We Should Be Ashamed Of Our Hatred -mature Content!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1791002' date='Feb 24 2009, 11:56 PM']I did not say scientific, I said rational and objectively verifiable.[/quote]
Oh, come on!

I mean surely a "rational," "objective" person like yourself realizes that objections to public nudity are based on nothing other than outmoded religious bigotry and puritanical social prejudices built on an outdated cosmology!

I demand that the government and the rest of society recognize my right to live and work nude in public wherever I choose because it is a necessary part of my quest to live a meaningful life!

If others object to my nudity, it's their prejudice that has to be overthrown.
Furthermore, as the display of my body is of benefit to the onlooker, I demand government benefits for my nudism. It's as necessary to my meaningful life as marriage is for others.

It's not like my public nudity interferes with the right of others to choose to wear clothes or anything.

And it's perfectly natural - ever seen an animal put on a pair of trousers? - and thus must be good for human society as well.

Laws banning public nudity, and restricting nudism to designated nudist camps are bigotry on par with the segregation laws of Jim Crow days when there were such things as "white" and "colored" campgrounds.

Nudity now! Who cares what those square voters want?

[Socrates]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1791008' date='Feb 25 2009, 12:01 AM']I think you have it backwards. Its not that the state in and of itself is secular. You can't say 'you can't vote for law X because your voting on religious grounds and the state is secular'. The government and the state is representative of the people. If the people want religious laws in place - thats fine if they can vote it in (as long as we're not talking about a constitutional issues...). People can vote based on their religion. They can vote based on anything they want - objective facts, religious reasons, racial reasons, you name it. Thats how the democracy works.[/quote]
Very true.

The whole idea that American citizens are required to toss out any religious moral beliefs they might have before entering the voting booth is one of the most absurd and destructive innovations of modern liberalism.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams --October 11, 1798

[track2004]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1791334' date='Feb 25 2009, 12:19 PM']I'm sorry but this argument (gay marriage in general) is about the right to change laws, you cant justify your side of the argument by using other laws which can just as easily be changed in favor of "equality". ie: everything you said is standing in the way of me marrying 4 women, my mom, and my cat collectively. This is unfair. Who are you to stand up and cry equality and then deny it to me? My love is just as good as your love!

Dont you see? Justification of a relationship has to come from the relationship itself, not from the government. Either all relationships are truly equal (and therefore none are) and EVERYONE gets rights in a crazy ridiculous rights bonanza, or certain groups ARE special, different, deserve to be encouraged above the rest.[/quote]

I'm reasonably sure my post was a response to your questions about crazy marriages with animals and kids and 8 other people with some decent legal reasoning. Sure we could change the law so your cat could sign a contract. We won't because it'd be a real hassle to litigate and getting that cat on the stand would be difficult. But really we do it because we don't think cat, or other animals, or minors, or incompetent persons have the ability to mutually assent to a contract. It's how it is. We could change it, but I think it'd be a really hard argument to make. If you want to go for it, be my guest.

The you marring your mother one, its weird, but I don't particularly care if you could. Birth defects and weird genetic diseases become a greater risk for your kids, but not a large enough risk that it would kill society. This rule came about when people's interbreeding caused bad bad things to happen in the communities because the communities were small and so there were high instances of really rare genetic disorders. Do what you want, it's your life. I have to say it weirds me out, but you're adults, so what can I say.

The other part, the one about you marring 8 people, is interesting. From a purely legal point, I think maybe you could do it, but it depends on how the court views marriage. There are a bunch of questions: would you be marring a lot of women individually? would all 9 of you be in a big marriage? and wouldn't that be a little gay?

So if it is you and lady 1, and you and lady 2. and you and lady 3, etc, who would get your stuff when you got divorced (because I don't know about you but I can barely keep one lady happy)? Who would get to make your medical decisions when you're in a coma? Lady 1 who wants to pull the plug or Lady 4 who doesn't? Is it going to go to a vote? What if you marry an even number of women and there's a tie? Who would you file taxes with????

If it is you and all your ladies in a big group thing, first off that's pretty gay man. That's 8 ladies married and you. Then what happens when one wants out? Does it dissolve the whole thing? Again who makes medical decisions? Vote again? Would you marry really small ladies or would you get a really big bed? Who would the kids belong to? How many signatures would they need to get when they failed a test? What would happen if Lady 2 thought Lady 7 was a bad mother and didn't want her to have custody??

Any way, marring cats or your mom or your harem, the law would laugh at you because it would wreak havoc on the courts if anything happened. Me marring a lady, just means we file taxes together and she can make my medical decisions and we do some voodoo and have babies. It doesn't seem like such a drastic change, legally, to me.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1789941' date='Feb 23 2009, 10:08 PM']lol.

So after he just stared in a major motion picture . . .[/quote]
$28 million dollars in domestic box office hardly qualifies "Milk" as a major film, i.e., unless a small box office take is considered to be a good thing in Hollywood these days.

[bonkers]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1791362' date='Feb 25 2009, 01:19 PM']Abortion is legal, correct? Right now its the will of the people of this country to have abortion legal. Hence why abortion is legal. Its is up to us pro-lifer's to convince the majority of America that abortion is wrong and it should be illegal. Once we get the majority of American's to think this way, it will be illegal. That's the beauty of democracy. Once the will of the people change, the laws will change to accomidate the will of the people.[/quote]

Interesting.... so are you saying abortion should stay legal until the American public decide the law should be changed? It's just that I see condmenation of the American people for making free choices and very little respect for their decisions. It seems efforts are more concentrated towards changing laws and oppointing judges with the power to change laws rather than trying to change the thinking of the American people. Thoughts?

[Sirklawd]

[quote name='track2004' post='1791772' date='Feb 26 2009, 02:26 AM']stuff[/quote]

To all your questions the answer is, naturally, "whatever i say, goes". You, and others, are insisting that the government recognize [i]your[/i] definition of marriage too. The government has no power to define this or that grouping as marriage, the government only has the power to [i]recognize[/i] this or that grouping as a marriage. The joke is that all these groupings are completely different from one-another. Even your presumption that marriage is a contract of co-agreement is just one possible definition of marriage. Who are you to say my cat doesnt want to marry me. Or my donut. You cant force your definition on me, especially by force through the government. If I say this or that means im in a marriage, the government HAS TO RECOGNIZE ME. Equal rights for everyone.

As much as you would like, you cant open that door only halfway.

So the question comes back to whether any particular groupings of people that call them selves 'married' deserve to be recognized above the rest? Like I can try to convince you of whats obvious to me, that the traditional family unit of mother-father-children does wonders for society. It raised new members of society on the cheap and teaches them how to live in said society. I could also quote tons and tons of statistics proving that when marriage values are weakened, this basic family unit is also weakened. And like it or not, this basic family unit IS society. Without it, there is no society. We need it.

Hold on though, before you dive in and distract yourself by arguing those little points (and missing my whole post like you did with human-animal marriage), I need to be honest with you. There's still a huge part of me that just thinks we should not give marriage rights out at all, and just see where the chips falls. I think this will clear out a lot of the emotional garbage from this debate. All groups of people will retain the significance of their relationship that comes from the relationship itself - whatever that may be, if anything.

But before I go so far as to truly recommend such action, I must remember a story from Chesterton. About how the new reformers are like men who come across a stone wall in the woods, and, not knowing what it was for, decide to tear it down. This is foolish. Nothing is put in place without a reason, and its only when we know what those reasons are and can determine if they are still valid should we then determine if that wall should remain or be torn down.

So why do marriage rights exist in the first place? When did they start? Anyone? I have no time to look this up.

Edited February 26, 2009 by Sirklawd

[Winchester]

[quote name='havok579257' post='1791362' date='Feb 25 2009, 12:19 PM']Right now its the will of the people of this country to have abortion legal.[/quote]
When did we do a nationwide vote on that? The Supreme Court, using a power it does not really have, settled that dispute. we didn't vote on it. The indirect method of keeping it going by electing Democrats doesn't necessarily give the will of the people. It wasn't the will of the people of the South to end slavery. It was their will to remove themselves from the union. According to your model, Lincoln was a tyrant. Do you really want to make this argument?

[rkwright]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1791875' date='Feb 26 2009, 11:13 AM']When did we do a nationwide vote on that? The Supreme Court, using a power it does not really have, settled that dispute. we didn't vote on it. The indirect method of keeping it going by electing Democrats doesn't necessarily give the will of the people. It wasn't the will of the people of the South to end slavery. It was their will to remove themselves from the union. According to your model, Lincoln was a tyrant. Do you really want to make this argument?[/quote]

Yes... most of us in the south still remember the war of northern aggression

The popular vote\deference to the legislature argument is a good one, but can only go so far. The way the argument in this thread has been presented is that if people want to have gay marriages we should allow them. But when the people have decided - and note in CA case it was the people not their representatives - then we should go with that.

Where all this runs into a big issue is if it violates the constitution. Obviously the will of the people can't supersede the constitution (unless we modify the constitution). But no one in here has said that gay marriage is a constitutional right. If gay marriage is not a constitutional right, and is merely presented as something the people want, then the people have spoken and are saying "no".

I see it in two levels: If its a constitutional issue, the constitution will control; if its not, then we should give deference to what our legislature has decided. Thats the basic principles of separation of power.

Abortion is different because it is a constitutional issue. It was taken out of the hands of the legislature. Same with slavery - it was a constitutional issue, not a legislative one.

Honestly, I'm surprised the gay marriage supporters in this thread haven't gone to the constitution yet. If you stay in contract law like track has done, its over because the people have spoken.

[Lil Red]

[quote name='track2004' post='1791772' date='Feb 25 2009, 11:26 PM']I'm reasonably sure my post was a response to your questions about crazy marriages with animals and kids and 8 other people with some decent legal reasoning. Sure we could change the law so your cat could sign a contract. We won't because it'd be a real hassle to litigate and getting that cat on the stand would be difficult. But really we do it because we don't think cat, or other animals, or minors, or incompetent persons have the ability to mutually assent to a contract. It's how it is. We could change it, but I think it'd be a really hard argument to make. If you want to go for it, be my guest.[/quote]
+J.M.J.+
okay, but what about apes/chimps? many people are making the claim that they are intelligent enough to be given the same rights as humans.

[Winchester]

The constitution doesn't giver rights, it recognizes them. The basic flaw in most people's thought on human rights is that they are given--our own documents deny that our written laws give rights.

The problem with your model is that the documents must be interpreted in some way. Judicial review, though created after the constitution, is a necessity. Our legistlators are mostly half-wits with very poor reading comprehension. The problem is compounded by a lack of integrity.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1791896' date='Feb 26 2009, 12:06 PM']The constitution doesn't giver rights, it recognizes them. The basic flaw in most people's thought on human rights is that they are given--our own documents deny that our written laws give rights.

The problem with your model is that the documents must be interpreted in some way. Judicial review, though created after the constitution, is a necessity. Our legistlators are mostly half-wits with very poor reading comprehension. The problem is compounded by a lack of integrity.[/quote]

I agree with what your saying.

You could revise my post and say that the rule of the people should govern unless a fundamental right, protected by the constitution, is being violated.

No one in this thread has raised that fundamental right. No one has said that gay marriage is a fundamental right. Everyone is saying that the will of the people should not be followed because it excludes gays.

I understand the problem with "my model" - but its the model the father's contemplated. Its not free from error, but its our system. Correct?

[track2004]

[quote name='Sirklawd' post='1791866' date='Feb 26 2009, 12:59 PM']...Even your presumption that marriage is a contract of co-agreement is just one possible definition of marriage. ...

...

As much as you would like, you cant open that door only halfway.

So the question comes back to whether any particular groupings of people that call them selves 'married' deserve to be recognized above the rest? Like I can try to convince you of whats obvious to me, that the traditional family unit of mother-father-children does wonders for society. It raised new members of society on the cheap and teaches them how to live in said society. I could also quote tons and tons of statistics proving that when marriage values are weakened, this basic family unit is also weakened. And like it or not, this basic family unit IS society. Without it, there is no society. We need it.

Hold on though, before you dive in and distract yourself by arguing those little points (and missing my whole post like you did with human-animal marriage), I need to be honest with you. There's still a huge part of me that just thinks we should not give marriage rights out at all, and just see where the chips falls. ...

...

So why do marriage rights exist in the first place? When did they start? Anyone? I have no time to look this up.[/quote]

It isn't a presumption that marriage is a contract, it's how it works in the law. It just is, we can't have different opinions about that.

You can't marry your cat, it is also the law. Cats are not eligible to sign contracts. They can't, period.

You didn't respond to any of my points about why the other forms of marriage are different than gay marriage, about the problems they cause.

The family is important, I know that. Statistics show that children are better with attentive parents. Two parents are better than one. Attentive parents are better than absentee parents. I'll give you that. From what I know, and I'm not going to look up the stats right now, gay parents don't differ significantly from straight parents in their ability to raise productive members of society. Sure there are some issues with gender roles and dads who raise a little girl. Sure there are issues when their little girl starts dating boys. Sure there is some slack she might get at school from other kids. BUT these don't affect how well they raise their kid. She turns out just fine (statistically). You're not going to argue that 2 straight parents are the best so no one else can have kids.

In real life I'd be fine if there wasn't state marriage. If the government didn't confer certain rights and obligations with that "I do" I'd be fine just living with a wife and marring her in front of God, friends and family. That's a different discussion because that would be both of us saying the government doesn't have any business in who I've decided to share my life with.


Lil Red.

Until the court says chimps can sign contracts, no dice. Just how it is. They might be smart, but they can't assent to a contract.