her. As responsible citizens, we do not engage in that practice for obvious reasons.
-
Understanding this as a reinterpretation, nevertheless, it is still deemed as appropriate.
What else is reinterpretable? Who decides what can and cannot be reinterpreted?
Fair question. To be honest, its up to the individual Jew. My personal practice is to not judge another practicing Jew. As disgusted as I am with people like Tom, who have rejected Judaism, and in my opinion, should be killed outright, I have a strict practice of not judging another Jew's practice of his Faith. I admit, when it comes to EXTREMELY Liberal Judaism, that practice slips a bit, as I find that form of the Faith to be rather distasteful. But personally, I can take just about anything, from Chabad (which most non-Jews would consider ultra-Orthodox) to Classical Reform (which to a Non-Jew looks almost like Lutheranism without Jesus) and consider it respectable. I may not agree with it, but I can respect it as at least an attempt at trying to be Jewish. It is the Jew who rejects his Faith, like Tom, that just flat pisses me off, and to be honest, makes me want to rip his throat out.
He has abandoned and disgraced his people. In his own way, he is worse than Hitler, because he would give Hitler a posthumous victory, by destroying Judaism from within. The self-hating Jew, the Jew who hates Judaism, is worthy of nothing but the lowest contempt.
Please delete this insulting post!
-
Understanding this as a reinterpretation, nevertheless, it is still deemed as appropriate.
What else is reinterpretable? Who decides what can and cannot be reinterpreted?
Fair question. To be honest, its up to the individual Jew. My personal practice is to not judge another practicing Jew. As disgusted as I am with people like Tom, who have rejected Judaism, and in my opinion, should be killed outright, I have a strict practice of not judging another Jew's practice of his Faith. I admit, when it comes to EXTREMELY Liberal Judaism, that practice slips a bit, as I find that form of the Faith to be rather distasteful. But personally, I can take just about anything, from Chabad (which most non-Jews would consider ultra-Orthodox) to Classical Reform (which to a Non-Jew looks almost like Lutheranism without Jesus) and consider it respectable. I may not agree with it, but I can respect it as at least an attempt at trying to be Jewish. It is the Jew who rejects his Faith, like Tom, that just flat pisses me off, and to be honest, makes me want to rip his throat out.
He has abandoned and disgraced his people. In his own way, he is worse than Hitler, because he would give Hitler a posthumous victory, by destroying Judaism from within. The self-hating Jew, the Jew who hates Judaism, is worthy of nothing but the lowest contempt.
Please delete this insulting post!
You were warned and Yaakov was banned as he has been warned about insulting users numerous times. Do not continue to post these messages or you may have to join him.
-
Understanding this as a reinterpretation, nevertheless, it is still deemed as appropriate.
What else is reinterpretable? Who decides what can and cannot be reinterpreted?
Fair question. To be honest, its up to the individual Jew. My personal practice is to not judge another practicing Jew. As disgusted as I am with people like Tom, who have rejected Judaism, and in my opinion, should be killed outright, I have a strict practice of not judging another Jew's practice of his Faith. I admit, when it comes to EXTREMELY Liberal Judaism, that practice slips a bit, as I find that form of the Faith to be rather distasteful. But personally, I can take just about anything, from Chabad (which most non-Jews would consider ultra-Orthodox) to Classical Reform (which to a Non-Jew looks almost like Lutheranism without Jesus) and consider it respectable. I may not agree with it, but I can respect it as at least an attempt at trying to be Jewish. It is the Jew who rejects his Faith, like Tom, that just flat pisses me off, and to be honest, makes me want to rip his throat out.
He has abandoned and disgraced his people. In his own way, he is worse than Hitler, because he would give Hitler a posthumous victory, by destroying Judaism from within. The self-hating Jew, the Jew who hates Judaism, is worthy of nothing but the lowest contempt.
Please delete this insulting post!
You were warned and Yaakov was banned as he has been warned about insulting users numerous times. Do not continue to post these messages or you may have to join him.
Please delete account Tom!
-
Please delete account Tom!
Message one of the admins (Blanko/Junker/Parsifal). I can't delete accounts.
-
Message one of the admins (Blanko/Junker/Parsifal). I can't delete accounts.
For future reference, all users can delete their own accounts.
-
Hey, piza. I just wanted you to know that for once, I understand and even agree with the fairness of the ban. See you all next week, ok?
-
Well, that escalated quickly.
To get back on topic, I see religious arguments against homosexuality as valid insofar as they justify non-recognition of same-sex marriage by religious institutions, not the state. This comes back to how I initially answered Tom Bishop's question:
Why should gay marriage be legal?
Because the state has no business regulating people's personal lives one way or another.
The government has no business telling gays they can't marry. It also has no business telling religious institutions they must recognise gay marriages.
-
Why should gay marriage be legal?
Because the state has no business regulating people's personal lives one way or another.
The government has no business telling gays they can't marry. It also has no business telling religious institutions they must recognise gay marriages.
Does your mother have business telling you that you cannot have sexual relations with your family dog?
-
Animals can't consent to sex. Neither can children.
-
Animals can't consent to sex. Neither can children.
We're not talking about laws or legalities. In fact, pretend that written laws do not exist at all. Does your mother have business telling you whether you can have sexual relations with the dog or not?
-
I didn't say anything about laws or legalities. Having sex with animals is wrong because they can't agree to it, and so is abusive to them. I suspect that what you asked is supposed to be some kind of loaded "have you stopped beating your wife?" trick question, so I'll just say that anyone has the moral right to stop anyone else from trying to have sex with an animal.
-
I didn't say anything about laws or legalities. Having sex with animals is wrong because they can't agree to it, and so is abusive to them. I suspect that what you asked is supposed to be some kind of loaded "have you stopped beating your wife?" trick question, so I'll just say that anyone has the moral right to stop anyone else from trying to have sex with an animal.
Animals initiate sex all the time.
Your mom has just walked in and caught you having consensual sex with the dog. You want it and the dog wants it. Does she have any business telling you that you cannot have sex with the dog?
-
I suppose if you are going to imagine that dogs are consenting to sex, then there is not much point to this parable since it won't compare to the world we actually live in.
-
Does your mother have business telling you that you cannot have sexual relations with your family dog?
Irrelevant. My mother is not the government.
However, as I am over the age of 18, the answer is also no.
-
I suppose if you are going to imagine that dogs are consenting to sex, then there is not much point to this parable since it won't compare to the world we actually live in.
Sure it does. This has nothing to do with laws or legal ability to consent or anything. Your mom is in charge of you, is responsible for you, cares about you, and says that you can't have sex with the dog, no matter how much you two might want it, which would hold even if you were over the age of 18. Laws have nothing to do with it. It is absolutely her business if her child is having sex with the family dog.
-
Irrelevant. My mother is not the government.
However, as I am over the age of 18, the answer is also no.
"I'm over the age of 18 mom, I can have sex with the dog if I want!"
Do you really think that will help your case or somehow convince her that she is no longer in charge or responsible for you?
-
Irrelevant. My mother is not the government.
However, as I am over the age of 18, the answer is also no.
"I'm over the age of 18 mom, I can have sex with the dog if I want!"
Do you really think that will help your case or somehow convince her that she is no longer in charge or responsible for you?
Yes it does help your case because she is neither in charge nor responsible for you. If she is deluding herself in to thinking otherwise, then she is the one with the problem.
I suppose if you are going to imagine that dogs are consenting to sex, then there is not much point to this parable since it won't compare to the world we actually live in.
Sure it does. This has nothing to do with laws or legal ability to consent or anything. Your mom is in charge of you, is responsible for you, cares about you, and says that you can't have sex with the dog, no matter how much you two might want it, which would hold even if you were over the age of 18. Laws have nothing to do with it. It is absolutely her business if her child is having sex with the family dog.
More of the same, your mom is -not- in charge of you once you are 18. If it is her dog then she of course has a right to intervene and she may feel obligated to intervene because the dog cannot consent, but she has no inherent authority because she is your Mom.
-
"I'm over the age of 18 mom, I can have sex with the dog if I want!"
Do you really think that will help your case or somehow convince her that she is no longer in charge or responsible for you?
Again irrelevant, because my mother is not the government. But since you asked:
Yes it does help your case because she is neither in charge nor responsible for you. If she is deluding herself in to thinking otherwise, then she is the one with the problem.
-
Animals can't consent to sex. Neither can children.
You can't seriously be this gullible, junker Saddam.
-
What if the dog mounts you? Has the dog consented?
-
If the dog is sentient enough to consent to inter-species hank-panky (I'm picturing Brian from Family Guy) then go for it.
-
Perhaps this calls fot a test then. Parsifal will have sex with a dog and his mother will catch him in the act. He will say "but mooom, I'm over the age of 18 now and I can have sex with a dog if I want." We will see how far that gets him.
The simple truth of the matter is that laws regarding the ability to consent or your age has nothing to do with it. Your mom does not take charge of the household and of her children because a law told her to do it. If there were no written laws, she would still be in charge.
In fact, using those laws as the basis of the argument is the exact opposite of the spirit that the government has no business in our personal lives. Parsifal is arguing over his mom's rights over her children or his right to animal sex based on laws handed down by a a democratic government. Support of those laws as justification for what his mom does or does not have a right to or what he can and cant have consentual sex with are pro arguments that the government has business in our personal lives, when the exact opposite was to be argued.
-
Perhaps this calls fot a test then. Parsifal will have sex with a dog and his mother will catch him in the act. He will say "but mooom, I'm over the age of 18 now and I can have sex with a dog if I want." We will see how far that gets him.
What exactly is this going to prove? Don't make me point out the irrelevance regarding my mother not being the government again.
The simple truth of the matter is that laws regarding the ability to consent or your age has nothing to do with it.
No shit. This entire discussion is about what should be legal, and so far the only person who has based any claims on what is currently legal is you with your circular "democracy is good because it exists" argument.
Your mom does not take charge of the household and of her children because a law told her to do it. If there were no written laws, she would still be in charge.
I don't live in the same household as my mother, so her taking control of this household would be quite bizarre indeed. If your argument is founded on the presumption that she is in charge of a household I live in, then yes, she has the right to say whether I can or cannot have sex with a dog in her household, just as a landlord would have the same right in a rented house. It has nothing to do with her being my mother.
In fact, arguing age of consent, ability of animal consent, and age of adulthood laws is the exact opposite of the spirit that the government has no business in our personal lives. Support lf those laws are pro argument that the government has business in our personal lives, when the exact opposite was to be argued.
I didn't raise any of those arguments. I only said that my mother has no business telling me I can't fuck the dog because I am over the age of 18, where that point is relatively uncontested. If I were under the age of 18, then there would be further debate to be had.
-
What does the age of 18 have to do with it other than it being a law of a democratic government that we are adults beyond our parent's control at that age?
You are justifying your dog sex based on a law handed down by a government authority. Arguing in favor of that is arguing that the government does have business in our personal lives and should tell us what we can and can't do. Shameful.
-
What does the age of 18 have to do with it other than it being a law of a democratic government that we are adults beyond our parent's control at that age?
It's generally accepted as the age of adulthood in Western society. I only brought it up as a simplification of my argument; if I were under 18, I would be making exactly the same argument, except I would have to argue for why the status quo should be changed. Since I am over 18, that matter is irrelevant.
Speaking of things that are irrelevant, my mother hasn't become any more the government since my last post, in case you were wondering.
You are justifying your dog sex based on a law handed down by a government authority. Arguing in favor of that is arguing that the government does have business in our personal lives and should tell us what we can and can't do. Shameful.
Actually, I have never had sex with a dog and would not attempt to justify it, but that isn't the question you asked. Nice straw man, though.
-
I never said that your mom was the government. You are using government laws as justification for what you can or can't do with your dog, or what your mom does or does not have a right to tell you, and the point was made.
You said it yourself -- the age of 18 is the status quo, what is generally accepted by society at large, also known as democracy, and that is the entire basis and justification of your argument.
-
No the basis of the argument is that, as a consenting adult, which is a relative term that can have varying definitions, my mother has no authority, moral or otherwise over me.
-
No the basis of the argument is that, as a consenting adult, which is a relative term that can have varying definitions, my mother has no authority, moral or otherwise over me.
You cannot deny that you are using a status quo as justification for who Parsifal can and cannot have sex with, or what his mom can and cannot tell him.
-
I never said that your mom was the government. You are using government laws as justification for what you can or can't do with your dog, or what your mom does or does not have a right to tell you, and the point was made.
No, that's not what my argument is at all. In fact, my primary response to your question has consistently been that it is irrelevant.
You said it yourself -- the age of 18 is the status quo, what is generally accepted by society at large, also known as democracy, and that is the entire basis and justification of your argument.
I have made no argument against my mother having the right to tell me not to fuck dogs because it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. All I did was answer your question to humour you. My argument cannot have any justification if it does not exist.
Aside from being mistaken, you are also wrong, in that what is generally accepted by society at large does not necessarily align with the laws created by a democratic government, especially a representative democracy which is limited by a constitution. To suggest otherwise would be to accept that same-sex marriage is generally accepted by American society because it is now legal in the US. Which is it, Tom?
-
I never said that your mom was the government. You are using government laws as justification for what you can or can't do with your dog, or what your mom does or does not have a right to tell you, and the point was made.
No, that's not what my argument is at all. In fact, my primary response to your question has consistently been that it is irrelevant.
Earlier in this thread you argued that the government had no business in our personal lives and various points against democracy. It was questioned and argued that the majority has no right to dictate to the minority, particularly in our personal relationships.
When queried about whether your mother had business telling you whether you could have sex with the dog, you responded with a status quo argument that you are over 18 and your mother had no right to tell you what to do. You further argued that the age of 18 was what was generally accepted in society and so on. Further status quo arguments were made in this thread that animals cannot consent.
This is entirely antipodal to your original anti-democracy arguments that the majority had no business in our personal lives. By framing your response under the justification that the age of 18 is the generally accepted status quo, for when your mother can and cannot tell you things, the subtext is that we should have democratic authorities telling us what to do.
I have made no argument against my mother having the right to tell me not to fuck dogs because it is irrelevant to the matter at hand. All I did was answer your question to humour you. My argument cannot have any justification if it does not exist.
Aside from being mistaken, you are also wrong, in that what is generally accepted by society at large does not necessarily align with the laws created by a democratic government, especially a representative democracy which is limited by a constitution. To suggest otherwise would be to accept that same-sex marriage is generally accepted by American society because it is now legal in the US. Which is it, Tom?
"Irrelevant," "it was just humor," whatever. Status quo justifications were made and that is on you. That's it. You are through. Your arguments against the system have shown to be flaky, unsupportable, hypocritical, and you are done here.
-
Earlier in this thread you argued that the government had no business in our personal lives and various points against democracy. It was questioned and argued that the majority has no right to dictate to the minority, particularly in our personal relationships.
When queried about whether your mother had business telling you whether you could have sex with the dog, you responded with a status quo argument that you are over 18 and your mother had no right to tell you what to do. You further argued that the age of 18 was what was generally accepted in society and so on. Further status quo arguments were made in this thread that animals cannot consent.
I did not use the status quo as justification for anything, only as a means to simplify my argument. I already stated this, which you've conveniently ignored:
I only brought it up as a simplification of my argument; if I were under 18, I would be making exactly the same argument, except I would have to argue for why the status quo should be changed. Since I am over 18, that matter is irrelevant.
I never once made the claim that, if I were under 18, my assertions would be untrue. If you had posed a more general question as to whether mothers in general should be able to control their children's lives, then you might have a point, but instead you inexplicably decided to focus on my mother. That makes mothers of under-18s irrelevant, and therefore a discussion of the restrictions imposed on under-18s by the government irrelevant.
If I have made one error in judgment, it was giving you fodder to pick on beside my main point. My main point is, and always has been, that my mother is irrelevant. Any further discussion should be in response to that point, please.
This is entirely antipodal to your original anti-democracy arguments that the government had no business in our personal lives. By framing your response under the justification that the age of 18 is the generally accepted status quo, for when your mother can and cannot tell you things, the subtext is that we should have democratic authorities telling us what to do.
Ignoring what I've said and repeating yourself isn't going to change my response. If you'd like to continue pretending that the status quo is the same thing as democracy, perhaps you'd care to answer this question I posed previously?
Aside from being mistaken, you are also wrong, in that what is generally accepted by society at large does not necessarily align with the laws created by a democratic government, especially a representative democracy which is limited by a constitution. To suggest otherwise would be to accept that same-sex marriage is generally accepted by American society because it is now legal in the US. Which is it, Tom?
"Irrelevant," "it was just humor," whatever.
Yes, I imagine you would have a tough job explaining how it is relevant. That's most likely why you ignored my claims of irrelevance and focused on the unimportant parts of what I said to begin with.
Status quo justifications were made and that is on you. You are through. Your arguments against the system have shown to be flaky, unsupportable, hypocritical, and you are done here.
I have to hand it to you, you've done a fantastic job of destroying arguments I haven't made. Well done, Tom.
-
I've read back through this thread, and I'm still confused how we went from discussing the legality of gay marriage to having underage sex with a sentient, consenting dog in Parsifal's Mom's house.
-
I've read back through this thread, and I'm still confused how we went from discussing the legality of gay marriage to having underage sex with a sentient, consenting dog in Parsifal's Mom's house.
Tom lost every other argument he tried to make in opposition to gay marriage, so he decided to take it to an unrelated extreme. Newborn children and possibly inanimate objects will be next, ideally keeping the setting of Parsifal's mom's house intact.
-
Earlier in this thread you argued that the government had no business in our personal lives and various points against democracy. It was questioned and argued that the majority has no right to dictate to the minority, particularly in our personal relationships.
When queried about whether your mother had business telling you whether you could have sex with the dog, you responded with a status quo argument that you are over 18 and your mother had no right to tell you what to do. You further argued that the age of 18 was what was generally accepted in society and so on. Further status quo arguments were made in this thread that animals cannot consent.
I did not use the status quo as justification for anything, only as a means to simplify my argument. I already stated this, which you've conveniently ignored:
I only brought it up as a simplification of my argument; if I were under 18, I would be making exactly the same argument, except I would have to argue for why the status quo should be changed. Since I am over 18, that matter is irrelevant.
I never once made the claim that, if I were under 18, my assertions would be untrue. If you had posed a more general question as to whether mothers in general should be able to control their children's lives, then you might have a point, but instead you inexplicably decided to focus on my mother. That makes mothers of under-18s irrelevant, and therefore a discussion of the restrictions imposed on under-18s by the government irrelevant.
If I have made one error in judgment, it was giving you fodder to pick on beside my main point. My main point is, and always has been, that my mother is irrelevant. Any further discussion should be in response to that point, please.
Why do you keep bringing up the age of 18, over and over, even ignoring what I said earlier that laws do not matter to your mom, and to pretend that written laws do not exist for the scenario?
You are so gung-ho about the age of 18 being a mark of independence from your parents that you are continuously bringing that point up, arguing the status quo, resting your laurels on "the majority said so and so I can do it." This is diametrically opposed to your previous arguments.
Others in this thread keep bringing up that dogs cannot consent, but this is also arguing the status quo, essentially justifying that we should have the majority telling us what to do in our sex lives.
Don't you see how arguing these points entirely destroy your earlier arguments?
This is entirely antipodal to your original anti-democracy arguments that the government had no business in our personal lives. By framing your response under the justification that the age of 18 is the generally accepted status quo, for when your mother can and cannot tell you things, the subtext is that we should have democratic authorities telling us what to do.
Ignoring what I've said and repeating yourself isn't going to change my response. If you'd like to continue pretending that the status quo is the same thing as democracy, perhaps you'd care to answer this question I posed previously?
Aside from being mistaken, you are also wrong, in that what is generally accepted by society at large does not necessarily align with the laws created by a democratic government, especially a representative democracy which is limited by a constitution. To suggest otherwise would be to accept that same-sex marriage is generally accepted by American society because it is now legal in the US. Which is it, Tom?
I provided arguments earlier by Justice Scalia at the top of page 7 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3149.msg73006#msg73006) that the Supreme Court's decision did not accurately represent the people.
Yes, I imagine you would have a tough job explaining how it is relevant. That's most likely why you ignored my claims of irrelevance and focused on the unimportant parts of what I said to begin with.
Seeing as you have backed yourself into a hypocritical corner in attempting to answer the mom analogy, she was not irrelevant.
-
I don't understand why Parsifal's mom's thoughts are relevant.
-
I don't understand why Parsifal's mom's thoughts are relevant.
It doesn't matter what she thinks. What matters is that Parsifal thinks he has sexual independence to screw the pooch because of a status quo law passed by the majority. Disgusting.
-
I would be utterly shocked if Tom Bishop could, in his own words, accurately describe the majority's holding in this case.
-
Gay marriage is literally bestiality.
-
Quite.
-
I don't understand why Parsifal's mom's thoughts are relevant.
It doesn't matter what she thinks. What matters is that Parsifal thinks he has sexual independence to screw the pooch because of a status quo law passed by the majority. Disgusting.
Perhaps the best example of the slippery slope fallacy of this generation. Well played.
-
Perhaps the best example of the slippery slope fallacy of this generation. Well played.
Pointing out a slippery slope wouldn't necessarily be wrong, though. Now that gay marriage is settled, something will take its place in the political vacuum. Give it a few years and polygamy will be the major social talking point. Politicians like having social topics because everyone has a strong opinion on them and they are easier to talk about than, say, the economy or war.
-
Perhaps the best example of the slippery slope fallacy of this generation. Well played.
Pointing out a slippery slope wouldn't necessarily be wrong, though. Now that gay marriage is settled, something will take its place in the political vacuum. Give it a few years and polygamy will be the major social talking point. Politicians like having social topics because everyone has a strong opinion on them and they are easier to talk about than, say, the economy or war.
That only works if there's a strong opposition. Until polygamists organize in a unified manner, I doubt that will become a mainstream topic. I imagine immigration, or some other social sector will be the next big thing.
-
Why do you keep bringing up the age of 18, over and over, even ignoring what I said earlier that laws do not matter to your mom, and to pretend that written laws do not exist for the scenario?
Which universe have you been living in, Tom? You're the one who's fixated on that issue. I've only been responding to your posts. If you'd prefer to concede defeat, then I can stop doing that.
Also, you have a funny definition of "ignoring". I responded directly to what you said about laws not mattering:
No shit. This entire discussion is about what should be legal, and so far the only person who has based any claims on what is currently legal is you with your circular "democracy is good because it exists" argument.
You are so gung-ho about the age of 18 being a mark of independence from your parents that you are continuously bringing that point up, arguing the status quo, resting your laurels on "the majority said so and so I can do it." This is diametrically opposed to your previous arguments.
Yes, it is. That's why I didn't say it. You're welcome to continue pretending I did, though.
Others in this thread keep bringing up that dogs cannot consent, but this is also arguing the status quo, essentially justifying that we should have the majority telling us what to do in our sex lives.
Don't you see how arguing these points entirely destroy your earlier arguments?
Are you trying to hold me accountable for others' arguments? My, we really are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I provided arguments earlier by Justice Scalia at the top of page 7 (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3149.msg73006#msg73006) that the Supreme Court's decision did not accurately represent the people.
Irrelevant. The United States is a democracy. All it takes is a single ruling that does not reflect the will of the people to demolish your assertion that the laws of a democratic nation are necessarily the same thing as the majority view.
Am I to understand that you wish to rescind that claim?
Seeing as you have backed yourself into a hypocritical corner in attempting to answer the mom analogy, she was not irrelevant.
Which I've already responded to:
If I have made one error in judgment, it was giving you fodder to pick on beside my main point. My main point is, and always has been, that my mother is irrelevant. Any further discussion should be in response to that point, please.
The fact that you're continuing to cling to this tangent, despite me pointing out in every single post that my mother is irrelevant, only emphasises how weak your case is. I'd suggest getting back to the topic, but you're just going to pick and choose which bits of this post to reply to as well. I'm betting this paragraph won't be one of them.
-
That's enough.
-
That's enough.
You don't get to dictate the terms of this debate. If you want to duck out now, that's your option, but don't pretend it's anything other than that.
-
I doubt Parsifal's mom would be happy with him hosting a parade through her house, either. Does that mean Macy's should cancel their parade?
-
I doubt Parsifal's mom would be happy with him hosting a parade through her house, either. Does that mean Macy's should cancel their parade?
That's enough.
-
Your mom bursts into your room and finds you having sex with your dog. What does she do? What do you do?
-
Why are you lot still talking about dog sex?
-
Saddam is disappointed the topic did not continue.