NationStates Jolt Archive

Are you thinking of chapter 11, reorganization? Chapter 13 is a business level bankrupcy and chapter 7 is a personal level bankrupcy. Anyway, what's that got to do with gay marriage?



Slippery slope. No one's talking about all of those other things, we're talking about what services consenting adults are allowed to recieve from the government. None of those things you mentioned involve only consenting adults, therefore your position is moot. You would have been better off going for polygamy or incest.
Than let us go with polygamy which is denied unconstitutionally.

It was a religious practice performed by the LDS church and than banned by the US after they performed such practice. That is unconstitutional. The Govt can make no restricting religious practice. But it happened, the LDS church sued over that breach of the constiotution, but was struct down. So Govt doesn't have to follow its laws.

If that can pass, than so can ban on gay marriage. Same boat dude, same boat.

What points did I dodge?

Do you know what the punishment for getting caught doing this was? Often the Nazis took your property and threw you in jail, if you were lucky. Later, they killed families who harbored Jews in their homes. Yeah, I probably wold have followed that law. I bet you would have, too, under threat of death.

Would I have? probably. And what of all the people who didn't? You'd say that they should have followed the law? You would say that we should all obey all laws simply because the punishment is death? Really? Cheers, you are the perfect person to live under a dictatiorship.

I'm not saying anyone should do anything. I'm simply pointing out the inconsistencies in your weak minded, poorly thought out argument.

You're pointing out inconstancies in a straw-man argument. I did not argue for moral relativism. You're arguing against moral relativism. I argue against moral relativism. Cheers.

Not out of context. They accurately represent your failed attempts at coherent debate. Rather than admit you're being inconsistent, you berate others and resort to name calling. Rather pathetic, actually. Its clear you have little or no debate skills, and when you can't think of an intelligent comeback, you act like a two year old (I should know, I raised three boys). Grow up and act like an adult.

I thought you were advocating a lack of personal attacks? I count about five personal attacks in there. Besides which you can comb through all of my posts and remove ALL insults and they are still valid posts making an intelligent rebuttal. Now see, that is not called resorting to name calling,, it is called inserting your opinion of the other person while showing them while they're wrong. Resorting to name calling would be simply calling them a dumbass, and leaving it at that.

In anycase, they are out of context. I'll go through them one by one for you.

Laws that are wrong should be broken. Like the speedlimit.

That was in response to someone saying that you should follow laws simply because they are laws. Hmm, so wait I'm saying someone should actually think about the purpose and point of the law before they follow it? Hmmm

Murder laws are good, Speed limit laws are wrong.

That was in response to someone trying to drag murder laws into the above statement. I simply pointed out that Murder laws are IMO valid and Speed limit laws are IMO foolish. I don't really seeing anything there that contradicts the above statement at all.

...hey it will only make me happy if I get to piss in public and walk around nude? I guess I should be able to do that ensure my happy life? No? Didn't think so.

And in this case you butcher the quote by removing pieces and taking it out of context of what it was in response to. here you go

its a constitutional right to live a good happy life, the way you want to live it. if marriage is something you need to live a happy life, the government shouldn’t be allowed to prevent it, no matter who or what you're marrying.

Its a constitutional right to the pursuit of a happy life. Not to a happy life.

Beyond that, hey it will only make me happy if I get to piss in public and walk around nude? I guess I should be able to do that ensure my happy life? No? Didn't think so. :rolleyes:

But hey, doesn't really matter. Since I've already explained my point to you before and I'll repeat it to you again.

You see, unlike what you insist upon believing, I’m not arguing that people should always follow their own personal feelings on every law. I’m not actually dumb enough to ever believe that. I am however smart enough to realize that all laws have a spirit and a point behind them. The Red light law is a fundamentally good thing. At the same time red light laws are idiotic at 2AM in the morning when it becomes useless.

And as I have already myself confirmed, the argument for breaking laws because you don't like them falls apart when extreme cases, like murder laws, are brought into play. Why you insist on repeating the same statement that I have already verified confirms that my previous statements regarding you are valid.

Than let us go with polygamy which is denied unconstitutionally.

It was a religious practice performed by the LDS church and than banned by the US after they performed such practice. That is unconstitutional. The Govt can make no restricting religious practice. But it happened, the LDS church sued over that breach of the constiotution, but was struct down. So Govt doesn't have to follow its laws.

If that can pass, than so can ban on gay marriage. Same boat dude, same boat.
Good point, I'll keep it in mind for future discussions over this subject.

Than let us go with polygamy which is denied unconstitutionally.

It was a religious practice performed by the LDS church and than banned by the US after they performed such practice. That is unconstitutional. The Govt can make no restricting religious practice. But it happened, the LDS church sued over that breach of the constiotution, but was struct down. So Govt doesn't have to follow its laws.

If that can pass, than so can ban on gay marriage. Same boat dude, same boat.
Actually, last I heard the church of latter day saints had renounced polygamy.

But that's really beside the point. The point is that the US govt. has made no law restricting the religious practices you refer to. No infringement of religion does not mean institutionalization of all religious practices. You can consider yourself married to as many people as you want in the eyes of your god(s), it just won't necessarily be reflected in the eyes of the law. Now, I'm not saying that it shouldn't be, just pointing out that there are some differences. I do think that there should be legal polygamous contracts, but not because of some religious freedom bullshit argument.
Equality man, it's all about equal opportunity.

Actually, last I heard the church of latter day saints had renounced polygamy.

On the record, yes. Off the record, no.

Than let us go with polygamy which is denied unconstitutionally.

It was a religious practice performed by the LDS church and than banned by the US after they performed such practice. That is unconstitutional. The Govt can make no restricting religious practice. But it happened, the LDS church sued over that breach of the constiotution, but was struct down. So Govt doesn't have to follow its laws.

If that can pass, than so can ban on gay marriage. Same boat dude, same boat.
Just because it was struck down does not make it right – A lot of things are overturned eventually hopefully the polygamy case as well (along with the ban on homosexual marriage)

You see, unlike what you insist upon believing, I’m not arguing that people should always follow their own personal feelings on every law. I’m not actually dumb enough to ever believe that. I am however smart enough to realize that all laws have a spirit and a point behind them. The Red light law is a fundamentally good thing. At the same time red light laws are idiotic at 2AM in the morning when it becomes useless.

But you are arguing that you should be able to follow your personal beliefs when it comes to this law, and I am just pointing out that, like your opinion on this, that other people may have their own opinions on which laws should be followed and not.

Forget about the extreme case of murder, let's focus on what you said about nudity and pissing in public. I think laws against nudity are stupid and so people who agree with me should just not follow them. By your standards for yourself regarding the red light at 2:00 am, I should just disregard that stupid law. You can't give me any compelling reason for dressing, just like you claim no one can give you a compelling reason to sit at a red light at 2:00 am when there is no traffic to be seen.

We can take this a step further and talk about pissing in public. It's noon in you local public park and there's no one to be seen. You need to relieve yourself so you find a nearby tree and let flow. Where's the harm in that?

You seem to be saying throughout this thread that laws that are stupid should be broken, no? Who decides whether they are stupid? You say it's ____________. I say it's the lawmakers and law enforcers, and if need be the people who think they are stupid should work to change them.

Please fill in the blank.

So, getting back to the original question... who says it's a Constitutional right? It isn't. Therefore, it shouldn't be legislated in the Constituion. It shouldn't even be an issue whether or not Bush is allowed to make it a CONSTITUTIONAL ammendment. The Constitution is there to set up the framework of our government. Such things as division of powers, powers of the president, rights to vote are included. What does marriage have to do with that?! He's just another fundi... Unfortunately, this one has power in places outside of the South.

either the ninth or teenth admandment clearly states the our basic rights arent limitedd in any way by the constitution and i beilieve that almost everywhere around the world it is regarded as a basic right, however gay marrige is complacting that in a way so thats why bush wants to clearly define it in our constitution...agree with me or not but thats what i think

either the ninth or teenth admandment clearly states the our basic rights arent limitedd in any way by the constitution and i beilieve that almost everywhere around the world it is regarded as a basic right, however gay marrige is complacting that in a way so thats why bush wants to clearly define it in our constitution...agree with me or not but thats what i think
What the heck does "complacting" mean?

Marriage is a contract that puts limitations on your rights anyway.
So it's illegal to cheat on yuor wife? That sucks :(

But you are arguing that you should be able to follow your personal beliefs when it comes to this law, and I am just pointing out that, like your opinion on this, that other people may have their own opinions on which laws should be followed and not.

No really? And you think that actually needs to be pointed out? You believe no one else on this planet could have thought of that? Do you want a "I'm special cause I'm pointing out something everyone knows" medal?

Forget about the extreme case of murder, let's focus on what you said about nudity and pissing in public. I think laws against nudity are stupid and so people who agree with me should just not follow them. By your standards for yourself regarding the red light at 2:00 am, I should just disregard that stupid law. You can't give me any compelling reason for dressing, just like you claim no one can give you a compelling reason to sit at a red light at 2:00 am when there is no traffic to be seen.

You’re not capable of taking things in context are you? Here's another update for you. Someone was dumb enough to say "people should be able to get married if that makes them happy." I decided to ask them a simple, rhetorical question, "really, so people should run around nude and piss in public if it makes them happy?" That statement had nothing to do with anything else that I said in the thread. But then, I shouldn’t expect any better from you.

We can take this a step further and talk about pissing in public. It's noon in you local public park and there's no one to be seen. You need to relieve yourself so you find a nearby tree and let flow. Where's the harm in that?

Run it through a simple idea. "If all people did this, what would happen" Well, a very unsanitary world would exist. Run my red lights through it and. "All people turn left on red lights when no traffic is coming" Well hey, sounds fine to me.

You seem to be saying throughout this thread that laws that are stupid should be broken, no? Who decides whether they are stupid? You say it's ____________. I say it's the lawmakers and law enforcers, and if need be the people who think they are stupid should work to change them.

No really? Because so far you've been unable to realize the underlying message is obey the spirit of laws, not the letter of the law? Despite the fact that I've explained that to you at least three times now? Until you feel like actually addressing the point I made go somewhere else. But hey, just because you’ve demonstrated your thick headedness already I’ll repeat the point to you again. Think about the laws you obey before you blindly obey them.

Please fill in the blank.

I have no need or desire to fill in the blank. Just because you continue to argue against something I am not a proponent of does not mean I will bother to defend it.

Cheers, now go have a drink.