Quote:You can argue until the day you die, but you'll never win. That train left the station and it ain't coming back.
I realize you'd like to return to Plessy v Ferguson (or pre-Magna Carta, lol), but modern readings of the Constitution and the Declaration make your claim null and void.
And to rant about forfeiting property rights or modern day police states just marginalizes you claims and makes you come across as a guy who should be living in Idaho without running water. Florida is a lot warmer.
Look, it's your property unless you do something with it that we decide you shouldn't. We all just have to face that fact that we aren't free, we own nothing, and we have little control over our lives. We are all property of the State.
Of the 3 transgenders in 1000 people, I think the vast majority are just cross-dressers. A smaller percentage start on hormone replacement and a tiny percentage actually have surgery. Of those that do pursue the physical changes, the further they pursue it the higher the suicide rate is. Attempting to transform one's gender does not seem like a very healthy thing to do. It certainly is not a healthy thing for society to allow this particular tail to wag the whole dog.
Quote:Look, it's your property unless you do something with it that we decide you shouldn't. We all just have to face that fact that we aren't free, we own nothing, and we have little control over our lives. We are all property of the State.
Sounds like the Matrix.
Quote:Sounds like the Matrix.
Art imitates life.
Quote: By making these statements you are affirming that you have no rights unless they are specifically permitted by the government, exactly what they want you to think. Our society is built on the opposite principle, that you have EVERY right unless specifically forbidden by the government acting under the constraint of the people to protect the individual. The idea that the government can permit or forbid any person from exercising inherent rights, including who to marry or to participate in our democratic institutions without cause, simply because other people think you shouldn't, is the firmest endorsement for minimal and weakened oversight. I can't believe either of you would agree to such a thing.
I think your confused I'll start with marriage, there's no right to marry. It's a religious practice at core and has nothing to do with the state. The unconstitutional temporary income tax is the only reason the state even plays into the equation. Being free to do something doesn't make it a constitutionally protected right.
As for voting the Constitution does not establish a right to vote, there are federal protections as to why you can't participate in elections but there's no right to vote.
A right as in the manor me and jib are speaking is an action that is protected specifically in the construction, the right to assemble peacefully and demonstrate the right to bear arms the freedom of press and so on....
Quote:You can argue until the day you die, but you'll never win. That train left the station and it ain't coming back.
I realize you'd like to return to Plessy v Ferguson (or pre-Magna Carta, lol), but modern readings of the Constitution and the Declaration make your claim null and void.
And to rant about forfeiting property rights or modern day police states just marginalizes you claims and makes you come across as a guy who should be living in Idaho without running water. Florida is a lot warmer.
Well I live in Florida without public water so the sterotype partially fits. I have no notions of rolling back discrimination laws I simply point to how they naturally evovle and it gets to the point of today where we have sections clamoring and probably going to get discrimination laws passed on bathroom facilities. The absurdity is used to demonstrate the detsructive power the state has to erode away your individual choice when used to correct a social injustice.
I argue to restrain the state because to me it's always the greatest threat.
I'm a mixed immigrant prejudice has no play in my views only the passed witness of a heavy government imposing it's view of Justice on the greater populace.
Quote:I think your confused I'll start with marriage, there's no right to marry. It's a religious practice at core and has nothing to do with the state. The unconstitutional temporary income tax is the only reason the state even plays into the equation. Being free to do something doesn't make it a constitutionally protected right.
As for voting the Constitution does not establish a right to vote, there are federal protections as to why you can't participate in elections but there's no right to vote.
A right as in the manor me and jib are speaking is an action that is protected specifically in the construction, the right to assemble peacefully and demonstrate the right to bear arms the freedom of press and so on....
No, I don't agree. You are simply saying that the State has the right to forbid you to marry. Marriage is an inherent right of a free person, the State should have no say in the matter and in doing so, you're conditioning yourself to accept their oversight of your life. The Constitution does not establish your rights, far from it in fact, the Constitution defines and restricts to power of the government concerning your rights, but your rights, as defined by our Founders, are from a higher source.You are speaking of the Enumerated Rights specified by the Constitution, but limiting the discussion to those rights alone allows the government to define the rest of your life. That's foolishness, because when you give an inch you end up with the IRS, government mandated licenses for nearly everything, property taxes that can result in confiscation and a myriad of other tyrannical avenues simply waiting for exploration. Philosophically speaking, we are contrasting the foundation of Common Law (law by precedent) to the Napoleonic Code (a law for every action). As for voting, it's true that there is no affirmative right listed, but the preponderance of the Amendments recognizes that right by listing those who can (African Americans, Women) and those who cannot (those under the age of 18).
Quote:No, I don't agree. You are simply saying that the State has the right to forbid you to marry. Marriage is an inherent right of a free person, the State should have no say in the matter and in doing so, you're conditioning yourself to accept their oversight of your life. The Constitution does not establish your rights, far from it in fact, the Constitution defines and restricts to power of the government concerning your rights, but your rights, as defined by our Founders, are from a higher source.You are speaking of the Enumerated Rights specified by the Constitution, but limiting the discussion to those rights alone allows the government to define the rest of your life. That's foolishness, because when you give an inch you end up with the IRS, government mandated licenses for nearly everything, property taxes that can result in confiscation and a myriad of other tyrannical avenues simply waiting for exploration. Philosophically speaking, we are contrasting the foundation of Common Law (law by precedent) to the Napoleonic Code (a law for every action). As for voting, it's true that there is no affirmative right listed, but the preponderance of the Amendments recognizes that right by listing those who can (African Americans, Women) and those who cannot (those under the age of 18).
From what I got from what he was saying is the state shouldn't have any right to do anything with marriage. Marriage is and should be a religious affair, but at some point we decide to use it to alter our tax code and now the state is involved. I think you two actually agree on this issue a lot more than you think.
Quote:From what I got from what he was saying is the state shouldn't have any right to do anything with marriage. Marriage is and should be a religious affair, but at some point we decide to use it to alter our tax code and now the state is involved. I think you two actually agree on this issue a lot more than you think.
That's exactly what he meant.
As for whether marriage or voting is actually a 'right' it's not a protected right under the Constitution or Bill of Rights. I assume the forefathers had it in mind that people should be able to marry and vote and making it a 'right' wasn't even a thought because well, why? I hope that makes sense.
Quote:Just don't take a dump in the urinal!
And don't urinate on the floor or the toilet seat!
Quote:No, I don't agree. You are simply saying that the State has the right to forbid you to marry. Marriage is an inherent right of a free person, the State should have no say in the matter and in doing so, you're conditioning yourself to accept their oversight of your life. The Constitution does not establish your rights, far from it in fact, the Constitution defines and restricts to power of the government concerning your rights, but your rights, as defined by our Founders, are from a higher source.You are speaking of the Enumerated Rights specified by the Constitution, but limiting the discussion to those rights alone allows the government to define the rest of your life. That's foolishness, because when you give an inch you end up with the IRS, government mandated licenses for nearly everything, property taxes that can result in confiscation and a myriad of other tyrannical avenues simply waiting for exploration. Philosophically speaking, we are contrasting the foundation of Common Law (law by precedent) to the Napoleonic Code (a law for every action). As for voting, it's true that there is no affirmative right listed, but the preponderance of the Amendments recognizes that right by listing those who can (African Americans, Women) and those who cannot (those under the age of 18).
Bravo. Excellent post!
Quote:From what I got from what he was saying is the state shouldn't have any right to do anything with marriage. Marriage is and should be a religious affair, but at some point we decide to use it to alter our tax code and now the state is involved. I think you two actually agree on this issue a lot more than you think.
To say that marriage is not a right is to permit government to define it, restrict it, regulate it, and, as we have seen, to deny it. Marriage as an institution should exist beyond the span of government, though some legal recognition of the union is neccesary for civil matters. Restricting marriage to the religious connotation should be anathema to our society, and I think Eric agrees; we disagree on the rights issue, not the government one. The person has every right, but the State has assimilated it under its control.
I don't have any issue with same sex marriage with ONE caveat, do not force anyone to participate in your marriage. If a Priest won't marry you, too bad go somewhere else, if a baker won't bake your gay wedding cake--too bad.
Two dudes or two ladies getting hitched doesn't effect anybody. The world is a miserable enough place and those people want to pursue their happiness in a way that doesn't harm anyone else, more power to em.
To me, Matrimony is a religious marriage that involves a man, a woman, and God. Marriage is the domain of the secular to me.
Quote:To say that marriage is not a right is to permit government to define it, restrict it, regulate it, and, as we have seen, to deny it. Marriage as an institution should exist beyond the span of government, though some legal recognition of the union is neccesary for civil matters. Restricting marriage to the religious connotation should be anathema to our society, and I think Eric agrees; we disagree on the rights issue, not the government one. The person has every right, but the State has assimilated it under its control.
If everything is a right then everything had to be protected. That's the purpose of enumerated rights to guanrtee their protection under law. Marriage and other religious ceremonies don't need protection under law they need to be left out of law. To argue that I have the right to marry someone anyone gay straight racial ect would require the state to legislate and define what types of marriage are protected and what kind are not. That is what I oppose, the state has no authority no should it have any authority to dictate religious actions so long as they do no violate the protected rights of other parties. I can't marry someone in a venue that violates the freedom of religion a specific church might practice for example.
But if my wife is cool with me have ten wives (which she definitely wouldn't be lol) then who is the state to say I must have only one wife?
Quote:If everything is a right then everything had to be protected. That's the purpose of enumerated rights to guanrtee their protection under law. Marriage and other religious ceremonies don't need protection under law they need to be left out of law. To argue that I have the right to marry someone anyone gay straight racial ect would require the state to legislate and define what types of marriage are protected and what kind are not. That is what I oppose, the state has no authority no should it have any authority to dictate religious actions so long as they do no violate the protected rights of other parties. I can't marry someone in a venue that violates the freedom of religion a specific church might practice for example.
But if my wife is cool with me have ten wives (which she definitely wouldn't be lol) then who is the state to say I must have only one wife?
Exactly, the person has every Right, and the State is permitted to restrict some of them for various reasons while others, like the right to marry who you want, should be outside that scope. You can't identify every right that must be protected, there's far too many to codify, you have to approach it the other way by limiting what the government may restrict. We're losing this fight for our Enumerated Rights as it is, if we don't fight for the whole of the Unenumerated ones too then eventually we won't keep any of them.
Quote:Look, it's your property unless you do something with it that we decide you shouldn't. We all just have to face that fact that we aren't free, we own nothing, and we have little control over our lives. We are all property of the State.
Great Drama Queen response! You're getting good at this! You can join Eric in the Time Travel Caravan and live in the 1880s.
It's a real shame you're aren't allowed to own who you want and be able to do with it/them what you want. That Declaration/Constitution can be such an impediment!
I also like the non-democratic dismissal of the "we". Yep, you're totally powerless in our society. Playing the Victim Drama Queen is even better!
Great job.
Quote:Great Drama Queen response! You're getting good at this! You can join Eric in the Time Travel Caravan and live in the 1880s.
It's a real shame you're aren't allowed to own who you want and be able to do with it/them what you want. That Declaration/Constitution can be such an impediment!
I also like the non-democratic dismissal of the "we". Yep, you're totally powerless in our society. Playing the Victim Drama Queen is even better!
Great job.
Sure, that's what I want.
It's funny how my wanting to be left alone is equated with slavery, it's like you have no other argument except that one card. I have no desire to own other people, nor the desire to tell them what to do with their lives. I don't want to tell you who you can or can't marry, who you must or shall not associate with, which god or any god you should worship, what to do with your money or your time...none of it. I simply want to be free from interference in how I run my own life as pertains to those matters. I want what's best for me and for you, and that's for me to stay out of your life and you to stay out of mine. I don't need you and you shouldn't need me, if you do then that isn't my problem.
Only liberal vermin are so sick that they want to allow pedophiles and sex offenders free access to restrooms of the opposite gender.
What a bunch of sick freaks. They must not have children. (Probably all aborted) If they did, they wouldn't want some dude sharing the ladies room with their little girl.
Sick, sick, sick.
Quote:Great Drama Queen response! You're getting good at this! You can join Eric in the Time Travel Caravan and live in the 1880s.
It's a real shame you're aren't allowed to own who you want and be able to do with it/them what you want. That Declaration/Constitution can be such an impediment!
I also like the non-democratic dismissal of the "we". Yep, you're totally powerless in our society. Playing the Victim Drama Queen is even better!
Great job.
When you result to hyperbole about wanting to own slaves you lose all credibility your better than that Adam.
Quote:Exactly, the person has every Right, and the State is permitted to restrict some of them for various reasons while others, like the right to marry who you want, should be outside that scope. You can't identify every right that must be protected, there's far too many to codify, you have to approach it the other way by limiting what the government may restrict. We're losing this fight for our Enumerated Rights as it is, if we don't fight for the whole of the Unenumerated ones too then eventually we won't keep any of them.
We're using different words but agree.