Prop 8 Overturned

[Realism]

I see your point, and a clearer explanation was pretty much what I was looking for...although I feel like you're stretching it a little bit when you draw a parallel between my argument and "what the Nazis favored."

[angelofdeath]

I personally think points are more clear on the extremes. But that is just me.

 

Using the same sort of "I don't see why you need ________, so let's ban it..." a guy tried to argue with me that I was nuts because I carry a pocket knife. I mean really. It's just insane to me what people come up with

[lord_casek]

You wouldn't feel insulted by me calling you a closet homo unless you thought that gays were inferior. If someone called me gay I wouldn't feel insulted, in fact I would take it as a compliment. I hear they are good when it comes to musicals and interior decorating. Seriously why are you getting all defensive? IT MUST BE TRUE!!!

 

Ha! I'm trying to irk you dog. :lol:

 

In all realness though, I'm just trying to figure out what you find immoral by two people of the same sex getting married. I'm trying to figure out how your ethics are determined. What is it that's really telling you its wrong or immoral?

 

I grew up in the Gay Tolerant Mecca of the Midwest. Kids got detention if they were caught saying faggot or using the word gay in a condescending manner. There were gay people that went to my church (when I had faith,) taught at my school, worked with my parents etc.. Being gay was never looked down upon, and a kid having two dads or two moms was never shocking or confusing to me - or most other kids my age for that matter. So I never grew up finding homosexuality or gay marriage immoral. It was natural in my community. I think its only confusing or immoral to people if they grow up in a community that isn't supportive or even tolerant of dem gay folks.

 

Interracial coupling on the other hand, that is just sick and immoral. Who wants to see a mud-baby?

 

I'm pretty comfortable with my sexuality. That Freudian nonsense is just that.

 

I've said over and over that it's just immoral to me. I don't jibe with it. That doesn't

mean it's not right for others. I've never said that being gay is immoral or wrong, just

the marriage part. I've also said that I don't mind if a state votes that gay marriage is a

right.

[shai]

That's a little misleading...it would be more accurate to say "equal recognition under strict interpretation of prevailing law" unless an amendment to current law is necessary.

 

(in reference to the "gay marriage is a right" comment)

[!@#$%]

.....

 

like i said, people just read what they want to into shit.

so you patronize me

congratulations on not caring what i think.. and yet you bother to quote me and respond

 

:rolleyes:

 

this place doesn't change.

[christo-f]

Not caring what you think?

 

You only repeated what I (and others) said a number of times already and then continued to say that people here talk mostly hot air!!

 

You were the one that said you don't care what others think because it's mostly hot air. That was you, not me.

 

You patonised everybody here by saying that most of us will never change our minds on anything anyway, I only responded in a like manner.

 

You cannot see how what you said was offensive to anyone who read it?

 

"I don't read what you guys say because it's mostly shit" paraphrased*

 

 

 

If only you did read you would have seen that there are others here that not only agree with your opinion but had already said it numerous times.....

 

But it's all hot air, though.

 

Right?

[lord_casek]

She's probably not into gay dolphin toaster marriage.

[christo-f]

so intolerant....

[lord_casek]

It is their right to be molested by us!

[christo-f]

by your logic then, the externality factor of guns being a threat to you, you must also ban... knives, house hold chemicals, pipe wrenches, base ball bats, cars, pencils, pens, pry bars, long handle ratchets, big wrenches, farm tools, shovels, hay forks, trucks, mattocks, picks, and even bare hands and legs. im sure a trained martial arts expert can kill just as many unarmed people in a crowd with his bare hands as an average trained gangster holding a gun sideways shooting people. a guy swinging a pipe wrench in the vicinity of your daughter can kill someone just as fast as a guy with a gun. a person driving a vehicle near pedestrians can easily mow them down just as easily as a guy with a gun. yet i see people walking beside busy roadways every day, within a foot of being killed by evil dangerous car drivers out to kill people. and every day in the US non violent people carry firearms right next to people in crowds and next to kids. in every place that concealed carry has been legalized crime rates have dropped. so in essence if you want to be more safe, you actually need MORE guns.

 

any farmer in america can easily mix diesel fuel with high ammonium nitrate fertilizer, both of which they have super excessive amounts of, and blow up half of his county, but i dont see there being a significant threat to anyone. anyone who owns a lawn mower can easily take a couple gallons of gas they would use for the lawn mower and mix it with styrofoam and create a make shift napalm bomb and hurl it into a crowd burning 5-10 to death.

 

but all this aside, you are also assuming that any gun control effort will have a 100% success rate of keeping the guns out of the 'bad guys' hands which is not true. but this also brings the issue of what should the 90lb grandma who is confronted by a 250lb rapist.... why would you want to deny the right of self defense to the old woman? the gun is a great equalizer.

 

a famous marine once said something that makes a lot of sense. he was asked if he was happy that he was training kids to be killers in the gun culture he was promoting. the person said something to the effect that any one with a gun is obviously a murderer because they are equipped with a gun. he responded with..'ma'am, you are obviously equipped to be a prostitute, but are you really a prostitute?'

 

my theory of liberty and property rights is not in place because we have government supremicists who seek to rule others. they seek power. they seek control. and most people dont want liberty, they want a nanny state to nurture them from cradle to grave. that is why there is not liberty in the world.

 

all im saying is... if you hold an ideology that says a firearm is a threat to you because of an externality effect, dont get mad when someone with a slightly different world view uses the exact same logic to say that our children are in danger, the countries morals are going to shit, and 'teh fagz are out of control!' because homosexuality has an 'externality' effect. anyone can make cases like this.

my stance is there is no externality effect at all unless a crime has been committed.

 

before going into the rest of their legal indoctrination in law school... the first thing that is taught is that in order for there to be a crime, there has to be a victim. me walking by your kid with a firearm is not inflicting harm on ANYONE. how has your child be hurt and how can you justify throwing me in jail for non committing any violence? a guy marrying a guy is not harming anyone. a guy with 9 wives isnt harming anyone. my theory is you dont throw someone in jail unless they actually commit a crime. you cannot throw them in jail if they think about a crime or might be capable of committing a crime. if we are throw people in jail who might be capable of a crime, everyone would be in jail.

 

 

 

The argument that a trained martial artist, a person with a knife or pencil has the ability to kill as rapidly, from a distance large amounts of people in the same vein as firearms and assault weapons is ridiculous. Without trying to suck my own dick, I've done my time with firearms and other training. To think that anyone can be as lethal with sharps or blunts as with a firearm is akin to believing in the tooth fairy. Yes, some one could kill 8 people in a shopping center armed with a machete but in most civilised countries items like that are also controlled in public places. Secondly, you cannot rapidly kill a number of people from a distance or from behind cover and concealment with sharps and blunts.

 

 

A car, yes. I cannot argue that however the intrinsic qualities of a car are for movement of people and product. The intrinsic use of a fire arm is to kill or to maim (the deterrence factor is a direct extension of its intrinsic qualities). Compared to the history of a car being deliberately used as a weapon to kill, a firearm being deliberately used as a weapon has a much more violent history behind it. Modern society continues to function successfully with strict gun control. Remove most cars from society industry and modern life would grind to a halt. Whilst the comparison is valid because both items have the same deadly properties their intrinsic values and current use in modern society puts them worlds apart. I would not want to control anything that is deadly in society because I gotta fart sometimes. however I can see an argument for controlling devices which have a sole purpose of increasing the ability of the holder to kill others with great ease.

 

Once again, you can talk externalities and abstract theories but the bottom line is that gay marriage does not increase anyone's ability to to kill numbers of people at a rapid rate from a distance.

 

 

 

As far as I am aware A. nitrate has become much more controlled in most parts of the world over the last 10 years.

 

I have never said nor assumed that increasing gun control will fix the problem 100%. I request you not to be so simplistic with me, please. Decreasing the ability for firearms in society decreases the ability for people to use them. You mention towards statistics that show areas with more guns have lower crime (I would assume that is specific crime as violence, B&E but not white collar, fraud, etc.). Whilst I have seen you suggest that stats are not particularly useful, being that you have sited statistical conclusions I will as well. Japan has far less violent and gun crime than the US and strict gun control.

 

And to pre-empt one line of argument I've heard before, arming the populace will not save from or deter invasion. After the Russian invasion and subsequent civil wars Afghanistan was per capita one of the highest armed countries in the world. Didn't save them from invasion nor did it save them from going to war with themselves countless times.

 

However, gay marriage can!!

 

Anyway, we're not going to convince each other on this and we've successfully turned another thread in to a gun/libertarian debate. I don't think that is a good thing.

[christo-f]

Opps, missed this bit:

 

most people dont want liberty, they want a nanny state to nurture them from cradle to grave

 

Then don't you think it is unfair not to let them have what they want?

 

And secondly, if you believe that humans are rational decision makers (which is implied when you say market forces will keep things on an even keel because everyone will make decisions that are in their best personal interests) then the decision to choose a nanny state must be a rational choice, right?

 

Either we are rational and the nanny state is the best choice for us based on us choosing, or, the nanny state is the wrong choice making us irrational by default. However, that then implies that a market economy and privatisation of everything will not work because it is premised on the belief that people are rational.

 

 

Us choosing the nanny state automatically means that it is the best choice for us.

 

No?

[shai]

Opps, missed this bit:

 

most people dont want liberty, they want a nanny state to nurture them from cradle to grave

 

Then don't you think it is unfair not to let them have what they want?

 

Most Americans lack the critical capacity to realize why this would be a bad thing, though.

 

Then again, I wonder if anyone would care even if they did know the difference. Folks don't seem to care about freedom to choose anymore, they're after convenience...and if that means abdicating certain rights and responsibilities, they'll gladly do it as long as it's framed in terms like "Don't worry, we'll make the tough decisions for you."

[christo-f]

Folks don't seem to care about freedom to choose anymore, they're after convenience...and if that means abdicating certain rights and responsibilities, they'll gladly do it as long as it's framed in terms like "Don't worry, we'll make the tough decisions for you."

 

Sounds like rational decision making to me.

[shai]

Sounds like rational decision making to me.

 

Not the way me and AOD see it.

 

When the state administrates what it's supposed to in a minimal fashion and isn't an obtrusive or invasive presence in the lives of its citizens, I'm all for it. When it attempts to legislate and centralize everything and anything, it's lost its way and needs to be corrected by its constituents. Remember, THEY work for US, it's not the other way around.

 

I don't want to get roped into a libertarian debate here...basically the church SHOULD have said "No way no how are homos getting hitched in the eyes of _________, but if City Hall allows it then that's their heathen deal and they will surely burn in Hell for it" to which the state SHOULD have said "as long as you meet the requirements and have the cash, we'll give you a marriage license."

 

For some reason that's not what was said. Not by a long shot...and to compound an already bad situation, the leadership of the Mormon church (which is based in Utah, NOT California) decided to underwrite a bill that was discriminatory and restrictive in another state then proceeded to misrepresent it to the black community.

 

So there's all kinds of bones to pick with this issue...if the Mormon church wants to get in the business of lobbying for policy, they should have their tax-exempt status rescinded. Seems only fair.

[angelofdeath]

The argument that a trained martial artist, a person with a knife or pencil has the ability to kill as rapidly, from a distance large amounts of people in the same vein as firearms and assault weapons is ridiculous.

 

i never said they can kill just from a distance in the same vein as firearms...i said they are just as dangerous. even though it is legal to open carry battle rifles in many states in the US without a permit, i have yet to see it happen in person. they are very inconvenient. but you do see pistols in the right areas and in CCW areas thousands of people are armed with handguns. a handgun in most peoples hands is only effect under 20 yards and that is stretching it. we continually hear of gun battles where cops fire over 100 rounds only to hit their target 2 times at 25 yards.

 

if you are to conclude that the mere ownership of an inanimate object that merely has the capability of inflicting deadly harm on someone, you must also be scared of the various objects i listed. i believe that police and military are trained to believe that armed attackers with knives can close a distance of 20 feet in a matter of seconds and to respond accordingly. knives are VERY deadly, quick and produce corpses that are just as dead as someone shot with a firearm.

 

i think basically, for whatever reason, probably cultural upbringing, you are subconsciously or consciously scared of firearms because they can inflict harm with relative ease. most of society is trained to be scared of firearms when in reality 40K people a year die on the roads in the US. and various house hold objects can inflict just as much death on a crowd of people by a maniac as a firearm.

 

To think that anyone can be as lethal with sharps or blunts as with a firearm is akin to believing in the tooth fairy.

 

tooth fairy, eh?

ever hear of the 800K dead in rwanda mostly by machete?

 

 

no doubt about it.

 

with typical household materials, one could construct explosive devices that could kill far more people by lobbing them from cover at a distance.

if you are solely concerned about inflicting casualties a distance, all household 'bomb making' materials, typically found in most houses and on EVERY farm must, by extension, be banned as well.

 

A car, yes. I cannot argue that however the intrinsic qualities of a car are for movement of people and product. The intrinsic use of a fire arm is to kill or to maim (the deterrence factor is a direct extension of its intrinsic qualities). Compared to the history of a car being deliberately used as a weapon to kill, a firearm being deliberately used as a weapon has a much more violent history behind it. Modern society continues to function successfully with strict gun control. Remove most cars from society industry and modern life would grind to a halt. Whilst the comparison is valid because both items have the same deadly properties their intrinsic values and current use in modern society puts them worlds apart. I would not want to control anything that is deadly in society because I gotta fart sometimes. however I can see an argument for controlling devices which have a sole purpose of increasing the ability of the holder to kill others with great ease.

 

it sounds like you are placing a huge emphasis on the fact that a firearm is designed to kill or maim. a firearm is useless unless one has the will to kill with it. it is the person behind the trigger that commits the crime not the tool.

this seems to elude to the extension in your argument that 'guns kill people.' i can assure you, a gun is an inanimate object. merely a tool. someone has to pull the trigger. why is there so much scare tactics being used to promote the idea that it is worse to kill someone with a gun than with a car or a knife?

 

dont you find it odd, that whenever a maniac goes crazy, gun controllers have to call on guys with guns, the police, to stop the situation? why are gun controllers using private armed security when they travel and go about their business? if they really dont believe in guns they wouldnt do this. they would be totally unarmed, all the time. but some would argue, but we need only trained govt agents to use guns because they will never abuse them or misuse them. yeah. right. guess no one has been paying attention.

 

because a gun is designed to be a great equalizer, it should be more available to the less fortunate or the weak. what better use is there for a firearm than it being in the hands of a 60 year old frail woman about to be killed for money in her purse. why do you feel the need to deny this 100 lb woman the right to defend herself against a 300 lb attacker?

 

Once again, you can talk externalities and abstract theories but the bottom line is that gay marriage does not increase anyone's ability to to kill numbers of people at a rapid rate from a distance.

 

 

agreed.

all i said is that the same ideology that says non violent gun ownership has an externality effect that threatens you enough that you feel it should be illegal, even though a person walking by you with a gun has committed no aggression toward you.... the righties use the same argument and apply it to gay marriage. they say that gay marriage will bring moral decay, break up the family and everyone will turn to crime therefore negatively affecting their life.

my only point is... if you use such logic you cannot get mad when someone with a slightly different world view uses it against you or to further their ends.

 

that is the only real point i seek to get across.

 

 

As far as I am aware A. nitrate has become much more controlled in most parts of the world over the last 10 years.

 

sort of.

not as much as you would think. not like prohibitions work anyway, but....

 

your arguments seem to be based around notions that if something is legal, it will always be used in bad ways. sure some people will do bad things, but these people just need to held accountable for their actions and that needs to be the concentration. bring back the whipping post for all i care. we no longer need to be paying to house criminals for non crimes (consuming illegal plant substances, filling out firearms paper work wrong, etc)and we no longer need to be soft on violent criminals.

 

if we are to say that if no controls exist everyone will be harmed is silly. the US had full auto weapons legal and unregistered and were not in common use in street crime, until alcohol prohibition brought about black markets. you used to be able to order 20mm cannons through the mail, yet i never heard of long range mass killings taking place. 50 bmg and .408 chey tac rifles are available fairly easily in the US and i havent heard of mass killings at 1760yd. thermite can be made in a matter of seconds in any machine shop in the US but i dont see thermite bombs melting through engine blocks on the news. napalm bombs can be made with fuel and styrofoam, but i havent heard of napalm attacks in inner cities.

 

Decreasing the ability for firearms in society decreases the ability for people to use them. You mention towards statistics that show areas with more guns have lower crime (I would assume that is specific crime as violence, B&E but not white collar, fraud, etc.). Whilst I have seen you suggest that stats are not particularly useful, being that you have sited statistical conclusions I will as well. Japan has far less violent and gun crime than the US and strict gun control.

 

i try to stay away from statistics because statistics always have a 'other side' of the story. there is usually another variable that is left out and not presented to the observer.

 

And to pre-empt one line of argument I've heard before, arming the populace will not save from or deter invasion. After the Russian invasion and subsequent civil wars Afghanistan was per capita one of the highest armed countries in the world. Didn't save them from invasion nor did it save them from going to war with themselves countless times.

 

 

this depends and is obviously debatable.

the afghans being armed may not have deterred invasions, but it surely has kept occupiers from occupying the country for any length of time.

 

to flat out deny the swiss being armed to the teeth and ready to literally destroy their country in the face of nazi aggression (or any aggression for that matter) as not even placing a hurdle in the way of the wehrmacht... is just to not face up to reality. i urge you to read 'target switzerland' on the subject. its an objective look at this topic that we have already went over a dozen times.

 

Anyway, we're not going to convince each other on this and we've successfully turned another thread in to a gun/libertarian debate. I don't think that is a good thing.

 

i dont mind talking about this stuff, but my main point is that you cant get mad at anti gay marriage types for using your same logic about mere gun ownership in non violent hands being a threat to you or your way of life. the anti gay marriage types view gay marriage as a threat to their 'moral society' and values due to various external effects.

same argument, different world view, different issue, but same logic all the same.

 

another example that lefty types get mad at me when i point out... the same ideology that says one cannot use meth because it is bad for you, is the exact same ideology the is forbidding the lefties from getting and drinking raw milk. (illegal in most of the US)

[angelofdeath]

Opps, missed this bit:

 

most people dont want liberty, they want a nanny state to nurture them from cradle to grave

 

Then don't you think it is unfair not to let them have what they want?

 

 

sure its unfair.

which brings us to the real point....

sure someone has a right to have a nanny state, but there is no right for anyone else to FUND it or to force anyone to be part of it.

there should be free choice by EVERYONE whether they want to partake in said nanny state society.

 

now that this is settled....

another question is begged:

 

does someone who wants a nanny state have a right to force you do be part of it?

 

i say NO.

 

Us choosing the nanny state automatically means that it is the best choice for us.

 

No?

 

your line of thought isnt quite coherent because you are still thinking in terms of collectivism.

individuals would have a free choice to decide what is right for them.

in no way shape or form is any nanny state justified if someone doesnt consent to it.

the nanny state would cease to exist in a free society because the nanny staters would no longer be able to coerce others and force them to fund their pet projects.

[Soup]

Has anything new been added to this discussion in the last 4 pages pertaining to why Prop 8 was passed to begin with, or have we moved completely into another subject?

[angelofdeath]

basically the church SHOULD have said "No way no how are homos getting hitched in the eyes of _________, but if City Hall allows it then that's their heathen deal and they will surely burn in Hell for it" to which the state SHOULD have said "as long as you meet the requirements and have the cash, we'll give you a marriage license."

 

 

i think everyone should read this over and over again.

this hit the nail on the head.

 

i would personally eliminate licensing requirements.

 

 

So there's all kinds of bones to pick with this issue...if the Mormon church wants to get in the business of lobbying for policy, they should have their tax-exempt status rescinded. Seems only fair.

 

i think the tax exemption thing is a bad all around.

there shouldnt be a tax code period, but the way they set it up is that if you dont have free speech you get to stay tax exempt.

in stead of rescinding tax exemptions they should just get rid of the IRS therefore making everyone tax exempt.

[angelofdeath]

Has anything new been added to this discussion in the last 4 pages pertaining to why Prop 8 was passed to begin with, or have we moved completely into another subject?

 

other than suggesting marriage be privatized.... nothing new here and we are now talking about 'teh gunszzz' and other more interesting things.... as usual.

[shai]

there shouldnt be a tax code period, but the way they set it up is that if you dont have free speech you get to stay tax exempt.

 

I'm referring to the Establishment Clause and how it relates to the following question- once a church decides to bring its pressure to bear on the state and its people to change existing laws, who determines whether they've forfeited their status as a charitable/ecclesiastical organization?

 

To me, it seems like this is happening more and more and no one is paying attention much less making a stink about it.

[Soup]

Yep. This debate's pretty simple when you just say anybody who voted yes on prop 8 is a dumb extremist whose thoughts should be regulated by the policies of the california government. Kind of odd to think at least 51% of californian voters (7,001,084 people) are a bunch of dumb extremists.....almost paradoxical.

 

IMHO, The frame of discourse should change from litigation to examining what can be done about 7 million californians who think gay marriage is wrong. The first part of which should be spent on understanding their discussion beyond calling them hurr durr extremists.

[angelofdeath]

Yep. This debate's pretty simple when you just say anybody who voted yes on prop 8 is a dumb extremist whose thoughts should be regulated by the policies of the california government. Kind of odd to think at least 51% of californian voters (7,001,084 people) are a bunch of dumb extremists.....almost paradoxical.

 

IMHO, The frame of discourse should change from litigation to examining what can be done about 7 million californians who think gay marriage is wrong. The first part of which should be spent on understanding their discussion beyond calling them hurr durr extremists.

 

in a way im sort of glad the lefties are getting their eyes opened to majoritarian rule and how it affects peoples rights.

[angelofdeath]

I'm referring to the Establishment Clause and how it relates to the following question- once a church decides to bring its pressure to bear on the state and its people to change existing laws, who determines whether they've forfeited their status as a charitable/ecclesiastical organization?

 

yeah i see what you are saying.... but i still stand by my original position...i dont think there should be any real discussion about tax exemption/status because i dont believe in income taxation as it is, so i believe any organization can basically do what they want, so long as they hurt no one else..and the govt should also be limited to basically punishing crimes of violence. this solves the influence on govt part and the taxation/status part.

 

i think related to this...i hold no liking for the various 'campaign finance' or 'election laws' that are out there either.

recent supreme court appointee basically said that if a 1000 page book contained in the last sentence 'vote for joe blow' the govt can ban said book.

[christo-f]

sure its unfair.

which brings us to the real point....

sure someone has a right to have a nanny state, but there is no right for anyone else to FUND it or to force anyone to be part of it.

there should be free choice by EVERYONE whether they want to partake in said nanny state society.

 

now that this is settled....

another question is begged:

 

does someone who wants a nanny state have a right to force you do be part of it?

 

i say NO.

 

 

 

your line of thought isnt quite coherent because you are still thinking in terms of collectivism.

individuals would have a free choice to decide what is right for them.

in no way shape or form is any nanny state justified if someone doesnt consent to it.

the nanny state would cease to exist in a free society because the nanny staters would no longer be able to coerce others and force them to fund their pet projects.

 

A nanny state has to be comprehensive otherwise it's not a nanny state anymore. Part of being a nanny state is being protected from the person next to you (I know your response to that, but people still choose the ineffective state over self reliance). So you cannot have nanny state for some and not for others.

 

So I would say that if the majority want the nanny state then it is up to you to either like it or leave.

 

I hear Afghanistan is somewhere that you can have guns and don't have to rely on the govt to do everything for you. Why don't you move there and let the majority of the US citz have what they want?

[shai]

You're presenting this like there's a choice, when it's really framed like "these new laws are in the best interests of public safety/security, and even if you don't want them too fucking bad."

 

All lawmakers have to do is wait for an opening, say there's a need, and Bob's your uncle.

[angelofdeath]

A nanny state has to be comprehensive otherwise it's not a nanny state anymore.

 

agreed. partially. in theory.

 

Part of being a nanny state is being protected from the person next to you (I know your response to that, but people still choose the ineffective state over self reliance). So you cannot have nanny state for some and not for others.

 

this can easily be countered with....'your freedom stops at my door.'

its that simple.

what you are suggesting is that if someone wants a nanny state (or to be safe or has rights to someone else's property, or is forcing someone to pay for the nanny state....) that this arrangement squares with the anti nanny staters rights. it doesnt. it is a conflict of rights.

again... your freedom stops at my door. put another way, you can do whatever you want, so long as you dont force me to do anything or hurt me, my property or my liberty. freedom bounded by rights.

 

So I would say that if the majority want the nanny state then it is up to you to either like it or leave.

 

i must laugh at this logic.

if a majority decides that everyone named christo-f must surrender and meet the firing squad tomorrow at 0800, are you to just shrug your shoulders and say..'well, i gotta either like it or leave it!'

the majority has decided.

 

this is essentially the issue with govt and with all issues... and touches on this gay marriage thing in particular.

a majority decided they dont want gay marriage.

yet you are still arguing that this is not legitimate. if you were true to your belief in democracy, the majority has spoken. no gay marriage. end of story. move to another country.

 

personally i believe that any natural rights are not up for any vote any time. period.

 

Why don't you move there and let the majority of the US citz have what they want?

 

this is a circular argument if there ever was one because precisely what we are trying to do is establish if govt is legitimate. you say it is simply because 50.01% of the people say it is.

 

i knock on your door with 2 other guys. i say i am here to rob you. you say, get the hell out. i say... now now, we are all fans of democracy here right? lets put this to a vote. 3 against one. you lose. we get your stuff.

this is essentially politics explained in 1 simple lesson. i do not support this system at all.

 

put another way.

my ancestors arrive on virgin territory in 1650. they homestead a farm. they own property. along comes a guy in 1789 after ratification of the constitution and the creation of the current set up of US government. he says...'hi, we are starting this club. we want you to be a member.' my ancestor says...'oh that sounds like a great idea. but im not interested. i live out here and tend to my own problems. but i wish you luck. i wont aggress against you, you dont aggress against me. we'll trade, we'll have a grand old time.'

the guy says...'you dont understand, you are part of this club whether you like it or not. we are the govt. you have to pay your doors or i get to shoot you.'

 

how can you square this with freedom? what you are suggesting is nothing but a form of slavery. forcing people against their will to do something. its no different than raping a woman or enslaving someone in chains. you either support choice and therefore freedom or you support coercion.

what gives this criminal gang in the scenario above the right to rule over anyone that has not consented to it?

 

if i were to use a protection racket to extract money from you, i'd imagine you'd try to run me off or maim me. yet when a group calls themselves the government, you simply say anything goes as long as 50.01% of the people vote for it. didnt hitler essentially come to power with 98% percent of the vote? sure there were some technicalities, but that is basically what happened. to hell with democracy. so much the worse for majoritarianism. my rights are not up for a vote. and this is the exact reason why people need to be armed. to protect themselves against aggressors that think they have some holy power to govern over a free man.

 

so back to the argument of 'get out if you dont like it....'

what we are trying to establish is if gov's have legitimacy. since their legitimacy is based on force, they have none. the only 'legitimacy' they have is based on the same principle as me putting a gun to your head and tell you what to do. the same principle that elected a leader of the german nation that killed 10 million people in a brutal reign.

 

'get out if you dont like it...'

why dont they leave us alone, why do is it always said that the serfs have to be the ones to leave...

last time i checked the union was created among sovereign states that seceded from their own government.

[Soup]

in a way im sort of glad the lefties are getting their eyes opened to majoritarian rule and how it affects peoples rights.

 

sarcasm gnome feels ignored...

[cunt sauce]

I'm pretty comfortable with my sexuality. That Freudian nonsense is just that.

 

I've said over and over that it's just immoral to me. I don't jibe with it. That doesn't

mean it's not right for others. I've never said that being gay is immoral or wrong, just

the marriage part. I've also said that I don't mind if a state votes that gay marriage is a

right.

 

I was saying that with a smile, man. I was joking with you.

 

moral: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior

immoral: conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles

ethics: a system of moral principles

 

Now to my questions that I have been trying to get you to answer. What is it about gay marriage that you find immoral? What is it that defines your ethics?

 

You have stated that it is not for you, but that doesn't make it immoral. My mother orders her cheeseburgers without onions, not because she finds the consumption of onions immoral, but because she finds them unpleasant to eat because of the texture and strong odor.

 

You don't engage in homosexual relationships because that's just not your flavor. You are not attracted to Men. What I am getting from you is that you choose to not participate in homosexuality not because homosexuality or homosexual marriage is immoral, but because its not for you. You are using the wrong words to describe your views and that is where we ran into confusion. Preferences are distinctly different from principles, Casek.

 

P.S. While this is on the more mature, serious side, try to take my posts with a grain of salt. I come on here to joke and clown around. When it comes to research and debate, I tend to funnel most of my debating energy into making argumentative papers for school, not 12oz prophet, home of many stubborn people that I will never meet.

[cunt sauce]

Its pretty amusing to see angelofdeath turn every current issue into a libertarian rant about how Laissez-faire economics and personal property rights will solve every problematic issue we as a society face. Not that I don't agree with you on some aspects, I just find it hilarious. You're like a warped LP that keeps looping on the turntable, spewing out the same sounds over and over.

[angelofdeath]

what makes people mad is when someone is consist in their beliefs