HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › Did the Republicans just get handed the Nov Election?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Did the Republicans just get handed the Nov Election? - Page 7

post #121 of 146
5/22/08 at 11:04pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by enickma View Post
Of course I'm not...you're only willing to see it one way.
Our failure to convince the other of the rightness of our position is either A: the others willingness to only see it their way or B: A failure on our part to put forward a convincing argument.

I see that you're more willing to blame me than to blame yourself.

Quote:

No...what I'm saying is the following: The State does not have laws that state "Catholic oragnizations aren't allowed to be adoption agencies" It has laws that state "Anyone providing adoption services must abide by the regulations of that social program, including anti-discrimination laws."

Obviously that's not the actual verbiage, but you should get the idea. It's the church's choice as to whether or not it wants to abide by the anti-discrimination laws. If it chooses not to honor the law then it's not allowed to be an aoption agency. It's not the state's fault that they don't want to operate legally. The state is not directly prohibiting Catholics from being adoption agencies, they're prohibiting law breakers from being adoption agency...you're basiclly saying..."The law shouldn't apply to us"
Let's apply this to freedom of speech.

We make a law that says, "You cannot speak out against the Republican party in the United States in public."

See how that works? You still have freedom of speech. You can stay in your own home and say anything you want.

If, on the other hand, you wish to interact with the rest of society, well, you've got to obey the laws man.

Quote:
Except when doing so violates the laws of a government regulated social service.
Just like my freedom of speech example above. You get freedom of speech except when doing so violates the laws of government regulated social interaction.

Quote:
And that is a primary reason I'm against religion. You are a perfect example of what can happen to a person when they live their life denying themselves. You engineer your conclusions in reverse.
This is definately a non-sequitor and has nothing at all to do with our discussions except to get angry over the discussion and turn this into a personal attack. Monks deny themselves, eunuchs deny themselves, even people on a diet deny themselves. There is zero connection between denying yourself or even delaying gratification and engineering conclusions in reverse.

Quote:
You've got a predefined set of values that you must make the rest of your world view conform to...bound to only those activities, opinions, and positions that are in line with with your self imposed regulations....those are chains man.
This may or may not be true but what's the point in discussing it? We could all say this about each other if they refuse to say, "Oh, you're right and i'm wrong, thanks for showing me where I was wrong buddy." Saying these sorts of things just tells me your frustrated from the discussion and have no argument left so your hanging your hat on personal attacks rather than focusing on our area of disagreement.

I could easily respond, "You too!" but where would that get us?

Quote:
You are the one redefining what it means to practice religion by saying that functiong as an adoption agency is part of it....it's not. It's a social service, not a church service.
I'm defining what it means to be free to practice ones religion. Just as I would define what it means to free to speak. You want to put religion into a box where it can be practiced in a building, out of the public eye, demarcated from all public interaction, like being an adoption agency.

By no stretch of the imagination can one argue that this is freedom. Just as it would not be freedom to say one can speak as they wish, as long as it is in their own home. Hogwash.


Quote:
Absolute nonsense...
Exactly right.
Reply
Reply

Featured Stories on HotStockMarket

Stonerangers forum
e-mini S&P Futures Trading
Educational videos for new investors!
post #122 of 146
5/23/08 at 1:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Our failure to convince the other of the rightness of our position is either A: the others willingness to only see it their way or B: A failure on our part to put forward a convincing argument.

I see that you're more willing to blame me than to blame yourself.
If A exists it's not on my side of the fence, I fully understand your argument, and have given it thought. I see it as being a reaching and fundamentally flawed argument, and I'm trying to point out why...so B applies as well

I know you're getting ready to quote the exact same thing back to me, so let's toss this issue aside for the moment...it's a moot point anyway.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Let's apply this to freedom of speech.

We make a law that says, "You cannot speak out against the Republican party in the United States in public."

See how that works? You still have freedom of speech. You can stay in your own home and say anything you want.

If, on the other hand, you wish to interact with the rest of society, well, you've got to obey the laws man.
I hate to have to always tell you that you're comparing apples and oranges...but you are. Telling a gay couple that you refuse to consider them as potential parents due to their sexual orientation is a violation of their right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation. Speaking out against Republicans does not violate anyone's rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
This is definately a non-sequitor and has nothing at all to do with our discussions except to get angry over the discussion and turn this into a personal attack. Monks deny themselves, eunuchs deny themselves, even people on a diet deny themselves. There is zero connection between denying yourself or even delaying gratification and engineering conclusions in reverse.
I disagree..and it's not a personal attack at all. I was using you as an example of a point I was making. The point isn't directly related to the discussion at hand, though it does apply by proxy. We'll save it for another time, because the nature of self imposed human denial is fascinating to take apart, and a 2nd chair in this dicussion doesn't do it justice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
This may or may not be true but what's the point in discussing it? We could all say this about each other if they refuse to say, "Oh, you're right and i'm wrong, thanks for showing me where I was wrong buddy."
Right..but I'm willing to be wrong. Are you? I have no beef with saying "Oh, you're right and I'm wrong, thanks for showing me where I was wrong buddy." IF the other person can actually manage to prove me wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Saying these sorts of things just tells me your frustrated from the discussion and have no argument left so your hanging your hat on personal attacks rather than focusing on our area of disagreement.
You've managed to yet again arrive at a completely off base conclusion. I'm not frustrated or tired of this discussion at all. As a matter of fact, I'm utterly amazed by the logic you try to tie together to defend the things you believe. It's like taking an ant farm and using it as a flow chart.

And as far as being "out of arguments"...I don't need any..nor have I had any. I'm arguing sense. It's self evident. I have no need to pre-formulate any points to make. All I have to do is read what you wrote and point out where your ant tunnel just collapsed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
You want to put religion into a box where it can be practiced in a building, out of the public eye, demarcated from all public interaction, like being an adoption agency.

By no stretch of the imagination can one argue that this is freedom. Just as it would not be freedom to say one can speak as they wish, as long as it is in their own home. Hogwash.
That's not what I believe, or what I'm saying at all. I have no problem with people expressing or practicing their faith publically. The bumper stickers are annoying, but if you want to use em'...hey, knock yourself out. I don't have a problem with religious organizations functioning as adoption agencies either... EXCEPT when it violates laws and infriges on people's rights.
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 146
5/23/08 at 3:09am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I hate to have to always tell you that you're comparing apples and oranges...but you are. Telling a gay couple that you refuse to consider them as potential parents due to their sexual orientation is a violation of their right not to be discriminated against on the grounds of sexual orientation. Speaking out against Republicans does not violate anyone's rights.
So let's make this an apples to apples comparison.

Just as Massachusetts found out suddenly that the MA Constitution requires marriage for homosex couples and therefore makes not adopting to them descrimination, so too does Texas find in its Constitution that to speak out against Republicans is Hate Speech.

Certainly you are familiar with Hate Speech Laws right?

Quote:
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, moral or political views, socioeconomic class, occupation or appearance (such as height, weight, and hair color), mental capacity and any other distinction-liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.
It is an analogy so you will undoubtedly be able to find some way in which it doesn't work. Analogies are like that, they never work 100% and can always be found in some way where they do not work and yet they are the favorite form of argumentation because they are the easiest to understand and communicate ideas.

This analogy is meant to show the error in your justification for the Massachusetts application of law over our constitutional right to freely practice our religion. This is your justification and reasoning:

Quote:
No...what I'm saying is the following: The State does not have laws that state "Catholic oragnizations aren't allowed to be adoption agencies" It has laws that state "Anyone providing adoption services must abide by the regulations of that social program, including anti-discrimination laws."

Obviously that's not the actual verbiage, but you should get the idea. It's the church's choice as to whether or not it wants to abide by the anti-discrimination laws. If it chooses not to honor the law then it's not allowed to be an aoption agency. It's not the state's fault that they don't want to operate legally. The state is not directly prohibiting Catholics from being adoption agencies, they're prohibiting law breakers from being adoption agency...you're basiclly saying..."The law shouldn't apply to us"
Texas wouldn't now have laws stating, "Democrats aren't allowed to speak out against Republicans" it has laws stating, "Democrats aren't allowed to speak out against Republicans in public"

And just as you wrote above, it's the Democrat parties choice (What an irony there) to speak out in public, against the law, or not. If it chooses not to obey the law, then it will no longer be a political party in Texas. The state is not preventing Democrats from speaking out against Republicans, it's preventing law breakers from speaking out against Republicans.

If you disagree with Texas and this law, you're basically saying, "The law shouldn't apply to Democrats."

How do you like them apples?

But, just as the Texas law would violate a Democrats first amendment right to freedom of speech, so too does the Massachusetts law violate a Catholics first amendment right to freely practice their religion.
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 146
5/23/08 at 4:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
So let's make this an apples to apples comparison.

Just as Massachusetts found out suddenly that the MA Constitution requires marriage for homosex couples and therefore makes not adopting to them descrimination, so too does Texas find in its Constitution that to speak out against Republicans is Hate Speech.

Certainly you are familiar with Hate Speech Laws right?



It is an analogy so you will undoubtedly be able to find some way in which it doesn't work. Analogies are like that, they never work 100% and can always be found in some way where they do not work and yet they are the favorite form of argumentation because they are the easiest to understand and communicate ideas.

This analogy is meant to show the error in your justification for the Massachusetts application of law over our constitutional right to freely practice our religion. This is your justification and reasoning:



Texas wouldn't now have laws stating, "Democrats aren't allowed to speak out against Republicans" it has laws stating, "Democrats aren't allowed to speak out against Republicans in public"

And just as you wrote above, it's the Democrat parties choice (What an irony there) to speak out in public, against the law, or not. If it chooses not to obey the law, then it will no longer be a political party in Texas. The state is not preventing Democrats from speaking out against Republicans, it's preventing law breakers from speaking out against Republicans.

If you disagree with Texas and this law, you're basically saying, "The law shouldn't apply to Democrats."

How do you like them apples?

But, just as the Texas law would violate a Democrats first amendment right to freedom of speech, so too does the Massachusetts law violate a Catholics first amendment right to freely practice their religion.
You're still not lining up your fruit. Are you sure Texas has this law? I've never heard of anyone being arrested in Texas for speaking out against republicans, nor do I think such a thing would hold up in a higher court...simply due to the fact that I'd imagine most judges would agree with me that saying negative things about republicans doesn't infringe on anyone's rights. Denying a homosexual couple the right to adopt a child does. You've conceded that analogys can't serve to prove your point, and claim that you're using them solely to communicate your position, but I completely understand what your'e trying to say. There's no need for non applicable comparisons. My argument against your position is based on:

A: Operating a government regulated social service should not be considered "practicing a religion".

B: Discriminating against gay people simply for being gay is a rights violation.

Even if one were to believe that discriminating against homosexuals while operating government regulated social programs is protected by the freedom to practice religion, it basically leaves you here:

Two groups with a simple position in regard to the public arena:

Group A - We believe we should have the right to discriminate against you becuase of who you choose to have sex with.

Group B - We believe we should have the right to not be discriminated against because of who we choose to have sex with.

Tell me honestly Baggi...as an American...in the country that said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" ....who should win the above impasse?

And don't give me your tired pedophile argument...nothing illegal is happening here, no one is being victimized.
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 146
5/23/08 at 5:48pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Are you sure Texas has this law?
You can't be serious.

Quote:
nor do I think such a thing would hold up in a higher court...simply due to the fact that I'd imagine most judges would agree with me that saying negative things about republicans doesn't infringe on anyone's rights.
You really need to go back and re-read through this discussion, not all of it, our last three back and forths will do just fine.

Quote:
Denying a homosexual couple the right to adopt a child does.
And so too would speaking out against Republicans.

You seriously are incapable of understanding my point?

Until you do, i'll continue down this road so that we can move forward with the discussion. Clearly your not understanding me is my fault, not yours.

If you re-read through our discussion my argument is that the Constitution gives the Catholic Church the right to freely practice religion. The MA Supreme Court has taken away that right by giving homosex couples the right to marry.

You disagree with this, so ive come up with a hypothetical situation that you could easily agree with. Suppose the Texas Supreme Court did the same thing the MA supreme court did. Discovered that the Texas State Constitution prohibited public denounciation of Republicans.

Just as the MA law is a violation of ones 1st amendment rights, so too would the Texas law. However, one can easily see why you support the MA law but would not support the Texas law.

Once again, the purpose in this line of argumentation was to point out the flaw in your reasoning which said:

Quote:
No...what I'm saying is the following: The State does not have laws that state "Catholic oragnizations aren't allowed to be adoption agencies" It has laws that state "Anyone providing adoption services must abide by the regulations of that social program, including anti-discrimination laws."

Obviously that's not the actual verbiage, but you should get the idea. It's the church's choice as to whether or not it wants to abide by the anti-discrimination laws. If it chooses not to honor the law then it's not allowed to be an aoption agency. It's not the state's fault that they don't want to operate legally. The state is not directly prohibiting Catholics from being adoption agencies, they're prohibiting law breakers from being adoption agency...you're basiclly saying..."The law shouldn't apply to us"
I can go back through these two paragraphs of yours step by step, once again, and show the apples to apples comparison, as I did already above, if it will help you to understand?

I'll be happy to move on once ive properly communicated my objection to your above statement and why it doesn't work.
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 146
5/23/08 at 11:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
You can't be serious.



You really need to go back and re-read through this discussion, not all of it, our last three back and forths will do just fine.



And so too would speaking out against Republicans.

You seriously are incapable of understanding my point?

Until you do, i'll continue down this road so that we can move forward with the discussion. Clearly your not understanding me is my fault, not yours.

If you re-read through our discussion my argument is that the Constitution gives the Catholic Church the right to freely practice religion. The MA Supreme Court has taken away that right by giving homosex couples the right to marry.

You disagree with this, so ive come up with a hypothetical situation that you could easily agree with. Suppose the Texas Supreme Court did the same thing the MA supreme court did. Discovered that the Texas State Constitution prohibited public denounciation of Republicans.

Just as the MA law is a violation of ones 1st amendment rights, so too would the Texas law. However, one can easily see why you support the MA law but would not support the Texas law.

Once again, the purpose in this line of argumentation was to point out the flaw in your reasoning which said:



I can go back through these two paragraphs of yours step by step, once again, and show the apples to apples comparison, as I did already above, if it will help you to understand?

I'll be happy to move on once ive properly communicated my objection to your above statement and why it doesn't work.
Again...I fully understand your point. The fact that I think it's ludicrous doesn't mean I don't understand it. About the only thing I misunderstood was the fact that your "Texas scenario" was hypothetical. Texas tends to do it's own thing...for all I know they could have some obscure asinine law like that on the books.

You are not understanding several of the points I'm illustrating...either that, or you're ignoring them, as you ignored my question above. I've probably said about 17 times that operating as part of a government regulated social program is by no stretch of the imagination "practicing religion". I have yet to hear you tell me how it qualifies...because religious people are doing it? By that reasoning, everything a religious person does would count as "practicing religion" and therefore be protected by the constitution. You couldn't even effectively twist that logic into a balloon animal. Another point you seem not to understand or acknowledge is the following: (I'll try to illustrate it differently)

This applies to your hypothetical comparisons. This is why they're ill-founded, don't apply, nor do they serve as an effective argument.

People have the right not to be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation. When the church tries to exercise it's "so-called right" to discriminate against homosexuals while providing government regulated social services, that supposed "right" of the church is in direct violation with rights of the people being discriminated against. Legislation that infringes on the church's right to discriminate against homosexuals while providing a government regulated social service, which is only a "right" in the first place if one embraces false logic, holds a lot more water than your hypothetical example does. In the case of Texas, you'd have to reasonably demonstrate how "speaking out against republicans" infringes on someone's rights to even be able to make a responsible comparison. I understand that you think your argument is the antithesis of my argument. My point is that your freedom of speech comparison is inapplicable and useless.

Nonsensical hypotheticals aside, at the end of the day, to even make your argument, you'd have to be able to demonstrate why the United States judicial / legislative systems should consider not only operating as an adoption agency, but also the practice of discriminating against homosexuals in regard to government social programs, as encompassed within the definition of "practicing religion". What would be the difference between that, and anyone claiming any activity with religious justification supercedes the laws our government has established?

Good luck.
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 146
5/23/08 at 11:39pm
Man, I feel bad for all the kids that will be adopted by gay parents.
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 146
5/24/08 at 12:20am
... ododf doijdfoi fj3403 dopwd?
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 146
5/24/08 at 12:46am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Techunter View Post
... ododf doijdfoi fj3403 dopwd?
Vokda?
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 146
5/24/08 at 3:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by enickma View Post
Vokda?
DA! Wodka!
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 146
5/25/08 at 12:07am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I have yet to hear you tell me how it qualifies...because religious people are doing it?
You really should re-read through this thread. I quoted the Bible, specifically, showing you were the only religion we should be involved in is the caring for Widows and Orphans. How could you have missed that?

Quote:
People have the right not to be discriminated against based on their sexual orientation.
People have the right not to be spoken out against based on their Republican oreintation.

Quote:
When the church tries to exercise it's "so-called right" to discriminate against homosexuals while providing government regulated social services, that supposed "right" of the church is in direct violation with rights of the people being discriminated against.
When the Democrat party tries to exercise it's "so-called right" to speak out against Republicans while standing around in public places that supposed "right" of the Democrat party is in direct violation of the right of the Republicans they are speaking out against.

Quote:
Legislation that infringes on the church's right to discriminate against homosexuals while providing a government regulated social service, which is only a "right" in the first place if one embraces false logic, holds a lot more water than your hypothetical example does.
Legislation that infringes on the Democrats right to speak out against Republicans while standing around in pbulic, which is only a "right" in the first place if one embraces false logic (IE: The 1st amendment apparantly), hold a lot more than your non-hypothetical example does.

Quote:
In the case of Texas, you'd have to reasonably demonstrate how "speaking out against republicans" infringes on someone's rights to even be able to make a responsible comparison.
Perhaps this is why you don't understand the comparison. One chooses both to be a Republican and to marry a gay person.

Quote:
I understand that you think your argument is the antithesis of my argument. My point is that your freedom of speech comparison is inapplicable and useless.
Not the antithesis, the same reasoning and logic applies.

But you are first forced to pretend that it is not an apples to apples comparison, and then once confronted with the fact that it is indeed, forced to pretend like it is illogical.

Here is the main point I think of where our disagreement lies:

Quote:
In the case of Texas, you'd have to reasonably demonstrate how "speaking out against republicans" infringes on someone's rights to even be able to make a responsible comparison.
You seem to be putting the cart before the horse here. You've found in MA (And now in california obviously but not in the other 48 states) that homosex couples being able to marry has become such a right that it doesn't even compare to speaking out against Republicans. How could it! Sheesh, that would be like speaking out against black people is like speaking out against Republicans. As if!

So you fail to see a compelling argument against Gay Marriage because you've already reached your conclusion and aren't going to be reasoned out of it. A case in point (And now i'll answer your question)

Quote:
Group A - We believe we should have the right to discriminate against you becuase of who you choose to have sex with.

Group B - We believe we should have the right to not be discriminated against because of who we choose to have sex with.

Tell me honestly Baggi...as an American...in the country that said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" ....who should win the above impasse?

And don't give me your tired pedophile argument...nothing illegal is happening here, no one is being victimized.
The obvious answer is A. B isn't just the wrong answer, it is an evil answer.

Matter of fact, you also agree with A, as you demonstrate at the bottom with your unstated, "But"

Quote:
And don't give me your tired pedophile argument...
You too want to discriminate against people based on who they choose to have sex with! You just don't want me to bring it up.

Matter of fact, we all discriminate against people based on who they choose to have sex with. If we didn't, we'd be quite the evil society, allowing all sorts of practices, like rape, incest, pediphilia, etc.

So, you're going to have to re-think your A/B dichotomy.
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 146
5/25/08 at 12:15am
Thread Starter 
As an aside, the people of Massachusetts and California disagree with you.

Massachusetts we cannot say for sure, because the overlords of the people there will not allow it to come up for a vote. But I highly suspect they would let gay marriage come up for a vote if it would pass the peoples vote.

As for California, the judicial overlords aren't able to stop the vote, at least not yet. And according to the Los Angeles Times most recent survey of registered voters, 54% support a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to between a man and a woman while only 35% oppose. That's a 19% margin.

Interestingly enough, when the first legislation passed there the polls showed it had 57% support and finally passed with 61.4% support, so support got stronger, not weaker, as is usually the case with these things.

But not only is it favored by 54% of Californians, according to this L.A. Times poll (Which, the L.A. Times does not want this to pass btw)

Quote:
All three major party registrations -- Republican, Independent, and Democratic -- support the constitutional amendment
Not only that, so do all age groups and so do men and overwhelmingly women. It's really strange because the left would like to say that homophobia prevents gays from marrying, yet men support their right to marry (According to this poll) more than women do.

So perhaps this won't drive more Republicans to the polls than I initially thought, since apparantly all three groups like the traditional definition of marriage.
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 146
5/25/08 at 1:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
You really should re-read through this thread. I quoted the Bible, specifically, showing you were the only religion we should be involved in is the caring for Widows and Orphans. How could you have missed that?
Didn't miss it. It's just not the legal justification you seem to think it is. If I quote you a bible verse that mandates the killing of witches, does that mean that killing witches is protected under "practicing religion"? The definition of our blanket right to "practice religion" finds it's boundaries when it infringes on the rights of others and violates the laws our government has established.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
People have the right not to be spoken out against based on their Republican oreintation.
No they don't. And that's where your ridiculous comparison falls flat on it's face. I don't know how I can make it more clear that your hypothetical analogy DOESN'T APPLY! Your argument is starting to remind me of Hillary Clinton's argument for winning the Democratic nomination. Complete denial of self evident logic is starting to make you look desparate. How can you possibly compare two totally alien concepts with totally different circumstances, core elements, and factors and pretend that one depicts, or illustrates the other. We're talking about reality here Baggi. Actual laws, actual issues, actual rights.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
The obvious answer is A. B isn't just the wrong answer, it is an evil answer.

You too want to discriminate against people based on who they choose to have sex with! You just don't want me to bring it up.

Matter of fact, we all discriminate against people based on who they choose to have sex with. If we didn't, we'd be quite the evil society, allowing all sorts of practices, like rape, incest, pediphilia, etc.

So, you're going to have to re-think your A/B dichotomy.
You are really getting out there. You can't seriously think like this can you?

It appears as if your argument is now completely falling apart. You're hopelessly clinging to a debunked analogy, and now you're trying to equate homosexuality with rape/incest...etc. You're trying to compare illegal activities that involve victims, with legal and consentual adult sex. Is it not at all apparent to you that your position is completely dependent on comparing unlike cirucumstances and embracing a definition of "religious liberty" that calls for any activity by a religious person / organization to supercede the legal authority of our government? When you're down to arguing nonsense like this, you've effectively been disproven.

There's no shame in losing a debate Baggi...
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 146
5/25/08 at 1:28am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
As an aside, the people of Massachusetts and California disagree with you.

Massachusetts we cannot say for sure, because the overlords of the people there will not allow it to come up for a vote. But I highly suspect they would let gay marriage come up for a vote if it would pass the peoples vote.

As for California, the judicial overlords aren't able to stop the vote, at least not yet. And according to the Los Angeles Times most recent survey of registered voters, 54% support a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to between a man and a woman while only 35% oppose. That's a 19% margin.

Interestingly enough, when the first legislation passed there the polls showed it had 57% support and finally passed with 61.4% support, so support got stronger, not weaker, as is usually the case with these things.

But not only is it favored by 54% of Californians, according to this L.A. Times poll (Which, the L.A. Times does not want this to pass btw)



Not only that, so do all age groups and so do men and overwhelmingly women. It's really strange because the left would like to say that homophobia prevents gays from marrying, yet men support their right to marry (According to this poll) more than women do.

So perhaps this won't drive more Republicans to the polls than I initially thought, since apparantly all three groups like the traditional definition of marriage.
And at a certain point in our history, I'd bet you could've gotten a popular vote to approve the practice of slavery, or to reject the idea of equal rights for women...does that make it right?
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 146
5/25/08 at 8:21am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by enickma View Post
And at a certain point in our history, I'd bet you could've gotten a popular vote to approve the practice of slavery, or to reject the idea of equal rights for women...does that make it right?
Not sure your point here.

Are you saying the overlords in Massachussets and California are right to reject Democracy?

It wasn't dictatorial judges that overturned slavery or gave equal rights to women, it was the people through the Democratic process.

Now that gays want to marry, suddenly we have to throw Democracy out the window and trust in our overlords?
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 146
5/25/08 at 8:41am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by enickma View Post
Didn't miss it. It's just not the legal justification you seem to think it is. If I quote you a bible verse that mandates the killing of witches, does that mean that killing witches is protected under "practicing religion"? The definition of our blanket right to "practice religion" finds it's boundaries when it infringes on the rights of others and violates the laws our government has established.
And yet our government hasn't established any laws giving homosex couples the right to marry. Instead, some black robed judges in Massachussetts and California discovered the law on the books.


Quote:
We're talking about reality here Baggi. Actual laws, actual issues, actual rights.
Not really. What would happen if the Governors of both Massachussetts and California told the Judges to go and pound sand? Judges are not capable of enforcing the laws that they make up.

Quote:
You are really getting out there. You can't seriously think like this can you?

It appears as if your argument is now completely falling apart. You're hopelessly clinging to a debunked analogy, and now you're trying to equate homosexuality with rape/incest...etc. You're trying to compare illegal activities that involve victims, with legal and consentual adult sex. Is it not at all apparent to you that your position is completely dependent on comparing unlike cirucumstances and embracing a definition of "religious liberty" that calls for any activity by a religious person / organization to supercede the legal authority of our government? When you're down to arguing nonsense like this, you've effectively been disproven.

There's no shame in losing a debate Baggi...
Your A and B did not include anything about legal and consentual. You posited

Quote:
Group B - We believe we should have the right to not be discriminated against because of who we choose to have sex with.
Quite obviously you do believe you can descrimate based on at least three (maybe four depending on how you see it) criteria you mentioned above. Your first criteria is a bit silly because it puts the cart before the horse. You're saying you can discriminate because its illegal. Duh. So then, let's make gay sex illegal and you'd be fine with descriminating against it? Somehow I doubt that.

Your second criteria for discrimination is if there are victims.

Well, of course we share those values and therefore agree on your first premise, A:

Quote:
Group A - We believe we should have the right to discriminate against you becuase of who you choose to have sex with.
That's right. We've even codified that belief into law and you've admitted that by saying

Quote:
You're trying to compare illegal activities
Yes, and they are illegal activities precisely because we, in a Democracy, believe A and not B.

Your third criteria is

Quote:
consentual adult sex
Although I think you fudged a bit on that one. Certainly you'd still want to discriminate "on who we choose to have sex with" if it involved siblings who were adults. Or father/daughter, mother/son who were adults. But maybe not, maybe that's why you included

Quote:
legal and consentual adult sex
the use of and instead of or. But once again you put the cart before the horse and that idiom is getting old quickly.

Once again, it is legal only because we as a society believe A instead of B. We've come to an agreement on who we can discriminate against. Namely, family members, non-adults, those who do not consent, polygamy, necrophilia (Or are they those who cannot consent?), sex with animals, etc.

Tomorrow some judges in California or Massachussets may suddenly realize that it is legal to have non-consenual sex with people of your choosing. Does it suddenly become right because it is legal?

Perhaps now you see the absurdity of your A/B choice.
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 146
5/25/08 at 1:51pm
I wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
If I quote you a bible verse that mandates the killing of witches, does that mean that killing witches is protected under "practicing religion"? The definition of our blanket right to "practice religion" finds it's boundaries when it infringes on the rights of others and violates the laws our government has established.
In response, you wrote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
And yet our government hasn't established any laws giving homosex couples the right to marry. Instead, some black robed judges in Massachussetts and California discovered the law on the books.
This reply illustrates that you've either misundestood, or chosen to ignore my point.

Whether or not Massachussets later became aware of a law they'd previously passed is immaterial to the fact that the philosophical justification for your claimed "right" is fundamentally flawed. I'm pointing out a glaring problem for an essential part of your argument...what say you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Your A and B did not include anything about legal and consentual.
Yes it did:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Me
Two groups with a simple position in regard to the public arena:

Group A - We believe we should have the right to discriminate against you becuase of who you choose to have sex with.

Group B - We believe we should have the right to not be discriminated against because of who we choose to have sex with.

Tell me honestly Baggi...as an American...in the country that said "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" ....who should win the above impasse?

And don't give me your tired pedophile argument...nothing illegal is happening here, no one is being victimized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Quite obviously you do believe you can descrimate based on at least three (maybe four depending on how you see it) criteria you mentioned above. Your first criteria is a bit silly because it puts the cart before the horse. You're saying you can discriminate because its illegal. Duh. So then, let's make gay sex illegal and you'd be fine with descriminating against it? Somehow I doubt that.

Your second criteria for discrimination is if there are victims.

Well, of course we share those values and therefore agree on your first premise, A:

they are illegal activities precisely because we, in a Democracy, believe A and not B.

We've come to an agreement on who we can discriminate against. Namely, family members, non-adults, those who do not consent, polygamy, necrophilia (Or are they those who cannot consent?), sex with animals, etc.
Show me the victim in the relationship between two gay people, and you can put them on the discrimination list.

For all your talk about carts and horses, do you not realize that when one is considering the interpretation of a "right", conflits with existing laws and rights must be taken into account?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Tomorrow some judges in California or Massachussets may suddenly realize that it is legal to have non-consenual sex with people of your choosing. Does it suddenly become right because it is legal?
No...they won't. I can guarantee you 100% that judges in California or Massachussets will not suddenly realize that rape should've been legal all along.

It's somewhat disturbing that you make your rationalizations in this manner. So, when you need to justify a belief, do you just make up some bizarre hypothetical situation that might hold a single aspect in common, and then settle it with youself by association to fantasy?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Perhaps now you see the absurdity of your A/B choice.
I suppose I don't need to tell you where I see absurdity.
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 146
5/25/08 at 8:55pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by enickma View Post
If I quote you a bible verse that mandates the killing of witches, does that mean that killing witches is protected under "practicing religion"? The definition of our blanket right to "practice religion" finds it's boundaries when it infringes on the rights of others and violates the laws our government has established.
Quote:
This reply illustrates that you've either misundestood, or chosen to ignore my point.
When I make a response to something you write, like the above, I put it in quotes and then respond. That's how you know i'm making a response to a particular thing that you wrote.

If i'm not mistaken, your above question implies that it is acceptable then if the Catholic Church loses it's right to practice its religion freely as guaranteed under the 1st amendment if it comes into conflict with gays who want to get married?


Quote:
Whether or not Massachussets later became aware of a law they'd previously passed is immaterial to the fact that the philosophical justification for your claimed "right" is fundamentally flawed. I'm pointing out a glaring problem for an essential part of your argument...what say you?
I say that since we both know that no state would vote to give the right to marry to homosex couples, that the right found by those judges was made up out of whole clothe.

I wrote:

Quote:

Your A and B did not include anything about legal and consentual.
You responded with:

Quote:
Yes it did:
And then you quoted your A and your B, plus your comments on A and B as if those comments were in themselves a part of both A and B.

You are going to have to re-write your A and B if you want to include something about legality being in there. But it appears obvious to me that you agree with A. A says;

Quote:
We believe we should have the right to discriminate against you becuase of who you choose to have sex with.
And you very clearly agree with this. Your response to me is

Quote:
Show me the victim in the relationship between two gay people, and you can put them on the discrimination list.
Therefore you acknowledge, once again, that as long as their is a victim in a sexual relationship, then they can be discriminated against. We might draw the lines in different areas, but we both agree that A is the proper and right way of looking at this thing.

Quote:
For all your talk about carts and horses, do you not realize that when one is considering the interpretation of a "right", conflits with existing laws and rights must be taken into account?
Which brings us back to what I said above. If the Catholic Churches 1st amendment right conflicts with a homosex's couples marriage, then the homosex couple's right is a higher right than that of the Catholic Church.

Quote:
No...they won't. I can guarantee you 100% that judges in California or Massachussets will not suddenly realize that rape should've been legal all along.

It's somewhat disturbing that you make your rationalizations in this manner. So, when you need to justify a belief, do you just make up some bizarre hypothetical situation that might hold a single aspect in common, and then settle it with youself by association to fantasy?
Heh, pot meet kettle. You're the guy who wrote:

Quote:
If I quote you a bible verse that mandates the killing of witches, does that mean that killing witches is protected under "practicing religion"?
Yes yes, I know, you won't see it as a disturbing rationalization to take away someones first amendment right. But its the same thing.

So you do understand the concept but you refuse to acknowledge it.

To wit: That even if 4 out of 7 judges somewhere in the United States discovered a right to rape, it wouldn't make it right, would it? Yet your line of argumentation seems to say, "If it's legal its right and if its illegal, its wrong." That's just silly.

Quote:
I suppose I don't need to tell you where I see absurdity.
Nope. You clearly see absurdity in making rape illegal, but not in the Catholic Church killing witches.

Let's forget the fact that rape is legal in parts of the world as a punishment to Muslim women while no where in the world is it legal for Catholics to kill "witches".
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 146
5/25/08 at 11:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
If i'm not mistaken, your above question implies that it is acceptable then if the Catholic Church loses it's right to practice its religion freely as guaranteed under the 1st amendment if it comes into conflict with gays who want to get married?
No, I'm saying the practice of discriminating against homosexuals while providing a government regulated social service is not protected under the definition of "practicing religion" because the logic used to justify such an interpretation of "practicing religion" is fundamentally flawed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
You quoted your A and your B, plus your comments on A and B as if those comments were in themselves a part of both A and B.

You are going to have to re-write your A and B if you want to include something about legality being in there.
Now your'e just being silly. Is this really the best you can do?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Therefore you acknowledge, once again, that as long as their is a victim in a sexual relationship, then they can be discriminated against. We might draw the lines in different areas, but we both agree that A is the proper and right way of looking at this thing.
Not at all. Discrimination against individuals should not occur on the SOLE BASIS of sexual orientation.

Your effort to confuse the issue by trying to equate homosexuality to crimes involving victims represents another sad attempt to justify something by comparing it to unlilke circumstances.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Which brings us back to what I said above. If the Catholic Churches 1st amendment right conflicts with a homosex's couples marriage, then the homosex couple's right is a higher right than that of the Catholic Church.
You're still trying to take irrational liberties with the definition of practicing religion. I have yet to hear you provide any justification for why our government should consider discriminating against homosexuals while providing a government regulated social service as "practicing religion". Quoting a bible verse doesn't provide legal justification for anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
To wit: That even if 4 out of 7 judges somewhere in the United States discovered a right to rape, it wouldn't make it right, would it? Yet your line of argumentation seems to say, "If it's legal its right and if its illegal, its wrong." That's just silly.
What if 4 out of 7 judges decided that Wednesdays were cross dressing days, and all citizens must dress as the other gender on Wednesday...??? It doesn't matter, it's not going to happen, we can do this all day....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
You clearly see absurdity in making rape illegal, but not in the Catholic Church killing witches.

Let's forget the fact that rape is legal in parts of the world as a punishment to Muslim women while no where in the world is it legal for Catholics to kill "witches".
Well... we are in the U.S...right? We are talking about our laws...our society...right? Rape is not legal in the U.S., nor can I imangine any circumstances under which it would ever be. Texas doesn't have laws preventing the criticism of Republicans...On the other hand...the bible actually DOES have bible verses mandating killing witches, and Christians did at one time kill witches here. My argument was to demonstrate the lack of legal justification and dangerous precedence that your argument presents, and I illustrated it with a scenario that actually does have some roots in reality. It's a little ditty I like to call an effective argument.
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 146
5/26/08 at 1:09am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by enickma View Post
No, I'm saying the practice of discriminating against homosexuals while providing a government regulated social service is not protected under the definition of "practicing religion" because the logic used to justify such an interpretation of "practicing religion" is fundamentally flawed.
Nothing is covered under the definition of "practicing religion" because the constitution doesn't guarantee that. Instead, it guarantees the free exercise thereof. The Massachussets Supreme Court has made up a law that limits the free exercise thereof.

I've shown you exactly where we are instructed, or at least the Catholic Church, on how to freely practice their religion. Yet you've decided to reject that argument because it demonstrates you are wrong.


Quote:
Now your'e just being silly. Is this really the best you can do?
It looks like you've given up on your A and B dichotomy. Very wise of you.

Quote:
Not at all. Discrimination against individuals should not occur on the SOLE BASIS of sexual orientation.
Ah, but this is our disagreement, isn't it? Just because your sexual orientation is to have sexual intercourse with children, dogs, siblings or people of the same gender doesn't mean you are above discrimination. We ought to discrimate against these folks.

Quote:
Your effort to confuse the issue by trying to equate homosexuality to crimes involving victims represents another sad attempt to justify something by comparing it to unlilke circumstances.
Yet you are the one confusing the issue. Your failure to defend your two choices of A and B tells me you realize just how weak your argument is. On the one hand, you want to pretend like you believe B:

Quote:
We believe we should have the right to not be discriminated against because of who we choose to have sex with.
But when I demonstrate where this line of thinking breaks down, you want to cry foul. If it applies once it applies at all times. Otherwise, you need to properly re-word it to convey what you really meant to say.

Quote:
You're still trying to take irrational liberties with the definition of practicing religion.
So you say. Apparantly we disagree over what this means:

Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Quote:
I have yet to hear you provide any justification for why our government should consider discriminating against homosexuals while providing a government regulated social service as "practicing religion". Quoting a bible verse doesn't provide legal justification for anything.
I'm not arguing a case in court so i'm not attempting to provide any legal justification for anything. You ought to make up your mind which it is you wish to hear. A compelling argument against same sex marriage, or a legal justification for the above.

I'm no lawyer so you're not going to get a legal justification for anything out of me. However, you've already be given a compelling argument as to why people who prefer certain types of sex ought to be denied the right to marry.

Quote:
Well... we are in the U.S...right? We are talking about our laws...our society...right? Rape is not legal in the U.S., nor can I imangine any circumstances under which it would ever be.
As I cannot imagine any circumstances where it might be legal for Christians to kill witches. But we both know that they happen.

Quote:
Texas doesn't have laws preventing the criticism of Republicans...On the other hand...the bible actually DOES have bible verses mandating killing witches, and Christians did at one time kill witches here.
They did at one time. Just as today people are legally raped in other countries. Yet somehow i'm the one being extreme.

Quote:
My argument was to demonstrate the lack of legal justification and dangerous precedence that your argument presents, and I illustrated it with a scenario that actually does have some roots in reality. It's a little ditty I like to call an effective argument.
At least we've learned how highly you think of yourself. Not sure how that furthers our disagreement.

It's not as important to me to pursuade you that i'm right or that you are wrong as it is to have clarity. Yet you keep patting yourself on the back, congratulating yourself for having defeated me in some manner, and criticizing/critiquing my arguments as though you are a third party and not directly involved.

How about a little humility and an attempt to understand the popular point of view?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Politics

Featured Stories on HotStockMarket

Stonerangers forum
e-mini S&P Futures Trading
Educational videos for new investors!
HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › Did the Republicans just get handed the Nov Election?