Proposition 8 ruled unconstitutional..

[mercury14]

Jen, I refuse to argue with you because you're too stupid to bother with. All you do is regurgitate whatever talking points you were fed today. You have no understanding of law, government, or, from what I've seen, just about anything else.

Truer words were never spoken.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You can make all the false equivalencies you like, it doesn't make your argument any less valid. For someone that claims to hold individual liberty sacrosanct you're doing a complicated dance in your defence of curtailing it.

You have yet to tell me who has a "right" to marriage.

Get out your copy of our Constitution.




I'm waiting...

 

[kbate]

Walker talks about the right to marry, but I always wonder about "rights" you have to get a license to exercise.

I talk only of the rights conferred by the institution. I don't particularly give a fuck what we call the union or if you consider it a "right" or not.

The rights conferred are inheritance, medical decision, tax benefits (at times), and custody of children, as well as many other legal niceties which are denied (in my state both by tradition and by specific law and constitutional amendment) to homosexual couples.

So tell me - why do you wish to keep those legal separations?

And AJ, Power of Attorney does not work against a law which states that no contract approximating marriage is enforceable. It was specifically written to prevent homosexual couples from using power of attorney to secure the rights marriage confers to others.

 

[kbate]

I think the judge said 7 million Californians were mentally defective or words to that effect. No bias there..move along citizen.

So we won't be hearing the term, "Mob rule" from you ever again when you are complaining about ballot issues that you don't like. Will we?

 

[mercury14]

I did not claim it was an attack on my rights.

What I did, and probably poorly, was to attempt to use the word in the same way the opposition does. That's why you don't see it in the main body of my remarks, which, btw, you ignored completely.

You screwing your dog doesn't stop me from owning a casino either...

But culturally, we're just not into that sort of relationship.

But then, as per the judge, we're just BIGOTS.

You claim the banner of libertarianism, right? So you're all for gay rights, including gay marraige, no?

 

[Sean]

You have yet to tell me who has a "right" to marriage.

Get out your copy of our Constitution.




I'm waiting...

Where did I ever claim that anyone had a right to marriage? Don't make up positions I haven't taken and ask me to defend them.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I talk only of the rights conferred by the institution. I don't particularly give a fuck what we call the union or if you consider it a "right" or not.

The rights conferred are inheritance, medical decision, tax benefits (at times), and custody of children, as well as many other legal niceties which are denied (in my state both by tradition and by specific law and constitutional amendment) to homosexual couples.

So tell me - why do you wish to keep those legal separations?

And AJ, Power of Attorney does not work against a law which states that no contract approximating marriage is enforceable. It was specifically written to prevent homosexual couples from using power of attorney to secure the rights marriage confers to others.

Where is that law and I'll help you fight it.

Where are you willing to compromise?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You claim the banner of libertarianism, right? So you're all for gay rights, including gay marraige, no?

ad Hominem by circumstance (class).


You're on the same level as Jen...

 

[mercury14]

Where did I ever claim that anyone had a right to marriage? Don't make up positions I haven't taken and ask me to defend them.

But... he has nothing else to say then.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Words have meaning kbate.

Otherwise, you have no common culture.

If you have no common culture, you get culture wars and this issue is merely a symptom of a larger cultural war, one in which Individual Rights are under assault in favor of group rights. This is an emotionally charged issue, like other class divisions such as wealth envy and progressive taxation. They know they can get you to work for them on this one issue, just like they can get Perg to work with them on ecology and firespin to defend the progressive income tax. It's a tool described by Alinsky and Rand (The Fountainhead). Once you yield reason on your issue, it erodes your ability to argue on other issues. Your side is as hung up on a word as my side, even after we tell you we will work with you to get every single benefit you think you have coming to you as a couple. You just are not willing to meet anyone half way. It's your way or the bye-way... Then we get to killing each other until we find a reconciliation.

So... it's all about a word?

 

[unregistered]

 

[mercury14]

ad Hominem by circumstance (class).


You're on the same level as Jen...

It seems this is just one of the fifty positions you have in common with garden-variety republicans.

But you're still a libertarian.

Copy that.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

The word is "right."




If I don't have a "right" to get married, how can I give that "right" to a homosexual?

 

[Sean]

The word is "right."




If I don't have a "right" to get married, how can I give that "right" to a homosexual?

I believe you have a right not to be discriminated against.

 

[mercury14]

I believe you have a right not to be discriminated against.

(Not in the minds of these bigots)

 

[Sean]

As an aside, I have to comment on the fact that this debate is actually fairly civil by GB standards. Apart from the obvious idiots.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Jefferson assumed an eternal upward learning curve. He never heard of a Hammerhead stall or a tailslide.

But, he also wrote,

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect; and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them, and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." — Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824.

In other words... "kids, you're on your own, now..."

 

[kbate]

Words have meaning kbate.

Otherwise, you have no common culture.

If you have no common culture, you get culture wars and this issue is merely a symptom of a larger cultural war, one in which Individual Rights are under assault in favor of group rights. This is an emotionally charged issue, like other class divisions such as wealth envy and progressive taxation. They know they can get you to work for them on this one issue, just like they can get Perg to work with them on ecology and firespin to defend the progressive income tax. It's a tool described by Alinsky and Rand (The Fountainhead). Once you yield reason on your issue, it erodes your ability to argue on other issues. Your side is as hung up on a word as my side, even after we tell you we will work with you to get every single benefit you think you have coming to you as a couple. You just are not willing to meet anyone half way. It's your way or the bye-way... Then we get to killing each other until we find a reconciliation.

You see - you say "you think you have coming to you". So you really do want a separate definition to apply for those you like and those you do not like.

Or are you just in favour of the Heterosexual group having specific rights?

Your argument for any individual right is weak as long as you continue to fight for a set of group rights.

You are protecting a word - that is defined in a dozen different manners and which holds different force in each and every state in the union.

Society won't crumble if every individual is permitted to marry - based on the same standard - fill out a $35.00 application form and have it ratified by a witnessing authority.

Can you truly believe that will usher in a state of socialist ruin as described in Rand?

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

I believe you have a right not to be discriminated against.

No. We codified discrimination.

It's called Affirmative Action...

The problem with the Left and its ideas about "human rights" and "class rights" is that they often contradict each other.

As pointed out earlier, the rich get no equal protection under the law and if the Left keeps using homosexuals a weapons in a cultural war, the homosexuals may find themselves written by the absolute majority into the Constitution too and then that discrimination WILL BE Constitutional...

You need to know when you've won your battle and you need to know when to consolidate your gains. Like I also point out before, in 50 years, we've come a long, long way. And we've done it this time without a shooting war.

 

[Peregrinator]

ad Hominem by circumstance (class).

You really should stop using this phrase. It's not recognized by any authority on logic.

 

[Sean]

No. We codified discrimination.

It's called Affirmative Action...

The problem with the Left and its ideas about "human rights" and "class rights" is that they often contradict each other.

As pointed out earlier, the rich get no equal protection under the law and if the Left keeps using homosexuals a weapons in a cultural war, the homosexuals may find themselves written by the absolute majority into the Constitution too and then that discrimination WILL BE Constitutional...

You need to know when you've won your battle and you need to know when to consolidate your gains. Like I also point out before, in 50 years, we've come a long, long way. And we've done it this time without a shooting war.

We could get into an argument about whetehr Affirmative Action is discrimination or an attempt to redress it, but it's an entirely different argument. And you're trying to move the goalposts again.

 

[Ishmael]

Commerce has nothing to do with it, any more than it has to do with segregated washrooms.

But I think you finally got my point: if the Supreme Court fails to put down Art. 1 Sec. 7.5 of the California Constitution, then there will eventually be a new Amendment to the US Constitution.

"But I know, also, that laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also, and keep pace with the times." — Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

"Our children will be as wise as we are and will establish in the fulness of time those things not yet ripe for establishment." — Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810.

We still have segregated washrooms byron.

An amendment would be the proper way to federalize the issue. Quite frankly if it were to pass muster under amendment it would most likely be because most of the several states had already taken affirmative action on the issue, ya think?

Ishmael

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You see - you say "you think you have coming to you". So you really do want a separate definition to apply for those you like and those you do not like.

Or are you just in favour of the Heterosexual group having specific rights?

Your argument for any individual right is weak as long as you continue to fight for a set of group rights.

You are protecting a word - that is defined in a dozen different manners and which holds different force in each and every state in the union.

Society won't crumble if every individual is permitted to marry - based on the same standard - fill out a $35.00 application form and have it ratified by a witnessing authority.

Can you truly believe that will usher in a state of socialist ruin as described in Rand?

It's not a right. It's not in the Constitution. It has nothing to do, as proved, about equal treatment or opportunity.

It has everything to do with a re-ordering of society based on half-baked ideas out of Academia...

Not in and of itself. You see, you aren't content with winning a battle of reason and real change in the way people think. You want to take the club of the court, go upside their head, call them names, and cause them to put up barricades.

But you start pinging on this, illegal's rights, terrorist's rights, Gaia's rights, unlimited taxation for spending on favored "minority groups" and after a while the full-court press on the majority begins to feel like a siege situation to them. I'm not saying that this is the straw that will break the camel's back, but I am saying there is a time and place for everything, but with the Left, that time is always right now damnit!

In strategy, you must keep a near view of distanced things and a distanced view of near things.
Miyamoto Musashi

 

[Byron In Exile]

As pointed out earlier, the rich get no equal protection under the law and if the Left keeps using homosexuals a weapons in a cultural war, the homosexuals may find themselves written by the absolute majority into the Constitution too and then that discrimination WILL BE Constitutional...

The last chance for that was probably sometime in the 1950's.

 

[Frisco_Slug_Esq]

You really should stop using this phrase. It's not recognized by any authority on logic.

It's in Copi. I already showed you once...


Now twice.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

Three times a lady...