Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12710
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 5:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Longshanks wrote: | Cousin Abe's speeches advocating secession are on the internet. Ayn Rand is brilliant. The writers of the constitution advocated state's rights, as any federalist would, and there is a difference between charity and enforced socialism. My impression is that you misunderstand the difference, Even Jefferson advocated small government and no government interference. You have yet to defend any position you have maintained with documented fact. You make statements of thoughts but no fact to back them up. You appear to just take everything on blind faith. While faith and belief are two of the keys to Christianity, I require more concrete proof on secular matters.
-Longshanks |
I may check out Lincoln's speeches - though the indisputable fact remains, he fought to keep our country united, thus keeping to his oath to fight all enemies, foreign or domestic.
And what the hell is wrong with the government helping the most vulnerable of us? My six year old daughter, who has been diagnosed with PDD-NOS (which is also on the autistic spectrum), receives special education by way of the government. If you want to call that socialism, go ahead. But the fact remains, because of that particular piece of "socialism," my little girl will be able to have a future in adult life. And so forgive me, but I could care less if that is somehow a burden on the rest of the country. And what's wrong with keeping people from going without food or shelter, or medical care because of poverty, job loss, or handicap? In fact, in Leviticus, the owners of grain fields had been commanded to leave some behind so the poor could eat. Sounds like an early example of enforced socialism to me. In fact, my church's Bible study group had agreed that that was exactly what it was.
And while Jefferson was entitled to his opinion, the America he was writing about was a pre-industrial, agrarian country. I hardly think the same ideas can be applied to an industrial nation like modern America, where a thriving population can literally live or die at the whims of the market, especially now that the gains of labor are being driven back. It's obvious segments of the country in need should be given help as they need it. Think of it as an investment in the American people.
And I don't consider myself to be taking everything on blind faith, but with an open mind - and yes, a bleeding heart  . But I could just as easily accuse you of looking at the world through the prism of a right wing mind set, without regarding that the world extends beyond the Republican party, or the Southern Baptist Church. Those of us who disagree with you aren't Christ hating, America hating monsters, like Fox, Beck, and Limbaugh claim.
And for the record, I read Rand's Anthem in high school. I didn't see anything special about her writing, and her philosophy behind it was egotistic and self centered.
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
Longshanks
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 03, 2012
Posts: 513
Location: At an undisclosed airbase at Shangri-la
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, yes, go on! It is obvious to me that you are disgusted with the fact that churches are better, more generous, more econimical and more efficient with charity than the government. Oh, what a bitter pill for you to swallow! Can I stand the irony of it all? 
_________________
Supporter of the Brian Terry Foundation @ www.honorbrianterry.com. Special Agent Brian Terry (1970-2010) was murdered as a direct result of Operation Fast & Furious - which Barry O won't discuss - wonder why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Kraichgauer
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 13, 2010
Age: 47
Posts: 12710
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 11, 2012 11:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Longshanks wrote: | | Yes, yes, go on! It is obvious to me that you are disgusted with the fact that churches are better, more generous, more econimical and more efficient with charity than the government. Oh, what a bitter pill for you to swallow! Can I stand the irony of it all? |
They are? Last time I looked, churches have limited resources, while governments do not. And so the government can reach far more people for the unforeseen future.
And for the record, I have absolutely no problem with churches helping people. My own home congregation helps out people in need - and my family have been the recipients of their generosity more than once. But that can only go so far. As far as I'm concerned, both the government and religious institutions can - and should - work side by side to help those in need.
And by the way, when did I ever say what you're accusing me of?
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer |
|
| Back to top |
|
auntblabby
Chief Assistant to the Assistant Chief
Joined: Feb 13, 2010
Posts: 18075
Location: the island of loveable toy humans
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shouldn't this battle be in PP&R? |
|
| Back to top |
|
Cornflake
Rattles when shaken
Joined: Oct 31, 2010
Posts: 30203
Location: Hertfordshire, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
^^ Agreed.
[Moved from News and Current Events to PPR]
_________________
Giraffe: a ruminant with a view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Jacoby
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Posts: 4004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The voters and the courts don't have any business involving the matter of marriage. It is only between the parties involved and whatever higher power they believe or don't believe in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29275
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 9:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Jacoby wrote: | | The voters and the courts don't have any business involving the matter of marriage. It is only between the parties involved and whatever higher power they believe or don't believe in. |
This is a dicey position when certain benefits accrue to people, precisely because they are legally married. If you wish to take this position, then get rid of the benefits paid for at public expense.
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
DW_a_mom
Ignoring the To-Do List
Joined: Feb 23, 2008
Posts: 9295
Location: Northern California
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Longshanks wrote: | | Irrelevent. Just like being a licensed professional (doctor, lawyer, etc.) is a privilege, so is marriage. |
I think that is a huge stretch. No one has to prove competence or pass a test to get married, they simply have to be of age (in most states, at least, given that there are some variations of old racial laws, etc still on the books).
No can have their marriage revoked by the state unless they, themselves, ask the state to revoke it (divorce).
It is basically treated as something completely within the control of consenting adults, with the restraints that do exist designed to protect the state from the burden of a suddenly indigent divorcee or neglected child or similar.
The real question with marriage, in my opinion, doesn't concern rights, however, it concerns the interests of society in making sure that as many citizens are properly cared for within family units as possible. And in that situation, gay marriage has reached its time. When science disassociated the ability to have children from being the exclusive domain of a man and woman engaging in intercourse, everything changed.
I had to really think about this one, between being Catholic and having many gay relatives and family members I felt divided for a while, and decided the real question to ask was, what is different now thousands of years ago, which is basically the time our current concept of marriage comes from?
I voted against proposition 8, but am concerned about what will happen at the Supreme Court. It was the Supreme Court, after all, that upheld the blatantly biased property tax laws from prop 13 simply because it was the will of the voters. Still, I am hopeful that they can and will see an issue of social construction differently than they did a financial one.
I know you are looking for cold, hard legal facts in this argument, but I honestly find that to be the wrong approach. Marriage is a social institution, evolved for social reasons. To figure out where to take it going forward, and what changes mean, I believe you have to look at where it came from and the purposes it has served in our society. As those change, so should the institution.
_________________
Mom to an amazing AS boy (plus a non-AS daughter). Have at least a few AS genes myself, although probably more NT than AS.
---
Think of the greening of my name as an emeritus thing; I used to be a moderator but am retired and have no authority to act
Last edited by DW_a_mom on Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:58 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
DW_a_mom
Ignoring the To-Do List
Joined: Feb 23, 2008
Posts: 9295
Location: Northern California
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Longshanks wrote: |
Now, it has been argued that gay marriage is a civil right. If this were true, than marriage itself would have to be a civil right. This is not the case. If this were so, that legal phenomenon known as common-law marriage would have to be recognized by all fifty states. As of this writing, only sixteen states in the United States recognize common-law marriage. |
I think the situation with common law marriage shows something completely different: it is the state imposing its choice about a pair of adults outside of the decisions (specifically, not to be married) they have made themselves. There was a point in time the concept could protect a family unit that either was too indigent to get married, or where one of the parties was exerting unfair control in withholding marriage from the other. In the past 50-60 years, however, most states have come to realize that most unmarried couples living together made a conscious and joint choice to not become a legal family unit, and decided they did not have a significant interest in interfering with that choice.
_________________
Mom to an amazing AS boy (plus a non-AS daughter). Have at least a few AS genes myself, although probably more NT than AS.
---
Think of the greening of my name as an emeritus thing; I used to be a moderator but am retired and have no authority to act |
|
| Back to top |
|
CrazyCatLord
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 25, 2011
Posts: 2177
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Longshanks wrote: | | Marriage is a privilege - not a right. |
Legal adults have the right (not the privilege) to enter into a legal contract. Marriage is a legal contract between two adults. |
|
| Back to top |
|
blauSamstag
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 06, 2011
Posts: 1880
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What i find amusing about prop 8 is that the proponents appear to not understand the concept of standing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
simon_says
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 21, 2011
Posts: 2443
|
|
| Back to top |
|
LKL
Phoenix
Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5684
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The final paragraph of the 'Loving v. Virgina' descision of the SCOTUS:
| Quote: | The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. |
http://www.ameasite.org/loving.asp
The 9th Circuit judgment on Prop.8:
| Quote: | | Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Jacoby
Phoenix
Joined: Dec 11, 2007
Posts: 4004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ruveyn wrote: | | Jacoby wrote: | | The voters and the courts don't have any business involving the matter of marriage. It is only between the parties involved and whatever higher power they believe or don't believe in. |
This is a dicey position when certain benefits accrue to people, precisely because they are legally married. If you wish to take this position, then get rid of the benefits paid for at public expense.
ruveyn |
Sounds good to me. Don't see why married people should get special benefits that the rest of us don't. If people want to enter agreements with each other then more power to them? |
|
| Back to top |
|
ruveyn
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 22, 2008
Age: 76
Posts: 29275
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 12, 2012 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Jacoby wrote: | | ruveyn wrote: | | Jacoby wrote: | | The voters and the courts don't have any business involving the matter of marriage. It is only between the parties involved and whatever higher power they believe or don't believe in. |
This is a dicey position when certain benefits accrue to people, precisely because they are legally married. If you wish to take this position, then get rid of the benefits paid for at public expense.
ruveyn |
Sounds good to me. Don't see why married people should get special benefits that the rest of us don't. If people want to enter agreements with each other then more power to them? |
Amen and even Selah!
ruveyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
