PetesSweets86
Dedicated LVC Member
I tried - however, you were out playing with the boys...
not my fault you decide to only be in for a day
International Atheists declare church/state principles
- Thread starter 04SCTLS
- Start date
not my fault you decide to only be in for a day
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Government Intrusion
Since the power to contract is absolute in this country where we, the people, are sovereign, it therefore follows that there is no business of the government in marriage arrangements. Unfortunately, the camel's nose is in the tent.
I, personally, am conservative to such an extent that I am only comfortable in a relationship complete with a religious ceremony and the 'lines' put away in a box in the closet. But my head sees no reason why the government has to be involved. Simply jumping over the broom should be enough.
Government, get out of my life!!
KS
Since the power to contract is absolute in this country where we, the people, are sovereign, it therefore follows that there is no business of the government in marriage arrangements. Unfortunately, the camel's nose is in the tent.
I, personally, am conservative to such an extent that I am only comfortable in a relationship complete with a religious ceremony and the 'lines' put away in a box in the closet. But my head sees no reason why the government has to be involved. Simply jumping over the broom should be enough.
Government, get out of my life!!
KS
I just see no reason to waste time articulating a position that will simply be parsed, misrepresented and ignored by people like you.
If you exhibited an interest in honest discussion and in actually objectively "exploring" ideas that are clearly unfamiliar to you, I would be more then happy to take the time to help you understand those views.
The article does give an indication as to why the government has a place in the marriage business:
It is the essence of democracy that people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community. If people don't have that power, then they are living under an autocracy.
True, this majority rule is not unlimited. It is limited by what the government has the power to do. Consequently the majority cannot, in general, vote to seize the homes and accumulated savings of rich people. Leaving aside exceptional cases, government cannot mandate how parents how should raise their children. These kinds of power lie outside the scope of government in a free society.
Majority rule is also circumscribed by individual rights. But these are the rights clearly specified in the Constitution. A majority of citizens cannot prevent an individual from voting because voting is a basic right, as is the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and so on. The state is constitutionally prohibited from undermining these enumerated rights.
...The basic logic is that gays have a right to be treated like everyone else. But just like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! What gay activists want is something else: the right to marry members of the same sex. This is not a right currently enjoyed by anyone. What these gay activists seek is not equal treatment but rather to change the definition of marriage.
...states have a legitimate right to define marriage. State legislatures, drawing on tradition and appealing to the values of their constituents, have defined marriage in a very particular way. Marriage requires a) two people who are b) of legal age and c) not closely related to each other who are d) one male and one female. Note that this definition excludes people who want to marry children, or guys who want to marry their sisters, or Muslims who want to take four wives, or that strange guy who wants to marry his dog.
True, this majority rule is not unlimited. It is limited by what the government has the power to do. Consequently the majority cannot, in general, vote to seize the homes and accumulated savings of rich people. Leaving aside exceptional cases, government cannot mandate how parents how should raise their children. These kinds of power lie outside the scope of government in a free society.
Majority rule is also circumscribed by individual rights. But these are the rights clearly specified in the Constitution. A majority of citizens cannot prevent an individual from voting because voting is a basic right, as is the right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion, and so on. The state is constitutionally prohibited from undermining these enumerated rights.
...The basic logic is that gays have a right to be treated like everyone else. But just like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! What gay activists want is something else: the right to marry members of the same sex. This is not a right currently enjoyed by anyone. What these gay activists seek is not equal treatment but rather to change the definition of marriage.
...states have a legitimate right to define marriage. State legislatures, drawing on tradition and appealing to the values of their constituents, have defined marriage in a very particular way. Marriage requires a) two people who are b) of legal age and c) not closely related to each other who are d) one male and one female. Note that this definition excludes people who want to marry children, or guys who want to marry their sisters, or Muslims who want to take four wives, or that strange guy who wants to marry his dog.
The fact that you don't grasp what the article is saying and how it answers your "question" simply demonstrates your ignorance of the viewpoint (and, more importantly, the rationale behind the viewpoint) that opposes gay marriage.
The fact that you simply gloss over that lack of understanding to jump right into trying to dismiss that point of view shows that you have no interest in understanding that point of view. That fact demonstrate that you are not approaching this discussion with any degree of intellectual honesty and are not interested in any honest, productive discussion; only in propagandizing and self expression.
Oh, and when I talk about self expression it is for a very specific purpose which, again, you don't seem to grasp when you mock it by saying, "self-expression - bad, bad, bad". I am drawing a distinction between self-expression and an honest search for the truth (which is the heart of critical thought and of intellectual integrity). Unfortunately, you have never been interested in the truth.
That is why the subtleties and nuances of the views I am espouse on most things here are lost on you. Not because you are not intellectually capable of grasping them, but because you are utterly uninterested in them outside of distorting and delegeitimize them.
Stay classy.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
This paragraph demonstrates several things - lack of logic, massive straw man arguments, appeals to emotion, and myopic thinking. Nothing in your attempt to tie your infantile examples to conservatism even approaches accurate truth.
Ted Kennedy at the Bork hearings thinks your post is over the line.
The ultimate in conservatism is that the Bill of Rights is enforced thoroughly and completely. You can't speak the truth when you don't have a clue. But hey, I have to correct the falsehoods that you spew so frequently here.
And shag - if you manage to actually read a rebuttal that isn't just posting yet another article, as is your want, you might notice that I have started to do just that - rebut that article.
First - lets go with 'people should be able to decide the moral rules that govern the nature of a community'.
I addressed that - people decided that the laws that didn't allow races to intermarry were just fine - guess what - they weren't. Even though those laws were voted in doesn't make them a 'just' moral rule. They weren't 'just' or do you think they were shag - lets start there. Let's answer that question.
The fact that you simply gloss over that lack of understanding to jump right into trying to dismiss that point of view shows that you have no interest in understanding that point of view. That fact demonstrate that you are not approaching this discussion with any degree of intellectual integrity and are not interested in any honest discussion.
Stay classy.
Actually shag, the fact that you are so dismissive of a real reply, really reflects on the level of 'classiness' that you impart to almost any discussion. You don't take the time to see that I have started to take on some biased article that can be refuted. Actually fairly easily when it comes to the fact that people pass laws all the time that seem 'morally correct' but when it comes right down to it - it is just oppression of the minority by the majority. I have given a very viable comparison - the miscegenation laws of our past, and shown why, although at the time they seemed very 'moral' and the majority of the people wanted them, they were wrong.
I obviously understand the oppositions POV - I have been able to draw on history, pull out similar law and compare it to current laws being passed.
I can actually give this historical perspective, something you seem to be lacking shag.
I can also look at this problem without the blinders of conservatism. No change, no matter what. Conservatives of the early 1900s thought that laws that didn't allow interracial were good - gave biblical references to support their stands. They wanted to 'conserve' current law, actually what could be considered 'ancient' law if you go by their reading of the biblical references regarding interracial marriage.
Your insistence that I don't grasp a concept, or that I don't understand it, or that I am glossing over it (when in fact I have started to tear it apart), is rather rude shag.
I am approaching this with integrity - I have actually taken the time to write responses, use historical content, and address specific issues.
I am discussing - meanwhile I believe you are 'spouting', dependent on conservative blogs to do your thinking, and unable to respond to my replies because they don't fall within your blogs 'standard talking points'.
If you want to claim that is a lack of 'class' on my part - please do - I will gladly relinquish any claim to 'class' if it falls within some bizarre right wing conservative definition that requires blind allegiance and goosestepping mentality.
How odd that it took the ultimate in classic liberalism to give us that Bill of Rights. The conservatives were on the side of the Brits Foss... Left to the conservatives we would still be feeding the coffers of the Queen.
Everything I said is correct when tying conservatives to this question - conserve, at all costs, tradition, status quo, the way it was. You might want to review the definition of conservative foss -
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
:bsflag:
I'm a conservative and I do not hold that view. You're simply wrong, fox. And you KNOW that what you're saying is wrong - which makes you, yet again, a liar.
We know you like to redefine terms to suit your red herrings. Nice try.
How odd that classic liberalism in no way resembles the thoughts and beliefs of you and your socialist fellow travelers.
For example, if the Democrats had had their way, the Civil Rights act would never have passed.
KS - the contract part is where the 'business' part lies - and where government does have a part. Mostly it is at the end, or when the contract is dissolved that the government comes into play. Division of assets, rights of custody those sort of messy battles. And during the contract, allowing partners power of attorney, the right to pensions, to inherited assets, things like that.
The rest - yes, marriage is a vital part of many American's lives - it is intertwined with church and family. The government should be kept far away from that part, as it should with almost all family/church matters.
That is the problem!
Instead of first understanding what the article is saying (which you clearly don't), instead of first understanding the argument against gay marriage, you jump right into trying to rebut it.
You can not honestly and reasonably rebut an argument unless you first understand it. That is something that you have never learned.
When you attempt to rebut an argument that you clearly do not understand, you are left with nothing but straw men, deception and lies. That is all you know and that is why you have no credibility.
To ignore the necessity of first understanding an argument is not only dishonest but immature.
Unfortunately, when you are also unable to admit when you are wrong, you are unable to actually learn about that argument to be able to reasonable and honestly rebut it.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
As you can see, foxpaws likes to cherrypick what government should and should not be involved in. If it's something that might give gays some extra rights - by all means, government should 'stay out of it' - which actually means government should get involved by extending extra rights to gays.
And the government should sue states for enforcing laws already on the books - and government should regulate oil production, and punish states that try to clean up their own shores.
But when it involves extending rights to unborn children - HELL NO, KILL 'EM ALL!
You have to untangle her double-speak in order to discern what she really means by what she says - often when she says something it means the opposite. For example - when she says 'liberal' - she doesn't mean 'classic liberal' - unless she says she does. And when it's convenient for her, she changes the meaning of the word 'conservative' so that she can throw red herrings into the discussion for the sole purpose of waging her war of attrition.
1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws shows up and draws false comparison or throws up straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject
6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory
And the government should sue states for enforcing laws already on the books - and government should regulate oil production, and punish states that try to clean up their own shores.
But when it involves extending rights to unborn children - HELL NO, KILL 'EM ALL!
You have to untangle her double-speak in order to discern what she really means by what she says - often when she says something it means the opposite. For example - when she says 'liberal' - she doesn't mean 'classic liberal' - unless she says she does. And when it's convenient for her, she changes the meaning of the word 'conservative' so that she can throw red herrings into the discussion for the sole purpose of waging her war of attrition.
1. Topic comes up
2. Discussion begins
3. Foxpaws shows up and draws false comparison or throws up straw men/red herrings or a bunch of nonsense
4. Conservs call her out for her dishonesty
5. Foxpaws happily plays victim and doggedly continues to defend, deflect, and change the subject
6. Everyone tires of her ad nauseum arguments and leaves the thread
7. Foxpaws claims victory
You have utterly no clue what you are talking about. Modern conservatism is rooted in classical liberalism. Of course, ignoring distinctions like that between modern conservatism and older forms of conservatism (if you are even aware of them) allows you to deceive and smear modern conservatism.
Also, the unique form of classical liberalism that was applied by the Framers and that gave us the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had, at a fundamental level, as much in common with conservatism (of the Burkean variety) as it did with orthodox classical liberalism.
Because you are ignorantly painting with such a broad brush, you attempts to mislead are readily transparent to anyone with in even a minor background in political philosophy.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
She's just babbling in the hope that something she throws up against the wall will stick. It's another tactic of hers - creating busywork by engaging in diarrhea of the keyboard. She knows she has no chance of winning the argument or even in persuading any of us that her viewpoint is valid - she's just engaging in pure sophistry for the purpose of distraction. It's dishonest in the extreme.
Yep - the conservative Democrats of the south, in a block, voted against the Civil Rights Act.
Just as the 'conservatives' of the later part of the 18th century would have been for keeping the states as a colony of Britain, they wanted to conserve the current state of affairs...
Conservative - to hold onto traditional values, which in the 1760s were Britain's values. The conservatives wanted to remain tied to Britain - it was those upstart, radical, liberals that bucked the system, that started a revolution.
As a political 'word' it arose in France - defining those that wanted a return to the monarchy after the revolution, and in Britain, that things should be subjugated to aristocracy. Ah, the good old days.
Once again, conserve - to keep the same... to resist change... to tie oneself to tradition.
You are a conservative foss - I thought you were a more-or-less libertarian, when the mood struck. Which one is it?
You are actively engaged in an attempt to distort what conservatism is and to smear it.
Conservative/liberal distinctions were not present in American politics around the time of the civil war. To attempt to manufacture those distinctions is to attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole.
In fact, if you want to actually look at genuine philosophy (something you have never wanted to focus on unless you could distort it to your own ends) abolition could be said to be a uniquely conservative phenomenon because it was taking the idea this country was founded on, Natural Rights and extending that recognition to all Citizens.
Your simplistic claim that conservatism is somehow against change and for protecting the status quo "at all costs" belies your utter ignorance of what conservatism is.
Edmund Burke realized that change was necessary for a civil society.
Shag - I do understand the article - how do you think I can tear it apart so easily...
Do you want to give me another part that you think stands up well - go ahead...
Or would you rather discuss the parts that I have already started on - how about the tyranny of the majority over the minority - or how about the incorrectness of the conservative thought when it came to the morality of criminalizing interracial marriages.
Your obeisance to the cause is rather overwhelming shag, but expected.
Like I said, when you are unable to admit when you are wrong, you are unable to actually learn about an unfamiliar/opposing viewpoint which is necessary to be able to reasonable and honestly rebut it.
the Civil Rights Act shag - 1965? There very much was a split in the Democratic party along conservative (south) and more liberal (northern) lines. That is what Foss was talking about.
I am not distorting conservatism - it is what it is, resist change, embrace traditional values...
Maybe you need to read a little French and English history shag... and sort of embrace your conservative roots.
So, I should admit I am wrong because I understand the article, am beginning to tear it apart, and have actually asked your input on other parts that you feel will hold up well under argument?
I have even asked for your responses to the points I have brought up regarding the article already - rather than overwhelm you with a complete rebuttal, I thought I would go with some of the more obvious points. You haven't even been able to go with the obvious, I can't wait until we get to the subtle points...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Tsk tsk, fox...now you don't even know who you're responding to. :bowrofl:
I guess you never took Posting 101. Take a deep breath, sit down for a minute, READ carefully, THINK about your response, and then compose it in a Word doc. Then, think it over some more before hitting submit.
Oh, and YES you are distorting conservatism. And you're resorting to proof by assertion which is a desperate tactic.
Yawn.
You're really boring today. But anything to get the last word, right?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Is that what you're doing? Awww, how sweet, looking out for Shag's best interests. So, you're confident that he can't handle one of your normally verbose piles of keyboard vomit?
How condescending of you.
Give me a break, Vapo-rub. Here you are trying to spin your way out of this corner - since when do you NOT try to overwhelm somebody with obscenely wordy verbiage? I call BS on this one - if you're too busy or lazy to respond thoroughly, then don't. But don't make lousy, lame excuses.
Again, you are grossly misrepresenting conservatism by simplistically making a false distinction of the Democrat party being split along "conservative and liberal" lines over the 1965 CRA. That has been a leftist talking point for years now but it is based on mere assertion along with cherry picked circumstantial evidence; half truths
The most effective lies are the ones with the most the most truths in them.
As I said, you have no interest in the truth; only in propagandizing and self expression.
You should take your own advice as you are grossly misrepresenting conservatism, not that you care or are even aware of that fact.
Foss - this is what you said...
Obviously referring to the Civil Rights Act that passed...
I agreed that is was Democrats, known as 'conservative democrats' in the south that voted against the act.
Shag than somehow responded using something about the civil war and there not being 'conservatives' and 'liberals' during that time frame.
I just wanted to make clear I was responding to your post that referred to the passed Civil Rights Act.
Oh, and shag might also want to read a little about conservatives and liberals around the time of the civil war.
For example, if the Democrats had had their way, the Civil Rights act would never have passed.
Obviously referring to the Civil Rights Act that passed...
I agreed that is was Democrats, known as 'conservative democrats' in the south that voted against the act.
Shag than somehow responded using something about the civil war and there not being 'conservatives' and 'liberals' during that time frame.
I just wanted to make clear I was responding to your post that referred to the passed Civil Rights Act.
Oh, and shag might also want to read a little about conservatives and liberals around the time of the civil war.
Again, when you are unable to admit when you are wrong, you are unable to actually learn about an unfamiliar/opposing viewpoint which is necessary to be able to reasonable and honestly rebut it.
You asked leading questions aimed at framing the debate favorable to your position. That is not discussing things in good faith and it belies a lack of sincerity in attempting to understand any opposing views. Given your history on this forum, there is every reason to think that you have no interest in actually understanding, only in rebutting.
cammerfe
Dedicated LVC Member
Clarification
Actually, that right to contract includes the implicit right to NOT contract. 'Two hearts beating as one' should not need any 'contract'. It's only the intrusion of the government, trying to hold power over every aspect of our lives, that has created this contractual atmosphere. As I said, "Government get out of my life."
KS
Actually, that right to contract includes the implicit right to NOT contract. 'Two hearts beating as one' should not need any 'contract'. It's only the intrusion of the government, trying to hold power over every aspect of our lives, that has created this contractual atmosphere. As I said, "Government get out of my life."
KS
And would not have passed but for conservative republican support. As you said, the Democrats were divided. LBJ had to court conservative/republican votes on this. Interesting that you conveniently ignored that fact.
They were known as Dixiecrats. The conservative label came later by leftists looking to opportunistically label conservatives as racist. Much like you have attempted to do with tea partiers on numerous occasions on this forum.