Reasons for Opposition to Gay Marriage?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Shock and Awe:

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

Yes, because it works as designed. The Judicial cannot shut down the Legislative Branch regardless of what it does. The system is designed for the Judicial to be the non-democratic element that makes sure Law runs the country, not just the majority. The only way to change it is for a vast majority of the country's legislatures to approve it. This exactly how it should be. It takes much more then a majority's whim or a political notion to change something important.

No, I said this is how it works, I did not recognize it as functional. Again, I stress the figurative nature of my language. I do not believe that the courts have the power to eclipse or dilute the congress or it's power. I did assert, however, that activism results in unneeded, unnecessary, and undemocratic judicial oversight, as the interpretations of the judicial branch may conflict with the electoral consensus of the people, but not by a margin sufficient to compel the legislative branch to consider modifying the constitution, besides the court, using it's power of liberal "interpretation" may still find a way to impose it's political convictions on the american people. The current system of activism is broken, from top to bottom.

The thing is though, that Judges really don't do all that much. The whole basis of their "activism" is that they sometimes strike down laws that they believe conflict with the Constitution. This is totally within their power and they have been doing it for hundreds of years. Judicial Review has been institutionalized since the early 19th century after Marvbury v Madison. Can Judicial Oversight be undemocratic? Yes, thats the entire idea. Its supposed to be undemocratic because doing everything by majority rule tends to bite people in the ass. If something is within that margin to be a majority, yet not enough to make an amendment then it was blocked by something that is there on purpose. The Law and Courts exist to dropkick Democracy in the chest because the US is supposed to be ruled by Law.

I don't criticize judicial review, you misunderstand my position. The assertion that activism is in any way equatable to review is fallacious. Activism involves the flexible interpretation of the laws along political lines, whereas simple review relies on a strict "legalistic" interpretation of the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
(familiarize yourself with the definitions)

vonmanstein:

Frission:

lowhat:
I'm bigoted against child molesters. Flame me with your tolerance, you wonderful "people's rights" types.

What does have to with homosexuality? Being homosexual doesn't automatically make you a pedophile.

It very well may, if we are to trust the theories of Adolph Brand, and he was on the inside.

...

You do know I can't take you seriously about that right? Because with all due respect I've read my share of strange theories on sexuality, but that is pure bullshit.

It boggles my mind, but believe what you will. I'm not going to get angry about this. I'll start foaming when he says that it means that homosexuals should be jailed.

maddawg IAJI:

vonmanstein:

maddawg IAJI:
Let me stop you right there. The constituion is not easily amended. Rather, it takes a lot of lobbying, time and petitioning to get any hope of passing an amendment. Its estimated that 200 proposals are submitted in each term of Congress. In the last 200 years, only 33 proposals have recieved enough votes to be presented to the states (They need 2/3rds of Congress to agree, or, about 353+ votes) and of those 33, only 27 were ratified. Given our current split in idealogies in both the congress and across the states, its all but impossible to pass an amendment.

So no, IT IS NOT SIMPLE TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION DAMNIT!

Yes, you are right. That fact actually reinforces the argument I was making when I said it though.

No it doesn't. You said, and I quote "If the constitution was not so easy to amend, I would agree with you." The Constitution is not easy to amend. Ergo, you agree with the person you are arguing with. Argument goes to Shock and Awe. You admitted that you would side with him if stipulation X occurred. Said stipulation has occurred.

Actually it does.... If the constitution isn't easily amended then the power that the judicial branch brandishes is amplified, which makes judicial activism more worrisome.

If you intend to haphazardly interject in the future please understand the entire argument up to that point, not simply the content of a single post.

Frission:

vonmanstein:

Frission:

What does have to with homosexuality? Being homosexual doesn't automatically make you a pedophile.

It very well may, if we are to trust the theories of Adolph Brand, and he was on the inside.

...

You do know I can't take you seriously about that right? Because with all due respect I've read my share of strange theories on sexuality, but that is pure bullshit.

It boggles my mind, but believe what you will. I'm not going to get angry about this. I'll start foaming when he says that it means that homosexuals should be jailed.

now I never said i believed it, but viewing Brand as an advocate of homosexuality and pederasty, which he used interchangeably, certainly begs one to consider such conclusions.........

Gethsemani:

vonmanstein:

ach.... So easily we forget history.

Humanism(academic definition) is a renaissance era philosophy which is preceded by the development of classical attic democracy, and if the successor cannot influence the predecessor in a historical sense then democracy as it was created cannot contain a humanist influences.

democracy in a more traditional sense is a simple system of power in the hands of the majority. MODERN liberal democracy has come to embrace humanism, but the notion that humanism and "human rights" are inherent in democracy is fallacious. No democracy has ever embraced humanism, and i doubt any ever shall because humanism is a conceptual construct and runs perpendicular to human nature and general will. Humanism is an ideal which liberals propound, but it isn't integral to democracy and never will be.

tldr: one can support democracy and freedom without supporting humanism, as humanism isn't inherent in democracy or freedom.

I haven't forgotten, I am just not creating false equivalencies or historical similarities where there are none. The Hellenistic form of democracy (or the form practiced by the Roman Republic) have very little in common with the modern form of democracy. Both the greek and roman democracies had their run and were extinguished, either de facto or de jure, before the first century AD. Modern democracy draws its' roots from the renaissance era philosophy of humanism as the next logical step from equality is equal rights to affect the course of the nation. This is especially obvious if you consider that the US Constitution is written from a clearly humanistic viewpoint (and all the founding fathers considered themselves humanists) and that the first modern democracy in Europe was the French Republic created in the wake of the French Revolution. Both of which served as examples and inspiration for later European democracies.

While democracy at is' most basic might not require humanism, it is safe to say that modern, western democracy is deeply ingrained in humanistic ideals. You can deny it all you like and try to draw upon false historical equivalencies, but in doing so you are also denying some of the most basic facts about modern history. That's even before we get into the obvious problem that "freedom" isn't "freedom" if it only applies to certain sections of the population, in which case we are getting close to fascism or feudalism.

I support freedom and democracy in a tribal anarchic sense, void of your arbitrary "human rights". It's not hard to understand, it's just a matter of definition, and democracy means more to you than it does to me.

vonmanstein:

Frission:

vonmanstein:

It very well may, if we are to trust the theories of Adolph Brand, and he was on the inside.

...

You do know I can't take you seriously about that right? Because with all due respect I've read my share of strange theories on sexuality, but that is pure bullshit.

It boggles my mind, but believe what you will. I'm not going to get angry about this. I'll start foaming when he says that it means that homosexuals should be jailed.

now I never said i believed it, but viewing Brand as an advocate of homosexuality and pederasty, which he used interchangeably, certainly begs one to consider such conclusions.........

Good, sorry about that, but it's very rare to find someone who plays devil's advocate or brings something up just for the sake of debate. Sorry for the aggressive tone.

vonmanstein:

Frission:

vonmanstein:

It very well may, if we are to trust the theories of Adolph Brand, and he was on the inside.

...

You do know I can't take you seriously about that right? Because with all due respect I've read my share of strange theories on sexuality, but that is pure bullshit.

It boggles my mind, but believe what you will. I'm not going to get angry about this. I'll start foaming when he says that it means that homosexuals should be jailed.

now I never said i believed it, but viewing Brand as an advocate of homosexuality and pederasty, which he used interchangeably, certainly begs one to consider such conclusions.........

No, it doesn't. Not anymore than concluding that Christianity is equitable to communism even though Jim Jones used them interchangably.

GunsmithKitten:

vonmanstein:

Frission:

...

You do know I can't take you seriously about that right? Because with all due respect I've read my share of strange theories on sexuality, but that is pure bullshit.

It boggles my mind, but believe what you will. I'm not going to get angry about this. I'll start foaming when he says that it means that homosexuals should be jailed.

now I never said i believed it, but viewing Brand as an advocate of homosexuality and pederasty, which he used interchangeably, certainly begs one to consider such conclusions.........

No, it doesn't. Not anymore than concluding that Christianity is equitable to communism even though Jim Jones used them interchangably.

This is silly. A good argument can be made for the link between collectivist political economic theory and traditional christian dogma [in a philosophical sense]

EDIT: scratch all of that, I don't like to argue with gunsmiths (;一_一)

Fisher321:
Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me. Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 We should outlaw all other disgusting things
Inb4 I'm a bigoted Christian
Inb4 Lesbian argument
Inb4 Some other reason why I'm stupid and Ignorant

I'm sure I will get flamed hardcore for this but I'm standing by my values and morals. Even if I wasn't a Christian I would see this as downright disgusting.

Inb4 I'm a stupid Christian

Does this mean I can campaign to outlaw heterosexual marriage just because I personally find the thought of people putting bits of themselves inside the female reproductive organ to be utterly horrifying?

vonmanstein:

I support freedom and democracy in a tribal anarchic sense, void of your arbitrary "human rights". It's not hard to understand, it's just a matter of definition, and democracy means more to you than it does to me.

What you said, basically: My position is no longer valid, but I'd rather not lose face and admit it but instead will shift the definition of the terminology used.

See, you argued that there was no moral grounds on which to support the idea that homosexual people should be allowed to marry (found here). I in turn disputed your claim by referring to humanism and followed up by disputing your concept of democracy. Since then, you've merely argued semantics about the interpretation of democracy without touching upon the fact that I've provided an "appropriate moral code" (your words).

Try as you may to squirm out of it, you asked for a moral code against which the legalization of gay marriage could be judged and proven moral. I provided you with said moral code and the entire philosophy to go with it along with examples on how this particular philosophy inspires most of western civilization in modern society. Since you fail to refute any of this, only claiming that your definition of the terminology and morality differ, I think we can safely conclude that your initial argument was without merit and consider this discussion closed.

Fisher321:
Secular Reasons?

Because its downright disgusting. A man sodomizing another man is absolutely horrifying to me. Plus I will refuse to take another man seriously if they willingly have sex with a man.

Im not going to do any of things on the list you noted. Instead im going to quote you a page of the biography of Steven Fry. My hero. A homosexual. And a genius. Of course you could just "Not take him seriously" because he is gay but i implore you to just read his words and try and relate ok? Here we go:

"Sodomy is less prevalent in the gay world than people suppose. Sodomy is probably not much more common in homosexual encounters than it is in heterosexual. Sodomy is not at the end of the yellow brick road somewhere over the homosexual rainbow, it is not the prize, the purpose, the goal or the fulfillment of homosexuality... Sodomy is not homosexuality' realization or destiny. Sodomy is as much a necessary condition of homosexuality as the ownership of a volvo estate car is a neccessary condition of middle class family life, linked only in the minds of the witless and the cheap.

There are plenty of other things to be got up to in the homosexual world outside of sodomy but the concept that really gets the goat of any real gay hater is the most terrifying of all human emotions... love.

That one can love another of the same gender, that is what a homophobe really cannot stand. Love in all eight tones and all five semitones of the word's full octave Love as agape, eros and philos; love as romance , friendship and adoration; love as infatuation obsession and lust; love as torture euphoria, ecstasy and oblivion (this is starting to read like a Calvin Klien perfume catalogue); Love as need, passion and desire.

All the rest of it [all things sexual] go on in the world of boy and girl more... There is nothing done between two men or two women that is, by any objective standard, different from that which is done by any man or woman."

This is the first of two pages on his sexuality in the book of 434 pages. He is far more than "A gay" and i found these pages very moving. I hope they help you and anyone else on this thread relate more to other perspectives.

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

vonmanstein:

No, I said this is how it works, I did not recognize it as functional. Again, I stress the figurative nature of my language. I do not believe that the courts have the power to eclipse or dilute the congress or it's power. I did assert, however, that activism results in unneeded, unnecessary, and undemocratic judicial oversight, as the interpretations of the judicial branch may conflict with the electoral consensus of the people, but not by a margin sufficient to compel the legislative branch to consider modifying the constitution, besides the court, using it's power of liberal "interpretation" may still find a way to impose it's political convictions on the american people. The current system of activism is broken, from top to bottom.

The thing is though, that Judges really don't do all that much. The whole basis of their "activism" is that they sometimes strike down laws that they believe conflict with the Constitution. This is totally within their power and they have been doing it for hundreds of years. Judicial Review has been institutionalized since the early 19th century after Marvbury v Madison. Can Judicial Oversight be undemocratic? Yes, thats the entire idea. Its supposed to be undemocratic because doing everything by majority rule tends to bite people in the ass. If something is within that margin to be a majority, yet not enough to make an amendment then it was blocked by something that is there on purpose. The Law and Courts exist to dropkick Democracy in the chest because the US is supposed to be ruled by Law.

I don't criticize judicial review, you misunderstand my position. The assertion that activism is in any way equatable to review is fallacious. Activism involves the flexible interpretation of the laws along political lines, whereas simple review relies on a strict "legalistic" interpretation of the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
(familiarize yourself with the definitions)

Im aware of the difference, but the problem is telling the difference between the two now isn't it? If you haven't noticed the Constitution can be fairly vague and you can make an argument for quite a bit within the confines of it. Take the 2nd Amendment for example.

Now is it saying because of the need for a militia everyone should be able to have guns? Or just that militia? Are we talking about all guns or can we regulate some guns but still not infringe the right to get others? Does infringe mean any regulation at all or just outright outlawing?

And thats for a seemingly cut and dry sentence. Not extrapolate that to every law and bit of the constitution and you get the idea of how much room for interpretation there is, even with a strict legalistic view. One man's activism is another's review. You also need to take into account that different people mean different views, maybe these judges just think the law should be interpreted in a different way. Take for example Justice Scalia. He is often seen a fairly conservative justice. Yet he said the healthcare reform was completely legal despite him probably not liking it personally. Now if it was a liberal judge they'd call it activism. However since is Scalia, its review. You get where im going with this?

Uszi:

I feel like we should probably stick with polygamy and bestiality if we're going to try and blur any lines in the sand.

Well, as Kopikatsu neatly showed earlier, what we define as clear-cut child abuse is open to some subjectivity too. Now, I agree that cultural and moral relativism only goes so far - and I acknowledge and even agree that a society's laws are often based on a prevailing but arbitrary moral decision.

Take infant circumcision for example - either completely benign or unwarranted and intrusive, depending on which side of the fence you sit on.

An example that's maybe even closer to home; age of consent. Here in the UK the age of consent is 16 - I could seduce a 16-year old, have sex with her, and be utterly blameless in the eyes of the law (if perhaps not her parents, who would consider me an old pervert). If I did the same in the US I'd be considered a pedophile.

The lines in the sand are already blurred beyond all logic.

GunsmithKitten:

How come, if you don't mind my asking? The gun advocacy?

That's the big one, but on a minor note, I'm also not a big fan of affirmative action and think Obummer is just Bush 2.0 when it comes to interventionalism and personal intrusion in the name of security.

This is becoming an aside but for what it's worth I admire the fact that you're true to your own convictions without feeling the need to pigeon-hole yourself as occupying a certain position on the oversimplified, one-dimensional Conservative/Liberal spectrum. The idea that you can be "pro-" one issue but "anti-" another one is often seen as hypocritical by the more simple-minded.

There is a yawning vacuum of evidence supporting the allegation that homosexual marriage is in any way harmful to any group fop human beings. There is so evidence to support the claim that being raised by homosexual parents negatively affects the development of children. There is no evidence to suggest that homosexuals are more likely to be child molesters; in fact, most child molesters are heterosexual.

To oppose gay marriage is to be a bigot. It cannot be more simply stated.

Batou667:
-

I've been out and out told on this forum that it is impossible to have social liberal values and conservative economic values.

I'd also point out that I've seen people who openly breaks this stupid view, but they also seem to think anyone who supports the republicans even remotely is religiously-minded anti-gay and wants to destroy them for being homosexuals.

I've known, as I mentioned before, homo-phobics who are OK with gay marriage. So really any arguement against it seems kind of statist/bigoted.

Shock and Awe:

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

The thing is though, that Judges really don't do all that much. The whole basis of their "activism" is that they sometimes strike down laws that they believe conflict with the Constitution. This is totally within their power and they have been doing it for hundreds of years. Judicial Review has been institutionalized since the early 19th century after Marvbury v Madison. Can Judicial Oversight be undemocratic? Yes, thats the entire idea. Its supposed to be undemocratic because doing everything by majority rule tends to bite people in the ass. If something is within that margin to be a majority, yet not enough to make an amendment then it was blocked by something that is there on purpose. The Law and Courts exist to dropkick Democracy in the chest because the US is supposed to be ruled by Law.

I don't criticize judicial review, you misunderstand my position. The assertion that activism is in any way equatable to review is fallacious. Activism involves the flexible interpretation of the laws along political lines, whereas simple review relies on a strict "legalistic" interpretation of the constitution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_activism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_review
(familiarize yourself with the definitions)

Im aware of the difference, but the problem is telling the difference between the two now isn't it? If you haven't noticed the Constitution can be fairly vague and you can make an argument for quite a bit within the confines of it. Take the 2nd Amendment for example.

Now is it saying because of the need for a militia everyone should be able to have guns? Or just that militia? Are we talking about all guns or can we regulate some guns but still not infringe the right to get others? Does infringe mean any regulation at all or just outright outlawing?

And thats for a seemingly cut and dry sentence. Not extrapolate that to every law and bit of the constitution and you get the idea of how much room for interpretation there is, even with a strict legalistic view. One man's activism is another's review. You also need to take into account that different people mean different views, maybe these judges just think the law should be interpreted in a different way. Take for example Justice Scalia. He is often seen a fairly conservative justice. Yet he said the healthcare reform was completely legal despite him probably not liking it personally. Now if it was a liberal judge they'd call it activism. However since is Scalia, its review. You get where im going with this?

No, the difference is:
judicial activism:interpretive
judicial review: literal

I have no trouble differentiating the two.

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

Im aware of the difference, but the problem is telling the difference between the two now isn't it? If you haven't noticed the Constitution can be fairly vague and you can make an argument for quite a bit within the confines of it. Take the 2nd Amendment for example.

Now is it saying because of the need for a militia everyone should be able to have guns? Or just that militia? Are we talking about all guns or can we regulate some guns but still not infringe the right to get others? Does infringe mean any regulation at all or just outright outlawing?

And thats for a seemingly cut and dry sentence. Not extrapolate that to every law and bit of the constitution and you get the idea of how much room for interpretation there is, even with a strict legalistic view. One man's activism is another's review. You also need to take into account that different people mean different views, maybe these judges just think the law should be interpreted in a different way. Take for example Justice Scalia. He is often seen a fairly conservative justice. Yet he said the healthcare reform was completely legal despite him probably not liking it personally. Now if it was a liberal judge they'd call it activism. However since is Scalia, its review. You get where im going with this?

No, the difference is:
judicial activism:interpretive
judicial review: literal

I have no trouble differentiating the two.

You missed the point. For most of the constitution vague language was intentionally used as times and views change and the US Constitution was meant to be the document that set the government for hundreds of years. This is in contrast with state constitutions which are very specific and are often totally thrown out. For example; my state of Georgia has had nine constitutions in it's existence.

Now, why does this matter? Because with this vague language used in the constitution (especially in many Amendments) the language is vague. This allows for many different arguments to be made within what the amendment says. Like I said earlier, you may call my interpretation activism and I may call it simply review. This silly argument has been made since the early 19th century. In the end its a silly argument of semantics that has little bearing on actual law. You have brought little evidence on how this system has been a detriment to either Liberty or the function of the US Government and instead argue terminology. You can argue the difference between review and activism all day but it means nothing.

Batou667:

Uszi:

I feel like we should probably stick with polygamy and bestiality if we're going to try and blur any lines in the sand.

Well, as Kopikatsu neatly showed earlier, what we define as clear-cut child abuse is open to some subjectivity too. Now, I agree that cultural and moral relativism only goes so far - and I acknowledge and even agree that a society's laws are often based on a prevailing but arbitrary moral decision.

Take infant circumcision for example - either completely benign or unwarranted and intrusive, depending on which side of the fence you sit on.

An example that's maybe even closer to home; age of consent. Here in the UK the age of consent is 16 - I could seduce a 16-year old, have sex with her, and be utterly blameless in the eyes of the law (if perhaps not her parents, who would consider me an old pervert). If I did the same in the US I'd be considered a pedophile.

The lines in the sand are already blurred beyond all logic.

Again, we are demonstrating, right now, how homosexuality and pedophilia are not related and do not affect each other. Each issue is an issue onto itself; each has its own points of discussion.

I don't really care about whether or not a 16 year old can give informed consent, as this has literally nothing to do with whether or not two adults of the same sex should be married, which is the topic currently up for discussion.

My point is, there is no slippery slope. This ancillary issue of informed consent blocks legalized pedophilia. It's not like the only thing keeping pedophilia illegal is that we have outlawed all "icky" sex and "yucky" relationships, even though this is what the "gay-marriage-flood-gate" straw man advocated by cultural conservatives tries to say.

Uszi:

Batou667:

Uszi:

I feel like we should probably stick with polygamy and bestiality if we're going to try and blur any lines in the sand.

Well, as Kopikatsu neatly showed earlier, what we define as clear-cut child abuse is open to some subjectivity too. Now, I agree that cultural and moral relativism only goes so far - and I acknowledge and even agree that a society's laws are often based on a prevailing but arbitrary moral decision.

Take infant circumcision for example - either completely benign or unwarranted and intrusive, depending on which side of the fence you sit on.

An example that's maybe even closer to home; age of consent. Here in the UK the age of consent is 16 - I could seduce a 16-year old, have sex with her, and be utterly blameless in the eyes of the law (if perhaps not her parents, who would consider me an old pervert). If I did the same in the US I'd be considered a pedophile.

The lines in the sand are already blurred beyond all logic.

Again, we are demonstrating, right now, how homosexuality and pedophilia are not related and do not affect each other. Each issue is an issue onto itself; each has its own points of discussion.

I don't really care about whether or not a 16 year old can give informed consent, as this has literally nothing to do with whether or not two adults of the same gender should be married, which is the topic currently up for discussion.

My point is, there is no slippery slope. This ancillary issue of informed consent blocks legalized pedophilia. It's not like the only thing keeping pedophilia illegal is that we have outlawed all "icky" sex and "yucky" relationships, even though this is what the "gay-marriage-flood-gate" straw man advocated by cultural conservatives tries to say.

This is pretty much the truth. The slippery slope is a fallacy.

Shock and Awe:

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

Im aware of the difference, but the problem is telling the difference between the two now isn't it? If you haven't noticed the Constitution can be fairly vague and you can make an argument for quite a bit within the confines of it. Take the 2nd Amendment for example.

Now is it saying because of the need for a militia everyone should be able to have guns? Or just that militia? Are we talking about all guns or can we regulate some guns but still not infringe the right to get others? Does infringe mean any regulation at all or just outright outlawing?

And thats for a seemingly cut and dry sentence. Not extrapolate that to every law and bit of the constitution and you get the idea of how much room for interpretation there is, even with a strict legalistic view. One man's activism is another's review. You also need to take into account that different people mean different views, maybe these judges just think the law should be interpreted in a different way. Take for example Justice Scalia. He is often seen a fairly conservative justice. Yet he said the healthcare reform was completely legal despite him probably not liking it personally. Now if it was a liberal judge they'd call it activism. However since is Scalia, its review. You get where im going with this?

No, the difference is:
judicial activism:interpretive
judicial review: literal

I have no trouble differentiating the two.

You missed the point. For most of the constitution vague language was intentionally used as times and views change and the US Constitution was meant to be the document that set the government for hundreds of years. This is in contrast with state constitutions which are very specific and are often totally thrown out. For example; my state of Georgia has had nine constitutions in it's existence.

Now, why does this matter? Because with this vague language used in the constitution (especially in many Amendments) the language is vague. This allows for many different arguments to be made within what the amendment says. Like I said earlier, you may call my interpretation activism and I may call it simply review. This silly argument has been made since the early 19th century. In the end its a silly argument of semantics that has little bearing on actual law. You have brought little evidence on how this system has been a detriment to either Liberty or the function of the US Government and instead argue terminology. You can argue the difference between review and activism all day but it means nothing.

I wouldn't doubt that i missed the point, you're posts are a little {tl;dr} i tend to respond to the first few sentences, 'cause that's all i tend to read.

but reading the last few sentences of your most recent post(time for a new strategy), you seem to ask for relevance(why it's bad [specifically])? is that correct?

If so, see the first post, because this argument has just gone full circle.

1.)I fear that the supreme court may impose homosexual marriage upon the American states whom oppose it.
2.)Obama appoints "activists" -- those who believe in more flexible interpretation
3.) Gay marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution
4.) people like sotomayor (liberal appointee[not meritocratic, but no surprise from the party of affirmative action]) may say it's implied [activism]
5.) 'Murkans didn't vote --ergo-- non democratic

It doesn't require a multi-post debate, it's a fairly simple concept.

vonmanstein:

I wouldn't doubt that i missed the point, you're posts are a little {tl;dr} i tend to respond to the first few sentences, 'cause that's all i tend to read.

but reading the last few sentences of your most recent post(time for a new strategy), you seem to ask for relevance(why it's bad [specifically])? is that correct?

If so, see the first post, because this argument has just gone full circle.

1.)I fear that the supreme court may impose homosexual marriage upon the American states whom oppose it.
2.)Obama appoints "activists" -- those who believe in more flexible interpretation
3.) Gay marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution
4.) people like sotomayor (liberal appointee[not meritocratic, but no surprise from the party of affirmative action]) may say it's implied [activism]
5.) 'Murkans didn't vote --ergo-- non democratic

It doesn't require a multi-post debate, it's a fairly simple concept.

A massive column of quotes is a bit tldr for me, so I just read your post and may have taken it out of context.

Anyway you've prompted a few questions.

What does "affirmative action" mean? Looking it up, it looks like helping out minorities with problems particular to them.
Also what's Affirmative Actions' effect on meritocracy?
Finally what's a Murkan? are they like precursors to Morloks, who don't vote because it involves venturing above ground in the day?

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

vonmanstein:

No, the difference is:
judicial activism:interpretive
judicial review: literal

I have no trouble differentiating the two.

You missed the point. For most of the constitution vague language was intentionally used as times and views change and the US Constitution was meant to be the document that set the government for hundreds of years. This is in contrast with state constitutions which are very specific and are often totally thrown out. For example; my state of Georgia has had nine constitutions in it's existence.

Now, why does this matter? Because with this vague language used in the constitution (especially in many Amendments) the language is vague. This allows for many different arguments to be made within what the amendment says. Like I said earlier, you may call my interpretation activism and I may call it simply review. This silly argument has been made since the early 19th century. In the end its a silly argument of semantics that has little bearing on actual law. You have brought little evidence on how this system has been a detriment to either Liberty or the function of the US Government and instead argue terminology. You can argue the difference between review and activism all day but it means nothing.

I wouldn't doubt that i missed the point, you're posts are a little {tl;dr} i tend to respond to the first few sentences, 'cause that's all i tend to read.

but reading the last few sentences of your most recent post(time for a new strategy), you seem to ask for relevance(why it's bad [specifically])? is that correct?

If so, see the first post, because this argument has just gone full circle.

1.)I fear that the supreme court may impose homosexual marriage upon the American states whom oppose it.
2.)Obama appoints "activists" -- those who believe in more flexible interpretation
3.) Gay marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution
4.) people like sotomayor (liberal appointee[not meritocratic, but no surprise from the party of affirmative action]) may say it's implied [activism]
5.) 'Murkans didn't vote --ergo-- non democratic

It doesn't require a multi-post debate, it's a fairly simple concept.

Well theres your problem. If you don't actually read someones entire post its kind of difficult to respond to their points. Also, I wouldn't call it going full circle, more like getting back to the point.

In response to your points,

1. Just in the same way the Government imposed abolition of slavery. To hell if they want it or not that is not how the government is run. We are a Republic based on law and Equal Rights.

2. Again, vague language means there is no concrete interpretation of much of anything other then if we're allowed to do things that aren't specifically mentioned.

3. A lot of things aren't in the constitution.

4. Seeing as the 14th Amendment says "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. " there is a pretty solid case for the argument seeing as being gay is hardly due process.

5. Once more; thats not the point. Democratic does not mean good or bad, its a process. The thing is, it is not our process when interpreting law. Never was.

And to bring it aaaaall the way back to the point of the thread, not one of those is a legitimate reason to limit someones rights.

coppernerves:
A massive column of quotes is a bit tldr for me, so I just read your post and may have taken it out of context.

Anyway you've prompted a few questions.

What does "affirmative action" mean? Looking it up, it looks like helping out minorities with problems particular to them.
Also what's Affirmative Actions' effect on meritocracy?
Finally what's a Murkan? are they like precursors to Morloks, who don't vote because it involves venturing above ground in the day?

It's favoring minorities solely on the basis of their race, and it superceeds meritocracy.

There have been a lot of cases and controversy surrounding it, but I'll just give you one article as an example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/10scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Kopikatsu:

vonmanstein:
A massive column of quotes is a bit tldr for me, so I just read your post and may have taken it out of context.

Anyway you've prompted a few questions.

What does "affirmative action" mean? Looking it up, it looks like helping out minorities with problems particular to them.
Also what's Affirmative Actions' effect on meritocracy?
Finally what's a Murkan? are they like precursors to Morloks, who don't vote because it involves venturing above ground in the day?

It's favoring minorities solely on the basis of their race, and it superceeds meritocracy.

There have been a lot of cases and controversy surrounding it, but I'll just give you one article as an example.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/10scotus.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

affirmative action is a frontal assault on meritocracy in the name of equality. it's that simple.
Make of that what you will [good or bad, it is what it is]

Shock and Awe:

vonmanstein:

Shock and Awe:

You missed the point. For most of the constitution vague language was intentionally used as times and views change and the US Constitution was meant to be the document that set the government for hundreds of years. This is in contrast with state constitutions which are very specific and are often totally thrown out. For example; my state of Georgia has had nine constitutions in it's existence.

Now, why does this matter? Because with this vague language used in the constitution (especially in many Amendments) the language is vague. This allows for many different arguments to be made within what the amendment says. Like I said earlier, you may call my interpretation activism and I may call it simply review. This silly argument has been made since the early 19th century. In the end its a silly argument of semantics that has little bearing on actual law. You have brought little evidence on how this system has been a detriment to either Liberty or the function of the US Government and instead argue terminology. You can argue the difference between review and activism all day but it means nothing.

I wouldn't doubt that i missed the point, you're posts are a little {tl;dr} i tend to respond to the first few sentences, 'cause that's all i tend to read.

but reading the last few sentences of your most recent post(time for a new strategy), you seem to ask for relevance(why it's bad [specifically])? is that correct?

If so, see the first post, because this argument has just gone full circle.

1.)I fear that the supreme court may impose homosexual marriage upon the American states whom oppose it.
2.)Obama appoints "activists" -- those who believe in more flexible interpretation
3.) Gay marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution
4.) people like sotomayor (liberal appointee[not meritocratic, but no surprise from the party of affirmative action]) may say it's implied [activism]
5.) 'Murkans didn't vote --ergo-- non democratic

It doesn't require a multi-post debate, it's a fairly simple concept.

Well theres your problem. If you don't actually read someones entire post its kind of difficult to respond to their points. Also, I wouldn't call it going full circle, more like getting back to the point.

In response to your points,

1. Just in the same way the Government imposed abolition of slavery. To hell if they want it or not that is not how the government is run. We are a Republic based on law and Equal Rights.

2. Again, vague language means there is no concrete interpretation of much of anything other then if we're allowed to do things that aren't specifically mentioned.

3. A lot of things aren't in the constitution.

4. Seeing as the 14th Amendment says "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. " there is a pretty solid case for the argument seeing as being gay is hardly due process.

5. Once more; thats not the point. Democratic does not mean good or bad, its a process. The thing is, it is not our process when interpreting law. Never was.

And to bring it aaaaall the way back to the point of the thread, not one of those is a legitimate reason to limit someones rights.

I have a serious question to ask before i bother refuting this balderdash:

Are we really being serious right now, or is this posturing?
Do we intend to create a thread within a thread?
how much time have we collectively wasted writing bullshit responses to each other?
and finally: Are you enjoying this exchange as much as i am? (which is to say; not at all)
[it's rather dry and cyclical. We're talking but saying nothing]

Bentusi16:

Batou667:
-

I've been out and out told on this forum that it is impossible to have social liberal values and conservative economic values.

Well...I'd be one of those people. (Left on social issues and right on economic issues, not someone who says they don't exist)

That seems like a kind of silly statement to make regardless.

Uszi:

Batou667:

Uszi:

I feel like we should probably stick with polygamy and bestiality if we're going to try and blur any lines in the sand.

Well, as Kopikatsu neatly showed earlier, what we define as clear-cut child abuse is open to some subjectivity too. Now, I agree that cultural and moral relativism only goes so far - and I acknowledge and even agree that a society's laws are often based on a prevailing but arbitrary moral decision.

Take infant circumcision for example - either completely benign or unwarranted and intrusive, depending on which side of the fence you sit on.

An example that's maybe even closer to home; age of consent. Here in the UK the age of consent is 16 - I could seduce a 16-year old, have sex with her, and be utterly blameless in the eyes of the law (if perhaps not her parents, who would consider me an old pervert). If I did the same in the US I'd be considered a pedophile.

The lines in the sand are already blurred beyond all logic.

Again, we are demonstrating, right now, how homosexuality and pedophilia are not related and do not affect each other. Each issue is an issue onto itself; each has its own points of discussion.

I don't really care about whether or not a 16 year old can give informed consent, as this has literally nothing to do with whether or not two adults of the same sex should be married, which is the topic currently up for discussion.

My point is, there is no slippery slope. This ancillary issue of informed consent blocks legalized pedophilia. It's not like the only thing keeping pedophilia illegal is that we have outlawed all "icky" sex and "yucky" relationships, even though this is what the "gay-marriage-flood-gate" straw man advocated by cultural conservatives tries to say.

I think Batou was just saying that every law is as arbitrary as the last. (Although he thinks that viewpoint has it's limits, while I don't)

A law prohibiting littering is just as arbitrary as a law prohibiting slavery. Although that does lead to what you say; that every law/issue should be considered based on it's own merits. Despite the fact that bestiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality all have something in common (Sex), the issues concerning each are not inherently related in any meaningful way beyond that.

Even if homosexual marriage becomes legal, that will do no more for legalizing bestiality or pedophilia than a law saying that every ice cream shop is required to have at least five gallons of Rocky Road at any given time would.

Kopikatsu:

Bentusi16:

Batou667:
-

I've been out and out told on this forum that it is impossible to have social liberal values and conservative economic values.

Well...I'd be one of those people. (Left on social issues and right on economic issues, not someone who says they don't exist)

That seems like a kind of silly statement to make regardless.

It's absolutely silly, but it was still someone was very serious about. That kind of attitude is just a killer. I'm a fiscal conservative; I fully support gay marriages being a thing. But I was told that I COULD NOT.

Kopikatsu:

I think Batou was just saying that every law is as arbitrary as the last. (Although he thinks that viewpoint has it's limits, while I don't)

A law prohibiting littering is just as arbitrary as a law prohibiting slavery.

I don't really accept this. Is a law against littering really as arbitrary as a law prohibiting slavery? Regardless, I can think of a lot of reasons why neither outlawing slavery nor outlawing littering is arbitrary.

I don't think anyone wants to say every law is as arbitrary as the last. Certainly some laws are more or less arbitrary than other laws, and while you can argue that many laws are arbitrary, I don't think you can argue that all of them are arbitrary.

For instance, in my great state of Florida, the following law is on the books (at least according to the internet):

If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be paid just as it would for a vehicle

I think we can both agree that this law is not equally arbitrary as every other law in the state of Florida. For instance, laws against homicide and assault are less arbitrary than laws about the parking fines faced by citizens riding elephants.

Unless you are using a different definition than most common ones for "arbitrary."

Kopikatsu:
Although that does lead to what you say; that every law/issue should be considered based on it's own merits. Despite the fact that bestiality, pedophilia, and homosexuality all have something in common (Sex), the issues concerning each are not inherently related in any meaningful way beyond that.

Even if homosexual marriage becomes legal, that will do no more for legalizing bestiality or pedophilia than a law saying that every ice cream shop is required to have at least five gallons of Rocky Road at any given time would.

Exactly!

Each requires its own consideration, they simply cannot follow each other through some sort of "flood gate." If we thought of culturally rejected sexual practices as standing in line at a club or bar, trying to get past the bouncer into Club Legal Status, just because Gay Marriage is on the list, that doesn't mean that pedophilia or necrophilia will necessarily also be allowed in. They each still need to show their ID and be on the VIP list.

...Also, I realize now that I'm arguing against an even further distortion of the facts (not, of course, either of your distortions, just another problem common with "flood gate" and slippery slope arguments): most anti-Same Sex Marriage advocates are not also anti-Same Sex Intercourse. Same Sex marriage, of course, is much more than simply institutionalized gay sex. The question of Same Sex marriage has more to do with things like, "Should long standing and loving same sex couples be entitled to the same benefits, protections and legal standing as long standing and loving straight couples?"

Outside of the question of polygamy, or marrying animals or children, the actual discussions of the sexual acts bestiality, necrophilia and pedophilia are totally irrelevant.

I think that if people stopped talking about "sex" and started talking about the legal institution of marriage, we'd see that marrying a single fellow human being is not necessarily the same as marrying your prized cattle, a child, a corpse or many other people.

I was raised in a Catholic family. At the time of my opposing gay marraige was my raising and belief that marriage should be between a man and a woman and I opposed gay marriage in Michigan, where I had lived at the time. Slowly, my eyes were opened. During college I had a gay roommate who enjoyed the same stuff I enjoyed: Video Games, certain movies, etc. I had also found out that my best friend, a male, is bisexual. We enjoy stuff together and at the time I was bi-curious. I did sleep in the same bed with him and we joked around about it, but the curiousity fell through and I found out that I was interested in women sexually.

I am now happily into my 2nd year of marriage with a wonderful woman and we talked about it from time to time. I am for civil unions for any couple out there. If they wish to get married, than far be it for me to suddenly show up at their wedding and scream,

THIS IS WRONG!!!!

I will always pray for people out there, blessing them with eternal love and happiness because that is what I wish for with everyone. Whom they choose to lay with is between them and whatever deity they worship.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I will pray for you and wish you nothing but the best in love and happiness.

Kopikatsu:

I think Batou was just saying that every law is as arbitrary as the last. (Although he thinks that viewpoint has it's limits, while I don't)

Perhaps not EVERY law - a lot of them are eminently sensible and can be shown to be justified on the harm principle, or the "do unto others..." principle, or whatever. "Don't kill" - fine. "Don't steal" - fine. "Don't lie" - less easy to prove that this is ALWAYS a bad thing, but as a general rule the truth is necessary for society to function.

What I was arguing is that a lot of what we hold to be morally "correct" - and then construct laws to enforce - actually aren't necessarily logical and could be said to limit people's (fringe) rights for no real benefit. Polygamy. Necrophilia. Public nudity. And so on.

I never mentioned slippery slope, and I'm not sure how that entered the conversation.

I was talking about the slippery slope when you originally quoted me and I responded to that.

And the whole reason we originally brought up Polygamy, etc, was because of people making slippery slope arguments.

Here's a question: Why have marriage as a government institution? That alone is letting the government into the bedroom so why not remove it?

Well, I decided to go on a (admittedly somewhat brief) quest throughout the internet and sampled some quotes from various comments sections to give you a few ideas:

"[Homosexuality] is a major social dysfunction that spreads in the larger society through homosexual predation of youth, and homosexual lifestyle promotion in the media, movies, schools, workplace and everywhere. It erodes male identity and consciousness and weakens and destroys the family."

"I have a theory that homosexuals are stuck in an early adolescent stage of development. For whatever reason they have refused to grow up and accept their true roles. This is a form of rebellion against God, as is all sin. How can you expect normal, happy behavior on such a foundation?"

"The re-definers of marriage, male, female, etc. are trying to re-create and force on others their own inner chaos, meaninglessness and despair."

And one of my favourites:

There you go. If we legalize gay marriage, life will become chaotic and meaningless, families will collapse and society will dissolve and be replaced by either a totalitarian dystopia or anarchy.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked