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 8

post #141 of 146
5/26/08 at 2:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
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.
I don't reject it because it supposedly proves me wrong, I reject it because you're using flawed reasoning. By that logic, any action based on any interpretation of any scripture constitutes free exercise of religion. You can hardly claim such a thing as a constitutionally protected right. Hence the example of killing witches...as crazy as it sounds, by your logic it would be a constitutionally protected practice.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
It looks like you've given up on your A and B dichotomy. Very wise of you.

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.

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:

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.
I suppose I should have known better than to assume you'd recognize the commonly understood meaning of "orientation". You're playing childish games to avoid a tough question.

A. We feel we should have the right to discriminate against you while providing a government regulated service for no other reason than the fact that you choose to participate in a completely legal sexual practice

B. We feel we should not be discriminated against in public social matters that are regulated by the government, solely for participating in a completely legal sexual practice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
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.
You're claiming that your legal rights are being infringed upon... I'd expect you to be prepared to give a legally applicable reason and justification for why. And now that you mention it...we did start this with the expectation that you were going to provide a compelling argument against gay marriage. After hearing your argument I'm quite convinced that you're not arguing against gay marriage at all...you're arguing against anti-discrimination laws. It's those laws that your'e claiming violate your rights, not the right of gay couples to marry.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
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?
I think it's a little far fetched for you to claim your point of view as "popular'. And as far as the rest of that goes...perhaps try to understand a little smart ass humor instead of playing the victim. You are participating in this because you enjoy it right?
Reply
Reply

Featured Stories on HotStockMarket

Mark's Weekly Trading Log
thinkorswim Trading platform
Stonerangers forum
post #142 of 146
5/26/08 at 2:47am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by enickma View Post
I don't reject it because it supposedly proves me wrong, I reject it because you're using flawed reasoning. By that logic, any action based on any interpretation of any scripture constitutes free exercise of religion. You can hardly claim such a thing as a constitutionally protected right. Hence the example of killing witches...as crazy as it sounds, by your logic it would be a constitutionally protected practice.
Ahh, but killing "witches" or anybody for that matter would run into another constitutionally protected right. Gay marriage is not one of them.

Quote:
I suppose I should have known better than to assume you'd recognize the commonly understood meaning of "orientation". You're playing childish games to avoid a tough question.

A. We feel we should have the right to discriminate against you while providing a government regulated service for no other reason than the fact that you choose to participate in a completely legal sexual practice

B. We feel we should not be discriminated against in public social matters that are regulated by the government, solely for participating in a completely legal sexual practice.
I would restate A to say a practice that goes against our religious beliefs. Regardless, if that is what you meant to say the first time then it's definately more clear now than it was before.

After the rewording, I would still choose A but now I can see how you would be justified in choosing B. Until that time as a sexual practice you abore became legal. But since you do not accept that maybe someday the Muslim world will take over the United States (Peacefully or by force), nor do I for that matter, then you can keep it out of your mind that rape may someday be a "completely legal sexual practice" and continue to accept B.

Quote:
You're claiming that your legal rights are being infringed upon... I'd expect you to be prepared to give a legally applicable reason and justification for why.
Again, i'm not lawyer. At best i'm a laymen philosopher but probably do not even approach that. So yes, i'll give you my philosophy of law within a moral framework but i'll not be able to provide you with any sort of justification under current U.S. Law as ive not studied its intracacies and am no where near prepared for such a discussion.

Quote:
And now that you mention it...we did start this with the expectation that you were going to provide a compelling argument against gay marriage.
Which ive done and you've rejected.

Quote:
After hearing your argument I'm quite convinced that you're not arguing against gay marriage at all...you're arguing against anti-discrimination laws.
Not sure this is accurate, although it could be. I'm not arguing against many anti-discrimination laws (IE: Women, minorities, etc) but specifically about a particular sexual practice.

Quote:
It's those laws that your'e claiming violate your rights, not the right of gay couples to marry.
There might be other discrimination laws that violate my rights but i'm not aware of them. Therefore, i'm only focused on one particular area of discrimination, and that area involves the marriage of gays.


Quote:
I think it's a little far fetched for you to claim your point of view as "popular'.
Everywhere its been voted upon Gay Marriage has been rejected. Everywhere. How can my position not be the popular one? Even in Massachussetts gay marriage would not pass, which is probably the most liberal state in the union (And california). But the dictators of that state will not allow the plebes to vote.


Quote:
You are participating in this because you enjoy it right?
I would hope the both of us are.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 146
5/26/08 at 4:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Ahh, but killing "witches" or anybody for that matter would run into another constitutionally protected right. Gay marriage is not one of them.
No, gay marriage isn't a constitutionally protected right, but your supposed right is not in conflict with their right to marry, it's in conflict with their right not to be discriminated against in regard to government matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Again, i'm not lawyer. At best i'm a laymen philosopher but probably do not even approach that. So yes, i'll give you my philosophy of law within a moral framework but i'll not be able to provide you with any sort of justification under current U.S. Law as ive not studied its intracacies and am no where near prepared for such a discussion.
I'm no lawyer either, nor am I asking for lawyerism...just reasonable, general justifications consistent with a common understanding of our legal and judicial systems.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Which ive done and you've rejected.
Let's be clear here. I haven't rejected the end result of your argument, so much as I've rejected the logic that makes up your argument. If there were a way in which an individual or religious organization's right to exercise their religion was violated that wasn't in conflict with another group's civil rights, and wasn't dependent on a dangerously broad interpretation of "free exercise therof", and a very specific interpretation of multiple combined scriptures, I'd probably have a different take on it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Not sure this is accurate, although it could be. I'm not arguing against many anti-discrimination laws (IE: Women, minorities, etc) but specifically about a particular sexual practice.

There might be other discrimination laws that violate my rights but i'm not aware of them. Therefore, i'm only focused on one particular area of discrimination, and that area involves the marriage of gays.
Or more specifically a certain aspect of existing anti-discrimination laws. My only point was that technically gay marriage isn't what's directly violating what you're claiming as the free exercise of religion, an anti-discrimination law is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Baggi View Post
Everywhere its been voted upon Gay Marriage has been rejected. Everywhere. How can my position not be the popular one? Even in Massachussetts gay marriage would not pass, which is probably the most liberal state in the union (And california). But the dictators of that state will not allow the plebes to vote.
It may be the case that gay marriage wouldn't pass a popular vote right now. 5, 10 years down the road...I bet it will. That's beside the point though. I should've been more specific. I don't think most people that are against gay marriage, are against it because they feel it violates their right to exercise religion. I think most people that are against gay marriage, feel that way because they're against, or uncomfortable with the practice of homosexuality.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 146
5/27/08 at 1:00am
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 146
5/27/08 at 1:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by StockJock-e View Post




Reply
Reply
post #146 of 146
5/27/08 at 11:10am
all of this is heading in one direction......in time, someone of power will probably be assasinated, then the entire world will wind up in another world WAR, except this time, it wont be government militaries fighting... it will be civil wars in all nations... it is about time that this world cleared itself of all the things wrong in this world....
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Politics

Featured Stories on HotStockMarket

Mark's Weekly Trading Log
thinkorswim Trading platform
Stonerangers forum
HotStockMarket › Forums › Community › Politics › Did the Republicans just get handed the Nov Election?