Finally the Courts Give Meaning to the 10th Amendment

Dixie said:
The government exists to do whatever the fuck WE THE PEOPLE tell them to do! If we want our "traditions" protected, that is what government is obligated to do! You seem to be thinking like Stringy, that our Government has some sort of ordained POWER to dictate the rules to US... it's just ODD that you seem to think their dictation should come from your particular point of view. Is there some secret book of Godless Libertarian Morals that Government consults when meting out their authoritarian mandates to us lowly proles?

Both of you have shown how FULL OF SHIT you are, and how it is absolutely PHONY, this "libertarian" viewpoint you supposedly have. Both of you are being Fascist Nazis, supporting Fascist Nazism, and attempting to impose your authoritarian WILL on the American people. It will not be tolerated!
Click to expand...


Do you mean traditions like:
Being able to own slaves
Being able to deny women the right to vote
Being able to marry underage females
Being able to deny different races from being married
Being able to abuse your wife

:palm:
 
Damocles said:
Except for the portion that restricts the government from stepping on Free Exercise. Others believe differently than this "tradition", and they have every right to the Free Exercise of their beliefs. The government should NOT be defining religious "tradition" into law as it conflicts with the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment which applies to the states because of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Basically, your saying that any freakshow cult should be able to do whatever sort of fucked up things they want to so long as it is part of their religion? Is that what you're saying?
 
Damocles said:
Except for the portion that restricts the government from stepping on Free Exercise. Others believe differently than this "tradition", and they have every right to the Free Exercise of their beliefs. The government should NOT be defining religious "tradition" into law as it conflicts with the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment which applies to the states because of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. We've defined NUMEROUS religious traditions into our laws. In fact, almost EVERY law is rooted in some religiously-based morality. This is why it is so fundamentally important for you to establish this particular issue as "religious dogma" even though you have no basis for the argument.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Do you mean traditions like:
Being able to own slaves
Being able to deny women the right to vote
Being able to marry underage females
Being able to deny different races from being married
Being able to abuse your wife

:palm:
Click to expand...

It seems to me, all of those things were law of the land, and upheld by the courts for years.... right here in the good old US of A! So it seems kind of stupid and retarded to be claiming we can't establish whatever we want the law to be, as citizens of the USA. Don't look now, but you just confirmed my point!
 
Dixie said:
It seems to me, all of those things were law of the land, and upheld by the courts for years.... right here in the good old US of A! So it seems kind of stupid and retarded to be claiming we can't establish whatever we want the law to be, as citizens of the USA. Don't look now, but you just confirmed my point!
Click to expand...

And just like those traditions changed, no matter how much you wanted them to stay the same, the tradition of marriage will change and allow same sex marriages.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
And just like those traditions changed, no matter how much you wanted them to stay the same, the tradition of marriage will change and allow same sex marriages.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Just like the tradition of massive immigration will change according to the needs of the new normal. The bankers are putting our economy on extinguish, considering that, new immigrants will just drive down wages.

We used to need lots of immigrants, now we don't. the only constant is change.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Basically, your saying that any freakshow cult should be able to do whatever sort of fucked up things they want to so long as it is part of their religion? Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...
As long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of another. Let's say a child was being forced into a marriage, that conflicts with his/her rights. Children are incapable of consent, and no child can be forced to be a martyr (see Roe v. Wade). However, that is largely already covered by contract law, children wouldn't be able to enter into this contractual relationship.

Dogs/Cats/horses/et al also cannot "consent" or enter a contract. Nor can roller coasters and rocks.
 
Damocles said:
Except for the portion that restricts the government from stepping on Free Exercise. Others believe differently than this "tradition", and they have every right to the Free Exercise of their beliefs. The government should NOT be defining religious "tradition" into law as it conflicts with the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment which applies to the states because of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

The Government should also not be codifying sexually deviant behaviors into law and forcing those immoral concepts on the rest of society against their will.
 
Dixie said:
No it doesn't. We've defined NUMEROUS religious traditions into our laws. In fact, almost EVERY law is rooted in some religiously-based morality. This is why it is so fundamentally important for you to establish this particular issue as "religious dogma" even though you have no basis for the argument.
Click to expand...
That the government violates its own restrictions often doesn't make it better.
 
Dixie said:
The Government should also not be codifying sexually deviant behaviors into law and forcing those immoral concepts on the rest of society against their will.
Click to expand...
Which they wouldn't be if they got out of marriage. You are arguing against your own supposed "solution"...
 
Damocles said:
As long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of another. Let's say a child was being forced into a marriage, that conflicts with his/her rights. Children are incapable of consent, and no child can be forced to be a martyr (see Roe v. Wade). However, that is largely already covered by contract law, children wouldn't be able to enter into this contractual relationship.
Click to expand...

Children are "deemed" incapable of consent because that is the LAWS we established, Dumoass! If we can "redefine" marriage, we can "redefine" consent as well! It's all based on a moral judgment WE established! The 14th says, if you are going to allow "traditions" of one sexual deviation, you have to equally consider ALL "tradition" of sexual deviation. You can't pick and choose, once you've made that the criteria!
 
Dixie said:
Children are "deemed" incapable of consent because that is the LAWS we established, Dumoass! If we can "redefine" marriage, we can "redefine" consent as well! It's all based on a moral judgment WE established! The 14th says, if you are going to allow "traditions" of one sexual deviation, you have to equally consider ALL "tradition" of sexual deviation. You can't pick and choose, once you've made that the criteria!
Click to expand...
Nah, it is simply contract law. Since the government would solely be defining contract limitations on "unions" and children are unable to enter contracts, it would already be covered. However, understanding the right of individuals to be protected from the victimization of others, such as in pedophilia, isn't "tradition" it is simple understanding of rights.
 
Dixie said:
No, I am arguing AGAINST Gay Marriage, and you are arguing FOR Gay Marriage.
Click to expand...
I am arguing against government intervention in any marriage except to protect the rights of children. You are deliberately misreading my "argument".
 
Damocles said:
As long as it doesn't conflict with the rights of another. Let's say a child was being forced into a marriage, that conflicts with his/her rights. Children are incapable of consent, and no child can be forced to be a martyr (see Roe v. Wade). However, that is largely already covered by contract law, children wouldn't be able to enter into this contractual relationship.

Dogs/Cats/horses/et al also cannot "consent" or enter a contract. Nor can roller coasters and rocks.
Click to expand...


Well, I was kind of trying to take it out of the specific context of marriage. I'm just trying to get your point is all.

I think I've waded back into this thread way too late in the game so nevermind.
 
Damocles said:
Nah, it is simply contract law. Since the government would solely be defining contract limitations on "unions" and children are unable to enter contracts, it would already be covered. However, understanding the right of individuals to be protected from the victimization of others, such as in pedophilia, isn't "tradition" it is simple understanding of rights.
Click to expand...

Children being able to enter into contracts is a morally-based and establish LAW that We The People made, and which We The People can also change or alter at any time! Victimization is also determined by the parameters of morally-established LAW that WE created! Pedophiles will argue that children are not "victimized" by having sex with adults, that they actually ENJOY it! Yeah, I know, it's sick beyond your wildest dreams, but believe it or not, there are a LOT of really sick perverted people out there! Not everyone THINKS like a Libertarian! Not everyone agrees with YOUR definition of "victim" or YOUR establishment of artificial parameters for consent or "capacity to understand!"
 
NigelTufnel said:
Well, I was kind of trying to take it out of the specific context of marriage. I'm just trying to get your point is all.

I think I've waded back into this thread way too late in the game so nevermind.
Click to expand...
S'a'ight...

I simply believe that the easiest solution to "gay marriage" is to get government out of "marriage" issue all licenses as "Unions" and use contract law to define unions based on consent rather than on "traditions", etc. The religions get to keep ALL of their traditions and exercise their beliefs within the framework of "union" licensing and age of consent.
 
Dixie said:
Children being able to enter into contracts is a morally-based and establish LAW that We The People made, and which We The People can also change or alter at any time! Victimization is also determined by the parameters of morally-established LAW that WE created! Pedophiles will argue that children are not "victimized" by having sex with adults, that they actually ENJOY it! Yeah, I know, it's sick beyond your wildest dreams, but believe it or not, there are a LOT of really sick perverted people out there! Not everyone THINKS like a Libertarian! Not everyone agrees with YOUR definition of "victim" or YOUR establishment of artificial parameters for consent or "capacity to understand!"
Click to expand...
Yes, people could change contract law at any time, but the basis of all contract law is consent.
 
Dixie said:
Children being able to enter into contracts is a morally-based and establish LAW that We The People made, and which We The People can also change or alter at any time! Victimization is also determined by the parameters of morally-established LAW that WE created! Pedophiles will argue that children are not "victimized" by having sex with adults, that they actually ENJOY it! Yeah, I know, it's sick beyond your wildest dreams, but believe it or not, there are a LOT of really sick perverted people out there! Not everyone THINKS like a Libertarian! Not everyone agrees with YOUR definition of "victim" or YOUR establishment of artificial parameters for consent or "capacity to understand!"
Click to expand...


Are we back to Dixie the moral relativist again?
 
Damocles said:
S'a'ight...

I simply believe that the easiest solution to "gay marriage" is to get government out of "marriage" issue all licenses as "Unions" and use contract law to define unions based on consent rather than on "traditions", etc. The religions get to keep ALL of their traditions and exercise their beliefs within the framework of "union" licensing...
Click to expand...


Yeah, SF talks about that solution all the time. Personally, I think it's pretty silly but I get the reasoning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top