Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

User information for Morlock

Real Name Morlock   
Search for:
 
Sort results:   Ascending Descending
Limit results:
 
 
 
Nickname Morlock
Email Concealed by request
ICQ None given.
Description
Homepage http://
Signed On Mar 12, 2004, 20:34
Total Comments 39 (Suspect)
User ID 20349
 
User comment history
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


News Comments > Out of the Blue
190. Re: $0.02 Apr 17, 2004, 14:33 Morlock
 
Jumping in on converssations and replies not meant for you generally isnt the best thing to do.

Kissing my ass probably isn't the best thing to do either, but I could still ask you to do it.

Have you heard the words out of this mans mouth?
"God told me to strike at Osama. I did that. God told me to strike at Saddam..." -George Walker Bush
If this quotation isn't clear evidence that your president is marrying church and state in a straight ceremony...

It isn't. You're just too blinded by your bigotry to know that a) there is no legal basis for the separation of church and state and b) nowhere did he claim to be a holy man.

"practically speaking, no unbiased sources when it comes to controversial or relevant social issues"
Uh... the history of the bible (which I was referring to) isn't exactly controversial.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thanks for proving how stupid and uninformed you are.

There are two sides: Christians Side "The bible as is is GOds message to Man:
Sane Side "The bible has been rewritten many times throughout history, and is not an accurate historical document".

So, when the earliest versions are retranslated, thus circumventing the subsequent rewritings, this just doesn't even appear on your radar, right?

My comment was that getting "evidence" supporting the christian viewpoint from mumbo-pocus websites isn't compelling in an argument.

No, jagoff, your comment was that the government should step in and stop public displays of what YOU consider ahistorical, in other words, you want to abridge the right of free speech in pursuit of your social engineering goals.

You've said you aren't an American citizen, right? Well, we can all agree that's a very very good thing.

"All those people and sources you think are unbiased are anything but"
Which sources? Which people? You have no idea where I get my information from - heres that strawman you hate so much.

It doesn't matter WHERE you get your information, because ALL information concerning social matters is biased. ALL OF IT! When people are studying things that have an impact on human life, their conclusions and even their data are BY DEFINITION biased. Wake up and smell the real world.

So, a congressman, respecting an establishment of religion, such as Christianity, voting in Congress to make a law respective to Christianity isn't in violation of that amendment?

Thaaaaat's RIIIIIGHT! The wording is clear: Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion. It doesn't say that "your religion shall not inform your legislation."

Learn english. The church and state separation does indeed go both ways, hence the end of the quoted sentence.

Apparently it is YOU who needs to learn English, Mr. Digestional.

This comment was edited on Apr 17, 14:36.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
189. Re: $0.02 Apr 17, 2004, 14:19 Morlock
 
Historical Accuracy? Unless you saw the Jesus that was stolen from a nativity scene in I believe Tennesee, not one of those scenes depicts Jesus as having dark brown skin; he was either Arab or Black, and that is a fact historians both Christian and sane agree on.

Astounding fact #1: Arabs are Caucasoid. Yes I know, you might need time to absorb that. Astounding fact #2, Jesus's racial stock is probably best imagined by looking at Palestinians or Sephardic Jews - they aren't brown, they're white.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
186. Re: $0.02 Apr 16, 2004, 15:50 Morlock
 
it isn't possible for a man and a woman to feel for each other what two men or two women can

L.A.C.K O.F. U.N.D.E.R.S.T.A.N.D.I.N.G.
The fact that gays want to get married shows that even if that is the case, whatever they do feel is strong enough to 'qualify' for marriage. If you have ever met a gay loving couple, then you'll know it's no different from a straight loving couple.

The strength of their feelings is irrelevant. One can no more justify redefining marriage based on homosexual strength of feeling than he can redefining it based on the bestialist's feelings for his goat. I have met homosexual couples, and I know that they are qualitatively different from heterosexual couples.

Your insistence otherwise sounds a lot like the common leftist tendency to reduce all human beings to raw material (a legacy of Marxism). A man's love for a woman is not the same as a woman's love for a man. A man's fraternal love of his fellow man is not the same as a woman's affection for her fellow woman. A man's homosexual love for a man isn't the same as a woman's homosexual love for a woman. For that matter, a woman is not the same as a man, and a heterosexual is not the same as a homosexual.

We are not all the same, our relationships are not all the same, and no matter how hard leftists try to make humanity otherwise, they will always fail.

The fact remains that homosexuals don't want equal rights, they want new ones.

They wan't the right to get married.

They have the right to get married.

To have the full privelidges that marriage affords straight couples - to take each other's name, full taxation benefits, full recognition by every organisation that recognises marriage, etc.

They have all these rights already - these rights just don't fit with their desires. Their problem is with the rights themselves, not with having them denied.

If this is a new right, then yeah, that's what they want.

The ability for a man to marry a man and a woman to marry a woman would indeed be new rights.

I fail to see what difference it makes, but what I do see is that currently they are unable to join each other in the way they want.

Well, yes, they are. Many people are unable to join each other in the way they want. Five men cannot marry seven women, no matter how badly they want to.

If they were allowed to, I don't see how it weakens the institute of marriage, unless it is your opinion that marriage should be restricted to man and woman.

It isn't my opinion that marriage should be restricted to man and woman, it is fact that marriage is man and woman.

And I am yet to see convincing evidence that this is the case.

Missed the entire history and purpose of marriage, have you? That's not my problem.

You simply haven't thought through the matter far enough to find where the infringement occurs in this case

I've thought about it plenty. It does not occur. Please suggest some of your ideas.

I'll get back to you, I want to think them through a bit. For now content yourself with the fact that all legislation involves infringement on someone's rights or powers, that's the nature of legislation.

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes" (Jefferson's Letter to von Humboldt, 1813)

Jefferson's correspondence isn't law of the land, and this passage isn't even an argument for separation of church and state.

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own" (Jefferson's Letter to H. Spafford, 1814)

Jefferson's correspondence isn't the law of the land, and his personal feelings about priests aren't directly relevant.

"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform" (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731, emphasis added).

This isn't the law of the land either. Furthermore, it does not support the separation of church and state. The passage does not prohibit translating one's religious beliefs into legislation, nor does it prohibit a church from effectively dominating the government. What it does prohibit is congress mucking about with people's religion and enforcing religious belief, precisely as I stated below.

In other words, the Constitution prohibits congress from legislating belief, it does NOT prohibit congress from legislating according to their beliefs. So for example, a prohibition on alchol because of religious belief is okay, legislation forcing everyone to go to a church that preaches prohibition is not (avoiding the other limits of Constitutional power for the moment for purposes of argument).

This comment was edited on Apr 16, 15:52.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
180. Re: $0.02 Apr 15, 2004, 20:46 Morlock
 
It's interesting - while I agree the government shouldn't really concern itself with religious matters, and often gets carried away doing so, the separation of church and state works both ways.

I don't really understand the whole "separation of church and state" platitude. I don't understand how one gets from the religion clause to "separation of church and state."

If indeed the first amendment is the basis of "separation of church and state," then I would still argue that it doesn't work both ways. The first amendment doesn't say "legislators shall not legislate according to their beliefs," or even that church and state shall remain separate. It simply says that congress isn't allowed to go mucking about with peoples beliefs by way of legislation. The wording is, "regarding the establishment of religion." Basically it's saying that congress isn't allowed to outlaw religions or make one religion the official religion of the state or the people.

g[To paint with a broad brush, anti-gay marriage people fall into two camps, although they often fall into both...
Now that is a lack of understanding. It's not intolerance, Im not saying you hate homosexuals - indeed you say you do not and I am willing to believe you. But on the basis of what you have said, you do not understand it.

I don't hate homosexuals. My issues were with homosexuality, not homosexuals. Similarly, if someone slaughters goats as part of his religious practices, I don't hate him either, although I find his practices repugnant. I'm also capable of overcoming my prejudices to recognize that his religious practices are his right.

Therefore, you don't understand how it is possible that two men or women can feel for each other what a man and a woman can.

Hold on there pard - it isn't possible "that two men or women can feel for each other what a man and a woman can."

Similarly, it isn't possible for a man and a woman to feel for each other what two men or two women can. The two are not interchangeable, any more than a man's feelings for a woman are interchangeable for a woman's feelings for a man.

Sure, you say your problem is with the redefinition of marriage, and I can accept that. But the reason you don't want to invite two men or two women into the "married couples club" is because your definition of marriage is of a man and a woman.

My reasons don't really matter when the topic is that of rights. The fact remains that homosexuals don't want equal rights, they want new ones.

Sure, I admit the definition of most of American probably agrees with you. But even if 99% of the country didn't like something, if the 1% of the rest of the country want to do it, and it doesn't detract from the liberties and goods of the 99%, they should have every right to.

As I've said before, there is no law without infringement of liberty. You simply haven't thought through the matter far enough to find where the infringement occurs in this case (I admit I haven't either, although I have a few ideas - trust me though, it's there. It always is). In any event, as I've said ten times now, homosexuals have precisely the same rights as heterosexuals.

Furthermore, it is an easy argument to say they should be protected by the government - and the constitution agrees.

They are protected, as protected as anyone else.

As for the Christian group, well... by separation of church and state, they're entitled to their opinions. But they sure as hell aren't entitled to actively push one way or the other. However, with Bush being such a twat and in their pocket (on this issue, that isn't meant as a generalisation) , they don't have to push very hard.

Again, I'm brought back to this separation of church and state business. Where is this written? I don't see the justification for it.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
178. Re: $0.02 Apr 15, 2004, 18:20 Morlock
 
Keeping Christmas out of public schools, and out of the public eye does not equate to government interference with your religion.

Yes it does, what are you, on crack? You're wrong in the absolute sense - if the government is keeping religious celebrations "out of the public eye" then it is most certainly interfering with religion.

You're also wrong on Constitutional grounds:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

No where in your bible does it say: "Thou must publicly celebrate Christmas, in in celebration erect scenes of my sons birth" or anyghing like it, except that part about spreading the word of god.

Your interpretation of Christian doctrine is totally irrelevant. The Constitution forbids government interference with religion.

You are still allowed to practice Christmas as an event

Gee, really? Our masters' generosity knows no bounds.

and I think that putting wholly inaccurate historical depictions in public is a practice the government has every business putting an end to.

NONSENSE. Maybe in totalitarianville, where you come from, things are done differently, but here we have this thing called free speech:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press

I didn't see jack shit about "historical accuracy" in there, which is pretty good since history changes from historian to historian.

Bloody jagoff.

Despite all the " imposing laws in the realm of religion " you interpret government actions as doing, religion still has absolutely no place in morally legislating behavior for the public.

Despite what you might think, there are no laws regarding what motivations people might have for any given legislation. If people want to enact laws based on their religious principles, they are totally free to do so. The Constitution prohibits the federal government from enacting laws restricting religion, it does not prohibit people from enacting laws that reflect their religious beliefs.

when you have the crown prince of darkness waving it around for his own devices, he does not become a holy man, nor does his mission from god become a holy crusade - but he'd sure the fuck have us all believe it is.

Huh? Are you referring to the President? He wants us to believe his mission is a holy crusade from God? He wants us to believe he's a holy man? Are you on medication?

You need unbiased information, not horn-tooting information.

I'll let you in on a little secret, since I'm starting to get the picture that you are quite young and inexperienced - unbiased information regarding social problems is virtually nonexistent. All those people and sources you think are unbiased are anything but.

There are, practically speaking, no unbiased sources when it comes to controversial or relevant social issues, everyone has a stake, and is therefore biased.

This comment was edited on Apr 15, 18:24.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
175. Re: $0.02 Apr 15, 2004, 14:05 Morlock
 
No doubt, I'm an old, skanky, diseased thread-whore. Hell, I bookmarked this page days ago.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
173. Re: $0.02 Apr 15, 2004, 13:41 Morlock
 
Your comments about referenda show how little you know about (edit: the practicalities of) the US political system.

That sounds like what an oligarch might say, or a gerontocrat, or a krytocrat, meritocrat, plutocrat, technocrat, etc.

What's there to be informed about?


Right, this really is a bit dumb.

Bah, you know as well as I do that the abortion debate doesn't come down to complex international relations, or economic theory, or whatever. It comes down to "does a woman's right to control her body trump a fetus's right to life?" It's a straight moral issue. It doesn't take an expert.

a) about five of us have managed to write probably in the region of 5000 words (not including quotes) on the subject. There's plenty to be informed about, discuss, on this one issue. When you think about every issue there is, that's loads.

Most of it has been hot air, you could parse the text and come out with about three concise paragraphs to sum up the relevant bits. We've been talking in circles for most of this discussion.

b) it is as much 'do you want to murder unborn children' as it is 'do you want to allow women the right to terminate an unborn foetus,' as it is 'is a foetus any more a baby than an acorn is an oak tree?'

Well, since cutting down an oak tree isn't a capital crime, the analogy's a bit off, but I still think the abortion issue is very straightforward. No one is going to come up with an answer to when a fetus is imbued with a soul any time soon, and most of America by now is informed enough to make a decision.

It's interpretation, which you can only legitimately do if you are informed. Being told what your party believes in church / conservative rallies / liberal rallies etc is not being informed. I would agree with the (inevitable) point that democracy gives me the right to be an ass in the booth and tick random boxes, but when this potentially limits others' liberties, we have a conundrum between democracy and liberty.

"When this potentially limits others' liberties?" I have a newsflash for you, this just in: every single piece of legislation ever enacted involves a limitation of others' liberties, that's the nature of law. NOTHING the government does fails to limit someone's liberties. Basically, I think what I'm hearing is that you just don't much care for the democratic principle. Basically, you're saying that democracy is wonderful as long as people vote in ways that you think prudent. As you so grudgingly admitted, democracy involves the "right to be an ass." One man's jackass is another man's genius.

Unfortunately, the US public are one of the least informed, politically dealigned and disinterested.

As is their right. Again, you seem to have a problem with democracy when it enfranchises people you don't agree with. What is the point of democracy at all if everyone agrees? In that case, a totalitarian government is PRECISELY as effective and free, because the dictator by definition will only enact legislation with which everyone agrees.

Therefore votes (of any kind, and this extends to polling, so 60% think X must also be questioned) are not always the best course. And partly why they are so seldom used.

I know why they're so seldom used: our elites don't want us making our own decisions because very often they disagree with their own goals.

edit: LOL, just read what you've written. That sounds like an argument for facism if I've ever heard one. Don't take that the wrong way, it's just that, I've discussed issues with people advocating facism before (amicably, mind you), and this is precisely their argument.

Oui, but see earlier comments. Democracy in the strictest sense (which, I agree can mean majority rule ) is in fact an unfair system in that it allows the majority (who may be misinformed) to bully the minority (who may feel passionately about an issue.) That's the ugly side of democracy, and it's why the constitution goes to great lengths to (try to) ensure it doesn't happen.

I don't really see how the Constitution goes to such great lengths. All the Constitution does is set the boundaries of federal power. EVERYTHING else is left to the States and their citizens, for good or ill. Again, you're saying that you don't really care for democracy. Democracy IS the bullying of the minority by the majority, that's the heart of the concept. It is designed for relatively coherent culturally related populations, which is why I have my doubts about its future in American politics, to the limited degree that it exists today.

Furthermore, you start putting salient issues on the ballots (which are already complex enough) and they'll soon become a ballot 'book' with everything from abortion to offshore drilling to space telescope initiatives.

See, offshore drilling is an economic issue with environmental aspects, and isn't really the sort of thing most people WANT on a referendum. Space telescopes are a matter for scientists and the informed (whether or not we should fund increased overall scientific funding is another story). Abortion isn't complicated, it's an issue on which nearly everyone has a clear position. It's really just a matter of moral preference, there's no need for the intelligensia to baby us on such a simple issue.

What I seem to be hearing from you is,"democracy is great as long as the stupid and misinformed are disenfranchised." My response is, how would the resultant system be a democracy?

This comment was edited on Apr 15, 14:03.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
168. Re: $0.02 Apr 14, 2004, 18:36 Morlock
 
referenda are bad ways of deciding anything, especially if the public is ignorant (by that I mean misinformed, underinformed, or informed by someone with a vested interest).

What's to be uninformed about? Either you want to redefine marriage or you don't, either you want to allow the murder of unborn children, or you don't, either you want to give the government a higher percentage of your taxes, or you don't. None of these decisions requires an expert.

Problems with turnout - only those sufficiently bothered turn out

One part of me says we need to make voting easier, and another part says tough noogie. Those who don't turn out vote "I don't care" by their absence.

When you think about the enormous cost of organising elections,

Referenda aren't elections, so they don't require the same expenditures as elections. I agree that some people are apathetic, but aren't they abdicating responsibility when they don't vote in a referendum? People do have the right to abstain, after all.

to ask people to turn out (and support the cost of doing so) for gay marriage, abortion, war in iraq, or anything else that someone somewhere cares enough about... then you realise what is wrong with referenda.

Well, when the referendum is piggy-backed on a preexisting election, then you realize that there is no problem with referenda. The problems with referenda aren't inherent to referenda, they're inherent to the voters. C'est la democracie, non?

"...Athens...where the citizens all voted on laws directly"
This is not true, the "democracy" in Athens excluded women, children, and the poor. It wasn't "majority rule", it was "Majority of Rich Men Rule".

You're dithering over matters of enfranchisement, not the definition of democracy. Slaves, women, children, and the poor were not citizens.

Those who don't want, don't pay? I am certain administering a system like that would do wonders to lessen the government's size and involvement in every American's life...

Well, lessee, what with the digital age and the trillions that taxpayers could put back into their pockets, maybe folks could put their heads together and tackle this amorphous problem you mention.

Which brings us to the general point of your arguments - You believe Liberals (or pinkos, or leftists, or communists, or social marxists) are hijacking America, and creating a federal government which is way too involved in citizens lives. This bugs you because the Constitution, bill of rights, and truly the creation of your country was to eliminate this bullshit. You seem to understand the original intent of the constitution, and want it to be realized in modern America, but at the same time wish to say "Fuck you, American Constitution, I'm with the Christians and writing their anti-gay position into law"

Not at all. If returning to Constitutional law is REALLY on the table, I'd agree to redefining marriage in a nano-second. What I won't agree to is allowing the redefinition of marriage on Constitutional grounds when the Constitution is in fact dead (at least as far its true purpose and nature go - it does survive as a tool of the federal government). I won't agree to, "aww gee, the Constitution didn't manage to stop the socialists in 99 out of 100 illegal government usurpations of power, but goshdarnit, these socialists are right, we've got to draw the line on the same-sex 'marriage' thing!" This is especially the case when the same people who cannibalized the Constitution are the ones trying to use it to advocate redefining marriage.

It is to laff.

Dude, your small points (such as reason comes from my digestional reactions to various things) do a great job of highlighting the fact you are a short sighted moron who argues in circles, and your argument as a whole is totally contradictory

You just saying my argument is totally contradictory, without any supporting argument, carries something like, oh, zero weight. You'll have to get into specifics. By the way, digestional STILL isn't a word.

Edit: I just noticed your strawman (Dude, your small points (such as reason comes from my digestional reactions to various things)). You are a class A fucktard. I NEVER said that you fucking total moron. Jesus, this is like debate through the grapevine with you. QUOTE ME idiot. I said DISGUST comes from the gut. HOW exactly are DISGUST and REASON coterminous?

Moron.

(I like the Constitution, I support anti-constitution constitutional amendments).

I explained my postion below, and again above for the cheap seats.

Your suggestions for improving the situation are not thought out past your angry current post, and are often contradictory to what you posted 3 posts ago.

Again, you'll have to go into more detail than, "dude, you're wrong, cuz like I say so heh."

You are reflecting such stupidity in your typing that three people are currently illustrating the flaws in your arguments, and no one (aside from bangrsmencesjh who got a map to the door handed to him) will defend your position (which rapidly changes from post to post). Still, somehow you manage to ignore all of it, and keep spouting off the same BS. What's your real name, George Bush?

You're going to have to do better than yakking about all the flaws in my argument. If they're so glaring, you should be able to point them out with minimal effort.

This comment was edited on Apr 14, 18:40.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
161. Re: redefining marriage Apr 14, 2004, 16:19 Morlock
 
Lots. You are saying it infringes on no ones liberties if you, or anyone chose to stop paying income tax, but since you or anyone relies upon many items provided by the money produced by income tax, ceasing to pay income tax without moving to a completely self-sufficient lifestyle will infringe upon the liberties of others who pay.

No one has the option of "ceasing to pay income tax [and] moving to a completely self-sufficient lifestyle." That's kind of the point. It doesn't make a shit to the government whether their robbery is to their victims' benefit, they just want their cash, just like any other shakedown operation. No one has explained to me why it has to be a package deal, either. Just because I use roads, I have to automatically accept social welfare? Just because I use roads, I have to pay a tax to support public transportation? Just because I accept the relative necessity of some minimal provision for national defense, I have to accept the world's largest military, and foreign adventurism?

Think about it: 65% of Americans are fat, lazy morons - do you honestly believe that any one of them will ever live in a self sustained way?

What does this have to do with an argument about rights? Will you next be arguing that we should turn over all power to a Communist central government simply because most people are morons?

Proposing completely unrealistic scenarios (like the dog fuckers running amok when humans are allowed to marry humans) does not provide a strong argument.

There's nothing unrealistic about self-sustained living, nor is there anything unrealistic about paying for what you get. I don't see how 90% of people agreeing on what is "normal" or not should dictate what rights the 10% have. Again, even if the vast majority of people agree that our monstrous defense budget or social welfare budget is necessary, why should everyone have to pay? How about, those who like the idea pay, and those who don't, don't pay?

This is why your whole "I pay income tax, so discrimination is AOK" argument is a piece of steaming turd.

Yes, your strawman is indeed a steaming turd, have fun playing with it.

One of the first things you learn when doing further studies in any subject is that dictionary definitions are not proof of any argument.

I agree that dictionary definitions do not constitute proof, but they do constitute evidence. One of the first things you learn studying anything is to set a working definition at the outset. Obviously, since the term democracy, in its first usage, referred to precisely the form of government defined as "majority rules," I think it's safe to say that the statement "democracy is not majority rule" is incorrect.

The original democracy, AFAIK, was the city-state of Athens, where the citizens all voted on laws directly.

It is accurate to state that not all democracies consist of majority rule, but it is not accurate to state that "democracy is not majority rule."

There are plenty of easily constructed examples of where majority rule does not equal democracy

I can accept that. I'm having trouble imagining them (barring extreme disenfranchisement), but I can accept that for the purposes of argument. I never said there weren't such examples, or that majority rule always constitutes democracy.

and where democracy does not equal majority rule. The easiest one is the second - any Western democracy.

I know that. This still doesn't prove that "democracy is not majority rule." In the strictest sense, democracy is majority rule.

they were written for unions of woman and man.

That's interpretation. As much as some will tell you your 'right to bear arms' means just that, and others will read the whole sentence which suggests allowing this for the purpose of generating an army at short notice. It's for the courts to decide.

Actually, it isn't for the courts to decide. The Supreme Court of the United States has usurped the power of ultimate interpretation of Constitutionality unto itself, but this doesn't make it legal.

As far as the right to bear arms goes, it in no way is the extent of the legal rights of citizens to bear arms. Remember, the Constitution is a document intended to enumerate the federal governments rights. All other rights are reserved to the States and their citizens. The Bill of Rights in general was intended to make a few things very clear to the federal government, it isn't the extent of our rights.

What's impractical or inefficient about deciding moral issues like abortion or homosexual "marriage" through a referendum?

It avoids majority bullying, a key component of the constitution. US democracy allows you to elect people to make those decisions for you, but not to decide yourself.

Nonsense, U.S. democracy allows for referenda. How is a referendum on bond-issuance any less a bullying of the majority by the minority than a referendum on abortion?

This comment was edited on Apr 14, 16:20.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
158. Re: redefining marriage Apr 14, 2004, 15:28 Morlock
 
"So, you think it's impossible for people to live in a self-sustained way"
No, but you obviously are not, and thus, your income tax argument is flawed/moot.

Huh? What the hell kind of sense does that make? I can't argue using such people as arguments? Then why can you advocate for homosexual marriage. If I am wrong in my assumption that you are heterosexual, the fact remains that one need not argue one's own circumstances exclusively. DUH.

"Blah blah blah "you were right Morlock" blah blah blah"
The "blah blah blah" you didn't read, or are choosing to ignore, highlights the fact that though the totally literal reading of the law you have presented is correct, the laws do not take into account the items they were written for: Human Beings.

That gets right to the point doesn't it? Marriage laws were not written for same-sex "marriage" - they were written for unions of woman and man.

10% of the population

Homosexuals do not comprise 10% of the population, that's a myth.


 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
154. Re: redefining marriage Apr 14, 2004, 14:10 Morlock
 
Still wrong. Democracy doesn't require elected representatives.
Otherwise the term "representative democracy" would be redundant.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. Trying not to sound like too much of an academic/twat, I have spent a long time in academic study, reading US democracy, and feel fairly confident I know what I'm talking about.

Let's see, if memory serves, your assertion was fairly simple, it went something like, "democracy is not majority rule."

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy
de·moc·ra·cy n.

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
Democratic governments can be divided into different types, based on a number of different distinctions. One such distinction is that between "direct" and "indirect" democracy.
A direct democracy is a political system in which all citizens are allowed to influence policy by means of a direct vote, or referendum, on any particular issue.

Proponents of direct democracy contend that it is good because it devolves power. Because direct democracy disperses power throughout many people, policy decisions are likely to be made for the benefit of the majority, not for the benefit of factions or those who hold power.

The traditional, and to many still compelling, objection to democracy as a form of government, and to direct democracy in particular, is that it is open to demagoguery. Another objection to direct democracy is that of practicality and efficiency. Deciding all or most matters of public importance by direct referendum is slow and expensive, and can result in public apathy and voter fatigue. Furthermore, since referendum questions have to be short and with a yes/no answer, voters may choose incoherent policies: for instance, a majority may vote in favor of reducing taxes, while a majority may also vote for increasing expenses for public education.

What I find interesting is that some people are satisfied with the "[a]nother objection to direct democracy is that of practicality and efficiency" "[d]eciding all or most matters of public importance by direct referendum is slow and expensive, and can result in public apathy and voter fatigue. Furthermore, since referendum questions have to be short and with a yes/no answer, voters may choose incoherent policies" argument in the digital age. What a laugh. What's impractical or inefficient about deciding moral issues like abortion or homosexual "marriage" through a referendum? It doesn't take an expert to decide on such issues.

The penchant for referendums is the one thing I admire about California. The Swiss have a nice little thing going too; the federal government cannot raise taxes without a popular referendum authorizing it to do so. That must be nice. Maybe that's why their federal income tax rate is capped at 10%.

While moral issues such as those we are discussing are not always easy to argue scientifically, the terms we use are clearly defined. Demorcracy, in the political science sense, is not majority rule. Please read a textbook if you wish to argue this point, I can't be bothered.

The fact that no liberal democracy is a strict democracy doesn't make your statement that "democracy is not majority rule" a true one.

Who says everyone needs roads? Who says everyone needs a safety net?

Common sense / inbuilt morals / ... I hate the "they just do" argument, but it is so obvious.

There's a reason that you hate the "they just do" argument - it's as weak as they come.

I admit the lack of web sources I can point you to, but again, do some kind of reading on the subject and you will see there are almost certainly 'natural' laws that mean in the absence of law we still know it to be 'wrong' to beat our neighbour to death with a club.

I believe in natural law, but natural law doesn't require income taxes or roads or social welfare. It doesn't require picking citizen's pockets for whatever purpose, no matter how "good." We had roads before income tax. We had social safety nets before income taxes. I love the "for the common good" argument. I'm sure that's what Robin Hood told all his victims to justify his highway robbery.

I forget who it was, I think it was Sobran quoting someone else, who said, "the government is the only highway robber who not only robs you, who not only has the gall to tell you it's for your own good, it's the only villain who reserves the right to shake you down every year for life."

Further, your argument that "if I don't pay for X then it doesn't infringe on your liberties" etc. is also flawed. There are two ways to think about this: the practical way and the theoretical way. Neither have anything to do with gay marriage, but more just to try and show you why liberty has nothing (in this sense) to do with income tax.

If you'll review the thread, you'll recall that someone said in support of homosexual "marriage" that liberty should only be curtailed when it infringes on the liberty of another, or words to that effect. I asserted that I could accept that if, and only if, that axiom was applied across the board. Clearly, mandatory taxation, especially income taxation, involves an infringement on liberty. What right is more funamental than the right to the fruits of one's labor?

This is an intro to 'Olson's Freerider Problem.' Jim lives in a city. He doesn't like walking home at night in the dark, so he wants a streetlamp outside his house. But if he buys one, his nextdoor neighbour Bob gets the benefit, having not paid for it - he is a freerider. Unless Bob chips in, Jim will not buy it. Therefore the government steps in, takes $5 off Jim, $5 off Bob, and plonks a streetlight down.

This assumes that Bob considers the streetlamp a benefit. What if Bob is annoyed by the streetlamp? What if Bob had his own streetlamp that he preferred? In this case, Bob is simply having his rights violated against his will, rather than in a way to which he's amenable.

Furthermore, even if Bob does agree that it's okay for the government to pick his pocket to pay for the streetlamp, that doesn't mean he agrees that it's okay for the government to pick his pocket for everything else it says he and the people want, to the tune of an ever-increasing percentage of the sweat of his brow, every year.

This is basically why you pay taxes towards defence, roads etc - they would be underprovided if everyone else bought them themselves.

Again, we had roads before income taxes, we had standing armies before income taxes, etc. I don't really consider America's armed forces as a defensive measure, not in the main. In the main, they are an offensive force that are consistently used for foreign adventurism. That isn't defense, that's offense.

Imagine everyone except Jim pays taxes, and they all have roads, defence and all the yadda yadda. Jim decides not to pay, arguing that by not doing so, it doesn't infringe on Bob's liberties. But Bob is pissed off - he paid for these roads, the soldiers and every time Jim uses them, there is less for everyone else. Effectively, Jim is stealing from the rest of the country.

What if Jim doesn't use them?

My take on federal taxes is that they are a necessary evil that have taken on a wholly unnecessary dimension. The federal government should be kept on the economic equivalent of life support, not fed trillions every year.

The States should be deciding all these matters that the federal government has illegally usurped unto itself.

Right, I am tiring of this argument, and usually come here for a gaming discussion. Morlock, I hope we can agree to disagree

Absolutely (I mean that in both the sarcastic and the friendly sense :D).

and enjoy some form of gaming discussion on some future messageboard.

Me too.

"Who says everyone needs roads? Who says everyone needs a safety net?"

What do you eat? Unless you are growing your own vegetables, raising your own livestock, and doing so entirely self contained (ie. no outside fertilizer, etc.), you need roads to live.

I am. I raise all my own livestock and grow all my own produce (devil's advocate).

I will repeat, you have no grounding in reality.

So, you think it's impossible for people to live in a self-sustained way? More to the point, you think it's impossible for people to live a RELATIVELY self-sustained lifestyle, where they might not need 90% of the "services" provided by the government by robbing Peter to pay Paul?

You spout off more hot air than a flare for a 2000 mmcf/d gas well... Educate yourself before entering debates. The only interesting point you've made, at all, is that gays don't technically have less rights by the strictest reading of the law, but that point does not at all take into account human factors.

Blah blah blah "you were right Morlock" blah blah blah.

Thats the defence of marriage act, it is in plain english, not legalese, and even a mormon could understand it.

That document doesn't exclude homosexuality. Now of course we're back to the impossiblity of proving a negative. I can't prove that that document doesn't discriminate against homosexuals, any more than I can prove that Santa Claus doesn't exist. I suppose I could parse it line by line and explicate it all, but I won't.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
149. Re: redefining marriage Apr 13, 2004, 23:05 Morlock
 
The U.S. is not strictly a democracy, but a republic or a representative democracy

And, contrary to your claim, democracy is not majority rule. It's to do with elected representation.

Still wrong. Democracy doesn't require elected representatives. Otherwise the term "representative democracy" would be redundant.

Therefore, bye bye income tax, bye bye discrimination laws, bye bye 95% of federal law.

No, there are certain things that do require income tax - your roads need surfacing, you need some form of safety net in the form of social security, defence systems, various other things that would be underprovided (or overprovided) if the government didn't step in. If you don't pay your income tax, then nobody else will. This is the free rider problem, google it for the theory.

Who says everyone needs roads? Who says everyone needs a safety net? The axiom was, no liberty should be infringed unless it infringes on the liberties of another - income tax fits the bill. A person who refuses to pay income tax is in no way infringing on the liberties of another. A person who opts out of the highway system and refuses to pay for it is in no way infringing on the liberties of another. A person who decides, "I'll never need social security," and refuses to pay taxes is in no way infringing on anyone's liberties. Avoiding the issue and stating that "certain things do require income tax" (and following with a list of things YOU find necessary) won't change the fact that there is a huge body of laws in this country that trample all over the aforementioned axiom. I fail to see why homosexual "marriage" should get a pass BASED ON THIS AXIOM.

Animals don't have rights

I think you missed my point. My point was that while I agree with you insofar as they do not have the right to refuse saddling, slaughter, etc, I would say that banning people from sticking their dick in them is not in the same ballpark.

That isn't much of an argument. I don't mean to apply general criticisms applicable to this thread to you, but this sort of argument has been totally typical of this thread. "It's not in the same ballpark, err, because I say it isn't."

yet no reasonable person is attempting to outlaw these things.

No, because saddling a horse, training dogs etc are not in the same ballpark. See above.

Why isn't in the same ballpark? You didn't explain above, either. Remember, we're discussing law and ethics, not popular consensus on morality or sexual norms. What if the would-be bestialist comes from some little-known place where such practices are accepted and culturally normative or even required by religion? Wouldn't the great gods of multiculturalism, relativism, and religious freedom require that we accept the practice?

I can provide you with an extensive article by a homosexual writer for the Atlantic Monthly who says all this.

I have looked at evidence, in a fair bit of detail, and with reference to the US political system. The evidence is indeed inconclusive. But what's your point? Homosexuality doesn't infring on anyone else's liberties, paedophilia clearly does.

Oh? Because children cannot provide consent, right? The problem with that argument is that their guardians can. There is no law of the universe that says pedophila is wrong - just popular consensus. What happens when parents and their children start agreeing to pedophilia? The fact is that this is CLEARLY the sort of legislated morality that is condemned on one hand by advocates of homosexual "marriage" and lauded on the other. No one opposes pedophilia on the basis of some legal argumentation about consent, they oppose pedophilia because they think it's wrong. Otherwise, the issue would just be one between the pedophile, the child, and the child's parents or guardians.

"Americans are suckers who are content to get their history from the television" Not only do you demonstrate clearly that this is the truth through action/typing, but you also got your panic reactions from the idiot box. OH NO, GAY ARE MARRYING, THE DOG FUCKERS ARE NEXT!!!

Err, okay. I watch about five hours of television a week, but okay.

"Animals don't have rights". You say this, but then cite animals whose recent evolution centered around symbiosis with humans or have been totally hijacked by humans for our purposes. Maybe they do not have rights in the sense that humans do, but penetrating a dogs ass with your dick is a pretty far cry from developing a human-enabled symbiosis with an animal.

Ehehehehe. Oh, I see. Let me see if I have this right. My assertion that animals don't have rights is wrong, because my example only included domesticated animals? So, owls, snakes, spiders, polar bears, etc. all have the right to be caged only with their consent? Zoos are full of animals "whose recent evolution" wasn't "centered around symbiosis with humans" etc. blah blah. Do these animals have the right to not be caged for human amusement? Or did you mean to say that horses, dogs, and cows have a right to refuse sodomy, but wild animals don't? Do turkeys have a right not to be blown away in October? They're not domesticated.

Or, to widen the argument, only animals that impact upon society? Uh, okay. I have to wonder what the issue of animal rights has to do with, if not the interaction between humans and animals. Maybe "animal rights" means animal relations in the wild, heh. "Stop right there Mr. Bear, that salmon has rights you know!"

"Nah, you cite it, the burden of proof is on you". Willful ignorance of facts does not negate them.

You claimed that the Protection of Marriage Act in some way infringed upon the rights of homosexuals, I said it did not. I'm not going to pore over reams of legalese just to confirm that you're wrong. You should at least be able to find a news item whining about the issue, otherwise you lose, the same way I'd lose if I said "Santa Claus exists" and you said "prove it" and I said "just because you don't know about him, doesn't make me wrong."

"so I don't see the point of the "criminalizing it doesn't stop it" argument" What, 4 million people smoke pot daily in the states? The point of the argument (which had nothing to do with your brickwitted comments) is that moral legislation is pointless in a society which is by nature immoral.

You have a point about moral legislation that doesn't hurt anyone, but then again, who's to say marijuana use doesn't hurt anyone other than the user? Especially when you have the same people pushing for legalization of marijuana and universal health care? Along similar lines, the same people advocate social welfare. I see a real problem with this, a bit of "have your cake and eat it too." Shouldn't one rule out the other? If people are free to do heroin (or marijuana - the hard/soft drug distinction really isn't enough to justify legalizing one and not the other), aren't other people free to refuse to pay for the health costs?

More to the point, as I said above, there are all kinds of laws in our society that amount to simple moral legislation, so I don't see any special reason to provide exceptions for homosexual "marriage."

Common sense legislation, like, don't kill humans or you go to jail, isn't being trampled upon by millions of Americans who do not believe in the law. Juxtaposing the two is not a sensical argument at all, as moral law makes to strip freedoms, which in most cases are not infringing upon others'. Common sense law is just that.

The problem with common sense law is that America is currently in the throes of casting off the idea of common sense. Common sense is passe, a dinosaur of a bygone age. Say "common sense" and the professor says, "whos common sense?"

Unlike anti-homo bigotry, I have every reason to condemn the actions of Christians, which have caused human civilization across the planet immeasurable harm, and continue to attempt to do so.

All of them? Really? Gee, that's quite a statement! The principles of the enlightenment, upon which human rights and liberal democracy are founded, were made possible by Christian morality. As I mentioned previously, western civilization was preserved for centuries by the church you hate so much.

Homos, blacks, etc. have not been traipsing around the planet fucking over generations of humanity, and rewriting history for the last 2000 years.

The church has been rewriting history for 2000 years?

Communist governments perpetrated the worst genocides and mass murders of the 20th century (or any century for that matter), do you hate all Communists, or their western brothers, the socialists?

Democrats have commited murder too, do you hate them all as well?

If I started dishing on blacks, or fags, like you, I would be getting an earful.

Huh? When did I "dish" on blacks? In any event - thanks for making my point, the homosexual "marriage" choir have nary a peep for your anti-Christian bigotry, because that's not politically incorrect.

I attack ignorance in all it's forms

No wonder you seem so conflicted :D.

I would leave Christians alone happily if they'd fuck off and stop trying to inflict their bullshit unto others.

You seem woefully, hopelessly ignorant about the spectrum of Christian doctrine and belief, to say nothing of history, so I'll just leave you to your pathetically uninformed irrational hatred.

Again, you try to bundle all of us into some leftist pile, which is not the case. I am a conservative.

Ha! What exactly do you want to conserve? Libertarians want the federal government out of our lives, that doesn't make them conservative. You sure as hell don't want to conserve marriage.

I want the federal government to fuck off, just like you, except, instead of whining like a child who can't share over income tax, I busy myself coming up with actual solutions to this bullshit.

Oh, okay. Thank you, Obi-Wan. Do drop me a line when you've got it all solved :D.


Isn't Morlock opposed to the idea of redefinition of the word marriage? I think he mentioned he's not opposed to some sort of legally recognized union. (Although the debate over whether that should give all the benefits of marriage might be interesting and certainly full of passion.)

It doesn't matter to them because most advocates aren't in favor of civil unions, they're in favor of redefining marriage.

As far as his point about animal rights I agree. How can it be argued having sex with a dog is worse than raising a cow to be killed for our consumption? What's worse, rape or murder? (By the way, have any you heard anything about dolphins getting frisky with humans? Would that qualify as consent?) You could say that bestiality is wrong in an absolute sense, I suppose. Christians would do that too.

You could say that bestiality is wrong in an absolute sense, but you can't support the argument. All it comes down to is having enough people who feel it's wrong, based on their own prejudices, to make it a crime.

It was mentioned that children are determined to be unable to consent. What if the pedophiles work to push the age of consent lower to accomplish what they want?

Yeah, I can hear it now: "children are having their rights denied! They should have the right to consent to sex if that's their wish! Sexual rights for children now! No justice no peace!" Hell, isn't the mantra of the pro-choice crowd, "my body my choice?"

Surely 16 for driving, 18 for most things but drinking, etc. are rather arbitrary (common US #'s).

The ages for consent, drinking, etc. aren't just arbitrary, they're also inconsistent. They vary wildly from state to state. Hell, the drinking age is 18 in the District of Columbia, unless they changed it and I hadn't heard.

Why are you that support the change so absolute that the former is more important than the latter?

That's an excellent question.

This comment was edited on Apr 13, 23:11.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
143. No subject Apr 13, 2004, 16:21 Morlock
 

Hi. I got to the end of these (looooong) posts, and here are two (extended) points I would make:

It's kind of sad how little of them involved anything of relevance, isn't it?

Fact number one:
It has been the trend for the past 50 or so years, for the government to get involved in more salient issues, to move away from just economic stewardship.

Yep. Americans are suckers who are content to get their history from the television, so what could be expected? Americans are currently pissing away their collective birthrights on several levels.

One of many open secrets that the federal government doesn't want you to know is that the Constitution isn't intended to tell citizens their rights, it's intended to tell citizens what rights the government has. If you look at the Constitution and read it carefully, it becomes rather obvious that the federal government has overreached its own powers on a massive scale. Virtually everything the federal government does is illegal. I'm not an expert on this, but I believe a lot of the justifications for this are based on the so-called "supremacy clause," which when read by a normal person (not a member of the central government's choir), doesn't justify any of them.

It is a common misconception, but democracy, particularly in the US, does not equal majority rule.

Democracy does equal majority rule. The U.S. is not strictly a democracy, but a republic or a representative democracy.

One of the pillars of western civilisation is the notion that citizens should be deprived of their liberty only when it threatens the liberty of another. Gay marriage clearly does not pose such a danger.

Okay, I can buy that. However, I would only buy that if part of a package that applies the axiom above to all of our laws. Therefore, bye bye income tax, bye bye discrimination laws, bye bye 95% of federal law.

while you could argue that bestiality is not infringing on anyone else's liberty, it certainly infringes on the animal rights

You've GOT to be kidding me. Animals don't have rights. Animals have humans advocating for their "rights," but clearly, animals don't have rights. They're frickin' ANIMALS. Horses don't have the right to refuse to be broken and saddled and ridden, dogs don't have the right to refuse to be house trained or housed outdoors, cows don't have the right to refuse to be raised, milked, or slaughtered. The whole concept of animal rights is one of the most inane with which I'm familiar.

it is also the duty of the government to protect (certainly to that extent - I'm not particularly animal-rights concerned, but I think protection from human sex is a legitimate protection).

If you mean it's the duty of the government to protect animal rights, I vehemently disagree. Laws designed to protect animals are only justified imo as an extension of their owner's rights ("you shot my cat!", or the rights of the public (endangered species, etc.).

It is not "one law for some", but I think it is fairly self evident that homosexuals and those that enjoy animal sex are not like and like. But that is a deviation from the argument.

The argument that "animals are incapable of consent" as one against bestialist's rights is both arbitrary and groundless. An animal's consent is immaterial, as is obvious. Cows can't consent to being slaughtered, dogs cannot consent to being trained, and horses cannot consent to being ridden, yet no reasonable person is attempting to outlaw these things.

"By writing the laws to exclude a natural state of being (homosexual)

That never happened, so the arguments based upon it are invalid."

Refer to the Protection of Marriage Act passed by Clinton. Clearly you have no psychological grounding in the real world; your arguments have demonstrated this time and time again. It is impossible to argue with someone who does not show signs of sanity, and I am finished.

Nah, you cite it, the burden of proof is on you. I feel certain that if the Protection of Marriage Act "excluded a natural state of being," I would have heard about it. Clearly you have no intellectual grounding in logic; your arguments and strawmen and obfuscations have demonstrated this time and time again. It is impossible to argue with someone who does not show signs of intellect, so I'm glad you're finished.

It would be silly to say the argument here is not between homosexual thought and Christian morals.

I've not seen any clear evidence of Christ condemning homosexuality. I have seen evidence that Christ taught that homosexuality wouldn't keep anyone out of the kingdom of heaven, and evidence that this teaching was subsequently whitewashed over by the early church (that is, the text of the New Testament was changed). What is silly is to say that someone opposed to redefining marriage in a radical way must be motivated by Christian doctrine, when there is no evidence of such a motivation, as is the case with me.

f you are interested in living in a harsh, theological monarchy, I can recommend that you move to Saudi Arabia, Iran, or Israel to experience the full effect of the joy of a "moral" society. As it stands, you are American, and to push for biblical law in your country, or to support a single law based on biblical morals is to go completely against what your country was created for in the first place. Notice how the original Americans threw the Monarchy the fuck out of America in the first place? They seem to have had a healthy abhorrance for "god-appointed" kings, and the religious bullshit that came with it. If you don't like it, get the fuck away from North America, or, if you and the millions of mormons, christians, catholics, jehovas witnesses, <insert other fanatics here> would just fuck off and quit attempting to inflict your bullshit on others, you may find respect for your religion forthcoming.

What if, by the democratic process, America becomes a theocracy? What if the people decide that's what they want? Would you still be opposed? Wouldn't that make you opposed to democracy in general, or would it mean you're only opposed to democracies that vote for things you don't like? That's just a theoretical question, and I suppose I don't expect a rational answer from you, given your rabid hatred of religious people.

Criminalizing this behavior isn't stopping it; attempted enforecement of this behavior is completely ineffective and expensive. Why push for more mumbo-pocus if it doesn't save souls, nor enhance your right to practice stupidity, sorry, Christianity?

Heh, criminalizing murder hasn't stopped that practice either, so I don't see the point of the "criminalizing it doesn't stop it" argument.

Funny how none of your fellow-travelling cultural marxist friends have condemned you for your anti-Christian bigotry.

The left is CLEARLY not tolerant, it's just tolerant of its pet projects/minorities/beliefs. This hypocrisy is the norm for leftists.

No, it's not. I understand your reasoning, but paedophilia is a disorder, whether genetic or circumstantial. Homosexuality is not a disorder, it's a natural (almost certainly genetic) thing, like colour or sex.

Says who? You? I gave the homosexuality as genetics stuff a quick look the other day, and so far no one has found convincing evidence that homosexuality is genetic. Studies by LeVay have yet to be reproduced (not for lack of trying). The evidence seems strong that homosexuality is inborn, but that isn't the same as saying it's genetics. Many scientists seem to think it's determined en utero. In identical twins, if one twin is homosexual, the other twin is less than 50% likely to be homosexual as well, I think the actual figure is in the ball park of 35%. There goes the "homosexuality gene." Don't take my word for it, read up on the subject (various sides). If you wish, I can provide you with an extensive article by a homosexual writer for the Atlantic Monthly who says all this.

Citizens should only be deprived of their liberties only if they threaten the liberties of others. Does this happen with gay marriage? No it doesn't.

So why do I have to pay income tax? How would my refusal to pay income tax infringe upon the liberties of others? What right or liberty would be infringed by this refusal, the right to pick my pocket?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
127. No subject Apr 12, 2004, 19:50 Morlock
 
I havent attacked you at all, just your ignorant posts: Please, oh please respond

Okay, since you asked so nicely, I'll respond.

"For Christ's sweet sake man, it isn't semantics! Marriage is a union of woman and man, how much more simple can this possibly be? "

No simpler, it can only be more complex. First, when marriage laws were written in the USA, no studies whatsoever had been undertaken to see if homosexuality had biological origins - thus, without this piece of information, the original law was flawed or wrong, not considering the ramifications of such research. Research has all shown that homosexuality has biological origins, and thus (since it in not a choice), laws, acts, or even actions against homosexuality become DISCRIMINATION.

Discrimination is just another word for choice. Someone else put it quite nicely:"When I order steak instead of hamburger, I'm discriminating." Discrimination is another one of those words that carries all sorts of unnecessary baggage. Everyone whines about discrimination, yet lauds "freedom of choice." I would go on about how obviously oxymoronic this is, but I'll digress no further.

Who cares if homosexuality has biological origins or not? I certainly don't. What about homosexuality, or it's origins, necessitates warping the definition of marriage? What about homosexuality requires that we destroy marriage to make homosexuals happy? Why don't they come up with their own damn institution - Garriage, maybe?

You say gay people and straight people have the same rights: They do not.

Yes, they do. Repeating that lie will not make it true. The truth isn't invalidated by your refusal to accept it.

Marriage enables a straight couple to reap tax benefits which are unavailable to homosexuals, unless they fake a "straight" marriage... clearly an affront to marriage as a concept from "time immemorial".

Ehehehe, oh, now you're advocating redefining marriage (and destroying it in the process) as defending the sanctity of marriage? That's quite the sophism. LOL.

Face it, the only arguments you guys can come up with (after paring away all the obfuscation, ad hominem attack, and strawman argument), is "come on, be nice, why are you being so mean?" Sort of like when mommy says no candy before dinner, and all the kiddies get all bent out of shape at the wrongness of it all.

Which would you rather have, fake gay-straight marriages abusing the law in your country, or changed laws (which were flawed at the time of inception)?

I don't see how fake marriages of any kind are an abuse of the law. I also don't see how allowing same-sex "marriage" would eliminate fake marriages, on the whole. The fake marriages you refer to could just be replaced by fake same-sex "marriages" where college roommates get "married" to save on their taxes, etc. Note that you brought up this line of argumentation, I didn't, so keep that in mind when "that's just silly" springs to mind.

By writing the laws to exclude a natural state of being (homosexual)

That never happened, so the arguments based upon it are invalid.

and affording one group of another natural state of being, your country has engaged in state sponsored discrimination

No, it hasn't.

To put it in an unrelated analogy you can follow: If the original laws for murder did not include murder with depleted uranium (which was not weaponized at the time of espousal of murder laws) would it make sense to pardon those murdering w/depleted uranium? I'm sure you know the answer to that. Would the laws be changed to fit science? Not if you had your "time immemorial" way.

It's not much of an analogy, so you were at least sucessful in that regard. Murder laws aren't specific as to means, only end. To relate your analogy back to marriage, it's like arguing that marriage laws didn't originally include voodoo ceremonies, so those marriages presided over by houngans should be invalid. This isn't the case. The marriage laws don't care what religious means (ceremony) are used to achieve the end (marriage - woman and man).

You don't hear a lot of dog-fuckers, incest-makers, or ass-to-mouthers demanding marriage rights (ATMs not included) or laws allowing their practice, simply because they see that their perversions/whatever are by choice, not a biological phenomenon.

Now you're trying to make your assumptions into natural law, but I'm not buying. Religiousity and ethnocentrism have been linked to genetic factors, why not sexual perversion? How exactly do you know that bestiality, incest, and oral-anal fetishes aren't inborn?

Rewriting marriage laws based upon a more accurate assessment of Human Nature ascertained via the miracle of science

I do not see how an accurate assessment of human nature necessarily leads to redefining marriage to include same-sex "marriage," just because we can all agree that homosexuality is not pathological (for the purposes of argument - there's certainly a strong argument to be made that it is maladaptive). This sort of presupposes that the only reason marriage was gender-specific in the first place was to exclude homosexuals, which I find ridiculous.

If you don't believe me, back in "Time Immemorial", religious fuckhats and the morons who followed them pushed their agenda to an extreme - resulting in the Dark Ages. And the JEsus-Miracle of the Crusades.

Well, "religious fuckhats" also managed to preserve western knowledge throughout the dark ages, and managed to set the stage for the enlightenment and the principles of human rights, so I guess Christianity wasn't a total loss, now was it? Again, I'm not a Christian, but I really don't understand the liberal distaste for Christianity.

A constitutional amendment including anything religious (such as anti-homo legislation) would have the founders of your country rolling in their graves.

The founders are rolling in their graves at much of the current political and legal situation in America, why exactly should this issue be the place to put a stop to it?

Supporting a constitutional amendment to this end signifies that you have no knowledge about your countries' fantastic inception, and agreeing with the impartation of Christian Law into your country's is about as unpatriotic as you can get.

Err, do you want to be alone with your strawman? You guys all have one thing in common, you all display a striking inability to read and comprehend. I'm not agreeing with the impartation of Christian law into the Constitution, I wrote that I would support a Constitutional amendment stating the marital equivalent of "water's wet" - that marriage is a union of woman and man. Marriage predated Christianity, and it was a union of woman and man then, too. So, if anything, Christian law is agreeing with me, not the other way around.

However, it would seem your argument is based on a standard religious practice (which you may or may not realize; those sneaky churchmatitions work in "mysterious ways"): FUCK SCIENCE(aka human-acquired knowledge), GOD IS RIGHT. This is made clear right at the start of the bible, with Adam and Eve. Having eaten the Apple of KNowledge of Good and Evil, god cast the two out - the underlying message there is GET SMART WITH ME (god) AND YOU ARE FUCKED, SAYETH THE LORD. This type of thinking has been central to Christianity since "time immemorial", and is the type of thinking you are applying to your current argument.

Are you done with your silly little rant now? Perhaps you should go find a church to burn down or a nun to run over or something, that might satisfy your desires a bit more fully, since they have little to do with me.

Upon reviewing your posts, Morlock, I have in fact decided to attack you personally. You are a fucking retard who could not effectively debate a six year old as to the illogic of giving him a cup of coffee at 9:00pm, his or her stated bedtime. Here are some examples of your brilliance for all to revel in.

I wouldn't want you to deviate from standard liberal practice: always demonize those you can't defeat.

"How have I shown an inability to temper emotion with reason?" <- This was asked at the beginning of one post. He goes on to say:
"Disgust comes from one's gut, well true disgust anyways"
"Chilled monkey brains as dessert disgusts me......- my stomach tells me."
So, his disgust, (which he bases his anti-homo rants, and anti-homo stance upon) is something he derives from the same emotion he feels when faced with impalatable food. I would say that basing "rational" arguments on dietary preferences not only demonstrates an "inability to temper emotion with reason", but also an inability to feel and guage normal emotions (I'm no psychologist, but this is referred to as Psychopathic). The connection of dietary response to monkey-brain eating (disgust), with response to child-murder (disgust) would either suggest that Morlock has problems eating murdered children, killing monkeys, or that his own words "- my stomach tells me" should lead us to believe he has ceased thinking with his brain, and begun thinking with his navel. Perhaps his response to the "homosexual acts" he is bigotted against is based on his imagined consumation of the fecal-matter-semen-lube froth, or Santorum resultant to such relations. Clearly, we should be listening to this fucking stomach-thinking mongo.

I suppose another possibility is that MorLock believes his central nervous system is located in his digestional tract. A simple analysis of the biology of humans would point this fact/assumption as incorrect - I would therefore suggest any opinion or interpretation of facts, events, science, or anything at all, proposed, eloquated, said, typed by someone under the impression they can "feel disgust" with their gut, is not going to reflect a sane viewpoint whatsoever.

Eheheheh, "in my balls" and "in my stomach" are idioms, you nimrod. When someone says "my balls tell me that..." they don't mean their balls have vocal cords, diaphragm, and an intellect to drive them, it just means that he's motivated by deep-seated, nigh-instinctive drives rather than thought-out goals. I'll leave it to you to ponder the absurdity of the above paragraphs. I'm sure of course that your sex drive is the result of a highly rational dialectic, and doesn't come "from your balls." Ehehehehe.

Oh, btw, "digestional" isn't a word, nor is "eloquated." I could ignore "churchmatitions," but now I think you're just making up words like that Damon Wayans character from In Living Color. I don't want to belabor this, but while I'm on the subject, I advise you to check out William Strunk's the elements of style. Better literacy is better living.

http://www.bartleby.com/141/

Also, he claims JediLuke is "operating under the mistaken notion that emotions are rational". I think the use of stomach-emotions under the assumption they are "rational" is at least as retarded as using actual, human-style emotions.

Ah, I'm beginning to remind myself why it's better not to get into pissing contests with fools...

"Quote the evidence of my anti-homosexual bigotry"
Ok.
"since they've shown that their social track record is HORRENDOUS" (I would like to say that straight people, simply due to their abundance, have demonstrably fucked society worse than homos can ever hope to)

Yeah that's great Mook, except...I was referring to liberals and their track record, not homosexuals. Don't you fucking dolts ever get tired of making obvious and egregious errors?

"[paraphrasing here] Gays are responsible for the rise of AIDS"

NO, that isn't paraphrasing, that's rewriting and changing the meaning in the process. Anyone of middling intelligence can see that what I posted is drastically different from your "paraphrase:"

I don't know the ins and outs of this (no pun intended hehehe) but from what I understand, the early spread of AIDS in America owes a lot to the indiscriminate sexual habits of the male homosexual community. I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say we wouldn't have AIDS without the male homosexual community though.

I didn't say that homosexuals are responsible for the rise of AIDS. You guys really don't get tired of strawmen, do you?

This is yet another piece of anti-homo scripture - think about it, 95% of people are straight. How could homos be responsible for the rise of ANY sexually transmitted disease? How did it jump to straight people - air? I would suggest that the straight people who (if you belive AIDS is a "gay disease") contracted AIDS (however they did it) were totally complicit in the non-protected sex which resulted in that transfer. If AIDs didn't come from eating bush-meat in Africa.

Heh, yeah, you're definitely manual labor material (preferably not involving sharp implements or heavy machinery). Fella, I know grey areas are really hard for you, so I'll try and keep this simple. Some people who engage in homosexual activity also engage in heterosexual activity. Yeah, I know, freaky ain't it? It's called bisexuality. Heh, learn somethin' new every day, eh Clyde? I have another newsflash for you Clyde - AIDS is transmitted by intravenous drug use! HAH! Who knew? Wow, the world is a strange place. Get this - homosexuals and heterosexuals sometimes share needles! OMG, like, total mind-blower!

You are stupid.

Heh, yeah, I'm the dummy here, no really. Dude, you might be the only person I know of who would fail an IQ test.

This comment was edited on Apr 12, 20:12.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
116. Re: ... Apr 12, 2004, 01:03 Morlock
 
Liberals wrote the constitution, Liberals won the revolution, Liberals Stuck it to the british and will stick it to you.

Hey! I made a ryme.

Yep, and the rhyme was the extent of your contribution. Liberals today are entirely different creatures from the founders, even the most empty-headed dolt knows this. The politics of Jefferson and Locke bear no resemblance to the liberals of today, except the word liberal. If the founders were alive today, to a man they'd be paleoconservatives.

Liberal, as used to refer to the principles of the enlightenment, have jack shit to do with liberal, as used to refer to cultural marxism and big government cheerleading.

BTW Morlock the only thing you've proven is that your a selfish bigot. Look up the word Bigot and you'll see why.

You're an intellectual mendicant.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
112. Re: ... Apr 11, 2004, 15:31 Morlock
 
Assuming for a moment that this is the case, so what? Language changes and evolves like anything else in the world, it is not static. There was a time when blacks were not considered human, but by allowing them to be recognized as human, did not change anyone else's existing human status.

I don't really see how this analogy applies - blacks didn't have equal rights, and then things changed and they did have equal rights. On the contrary, homosexuals DO have equal rights, and now they ARE trying to change everyone else's existing rights.

Let me ask you two things... First, what would satisfy you as far as gays being recognized in the eyes of the state as being in a union?

I don't really mind the so-called civil union idea. I do think that married heterosexual couples should be recognized as the backbone of our society and as such should have tax breaks and whatnot that should be exclusively theirs.

Ok, fair enough, let me put it another way then. Why do you care what happens in other peoples' private lives, and how they are recognized? Live and let live, right?

Sure, until they want to start rewriting the rules and destroy the rules in the process.

Just because something has been previously written or follows a precedent, that does not necessarily make it correct or complete.

Because it's the whole basis of your argument? You can't have it both ways.

No it isn't the basis of my argument. You said:
Just because something has been previously written or follows a precedent, that does not necessarily make it correct or complete.

And I said that's true. I didn't say marriage is defined as a man and woman because precedents are always true. Your argument is like saying that "just because something is illegal doesn't mean it's immoral" is the same as saying it's incorrect to consider any criminal activity immoral. the key words here are "not necessarily." I agree - in this case does make it correct or complete, however. This should all be quite obvious.

Well then, under the strictly traditional definition of marriage, there is no such thing as divorce.

That is incorrect. If you're referring to the Catholic tradition, I can only point out that it was contrary to scripture. Jesus explicitly stated that marriage was not "til death do us part."

Once you're married, you're married to that person for life -- no ifs, ands or buts. While we're trying to shore up the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman we better make sure to get that bit in there too.

Again, you're incorrect. Marriage predated Christianity by a wide margin. Okay, maybe you're correct, but I'm going to need some proof, and nothing in Christian history is going to suffice since, as I said, marriage predated Christianity.

That, however, is a significant diversion from the real point.

Now we agree.

The reality is that marriage in the US (and most other countries) confers more than a title upon the two participants. It also conveys significant legal status, particularly when it comes to health care and survivor rights. Without a civil union or marriage most companies will not allow you to add your significant other to your policy -- which is a pretty significant problem for a lot of gay couples. The survivor's benefits can be partially solved by a will (and a living will), but a challege from a blood relative will be significantly harder to defeat without the legal status of civil union/marriage.

I agree that there's some room for argument here.

And, of course, if a gay couple has children (and, no, adoption is not the only option -- certainly lesbians can have artificial insemination; gay men could use their sperm to inseminate a birth mother and have a child that is genetically derivative of at least one of the partners.

I'm really not sympathetic to the arguments about all the laboratory acrobatics that allow homosexuals to procreate, at least as far as these are used to prop up homosexual couples as "families."

And, regardless, our society has long ago chosen to make no discrimination between adopted children and genetic ones

Err, not exactly. There are many legal issues surrounding adopted children that simply are not there for genetic children. I'm not knowledgable on this issue so I'll just leave it at that.

then there are issues for child care rights (what if the legal parent dies? Often the partner has no legal guardian status). This is just the tip of the iceberg

I will say this, if homosexual couples are allowed to adopt children, as couples, then they should of course both be afforded full status as parents.

Claiming that homosexuals have the same rights as heterosexuals is simply wrong. They don't.

You guys can say this until you're blue in the face, it still doesn't make it so.

Things are becoming a little more clear, now. At least part of your reason for not wanting to allow gays to marry seems to be to 'stick it to the liberals'. Isn't that a little short-sighted on your behalf?

No, part of my reason for not wanting to rewrite the definition of marriage (I'm in favor of allowing homosexuals to marry, which is currently a protected right) is that I want to stick it to the liberals. There's really no compelling reason for me to want to acquiesce, and since they've shown that their social track record is HORRENDOUS, I choose to look at their record as an indication of how well this new experiment of theirs might turn out. Really, the "stick it to them" part only arises when the Constitutional law argument does. There's no way in hell I'm going to let liberals argue Constitutional law now, after their well-documented half century or so of twisting and trampling the Constitution to suit their needs.

All it does it perpetuate the cycle of bipartisan one-upsmanship, which has done little except dig America into a massive, bickering hole.

Ahahaha, that's like a guy punching you in the face fifty times then saying, "okay, let's make up, all this fighting is getting us nowhere."

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 15:32.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
107. Re: ... Apr 11, 2004, 02:52 Morlock
 
Let me ask you two things... First, what would satisfy you as far as gays being recognized in the eyes of the state as being in a union? Second, why is it the place of the government to become involved in a person's private life, making it illegal to be 'married'?

This is actually the single best counter-argument I've read on this thread, by light years. It's a paradigm shift into Constitutional law. The problem here is multifaceted.

In all honesty, the federal government has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to involve themselves in this issue. Unfortunately, the federal government has absolutely no right to do 95% of the things it does, and the defacto terminal status of Constitutional government in America since the mid 19th century voids the Constitutional arguments. The fact that the left has gleefully rubbed salt in this wound for the better part of a century now only strengthens my resolve to stick it to them on this matter. They have been the primary impetus behind the runaway train that is the central government, and now they can reap what they sow.

I don't want to go any further down that road tonight, maybe tomorrow. It's an entire discussion in and of itself.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
105. Re: ... Apr 11, 2004, 02:38 Morlock
 
JediLuke, I hope you haven't suddenly grown a brain and totally reversed your lameass posting style, because I'd definitely be missing out. I've stopped reading your posts.

Are you just arguing the semantics of the word "marriage?"

For Christ's sweet sake man, it isn't semantics! Marriage is a union of woman and man, how much more simple can this possibly be?

To be honest, I would make the argument that you are, in fact, a homophobe, but that is another discussion.

Ah, I see, you don't want to actually discuss my pecadillos and pathologies, you just want to get in a quick little drive-by ad hominem. This is the constant, and I do mean CONSTANT method of leftists - ALWAYS seek to attack the man, because then his message will be more easily dismissed by the gullible.

Let us look at something like "war." What was it when it started? Groups of people fighting, what, fist to fist? Maybe groups of men fighting fist to fist?

So...if woment suddenly join the fight, is it no longer "war?"

If/when people fought with more than fists, was it no longer "war?"

Again, this is just the nature of analogies. None is perfect. Since your proposed "changes" don't fundamentally alter the definition of war, I think the obvious answer is no, it's still war.

In both cases, I think people would agree that the answer is "No." Either the word/meaning "war" evolved to encompass the new possibilities and circumastances or reverted to a much simpler definition (say, something like "At least two opposing groups fighting in some form.")

Back to the current discussion, that is what people are looking to happen with "marriage." They would either like the word to evolve to account for same-sex marriages or revert to a much simpler definition (say, something like "A joining of two people.")

I'm not looking for that to happen. Part of it is slippery slope, because anyone with a frontal lobe knows that the polygamists will be next. There's no way in HELL that the "umm, no, we want it to be just two people" argument is going to work once the cows are out of the pasture. That argument is as flimsy as they come, especially given the history of polygamy (there's VAST precedent to be found there, not to mention the religious expression arguments).

The slippery slope bit is just a side dish though, the real issue is that I see no reason to redefine marriage to suit anyone. It is what it is, and that shouldn't change just because people want to call something that isn't marriage, a marriage.

Just because something has been previously written or follows a precedent, that does not necessarily make it correct or complete.

Yeah so what, how is this germane?

Things can be wrong from the very start, people can evolve through time or increased intelligence, etc. I would point to things such acts of prejudice like sexism or racism as examples of this (old and new.)

I don't quite follow how this applies.

Personally, I would ask what the problem is?

I would just turn it around and ask you the same thing.

If somebody feels these same things, even just a shallow part of these things, with somebody from their own sex, more power to them. More power to anybody that finds love with somebody, wishes to marry them, and (ideally) spend their life with that person.

I have no problem with any of that except calling it something it isn't: marriage. Should we redefine Catholic confirmation to include Muslims? I know that's another "flawed analogy," but I couldn't help myself.

Okay, I think I've been at this long enough. I don't want to discuss this with every time zone on the planet.
This comment was edited on Apr 11, 02:42.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
102. Re: ... Apr 11, 2004, 02:23 Morlock
 
I mean, it is ok for Britney Spears to get married and then toss the marriage aside like a piece of junk (which it was,) but two caring homosexuals cannot be married together.

What do bad marriages and high divorce rates (this comes up a lot on this issue it seems) have to do with the price of tea in China? That's like saying we should redefine war to include peace just because the French suck at war (I don't actually believe that, the French have an admirable military history, I'm just touching on a cliche that everyone knows).

Besides, marriage is not about love - it is some whacked out thing for men and women-only groupings, most of which actually fail.

Again, what is the relevance of this? Most wars result in death, should we redefine it to include peace? On a side note, I was looking at some statistics yesterday, we have the highest marriage rate in the world here in the U.S.A., maybe that has something to do with our high divorce rate?

We MUST protect this! Oh wait, unless you are not some ignorant, pig-headed fool. If you are not one of those, it does not make any sense that we somehow set standards on who you can or cannot marry in love and law.

There are no standards on who can marry, there is simply a definition of what marriage is.

I do not get people. If something does not hurt/use yourself or others, I really do not see why it would be any issue of mine. I happen to be attracted to those of the opposite sex, but if you are attracted to your same sex, more power to you.

I do not get people. They assume that because I am opposed to changing the rules, to changing what marriage is to suit anyone's wishes, that I am somehow opposed to their sexual preferences. These are two separate issues, folks. I REALLY couldn't care less what anyone does in their bedrooms, who they choose to cohabit with, etc.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
News Comments > Out of the Blue
99. Re: ... Apr 11, 2004, 02:13 Morlock
 
You talk about stawman arguments and then give a list of illogical diametric opposites, which is quite different from the relatively small shift of "man/woman" to "adult/adult".

I'll agree the analogies weren't perfect, but they were dead-on in terms of what I wanted to get across: change a definition enough, and it's become something so different as to make the original definition void. I wasn't trying to say that heterosexual marriage/homosexual "marriage" were as opposite as war/hate friend/enemy. Analogies are imperfect, this is sort of written into the nature of analogies.

This is all totally unrelated to strawman arguments, btw, and hardly qualifies as "illogical."

Redefining marriage to include same sex unions essentially nullifies the current (and from time immemorial) nature of marriage.

Sorry, but that's not good enough; it's like getting a reply of "just because" from a child when you ask them a question that requires an answer with a reason. (No, I'm not calling you a child.) Why does it bother you? How will it affect your life if gays are allowed to marry?

That's not the issue. Again, I don't predicate my decisions solely on how my life will be affected. Similarly, just because something isn't a bad idea doesn't mean it's a good idea. Should we just start legislating into effect every idea that isn't a bad one?

As for not being good enough, well, I can say the same for the arguments in favor of homosexual "marriage." The usual way of doing things isn't "if you can't think of a reason not to, then you have no excuse for not doing it," it's, "if you can't explain why I should, then I see no reason why I should."

In other words, the burden of proof is on those in favor of redefining marriage. Once the specious argument that homosexuals are being denied their rights is shown for what it is - a phantasm - there really isn't much to talk about imho. Marriage has worked fine for eons, I see no need to change its essential nature now.
This comment was edited on Apr 12, 19:33.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
39 Comments. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo