The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => Topic started by: rangerrebew on July 25, 2015, 02:25:25 pm
-
The Big Gay Marriage Lie
Gay marriage, we've been told, will not affect you. What a crock.
Daniel Payne
By Daniel Payne
July 24, 2015
It has become devastatingly clear that virtually the entirety of the gay-marriage activist effort was built on a lie. That lie, repeated ad nauseam, was this: gay marriage will affect nobody outside of the gays who wish to partake in it. This will become abundantly false as the Supreme Court-instituted gay marriage regime takes effect.
We did not actually need to nationalize gay marriage to realize this. We have had examples for years from the states that already legalized the practice. Combined with the growing public hostility towards supporters of traditional marriage, it is impossible at this point to deny that gay marriage is a growing and serious threat to the liberty of those who disagree with it.
Gay Marriage Doesn’t Hurt Anyone
Exhibit A comes to us from Gresham, Oregon, a state in which gay marriage has been legal since 2014. In Gresham, a couple of bakers declined to make a wedding cake for a lesbian wedding. Because the lesbians in question endured “emotional and mental suffering” after their cake request was turned down, the state’s labor commissioner demanded that the bakers—a husband-and-wife team—pay the plaintiffs $135,000.
In addition to this astronomical charge, the excitable commissioner ordered that the couple was not allowed to publicly proclaim their desire to not bake cakes for gay weddings. That is to say, the state slapped the Christian bakers with an enormous fine, then forbid them from advocating the point of view for which they were being fined.
Gay marriage, we’ve been told, will not affect you.
Exhibit B is found near Albany, New York, a state in which gay marriage has been recognized since 2011. At the Liberty Ridge Farm, another husband-and-wife team was fined $13,000 for refusing to host a gay wedding on their property (at which they host other public and private events). In 2012, a lesbian couple requested to use the property for their wedding. Believing in traditional marriage, the couple declined. Unluckily for the owners of the property, the phone call was being recorded. A judge subsequently determined the farmers guilty of “sexual orientation discrimination,” hence the fine. The farmers were also ordered to attend “staff re-education training classes.” The defendants have appealed the decision.
Just legalize it, we were told for years. It’s not going to affect you!
No More Churches For You
Exhibit C comes from the laughably-misemployed religion writer for The New York Times, Mark Oppenheimer: “Now’s the time,” he announced after the ruling, “to end tax exemptions for religious institutions.” Oppenheimer, you see, believes that a tax exemption is functionally identical to a “subsidy,” and because religious institutions and other non-profits can be “quite partisan,” they don’t deserve to receive “subsidies” that require the rest of us to “faithfully cut checks to them.”
Newspapers are using freedom to silence differing opinions on a critical, complex issue of serious public interest.
As a result of the Supreme Court declaring that homosexuals have the right to marry, in other words, we’re now facing an energized progressive intelligentsia that wishes to effectively shutter many if not most of America’s churches.
They told us over and over again: Gay marriage has nothing to do with you! You don’t have to worry about it!
Exhibit D—perhaps the most foreboding—is in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in which the editor of PennLive/The Patriot-News announced the paper “will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.” Under the First Amendment, the paper is free to refuse to print any letters it wants, of course. It is unfortunately utilizing that precious freedom to silence differing opinions on a critical, complex issue of serious public interest.
It is wholly plausible that many newspapers will follow suit, believing that opposition to or even skepticism about gay marriage is equivalent to, as the above newspaper’s editor put it, “racist, sexist, or anti-Semitic” opinions. Overnight, the sincerely-held opinions of a great many good, well-intentioned Americans became verboten. Reasonable dissent will not be tolerated.
Cheer Gay Marriage Or Face an Angry Mob
Over and over and over, the refrain went: Gay marriage is not a threat to you! Legalize it and nothing will change!
A ruling in favor of ‘love’ has instead resulted in open and unapologetic hate.
We have known for some time that this refrain was a lie—that it was a willful lie, and that these assurances were nothing more than a smokescreen of dishonesty and political chicanery. It is obviously not enough for gay marriage to be merely legal; progressives take it as a matter of personal offense that anybody, anywhere might not get behind homosexual matrimony as enthusiastically as the Left has done.
The Supreme Court’s decision will only galvanize this tendency. Thus comes the deluge, now on a national scale: the fines, the gag orders, the unfavorable tax treatment, the refusal to entertain the opposition’s opinion in polite society. The Supreme Court has unleashed a strange, almost comical beast upon the American body politic: a ruling in favor of “love” has instead resulted in open and unapologetic hate, and a public campaign made in the name of “tolerance” has instead resulted in a ruthless regime of intolerance.
Endlessly, it was repeated: if gay marriage is legalized, it will have nothing to do with you. Well, here we are. Gay marriage is legal. And it is clear that it will have everything to do with every one of us. We were lied to, and we will have to deal with the consequences, one silenced baker and bankrupt church at a time.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/07/24/the-big-gay-marriage-lie/
-
It has become devastatingly clear that virtually the entirety of the gay-marriage activist effort was built on a lie. That lie, repeated ad nauseam, was this: gay marriage will affect nobody outside of the gays who wish to partake in it. This will become abundantly false as the Supreme Court-instituted gay marriage regime takes effect.
It was certainly repeated ad nauseam around here...
-
It was certainly repeated ad nauseam around here...
Guess I'm one of the lucky few whose heterosexual marriage wasn't utterly destroyed by the SCOTUS decision...or maybe I'm just too screwed up to realize how bad my life became because two gays down the street have legalized their relationship... :laugh:
-
Guess I'm one of the lucky few whose heterosexual marriage wasn't utterly destroyed by the SCOTUS decision...or maybe I'm just too screwed up to realize how bad my life became because two gays down the street have legalized their relationship... :laugh:
That's because you'll bake the cake or anything else the gays want you to do...
-
Call me off-the-wall if you wish, but I still believe that enough states could be found to pass a "marriage amendment" to the Constitution, via Article V.
I truly believe that the conventional wisdom that "the nation as a whole accepts this" is completely wrong.
I'll take the tin foil hat off now.
-
That's because you'll bake the cake or anything else the gays want you to do...
That's not much of an answer Dan. Are you aware of any heterosexual marriage in the US that was harmed by gay marriages? Mine is just fine, and I'm not being asked to do anything for gays. Just how wonderful has marriage been in the US over the past few hundred years. We have marriages arranged by families, marriages arranged for political purposes, multiple husbands and multiple wives, marriages where no children were wanted, open marriages and cheating galore, and of course, continual increases in divorce.
Is all of this caused by gay marriage? Is any of it?
-
It was certainly repeated ad nauseam around here...
That is a concept Hitler understood well and used against the Jews. I believe 56 is the number of times repeated required to make people start believing just about anything.
-
That is a concept Hitler understood well and used against the Jews. I believe 56 is the number of times repeated required to make people start believing just about anything.
That's also the number of states...and a Heinz number. Very popular number :)
or is it Heinz 57..I get so confused.
-
Call me off-the-wall if you wish, but I still believe that enough states could be found to pass a "marriage amendment" to the Constitution, via Article V.
I truly believe that the conventional wisdom that "the nation as a whole accepts this" is completely wrong.
I'll take the tin foil hat off now.
The Nation as a whole doesn't accept anything. But a majority of Americans have come to accept gay marriage if not outright embrace it.
Quite a few states over the past few years have petitioned Congress for an Article V convention. I doubt there are any two though with the exact same agenda.
-
That's not much of an answer Dan. Are you aware of any heterosexual marriage in the US that was harmed by gay marriages? Mine is just fine, and I'm not being asked to do anything for gays. Just how wonderful has marriage been in the US over the past few hundred years. We have marriages arranged by families, marriages arranged for political purposes, multiple husbands and multiple wives, marriages where no children were wanted, open marriages and cheating galore, and of course, continual increases in divorce.
Is all of this caused by gay marriage? Is any of it?
Sure it is Mac, if you understand it...
Have muslim 4-wife max ever harmed my marriage? Nope. Must be OK then.
Have under-age polygamists ever harmed my marriage? Nope. Must be OK then.
Have bestialists ever harmed my marriage? Nope. Must be OK then.
Such is the kernel of your 'argument'...
-
Sure it is Mac, if you understand it...
Have muslim 4-wife max ever harmed my marriage? Nope. Must be OK then.
Have under-age polygamists ever harmed my marriage? Nope. Must be OK then.
Have bestialists ever harmed my marriage? Nope. Must be OK then.
Such is the kernel of your 'argument'...
Yes, a false premise if there ever was one.
I like the answer Obama got over in his home country regarding SSM.
"The future and foundation of our country, Kenya, is based on the family. We are not interested in anything that will destroy that."
-
Sure it is Mac, if you understand it...
Have muslim 4-wife max ever harmed my marriage? Nope. Must be OK then.
Have under-age polygamists ever harmed my marriage? Nope. Must be OK then.
Have bestialists ever harmed my marriage? Nope. Must be OK then.
Such is the kernel of your 'argument'...
Well, none of the 50-75 percent divorces have hurt my marriage either, so what? I know you like to speak about fallacious arguments (which I enjoy reading from time to time), but I would say you are engaging in the fallacy of the bad analogy.
I agree that none of those on your list would be acceptable to me, nor to most Americans. But to take your analogies further, the terrible divorce rates, the child abuse cases, the propensity of heterosexual couples to live together outside of marriage, the single parent households are all problems, and none of them are harming my marriage. Nor is any of that considered as bad by some as a gay marriage.
Gay marriage is the law today, and most Americans have accepted it. Proponents point to a fact that no one can deny, which is that monogamous relationships are better than polygamous or random relationships.
I argue not from a religious point of view but simply a secular one that usually speaks to more not less freedoms and rights. :beer:
-
Well, none of the 50-75 percent divorces have hurt my marriage either, so what? I know you like to speak about fallacious arguments (which I enjoy reading from time to time), but I would say you are engaging in the fallacy of the bad analogy.
I agree that none of those on your list would be acceptable to me, nor to most Americans. But to take your analogies further, the terrible divorce rates, the child abuse cases, the propensity of heterosexual couples to live together outside of marriage, the single parent households are all problems, and none of them are harming my marriage. Nor is any of that considered as bad by some as a gay marriage.
Gay marriage is the law today, and most Americans have accepted it. Proponents point to a fact that no one can deny, which is that monogamous relationships are better than polygamous or random relationships.
I argue not from a religious point of view but simply a secular one that usually speaks to more not less freedoms and rights. :beer:
Actually, yours is the fallacy of the bad analogy.
'More freedoms and rights' sound great... how about more 'freedoms' for adulterers, pedophiles and bestialists?
You can't be against that... can you?
-
Well, none of the 50-75 percent divorces have hurt my marriage either, so what? I know you like to speak about fallacious arguments (which I enjoy reading from time to time), but I would say you are engaging in the fallacy of the bad analogy.
I agree that none of those on your list would be acceptable to me, nor to most Americans. But to take your analogies further, the terrible divorce rates, the child abuse cases, the propensity of heterosexual couples to live together outside of marriage, the single parent households are all problems, and none of them are harming my marriage. Nor is any of that considered as bad by some as a gay marriage.
Gay marriage is the law today, and most Americans have accepted it. Proponents point to a fact that no one can deny, which is that monogamous relationships are better than polygamous or random relationships.
I argue not from a religious point of view but simply a secular one that usually speaks to more not less freedoms and rights. :beer:
I tolerate it but will never accept it.
But isn't the issue in the article more of social damage than damage to a single person?
The issue in the article is not one of mistreatment of gays, they are not being hunted down.
When you own/rent property to run a business, you have the right to determine what activity is acceptable on that property, it is called property rights.
You have the right not to accept checks or credit cards, you can refuse service for no shoes no shirts, if someone is drunk the bar can refuse service.
Yet, gays have the full access and backing of the federal government to force a business to "participate" in their behavior, i.e. baking a "gay cake" for example.
The scouts now must allow openly gay leadership. So how do you prevent the scout leader and their partner from preaching gay is great to his scouts because they are asking why they sleep together?
So what if a muslim comes in and wants to buy a car. Muslims are forbidden to pay interest.
Should they be able to force a business to sell a car at no interest?
-
Actually, yours is the fallacy of the bad analogy.
'More freedoms and rights' sound great... how about more 'freedoms' for adulterers, pedophiles and bestialists?
You can't be against that... can you?
We don't live in a completely lawless society. Adultery is one of the big issues in heterosexual relationships along with all those other problems I mentioned. Is a marriage between two gays worse than all of those issues which really are tearing down our society?
Throwing in pedophilia and bestiality truly is the bad analogy and I think you know that. Both are illegal and will likely always be as innocent beings unable to make sound, adult decisions are forced or coerced into sexual acts. Nor would most Americans see the comparisons.
-
We don't live in a completely lawless society. Adultery is one of the big issues in heterosexual relationships along with all those other problems I mentioned. Is a marriage between two gays worse than all of those issues which really are tearing down our society?
Throwing in pedophilia and bestiality truly is the bad analogy and I think you know that. Both are illegal and will likely always be as innocent beings unable to make sound, adult decisions are forced or coerced into sexual acts. Nor would most Americans see the comparisons.
Nope... all are sexual peversions. As homosexuality was once illegal and became 'legal', so they can become as well... despite your empty assurances.
The bad analogy started when you claimed that a lack of personal impact legitimizes a behavior and I think you know that.
-
We don't live in a completely lawless society. Adultery is one of the big issues in heterosexual relationships along with all those other problems I mentioned. Is a marriage between two gays worse than all of those issues which really are tearing down our society?
Throwing in pedophilia and bestiality truly is the bad analogy and I think you know that. Both are illegal and will likely always be as innocent beings unable to make sound, adult decisions are forced or coerced into sexual acts. Nor would most Americans see the comparisons.
First off, your cherry picked, artificial construct of an argument from your first post is willful obtuseness. You ask how gay marriage is harming us - the article addresses that in the reverse, in that gay marriage advocates promised us it wouldn't. Yet it does because we as a society are forced to accept it via baking cakes, having it proselytized in our schools, having churches lose tax exemption, newspapers not accepting any letters against it.
This argument is equally as bad. And as Gourmet Dan points out homosexuality was once illegal as well, so the illegal stance is a line in the sand you can't enforce. It's also a diversion, as it is all based on sexual orientation, a broad definition that doesn't exclude what is now illegal someday being legal.
In fact your equal protection argument DEMANDS them becoming legal, as discrimination against sexual orientation applies to them too. Otherwise you are advocating that a holy govt tribunal playing God (and likely violating separation of church and state). By deciding who is and who is not equal based on arbitrary declarations of legalityand illegality, your are also also doubly violating the very equal protection they claim to uphold by telling others they can't discriminate while the govt can because it can play God and choose who falls under equal protection and who does not.
-
Nope... all are sexual peversions. As homosexuality was once illegal and became 'legal', so they can become as well... despite your empty assurances.
The bad analogy started when you claimed that a lack of personal impact legitimizes a behavior and I think you know that.
I said a specific thing, gay marriage, had no impact on my marriage...or for that matter any other. You then threw in pedophilia, bestiality, etc. That is the classic definition of the bad analogy.
In any case, neither of us can see the future; well I'm not particularly prescient anyway. But suggesting that two adult homosexuals that want to get married will lead to pedophile marriages is no different from suggesting that two heterosexuals who want to get married will lead to the same thing. Pedophilia has been around since the dawn of time, and I don't know where it's been approved by society recently, other than a few states in the South, the bastion of Christian morals, where girls as young as twelve were allowed to marry with their parents permission. I believe today the youngest with parental permission is 16.
-
First off, your cherry picked, artificial construct of an argument from your first post is willful obtuseness.
I know that on these issues with some, any argument is considered willful obtuseness. But then the on your side it must be considered serious thoughtful debate. I'm learning... :pondering:
You ask how gay marriage is harming us - the article addresses that in the reverse, in that gay marriage advocates promised us it wouldn't. Yet it does because we as a society are forced to accept it via baking cakes, having it proselytized in our schools, having churches lose tax exemption, newspapers not accepting any letters against it.
Business rules within a state have nothing to do with mine or anyone else's marriage. Nor am I aware of any church losing its tax exemption based on gay marriage issues. If a case comes up, I have little doubt the USSC will come down similar to its decision on Hobby Lobby. Newspapers are free businesses, and can pick and choose what letters they want to print. Again if my local paper doesn't want to print a letter condemning...or supporting gay marriage, it has no effect on my marriage or life for that matter. If I don't like what my paper is doing, I can cancel it. Schools have been spouting liberal thought for years. Good parenting doesn't preclude sitting down with your kids and giving the other side to issues being taught in school.
This argument is equally as bad. And as Gourmet Dan points out homosexuality was once illegal as well, so the illegal stance is a line in the sand you can't enforce. It's also a diversion, as it is all based on sexual orientation, a broad definition that doesn't exclude what is now illegal someday being legal.
Lots of things were once illegal. Women couldn't vote; interracial marriages were illegal in some states; homosexuals had less privacy protection than heterosexuals; blacks were discriminated against in the Army. Lots more examples, not just gay marriage. Though I'm not sure what you mean by the line in the sand that is unenforceable.
In fact your equal protection argument DEMANDS them becoming legal, as discrimination against sexual orientation applies to them too. Otherwise you are advocating that a holy govt tribunal playing God (and likely violating separation of church and state). By deciding who is and who is not equal based on arbitrary declarations of legalityand illegality, your are also also doubly violating the very equal protection they claim to uphold by telling others they can't discriminate while the govt can because it can play God and choose who falls under equal protection and who does not.
With all due respect, I'm not sure where you're headed with that, but I'll give it a shot. The 14th Amendment does call for due process and equal protection of the laws. When a case is filed under either, the state is given the opportunity to show a compelling interest in continuing the alleged discrimination. If an 80 year old wants to pilot a commercial aircraft he is prohibited by the mandatory restrictions on age by the FAA. Is that discrimination? Of course, but the government can show a compelling interest in not having someone of that age piloting a commercial aircraft.
There will continue to be cases filed under the equal protection clause when any one or any group believes that a state or other jurisdiction is treating them differently. Sometimes they win; sometimes not. The Constitution is intended to protect everyone, not just the majority.
-
I said a specific thing, gay marriage, had no impact on my marriage...or for that matter any other. You then threw in pedophilia, bestiality, etc. That is the classic definition of the bad analogy.
The bad analogy was when you compared a societal change with your marriage and claimed that the lack of effect on your marriage means that the societal change is therefore benign.
In any case, neither of us can see the future; well I'm not particularly prescient anyway. But suggesting that two adult homosexuals that want to get married will lead to pedophile marriages is no different from suggesting that two heterosexuals who want to get married will lead to the same thing. Pedophilia has been around since the dawn of time, and I don't know where it's been approved by society recently, other than a few states in the South, the bastion of Christian morals, where girls as young as twelve were allowed to marry with their parents permission. I believe today the youngest with parental permission is 16.
Actually, it is different. Homosexuality is a perversion just like pedophilia is a perversion. You support one perversion yet oppose another simply because you do not approve of the other...
-
A ruling in favor of ‘love’ has instead resulted in open and unapologetic hate.
The persuasiveness of the 'love' argument has always amazed me.
The left is filled with hatred for those who disagree with them, or dare oppose them.
Anyone who thought that legalizing 'gay' marriage would not result in punishment of those who dare disagree is frighteningly naïve.
The left doesn't work that way. They use the words "those you love" to expose their abject hatred of the majority of Americans.
-
First off, your cherry picked, artificial construct of an argument from your first post is willful obtuseness. You ask how gay marriage is harming us - the article addresses that in the reverse, in that gay marriage advocates promised us it wouldn't. Yet it does because we as a society are forced to accept it via baking cakes, having it proselytized in our schools, having churches lose tax exemption, newspapers not accepting any letters against it.
This argument is equally as bad. And as Gourmet Dan points out homosexuality was once illegal as well, so the illegal stance is a line in the sand you can't enforce. It's also a diversion, as it is all based on sexual orientation, a broad definition that doesn't exclude what is now illegal someday being legal.
In fact your equal protection argument DEMANDS them becoming legal, as discrimination against sexual orientation applies to them too. Otherwise you are advocating that a holy govt tribunal playing God (and likely violating separation of church and state). By deciding who is and who is not equal based on arbitrary declarations of legalityand illegality, your are also also doubly violating the very equal protection they claim to uphold by telling others they can't discriminate while the govt can because it can play God and choose who falls under equal protection and who does not.
goopo
-
First off, your cherry picked, artificial construct of an argument from your first post is willful obtuseness. You ask how gay marriage is harming us - the article addresses that in the reverse, in that gay marriage advocates promised us it wouldn't. Yet it does because we as a society are forced to accept it via baking cakes, having it proselytized in our schools, having churches lose tax exemption, newspapers not accepting any letters against it.
This argument is equally as bad. And as Gourmet Dan points out homosexuality was once illegal as well, so the illegal stance is a line in the sand you can't enforce. It's also a diversion, as it is all based on sexual orientation, a broad definition that doesn't exclude what is now illegal someday being legal.
In fact your equal protection argument DEMANDS them becoming legal, as discrimination against sexual orientation applies to them too. Otherwise you are advocating that a holy govt tribunal playing God (and likely violating separation of church and state). By deciding who is and who is not equal based on arbitrary declarations of legalityand illegality, your are also also doubly violating the very equal protection they claim to uphold by telling others they can't discriminate while the govt can because it can play God and choose who falls under equal protection and who does not.
I'm just going to add one point here, MAC pretty much covered the rest of your points very well.
That "we as a society" that you spoke of includes a significant number of people that do not agree with you on any point that you made. They (right or wrong as "they" may be) support the idea that bakeries should be forced to bake cakes, that it should be proselytized in schools, that churches should have their tax exempt status taken from them, and that newspapers should be free to NOT publish something that they don't want to publish.
The "we as a society" argument fails because "we" have many different opinions on what constitutes the right way for society to be structured.
They are all in fact wrong.
You are, and "they" are.
The entity know as "society" has no rights. Only individuals have rights, and all rights are individual in nature.
To argue that the rights of individuals are subservient in some way to the rights of the collective (society) is collectivism, and true conservatism (I seldom use that qualifier) is centered around the idea of individualism and individual rights. Our Republican form of government was constructed to defend the rights of the individual, every individual, and in turn minorities, which when extends to its logical conclusion to the defense of all. Ergo, the defense of the majority.
Society at large, and laws in general, is a construct of individuals banding together in order to provide for mutual defense of the group's lives and property.
-
The bad analogy was when you compared a societal change with your marriage and claimed that the lack of effect on your marriage means that the societal change is therefore benign.
Actually, it is different. Homosexuality is a perversion just like pedophilia is a perversion. You support one perversion yet oppose another simply because you do not approve of the other...
Of course I compared this USSC ruling to my marriage. That's been the majority of the argument against gay marriage...that it destroys the "sanctity" of marriage. Whether its benign or malignant will come to light in the future. But I can certainly argue that many of our cultural and societal changes among heterosexuals as we've discussed have been very damaging to a moral society. Is a committed gay marriage any less moral than the heterosexual divorce rate, or the single parent households, or the rate of unfaithfulness among spouses. Is a gay marriage more damaging than what goes on at a gay bath house with multiple partners?
As for comparing gay marriage to pedophilia, would you then also agree that a slap in the face is similar to murder as both are forms of assault?
-
Of course I compared this USSC ruling to my marriage. That's been the majority of the argument against gay marriage...that it destroys the "sanctity" of marriage. Whether its benign or malignant will come to light in the future. But I can certainly argue that many of our cultural and societal changes among heterosexuals as we've discussed have been very damaging to a moral society. Is a committed gay marriage any less moral than the heterosexual divorce rate, or the single parent households, or the rate of unfaithfulness among spouses. Is a gay marriage more damaging than what goes on at a gay bath house with multiple partners?
Your argument is that preceding errors justify continuing the trend of normalizing perversion? How are you going to stop pedophile and bestial marriage? Homosexuality has always been malignant to society. No need to wait for the 'future' to find that out...
As for comparing gay marriage to pedophilia, would you then also agree that a slap in the face is similar to murder as both are forms of assault?
Homosexuality is sexual perversion just as pedophilia is sexual peversion.
-
Your argument is that preceding errors justify continuing the trend of normalizing perversion? How are you going to stop pedophile and bestial marriage? Homosexuality has always been malignant to society. No need to wait for the 'future' to find that out...
Homosexuality is sexual perversion just as pedophilia is sexual peversion.
I suppose you could also say that sexual acts other than intercourse between consenting heterosexuals is also perversion, yet a vast majority engage in them.
I have little concern for the acts between two consenting adults, but I do have great concern over acts that have victims. There are far more girls who are molested by males and even males who are married, yet that doesn't seem to be an issue for those whose obsession is with stopping gay marriage. So if homosexuality is related to pedophilia, then by definition so must heterosexuality. Pedophilia requires victims and that is a difference, not just a distinction.
-
I suppose you could also say that sexual acts other than intercourse between consenting heterosexuals is also perversion, yet a vast majority engage in them.
Didn't your Mama ever say, "If everybody else jumped off a bridge would you do it too?"
I have little concern for the acts between two consenting adults, but I do have great concern over acts that have victims. There are far more girls who are molested by males and even males who are married, yet that doesn't seem to be an issue for those whose obsession is with stopping gay marriage. So if homosexuality is related to pedophilia, then by definition so must heterosexuality. Pedophilia requires victims and that is a difference, not just a distinction.
If you really "have great concern over acts that have victims", then you certainly should not support homosexuality. Victims abound in the homosexual lifestyle.
And again with the 'preceding errors justify continuing the trend of normalizing perversion' argument...
-
Didn't your Mama ever say, "If everybody else jumped off a bridge would you do it too?"
If you really "have great concern over acts that have victims", then you certainly should not support homosexuality. Victims abound in the homosexual lifestyle.
And again with the 'preceding errors justify continuing the trend of normalizing perversion' argument...
:facepalm2:
-
:facepalm2:
:boring:
-
Homosexuality is sexual perversion just as pedophilia is sexual peversion.
l
Anal sex between a heterosexual couple is also a sexual perversion.
Group sex is a a sexual perversion.
The fact is that many citizens have accepted homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.
Very few people consider pedophilia to be acceptable, so that's an argument best-made on a board with dumber posts than this one.
You seem to be a very binary thinker.
-
You seem to be a very binary thinker.
That's one digit too many.
-
l
Anal sex between a heterosexual couple is also a sexual perversion.
Group sex is a a sexual perversion.
The fact is that many citizens have accepted homosexuality as an acceptable lifestyle.
Very few people consider pedophilia to be acceptable, so that's an argument best-made on a board with dumber posts than this one.
You seem to be a very binary thinker.
The problem here is with letting what many citizens 'accept' determine what is right and what is legal.
In Muslim countries many citizens already 'accept' pedophilia.
There is no logical reason, considering what the left has accomplished in the past few decades to dull our senses toward homosexuality, that it will not also succeed in doing the same thing with pedophilia.
It may take a bit longer, but there is no reason to believe that it won't happen.
My point is that we cannot let what citizens 'accept' determine what is right.
-
The problem here is with letting what many citizens 'accept' determine what is right and what is legal.
In Muslim countries many citizens already 'accept' pedophilia.
There is no logical reason, considering what the left has accomplished in the past few decades to dull our senses toward homosexuality, that it will not also succeed in doing the same thing with pedophilia.
It may take a bit longer, but there is no reason to believe that it won't happen.
My point is that we cannot let what citizens 'accept' determine what is right.
Who then if not the people, should determine what is right when it comes to "moral" issues among consenting adults?
-
Who then if not the people, should determine what is right when it comes to "moral" issues among consenting adults?
What consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business, whether I approve or not.
I think the real issue becomes where is the line between forcing me to accept "unacceptable" behavior in public and the impact that has on our kids.
We are being pushed into a situation where you have to explain this to a youngster and in that explanation, you have to either label it as bad or good behavior, and I am certainly not going to say it is ok.
-
You seem to be a very binary thinker.
That's one digit too many.
Only because I must consider the critical-thinking skills of the message's intended recipient(s)...
-
Who then if not the people, should determine what is right when it comes to "moral" issues among consenting adults?
Let me turn that around on you, MAC.
What will you think if/when the people decide that pedophilia is just a matter of 'who you love?' (Actually, that argument is already being used to defend those who 'love' children).
Will you support it? Or do you believe there are standards that the whims of the people shouldn't violate?
Are there any? Or do 'the people' get whatever they want?
-
What consenting adults do behind closed doors is none of my business, whether I approve or not.
I think the real issue becomes where is the line between forcing me to accept "unacceptable" behavior in public and the impact that has on our kids.
We are being pushed into a situation where you have to explain this to a youngster and in that explanation, you have to either label it as bad or good behavior, and I am certainly not going to say it is ok.
I don't think that's a problem at all in terms of what parents tell their children. Given the propensity of children to access a lot of bad stuff on the internet and sexting though, I'd suggest parents start with that at least along with if not before telling them about the evils of gay marriages. But that's just me. Anyway, I'm not being forced to accept anything regarding the moral behavior of anyone.
-
I don't think that's a problem at all in terms of what parents tell their children. Given the propensity of children to access a lot of bad stuff on the internet and sexting though, I'd suggest parents start with that at least along with if not before telling them about the evils of gay marriages. But that's just me. Anyway, I'm not being forced to accept anything regarding the moral behavior of anyone.
Mac, with all due respect, I strongly disagree.
Unlike most on this site, I am still raising a 7 year old grandson and he does not have access to the internet but he sees these things going on in public and is starting to question it.
How our kids learn to deal with this stuff is going to determine what happens long after you and I are pushing up daisy's...
-
Let me turn that around on you, MAC.
What will you think if/when the people decide that pedophilia is just a matter of 'who you love?' (Actually, that argument is already being used to defend those who 'love' children).
Will you support it? Or do you believe there are standards that the whims of the people shouldn't violate?
Are there any? Or do 'the people' get whatever they want?
Problem is you've laid out a straw man with respect to pedophilia. I've never advanced the argument that pedophilia or any other kinky thing that involves victims is okay. You've laid a direct line from gay marriage to pedophilia. Yet, society and the laws have accepted homosexuality many years before gay marriage. They've additionally accepted many other behaviors the moralists day they despise like people living together, growing divorce rates, privacy in one's home, birth control, abortion. Yet none of those have in any way led to a legalization of either pedophilia or bestiality.
I will always believe that a state has the power and the obligation to prevent behaviors that involve victims. But with respect to moral issues between consenting adults, yes, we the people should generally be left alone.
But back to my question to you. If not the people, who should determine what is morally right among consenting adults?
-
Mac, with all due respect, I strongly disagree.
Unlike most on this site, I am still raising a 7 year old grandson and he does not have access to the internet but he sees these things going on in public and is starting to question it.
How our kids learn to deal with this stuff is going to determine what happens long after you and I are pushing up daisy's...
I also have two grandchildren whom I worry about continually. If your grandson sees something in public that you question, at least he has you to help him develop his moral compass. That's a good thing. When he's 10, 12, 14 though you will have far less influence, and he will be bombarded with a lot of pretty bad stuff. I personally would find it easier to tell him that all this stuff he finds on the internet and in his emailing with his friends needs to be looked at with caution. If you feel gay marriage is the greatest threat to him, by all means let him know that. I don't.
So we agree to disagree.
-
Problem is you've laid out a straw man with respect to pedophilia. I've never advanced the argument that pedophilia or any other kinky thing that involves victims is okay. You've laid a direct line from gay marriage to pedophilia. Yet, society and the laws have accepted homosexuality many years before gay marriage. They've additionally accepted many other behaviors the moralists day they despise like people living together, growing divorce rates, privacy in one's home, birth control, abortion. Yet none of those have in any way led to a legalization of either pedophilia or bestiality.
I will always believe that a state has the power and the obligation to prevent behaviors that involve victims. But with respect to moral issues between consenting adults, yes, we the people should generally be left alone.
But back to my question to you. If not the people, who should determine what is morally right among consenting adults?
It's not any sort of 'straw man'.... and I didn't accuse you of supporting pedophilia. I just implied that you are inconsistent.
If and when pedophilia becomes socially acceptable, you will NOT support it.
Ergo your standard of what 'the people' want falls flat on its proverbial face.
As to your question......... I believe in absolute truth, and standards that go beyond what 'the people' happen to feel like on any given day.
"The people" supported owning other people, and supported keeping women from being able to vote. Our history is rife with examples of how wrong "the people" can be.
In this case, public opinion, forced by years of leftist propaganda, has given in to saying in public that homosexual marriage is OK.
That doesn't make it right, any more than it made slavery right. Public opinion can be very, very wrong.
-
The problem here is with letting what many citizens 'accept' determine what is right and what is legal.
In Muslim countries many citizens already 'accept' pedophilia.
There is no logical reason, considering what the left has accomplished in the past few decades to dull our senses toward homosexuality, that it will not also succeed in doing the same thing with pedophilia.
It may take a bit longer, but there is no reason to believe that it won't happen.
My point is that we cannot let what citizens 'accept' determine what is right.
I'm not saying it's acceptable or unacceptable. I'm relaying a fact. Society deems homosexuality as a more acceptable "perversion" than it does pedophilia. Which is why the comparison is a bad one, IMO, and a losing argument.
-
I also have two grandchildren whom I worry about continually. If your grandson sees something in public that you question, at least he has you to help him develop his moral compass. That's a good thing. When he's 10, 12, 14 though you will have far less influence, and he will be bombarded with a lot of pretty bad stuff. I personally would find it easier to tell him that all this stuff he finds on the internet and in his emailing with his friends needs to be looked at with caution. If you feel gay marriage is the greatest threat to him, by all means let him know that. I don't.
So we agree to disagree.
Hummm, the fever went away I guess.... :tongue2:
-
It's not any sort of 'straw man'.... and I didn't accuse you of supporting pedophilia. I just implied that you are inconsistent.
If and when pedophilia becomes socially acceptable, you will NOT support it.
Ergo your standard of what 'the people' want falls flat on its proverbial face.
Since I have always held and said that moral issues between consenting adults is not something I believe should be regulated, but that when a victim is involved as in pedophilia it should, I'm not sure why it falls flat on anything. Our rights guaranteed by the Constitution and its amendments do not protect a right to endanger or harm others.
As to your question......... I believe in absolute truth, and standards that go beyond what 'the people' happen to feel like on any given day.
"The people" supported owning other people, and supported keeping women from being able to vote. Our history is rife with examples of how wrong "the people" can be.
In this case, public opinion, forced by years of leftist propaganda, has given in to saying in public that homosexual marriage is OK.
That doesn't make it right, any more than it made slavery right. Public opinion can be very, very wrong.
Slavery involved owning other people. Slaves were not consenting adults. The rights of women who could not vote were being violated, and both of those issues were resolved through constitutional amendments. I'm missing the analogies.
Public opinion has changed, not been forced in the area of gay marriage, any more than it has in the changes in heterosexual marriage, divorce, adultery and the other issues involving the opposite sexes.
I respect your right to the opinion that what the people want with regard to moral issues shouldn't be the guiding factor, but I still want to know who is to decide if not the people? Who will set these standards that the people shouldn't violate, and even more so, how are they to be enforced?
-
Hummm, the fever went away I guess.... :tongue2:
:laugh:
-
Luis wrote:
[[ That "we as a society" that you spoke of includes a significant number of people that do not agree with you on any point that you made. They (right or wrong as "they" may be) support the idea that bakeries should be forced to bake cakes, that it should be proselytized in schools, that churches should have their tax exempt status taken from them, and that newspapers should be free to NOT publish something that they don't want to publish. ]]
Our nation has become so divided -- and is continuing to further divide -- that reconciliation between the opposing sides is no longer possible.
I would prefer to no longer live in such a nation that is moving in the direction that this one is. I sense that many many more Americans share similar sentiments.
Yet it will not be a matter of leaving the land in which we live and love for somewhere else.
We are approaching another "When in the course of human events...." moment, where one side must stand and face off against the other.
You'll probably reply that that can't happen here again.
My response will be that it -must- again happen here, or else the America of our memory will soon pass into history, replaced by another nation that fifty years ago almost no one would have thought possible... by a system of despotic rule against which millions of our forebears fought and died opposing.
Luis closed:
[[ Society at large, and laws in general, is a construct of individuals banding together in order to provide for mutual defense of the group's lives and property. ]]
Yes.
And perhaps it will soon be time for such a "construct of individuals" to band together once again, in "mutual defense" of the traditional American nation...
-
Let me turn that around on you, MAC.
What will you think if/when the people decide that pedophilia is just a matter of 'who you love?' (Actually, that argument is already being used to defend those who 'love' children).
Will you support it? Or do you believe there are standards that the whims of the people shouldn't violate?
Are there any? Or do 'the people' get whatever they want?
People cannot decide that there is a right to molest a child, all the hysteria aside.
To compare pedophilia (rape) to consensual sex between two adults is to make the argument that legitimizing ANY sex between consenting adults that some other adults may not approve of, leads to the legitimization of pedophilia.
That is absurd.
Consensual sex requires that the people engaging in the act CONSENT to it. Children cannot give consent, because with the right to give consent to things, comes the responsibility, financial, legal, etc, for the possible consequences of the action that you're consenting to.
-
I would prefer to no longer live in such a nation that is moving in the direction that this one is. I sense that many many more Americans share similar sentiments.
I left mine.
You're free to leave.
-
I left mine.
You're free to leave.
Saudi Arabia or Iran seems to be a possible destination for some of these posters and their social issue, line in the sand mandates.
I'm part of a more enlightened generation, where I believe that ultimately a higher power will or will not judge people based on their sexual activities.
It's really none of my business, until it becomes children or other adults who haven't given consent being abused sexually.
-
People cannot decide that there is a right to molest a child, all the hysteria aside.
To compare pedophilia (rape) to consensual sex between two adults is to make the argument that legitimizing ANY sex between consenting adults that some other adults may not approve of, leads to the legitimization of pedophilia.
That is absurd.
Consensual sex requires that the people engaging in the act CONSENT to it. Children cannot give consent, because with the right to give consent to things, comes the responsibility, financial, legal, etc, for the possible consequences of the action that you're consenting to.
Once you decide that sex with children (who cannot give consent) is legal, then why not rape, which also entails sex without consent of one of the parties? And it doesn't even have to be forcable; just add a couple of roofies and proceed. How about sex between doctor and patient, judge and defendant, or teacher and student? I don't know anywhere that sex involving a person in a position of responsibility is legal.
This is the problem with overuse of the slippery slope fallacy. It's a tactic used when direct attacks on an issue are failing. The left uses it constantly. "If we don't force Georgetown to provide contraceptives to women, soon the right will take all contraceptives away". "If we try to regulate late-term birth abortions, soon abortions will be unavailable to women anywhere"...
-
Once you decide that sex with children (who cannot give consent) is legal, then why not rape, which also entails sex without consent of one of the parties? And it doesn't even have to be forcable; just add a couple of roofies and proceed. How about sex between doctor and patient, judge and defendant, or teacher and student? I don't know anywhere that sex involving a person in a position of responsibility is legal.
This is the problem with overuse of the slippery slope fallacy. It's a tactic used when direct attacks on an issue are failing. The left uses it constantly. "If we don't force Georgetown to provide contraceptives to women, soon the right will take all contraceptives away". "If we try to regulate late-term birth abortions, soon abortions will be unavailable to women anywhere"...
And if we ban 3000 round magazines, the left will take away all guns....
-
I'm not saying it's acceptable or unacceptable. I'm relaying a fact. Society deems homosexuality as a more acceptable "perversion" than it does pedophilia. Which is why the comparison is a bad one, IMO, and a losing argument.
I don't think it's a losing argument, Carling.
Did anyone ever imagine after Roe v. Wade passed that the abortion industry would move so quickly to torturing and murdering children being born, ripping them apart and selling their organs for profit?
I think those who dismiss the pedophilia argument are not in full understanding of how evil the left is, and how persuasive they are because they control the language of the debate.
There are some here on a conservative website who say it can't happen, but I think that's not realistic.
All we have to do is look at how the left works, how they control education, popular culture, the media and it's not hard to project what their influence will be in the future.
Homosexual "marriage" was not on the radar of decent Americans a few decades ago, and the propaganda campaign has succeeded in convincing a large percentage of the population that it's "normal" for one man to have sex with another.
Pedophilia may not be next in line (polygamy and incest seem like they'll be next because they are involving consenting adults and the "who you love" crap can be easily argued to defend further perversion), but there is already movement to accept the unacceptable, and there is absolutely no reason to trust the left not to succeed in furthering the degradation of the culture.
It's part of their game plan.
-
I don't think it's a losing argument, Carling.
Did anyone ever imagine after Roe v. Wade passed that the abortion industry would move so quickly to torturing and murdering children being born, ripping them apart and selling their organs for profit?
I think those who dismiss the pedophilia argument are not in full understanding of how evil the left is, and how persuasive they are because they control the language of the debate.
There are some here on a conservative website who say it can't happen, but I think that's not realistic.
All we have to do is look at how the left works, how they control education, popular culture, the media and it's not hard to project what their influence will be in the future.
Homosexual "marriage" was not on the radar of decent Americans a few decades ago, and the propaganda campaign has succeeded in convincing a large percentage of the population that it's "normal" for one man to have sex with another.
Pedophilia may not be next in line (polygamy and incest seem like they'll be next because they are involving consenting adults and the "who you love" crap can be easily argued to defend further perversion), but there is already movement to accept the unacceptable, and there is absolutely no reason to trust the left not to succeed in furthering the degradation of the culture.
It's part of their game plan.
AND, I might mention, fits right in with their ultimate plan to have a single payer medical care so that WE get to pay for all the results of their "lifestyle choices"!
-
And if we ban 3000 round magazines, the left will take away all guns....
I'm sure there a lot more examples. Dumping granny over the cliff. All sorts of slippery slope charges come from the appropriations process debates. Sorting through the ones with merit vs. the ones without is not an easy task. The whole political process thrives on hyperbole.
-
People cannot decide that there is a right to molest a child, all the hysteria aside.
To compare pedophilia (rape) to consensual sex between two adults is to make the argument that legitimizing ANY sex between consenting adults that some other adults may not approve of, leads to the legitimization of pedophilia.
That is absurd.
Consensual sex requires that the people engaging in the act CONSENT to it. Children cannot give consent, because with the right to give consent to things, comes the responsibility, financial, legal, etc, for the possible consequences of the action that you're consenting to.
Cheap shot with the 'hysteria' garbage, Luis.
Every argument I ever give on the subject is based on both history and logic. Nothing hysterical about it.
I'm reading a book called "The Death of the Grown-up" and it contains an interesting history of how teenagers took over American culture while adults abdicated it. (It's a good read...... at least so far). The germane part to this discussion is the chapter on teenagers and that before WWII, there really was no such thing. There were adults, and there were children. Those in their teens aspired to be adults.
My point is, that culturally definitions change, ages of consent definitely change, and that it can happen quickly.
How you define "children" is not necessarily how other cultures define it, nor even how other Americans define it. You're dealing with a moving target, Luis, and seeming to claim it will hold still.
The 'age of consent' is arbitrary. My mother was married at 17, and fully adult. Earlier in history people married even younger.
It is not even remotely out of the realm of possibility that the left, pushing further their sexual 'revolution' will move the age of consent to younger ages, permitting the sexually perverse adults who are attracted to children to get the 'consent' of their victims legally (and many already do emotionally).
The bottom line is, that you can't be so sure what will be accepted in the future, and what changes will be made to stretch further the definition of what is 'normal.'
The left isn't stopping with homosexual "marriage."
The left never stops.
-
AND, I might mention, fits right in with their ultimate plan to have a single payer medical care so that WE get to pay for all the results of their "lifestyle choices"!
That too!
-
AND, I might mention, fits right in with their ultimate plan to have a single payer medical care so that WE get to pay for all the results of their "lifestyle choices"!
I agree with you on that, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. And to be fair, the left has always been working toward a goal of single payer. Obamacare was designed to create so much chaos in the medical insurance area that the people would demand a government option. Of course the government option would be the cheapest, so in time everyone would move to it, and away from the insurance industry. Tie up a few loose ends like VA, Medicare, Medicaid, and you now have single payer.They've not kept it a secret. Obama said that even before he was elected.
Hopefully though you're not saying that gay marriage is leading to single payer medical are you?
-
Mac, with all due respect, I strongly disagree.
Unlike most on this site, I am still raising a 7 year old grandson and he does not have access to the internet but he sees these things going on in public and is starting to question it.
How our kids learn to deal with this stuff is going to determine what happens long after you and I are pushing up daisy's...
Yes, this is the problem. The young kids grow up thinking that whatever is in public and on TV is 'normal'...
And so is a society destroyed... generation by generation... slowly but surely...
-
I agree with you on that, but it has nothing to do with the issue at hand. And to be fair, the left has always been working toward a goal of single payer. Obamacare was designed to create so much chaos in the medical insurance area that the people would demand a government option. Of course the government option would be the cheapest, so in time everyone would move to it, and away from the insurance industry. Tie up a few loose ends like VA, Medicare, Medicaid, and you now have single payer.They've not kept it a secret. Obama said that even before he was elected.
Hopefully though you're not saying that gay marriage is leading to single payer medical are you?
Which came first? The chicken or the egg? They have been working on both things for a VERY long time Mac! Much longer than most folks realize in fact!
Congressional Record--Appendix, pp. A34-A35
January 10, 1963
Current Communist Goals
EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. A. S. HERLONG, JR. OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, January 10, 1963
Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Patricia Nordman of De Land, Fla., is an ardent and articulate opponent of communism, and until recently published the De Land Courier, which she dedicated to the purpose of alerting the public to the dangers of communism in America.
At Mrs. Nordman's request, I include in the RECORD, under unanimous consent, the following "Current Communist Goals," which she identifies as an excerpt from "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen:
[From "The Naked Communist," by Cleon Skousen]
CURRENT COMMUNIST GOALS
1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policymaking positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. "Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a "religious crutch."
28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the "big picture." Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use ["]united force["] to solve economic, political or social problems.
43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
-
I'm sure there a lot more examples. Dumping granny over the cliff. All sorts of slippery slope charges come from the appropriations process debates. Sorting through the ones with merit vs. the ones without is not an easy task. The whole political process thrives on hyperbole.
All I was trying to point out was that both dems and repubs do the same thing....
And the trouble is, they are right.
-
Cheap shot with the 'hysteria' garbage, Luis.
Every argument I ever give on the subject is based on both history and logic. Nothing hysterical about it.
I'm reading a book called "The Death of the Grown-up" and it contains an interesting history of how teenagers took over American culture while adults abdicated it. (It's a good read...... at least so far). The germane part to this discussion is the chapter on teenagers and that before WWII, there really was no such thing. There were adults, and there were children. Those in their teens aspired to be adults.
My point is, that culturally definitions change, ages of consent definitely change, and that it can happen quickly.
How you define "children" is not necessarily how other cultures define it, nor even how other Americans define it. You're dealing with a moving target, Luis, and seeming to claim it will hold still.
The 'age of consent' is arbitrary. My mother was married at 17, and fully adult. Earlier in history people married even younger.
It is not even remotely out of the realm of possibility that the left, pushing further their sexual 'revolution' will move the age of consent to younger ages, permitting the sexually perverse adults who are attracted to children to get the 'consent' of their victims legally (and many already do emotionally).
The bottom line is, that you can't be so sure what will be accepted in the future, and what changes will be made to stretch further the definition of what is 'normal.'
The left isn't stopping with homosexual "marriage."
The left never stops.
Excellent post and points made, ML.
-
Which came first? The chicken or the egg? They have been working on both things for a VERY long time Mac! Much longer than most folks realize in fact!
My father was in the medical profession, and I can guarantee you that the left was working on a single payer health care system more than fifty years ago.
I was warned about the dangers of socialized medicine before I entered Jr. High!
The cultural rot was a parallel movement, beginning in earnest in the 1950's and getting us to where we are now.
Moral decay and the leftist political agenda go hand in hand.
That's why it was so important for them to take over the schools. They have inculcated generations of young Americans with their ideology......... so much so that even some who are overall conservative have been deeply influenced by it.
-
Excellent post and points made, ML.
Thank you, kind sir! :beer:
-
I don't think it's a losing argument, Carling.
Did anyone ever imagine after Roe v. Wade passed that the abortion industry would move so quickly to torturing and murdering children being born, ripping them apart and selling their organs for profit?
I think those who dismiss the pedophilia argument are not in full understanding of how evil the left is, and how persuasive they are because they control the language of the debate.
There are some here on a conservative website who say it can't happen, but I think that's not realistic.
All we have to do is look at how the left works, how they control education, popular culture, the media and it's not hard to project what their influence will be in the future.
Homosexual "marriage" was not on the radar of decent Americans a few decades ago, and the propaganda campaign has succeeded in convincing a large percentage of the population that it's "normal" for one man to have sex with another.
Pedophilia may not be next in line (polygamy and incest seem like they'll be next because they are involving consenting adults and the "who you love" crap can be easily argued to defend further perversion), but there is already movement to accept the unacceptable, and there is absolutely no reason to trust the left not to succeed in furthering the degradation of the culture.
It's part of their game plan.
Musiclady, you keep arguing or at least implying that somehow these cultural shifts must be curtailed. You have said that just because the people want something they shouldn't have the last word. I've asked you a couple of times who should set those standards and who should enforce them. Even if I accept your premise that gay marriage will lead to legalized rape (which is what child sex is), which I don't, what is your idea for turning all this around? You mentioned Hollywood, and I've mentioned all the negative things that have for years been going on around heterosexual relationships, but again, what do you propose?
-
All I was trying to point out was that both dems and repubs do the same thing....
And the trouble is, they are right.
I agree both sides engage in the slippery slope tactics, mainly because they can't make a legitimate argument for the issue at hand, so to give them traction they say, "well okay, but if this happens, look at what will follow". No they are not always right. We all have to pick and choose which slippery slope argument we think has merit and which is little more than rhetoric.
-
Musiclady, you keep arguing or at least implying that somehow these cultural shifts must be curtailed. You have said that just because the people want something they shouldn't have the last word. I've asked you a couple of times who should set those standards and who should enforce them. Even if I accept your premise that gay marriage will lead to legalized rape (which is what child sex is), which I don't, what is your idea for turning all this around? You mentioned Hollywood, and I've mentioned all the negative things that have for years been going on around heterosexual relationships, but again, what do you propose?
Mac, your right, very tough question.
But is sounds as if you are advocating Mob Rule which I am not sure that is where we should be going.
-
Yes, this is the problem. The young kids grow up thinking that whatever is in public and on TV is 'normal'...
And so is a society destroyed... generation by generation... slowly but surely...
I am so glad my formative years were molded by Saturday morning cartoons and half hour shows where the good guys rode white horses and the villains all dressed in black.
OTOH, my generation is responsible for raising the parents of these dumb sons-a-b*tches. :laugh:
-
Which came first? The chicken or the egg? They have been working on both things for a VERY long time Mac! Much longer than most folks realize in fact!
The left has been working on a lot of things. But there is simply no linkage other than imagined between gay marriage and single payer health care.
-
Mac, your right, very tough question.
But is sounds as if you are advocating Mob Rule which I am not sure that is where we should be going.
I absolutely do not subscribe to mob rule Ed. But I also don't subscribe to overregulating people in issues of moral conduct where victims don't exist. We are supposed to be a free people and this bad conduct has been going on long before anyone ever thought about gay marriage. But my question continues to be how to curtail it and turn us back into a moral people. Who sets those moral standards?
-
Cheap shot with the 'hysteria' garbage, Luis.
Every argument I ever give on the subject is based on both history and logic. Nothing hysterical about it.
I'm reading a book called "The Death of the Grown-up" and it contains an interesting history of how teenagers took over American culture while adults abdicated it. (It's a good read...... at least so far). The germane part to this discussion is the chapter on teenagers and that before WWII, there really was no such thing. There were adults, and there were children. Those in their teens aspired to be adults.
My point is, that culturally definitions change, ages of consent definitely change, and that it can happen quickly.
How you define "children" is not necessarily how other cultures define it, nor even how other Americans define it. You're dealing with a moving target, Luis, and seeming to claim it will hold still.
The 'age of consent' is arbitrary. My mother was married at 17, and fully adult. Earlier in history people married even younger.
It is not even remotely out of the realm of possibility that the left, pushing further their sexual 'revolution' will move the age of consent to younger ages, permitting the sexually perverse adults who are attracted to children to get the 'consent' of their victims legally (and many already do emotionally).
The bottom line is, that you can't be so sure what will be accepted in the future, and what changes will be made to stretch further the definition of what is 'normal.'
The left isn't stopping with homosexual "marriage."
The left never stops.
So we're not debating here so much as you are lecturing and regaling us with your superior intellect and the immeasurable depth of your knowledge.
It is hysteria, and that's not a cheap shot, that's a conclusion based on observing the available data.
Acceptance of consensual sex will lead to legalized pedophilia indeed.
P.S. Maybe the hysteria comment wasn't aimed at you. It's not all about you, you know.
P.S.S. Considering the fact that in the mid 19th century the age of consent in most States was 10 (7 in Delaware) and now that age is nearly uniformally 16-18, it seems that the "rise" of the left is consistent with a rise in the legal age of consent.
-
The left never stops.
She's right about that. It's one of Emmett Tyrrell's rules that "the left always goes too far" and I think it's true. After all they can't be satisfied with the status quo or else they have no reason to be.
-
So we're not debating here so much as you are lecturing and regaling us with your superior intellect and the immeasurable depth of your knowledge.
It is hysteria, and that's not a cheap shot, that's a conclusion based on observing the available data.
Acceptance of consensual sex will lead to legalized pedophilia indeed.
P.S. Maybe the hysteria comment wasn't aimed at you. It's not all about you, you know.
P.S.S. Considering the fact that in the mid 19th century the age of consent in most States was 10 (7 in Delaware) and now that age is nearly uniformally 16-18, it seems that the "rise" of the left is consistent with a rise in the legal age of consent.
Fascinating emotional response to a rational post.
Perhaps you ought to read what was said without your reflexive defensiveness, and try again.
(I will address your "P.S.S." however....... since you've made my point. The age of consent varies over time, and what it is now does not necessarily reflect what it will be in the future. Ergo, you have just argued against your own argument, and verified mine).
-
Musiclady, you keep arguing or at least implying that somehow these cultural shifts must be curtailed. You have said that just because the people want something they shouldn't have the last word. I've asked you a couple of times who should set those standards and who should enforce them. Even if I accept your premise that gay marriage will lead to legalized rape (which is what child sex is), which I don't, what is your idea for turning all this around? You mentioned Hollywood, and I've mentioned all the negative things that have for years been going on around heterosexual relationships, but again, what do you propose?
I actually have never said that homosexual marriage will lead to legalized rape. I have said that removing the restriction on marriage other than that of a man and a woman, and the arguments used to do that, will lead to further abnormalities being accepted as 'normal.' There is a significant distinction in those two statements.
I have also not argued that 'the people' are not setting the standard. They are. But I have stated that "the people" have been wrong about a lot of things in our history, and using what "the people" want as an argument to what is right is not a viable argument.
What I 'propose' is similar to what I think should be done regarding to combat the left's success in winning the legal debate on abortion. We obviously cannot change the law overnight (or, in 40 years), but we can work to change hearts and minds about the dangers of callously killing the unborn.
(Now before anyone jumps in and claims I'm saying killing babies and men having sex with each other is the same thing, I'm not. I'm discussing the response to those and making the parallel there).
What can I personally do? I can make rational arguments on boards such as this as to why destruction of the family is bad for the country. (Again, working to improve heterosexual marriages is a part of that process). I can write to members of Congress with the same rational arguments, and I can pray for the country, that it recognizes the moral decadence within.
The left has understood for decades that moral decadence was their best way to defeat the country. More effective that assaulting us from outside, if we destroy ourselves from within we take on the character of a marshmallow.
Their success on all fronts is what led the majority of Americans to elect and reelect prom king Barack Obama.
He is the culmination of their efforts to destroy us, and he is doing very well to finish the job they began a century ago.
-
She's right about that. It's one of Emmett Tyrrell's rules that "the left always goes too far" and I think it's true. After all they can't be satisfied with the status quo or else they have no reason to be.
We agree on that. It's the basic definition of progressivism or liberalism depending on who's labeling. The basis of conservatism is not to stop progress (however one defines that), but to take it slow and with a strong view to the unforeseen problems in the future. It puts conservatives in a negative light by being perceived as the ideology of "no". But that's the burden the GOP and its conservatives bear honorably most of the time.
-
I actually have never said that homosexual marriage will lead to legalized rape. I have said that removing the restriction on marriage other than that of a man and a woman, and the arguments used to do that, will lead to further abnormalities being accepted as 'normal.' There is a significant distinction in those two statements.
Sex with a minor is rape, and is considered that in almost every jurisdiction. You did say the gay marriage will lead to pedophilia, which is sex with minors legally incapable of giving consent. Statutory rape is rape nonetheless if the victim cannot give consent.
I have also not argued that 'the people' are not setting the standard. They are. But I have stated that "the people" have been wrong about a lot of things in our history, and using what "the people" want as an argument to what is right is not a viable argument.
What I 'propose' is similar to what I think should be done regarding to combat the left's success in winning the legal debate on abortion. We obviously cannot change the law overnight (or, in 40 years), but we can work to change hearts and minds about the dangers of callously killing the unborn.
I understood your earlier post as expressing a wish to see some entity setting standards involving such things as gay marriage and other such issues regardless of what the people determine is in their best interests or "desires". If you are just calling for more education to change hearts and minds, I've no problem with that at all. I've seen over the years what can happen when a government entity decides to step into the private lives of adults, and it ain't pretty! And I think already a majority of Americans show up on polling as favoring some limitations on abortion. That's a good thing.
(Now before anyone jumps in and claims I'm saying killing babies and men having sex with each other is the same thing, I'm not. I'm discussing the response to those and making the parallel there).
Good, because some would make that linkage.
What can I personally do? I can make rational arguments on boards such as this as to why destruction of the family is bad for the country. (Again, working to improve heterosexual marriages is a part of that process). I can write to members of Congress with the same rational arguments, and I can pray for the country, that it recognizes the moral decadence within.
The left has understood for decades that moral decadence was their best way to defeat the country. More effective that assaulting us from outside, if we destroy ourselves from within we take on the character of a marshmallow.
Their success on all fronts is what led the majority of Americans to elect and reelect prom king Barack Obama.
He is the culmination of their efforts to destroy us, and he is doing very well to finish the job they began a century ago.
Absolutely nothing I disagree with. I despise Obama and the left's overall agenda. One roadblock to these moral dilemmas is the 14th Amendment. People have a constitutional right to both due process and equal protection of the laws. That we may feel differently about some issues, as conservatives we respect our institutions, and the USSC is one of those institutions. I don't always agree with everything the president does or says, nor Congress or the SCOTUS. But these are our institutions created by "We The People".
-
I absolutely do not subscribe to mob rule Ed. But I also don't subscribe to overregulating people in issues of moral conduct where victims don't exist. We are supposed to be a free people and this bad conduct has been going on long before anyone ever thought about gay marriage. But my question continues to be how to curtail it and turn us back into a moral people. Who sets those moral standards?
The difficulty with setting moral standards is that all parties must agree on the measuring stick.
If your "opponents" do not believe in the bible or natural law or simply social order then we need to find something different to measure with.
-
(http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/liberal-logic-101-366.jpg)
-
Sex with a minor is rape, and is considered that in almost every jurisdiction. You did say the gay marriage will lead to pedophilia, which is sex with minors legally incapable of giving consent. Statutory rape is rape nonetheless if the victim cannot give consent.
What I actually have said is that opening the door legally to marriage other than a man and a woman will lead to legalizing other perversions which have previously been illegal. And once again, the 'age of consent' is variable over time, and present standards as to who is a minor is not something set in stone. The left has succeeded in loosening overall morality. There is no reason, knowing how evil their motives are, to be certain about what they will do in the future.
They have opened the floodgates because they have changed the very meaning of the vocabulary regarding marriage.
And they control the message.
I understood your earlier post as expressing a wish to see some entity setting standards involving such things as gay marriage and other such issues regardless of what the people determine is in their best interests or "desires". If you are just calling for more education to change hearts and minds, I've no problem with that at all. I've seen over the years what can happen when a government entity decides to step into the private lives of adults, and it ain't pretty! And I think already a majority of Americans show up on polling as favoring some limitations on abortion. That's a good thing.
The standard was previously there, MAC. Until very recently, after decades of propaganda, 'the people' understood that marriage was between a man and a woman. There is no reason to believe that with persuasive arguments (there are many) as to the damage removing the family as core of our culture (which the left has successfully done) has done and will continue to do, that 'hearts and minds' couldn't be changed.
The problem, of course, is that the left controls education, Hollywood, popular culture and the media, so we are, in essence voices crying in the wilderness. That is not to say that it can't ever be done, but it would be a big mistake for all of us with moral convictions to cave to the pressure collapsing our culture right now.
Good, because some would make that linkage.
Some would do that, not because they think I've actually made the connection, but because they like to make wild accusations for the sake of argument. Unfortunately, they require disclaimers to prevent such absurdity.
Absolutely nothing I disagree with. I despise Obama and the left's overall agenda. One roadblock to these moral dilemmas is the 14th Amendment. People have a constitutional right to both due process and equal protection of the laws. That we may feel differently about some issues, as conservatives we respect our institutions, and the USSC is one of those institutions. I don't always agree with everything the president does or says, nor Congress or the SCOTUS. But these are our institutions created by "We The People".
Good. There is some common ground here. Same principles, different conclusions.
I happen to side with our Founders who stated overtly that when we remove moral constraints from our culture, that our Republic will fail. Part of the genius of those who founded our country is that they understood the sin-nature of human beings and protected others against it (checks and balances, etc.). They also understood that when morality and freedom make the turn into license, the system will fall.
That's where we are right now.
Falling.
-
The difficulty with setting moral standards is that all parties must agree on the measuring stick.
If your "opponents" do not believe in the bible or natural law or simply social order then we need to find something different to measure with.
Exactly. It's predominately a cultural issue, for right or wrong. I fear those who would point their moral compass into people's bedrooms, computers and theaters in order to regulate the moral conduct of adults, but I want as much as possible to prevent the victimization of those who cannot or will not give consent.
-
What I actually have said is that opening the door legally to marriage other than a man and a woman will lead to legalizing other perversions which have previously been illegal. And once again, the 'age of consent' is variable over time, and present standards as to who is a minor is not something set in stone. The left has succeeded in loosening overall morality. There is no reason, knowing how evil their motives are, to be certain about what they will do in the future.
They have opened the floodgates because they have changed the very meaning of the vocabulary regarding marriage.
And they control the message.
You must admit that over the past few years the criminal penalties for sex crimes of all types has generally increased, and with some states significantly to where deeds snickered at a few years ago now carry life penalties. We see far more media coverage of such activity and prosecutions of priests, teachers, parents and others are in the news almost daily. Today you can read of an 18 year old boy facing 20 years for having sex with a 17 year old girl.
In spite of all of the loosening of our traditionally moral fabric, this area is tightening up almost to a fault.
The standard was previously there, MAC. Until very recently, after decades of propaganda, 'the people' understood that marriage was between a man and a woman. There is no reason to believe that with persuasive arguments (there are many) as to the damage removing the family as core of our culture (which the left has successfully done) has done and will continue to do, that 'hearts and minds' couldn't be changed.
The problem, of course, is that the left controls education, Hollywood, popular culture and the media, so we are, in essence voices crying in the wilderness. That is not to say that it can't ever be done, but it would be a big mistake for all of us with moral convictions to cave to the pressure collapsing our culture right now.
The liberals usually pushe the freedom and rights buttons. Standards existed that allowed states to prevent the sale of birth controls, all abortions, couples living together outside of wedlock, different privacy laws for homosexuals, permitting discrimination in all areas of society for gays, and so forth. The courts generally found such laws unconstitutional and today most Americans would agree with those decisions. That Hollywood and the educational system led to or assisted in turning opinions around isn't at question. But those opinions and those "freedoms" are now part of American society and culture.
Again interestingly at the same time as mentioned above, Americans and the legal system are clamping down on issues involving minors and others who are not capable of competent decisions. So it's not all bad.
Good. There is some common ground here. Same principles, different conclusions.
I like common ground even if arrived at by different highways.
I happen to side with our Founders who stated overtly that when we remove moral constraints from our culture, that our Republic will fail. Part of the genius of those who founded our country is that they understood the sin-nature of human beings and protected others against it (checks and balances, etc.). They also understood that when morality and freedom make the turn into license, the system will fall.
That's where we are right now.
Falling.
Can't argue with a lot of that, but the Founders also provided for the rights of the individual and that was punctuated by ratification of the 14th Amendment. Those rights amendments were intended to protect the rights of the minority as the majority can generally take care of itself.
-
You must admit that over the past few years the criminal penalties for sex crimes of all types has generally increased, and with some states significantly to where deeds snickered at a few years ago now carry life penalties. We see far more media coverage of such activity and prosecutions of priests, teachers, parents and others are in the news almost daily. Today you can read of an 18 year old boy facing 20 years for having sex with a 17 year old girl.
In spite of all of the loosening of our traditionally moral fabric, this area is tightening up almost to a fault.
Failing to see that 'gay marriage' and hyper-sensitivity to heterosexuality are both assaults on traditional societal roles is to be blind to the obvious...
-
Failing to see that 'gay marriage' and hyper-sensitivity to heterosexuality are both assaults on traditional societal roles is to be blind to the obvious...
Not sure what hyper-sensitivity to heterosexuality is, but I agree that most major rights decisions rendered by the courts or by law attack traditional societal roles. We once required religious tests for office holders, slavery, rights only for freemen and landowners, denied women the vote, denied people the right to birth control, permitted very young girls to marry adults, denied all abortions at any stage, denied interracial couples the right to marry, and many other traditional societal roles. Society changes and with it our culture. We can embrace some and not others. Reconstruction was not easy and many changes were forced onto the post-war society in the South. The 14th Amendment by its very nature changed our social order and continues to do so.
-
Not sure what hyper-sensitivity to heterosexuality is, ...
What do you mean you're not sure what it is? You just commented on it.
...but I agree that most major rights decisions rendered by the courts or by law attack traditional societal roles.
Who are you agreeing with? I said nothing about SCOTUS decisions.
We once required religious tests for office holders, slavery, rights only for freemen and landowners, denied women the vote, denied people the right to birth control, permitted very young girls to marry adults, denied all abortions at any stage, denied interracial couples the right to marry, and many other traditional societal roles. Society changes and with it our culture. We can embrace some and not others. Reconstruction was not easy and many changes were forced onto the post-war society in the South. The 14th Amendment by its very nature changed our social order and continues to do so.
Reconstruction, Slavery and the 14th Amendment changed our social order?
Do you say that because you never experienced them and therefore assign responsibility to things you know nothing about?
-
Not sure what hyper-sensitivity to heterosexuality is, ...
What do you mean you're not sure what it is? You just commented on it.
I'm just not sure what you mean by it.
...but I agree that most major rights decisions rendered by the courts or by law attack traditional societal roles.
Who are you agreeing with? I said nothing about SCOTUS decisions.
I'm agreeing with what you said, that the gay marriage decision is a change (you said assault) to traditional societal roles, as many other such decisions were.
We once required religious tests for office holders, slavery, rights only for freemen and landowners, denied women the vote, denied people the right to birth control, permitted very young girls to marry adults, denied all abortions at any stage, denied interracial couples the right to marry, and many other traditional societal roles. Society changes and with it our culture. We can embrace some and not others. Reconstruction was not easy and many changes were forced onto the post-war society in the South. The 14th Amendment by its very nature changed our social order and continues to do so.
Reconstruction, Slavery and the 14th Amendment changed our social order?
Of course they have, in numerous ways.
Do you say that because you never experienced them and therefore assign responsibility to things you know nothing about?
And you do?
I do personally know of the anti-miscegenation laws in the US prior to Loving v. Virginia and was denied a marriage license because of one of those states which had a certain "social order".
-
I'm agreeing with what you said, that the gay marriage decision is a change (you said assault) to traditional societal roles, as many other such decisions were.
You misunderstand. The assault on traditional societal roles is independent of the SCOTUS decision. The decision was merely a reaction to that assault.
And you do?
I'm not invoking them, you are.
I do personally know of the anti-miscegenation laws in the US prior to Loving v. Virginia and was denied a marriage license because of one of those states which had a certain "social order".
Females of such unions typically have a more difficult time because 'Dad' didn't love a woman who looks like them. Believe it or not, that is an important issue to young women coming of age...
-
Fascinating emotional response to a rational post.
Perhaps you ought to read what was said without your reflexive defensiveness, and try again.
(I will address your "P.S.S." however....... since you've made my point. The age of consent varies over time, and what it is now does not necessarily reflect what it will be in the future. Ergo, you have just argued against your own argument, and verified mine).
My post was not emotional, it was sarcastic.
Your post, where you assumed that my "cheap shot" was aimed at you, did expose a streak of insecurity.
Why don't you ever respond to the substance of posts?
-
You misunderstand. The assault on traditional societal roles is independent of the SCOTUS decision. The decision was merely a reaction to that assault.
I'm not invoking them, you are.
Females of such unions typically have a more difficult time because 'Dad' didn't love a woman who looks like them. Believe it or not, that is an important issue to young women coming of age...
Dan, the changes in our "traditional social order" come from many different sources not the least of which is the people. The people have been instrumental in changing the social order over time. When seen as necessary, the courts have assisted in this change. You call it an assault, but some things needed an assault. Brown v. The Board of Education, Griswold, Roe, Loving, and Lawrence are among those that led to huge changes in our social order. Every one of those involved changing the social order of our society to provide someone with more freedom than they had.
As for interracial marriages, where do you get your information? Do you favor reinstating miscegenation laws?
So I can better understand your position, are you in favor of a government that would turn back the clock to the 1950s with respect to those decisions? Would that make for a better social order in your opinion?
-
My post was not emotional, it was sarcastic.
Your post, where you assumed that my "cheap shot" was aimed at you, did expose a streak of insecurity.
Why don't you ever respond to the substance of posts?
I do.
All the time.
You seem to be projecting your own insecurity and resulting condescending attitude onto me with your baseless 'sarcasm.'
At any rate, my post was serious, as has every comment I've made on this thread, and yours was defensive and emotional in response, filled with irrelevant (and wrongheaded) ad hominems, and it amused me because it was so............... pointless. So since you can't seem to stay on topic, I'll let you have the last word.
It's a complete waste of time to respond to incendiary and false personal attacks, and I have much more pleasant things to do.
(Like go to the dentist)...
Edited to add: Back from my dental appointment. You'll be happy to know that my teeth are fine! ^-^
-
Dan, the changes in our "traditional social order" come from many different sources not the least of which is the people.
Really? Oh my...
The people have been instrumental in changing the social order over time.
Really? Wow...
When seen as necessary, the courts have assisted in this change.
"Seen as necessary" by whom?
You call it an assault, but some things needed an assault.
And some things didn't.
Brown v. The Board of Education, Griswold, Roe, Loving, and Lawrence are among those that led to huge changes in our social order.
Merely appealing to 'change' sounds like a campaign slogan...
Every one of those involved changing the social order of our society to provide someone with more freedom than they had.
And some got less... even losing their lives.
As for interracial marriages, where do you get your information? Do you favor reinstating miscegenation laws?
Shouldn't you start a miscegenation thread?
So I can better understand your position, are you in favor of a government that would turn back the clock to the 1950s with respect to those decisions? Would that make for a better social order in your opinion?
Fallacy of equivocation noted...
-
Really? Oh my...
Really? Wow...
"Seen as necessary" by whom?
And some things didn't.
Merely appealing to 'change' sounds like a campaign slogan...
And some got less... even losing their lives.
Shouldn't you start a miscegenation thread?
Fallacy of equivocation noted...
To break down ANYBODY's post by the sentence and responding in a sarcastic staccato fashion shows poorly on you.
To do it to a quality, thoughtful poster like MACVSOG68 magnifies that perception.
...just my opinion of course.
-
To break down ANYBODY's post by the sentence and responding in a sarcastic staccato fashion shows poorly on you.
To do it to a quality, thoughtful poster like MACVSOG68 magnifies that perception.
...just my opinion of course.
Thank you DC. I suspect this thread is probably on life support anyway. :beer:
-
Thank you DC. I suspect this thread is probably on life support anyway. :beer:
That's probably true, MAC.
But some posters are just too much, when they 'dig in'. :laugh:
-
To break down ANYBODY's post by the sentence and responding in a sarcastic staccato fashion shows poorly on you.
To do it to a quality, thoughtful poster like MACVSOG68 magnifies that perception.
...just my opinion of course.
Yeah, I was showing the content of his 'thoughts' one by one... there wasn't anything of substance there and then it ended with the fallacy of equivocation.
If you think that's thoughtful, well I really appreciate you letting me know that it really is just your opinion...
-
That's probably true, MAC.
But some posters are just too much, when they 'dig in'. :laugh:
Implying that that street doesn't run both ways is rather humorous... :silly:
-
I do.
All the time.
You seem to be projecting your own insecurity and resulting condescending attitude onto me with your baseless 'sarcasm.'
That's a load of crap. You don't.
MAC asked you a simple question at least four time on this thread, that you never answered.
It began with this statement from you:
The problem here is with letting what many citizens 'accept' determine what is right and what is legal.
Let me preface the rest of my post by quoting the Constitution:
Amendment X -The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
While drafting the Constitution those "many citizens", A.K.A. "the people" retained the power to determine what is legal.
Whether you believe it or not, or whether you accept it or not, the majority of the people have accepted homosexuality and same-sex marriage. That ship has sailed.
So then, back to those four questions:
- Who then if not the people, should determine what is right when it comes to "moral" issues among consenting adults?
- If not the people, who should determine what is morally right among consenting adults?
- Who will set these standards that the people shouldn't violate, and even more so, how are they to be enforced?
- I've asked you a couple of times who should set those standards and who should enforce them?
If not "the people" as supported by the Supreme Law of the Land, who then should determine what is morally right between consenting adults?
Maybe you'll answer it this time.
I don't think so but HEY! The Jets won a Super Bowl once, so anything is possible.
-
That's a load of crap. You don't.
MAC asked you a simple question at least four time on this thread, that you never answered.
It began with this statement from you:
The problem here is with letting what many citizens 'accept' determine what is right and what is legal.
Let me preface the rest of my post by quoting the Constitution:
Amendment X -The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
While drafting the Constitution those "many citizens", A.K.A. "the people" retained the power to determine what is legal.
Whether you believe it or not, or whether you accept it or not, the majority of the people have accepted homosexuality and same-sex marriage. That ship has sailed.
MAC asked you the same question four times on this thread. You never answered it directly:
- Who then if not the people, should determine what is right when it comes to "moral" issues among consenting adults?
- If not the people, who should determine what is morally right among consenting adults?
- Who will set these standards that the people shouldn't violate, and even more so, how are they to be enforced?
- I've asked you a couple of times who should set those standards and who should enforce them?
If not "the people" as supported by the Supreme Law of the Land, who then should determine what is morally right between consenting adults?
Maybe you'll answer it this time.
I don't think so but HEY! The Jets won a Super Bowl once, so anything is possible.
:patriot:
-
:patriot:
Yeah... that's what I thought.
Five times, no response.
-
Yeah... that's what I thought.
Five times, no response.
I gave you the last word, Luis.
You took it. :seeya:
-
Let me preface the rest of my post by quoting the Constitution:
Amendment X -The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
While drafting the Constitution those "many citizens", A.K.A. "the people" retained the power to determine what is legal.
Whether you believe it or not, or whether you accept it or not, the majority of the people have accepted homosexuality and same-sex marriage. That ship has sailed.
Good argument... but then you ruin it with a non-sequitur.
Your own argument says that the power to regulate 'gay marriage' belongs to the States and the people, which is what we had. Some States and people voted to legalize 'gay marriage' while some States and people rejected it. Just like the Constitution says.
The SCOTUS is not 'the States or the people' and had no constitutional power to force the States or the people to accept 'gay marriage' if they didn't want it.
-
I gave you the last word, Luis.
You took it. :seeya:
No you didn't.
Had you done that you wouldn't have responded, and you did.
What you DIDN'T do (again) is respond to five direct questions that made up the substance of the posts.
- Who then if not the people, should determine what is right when it comes to "moral" issues among consenting adults?
- If not the people, who should determine what is morally right among consenting adults?
- Who will set these standards that the people shouldn't violate, and even more so, how are they to be enforced?
- I've asked you a couple of times who should set those standards and who should enforce them?
- If not "the people" as supported by the Supreme Law of the Land, who then should determine what is morally right between consenting adults?
I won't hold my breath.
-
At any rate, my post was serious, as has every comment I've made on this thread, and yours was defensive and emotional in response, filled with irrelevant (and wrongheaded) ad hominems, and it amused me because it was so............... pointless. So since you can't seem to stay on topic, I'll let you have the last word.
Yes. I did.
-
Good argument... but then you ruin it with a non-sequitur.
Your own argument says that the power to regulate 'gay marriage' belongs to the States and the people, which is what we had. Some States and people voted to legalize 'gay marriage' while some States and people rejected it. Just like the Constitution says.
The SCOTUS is not 'the States or the people' and had no constitutional power to force the States or the people to accept 'gay marriage' if they didn't want it.
Except that when a 14th Amendment (or any other for that matter) challenge is made, the federal court system does come into play on it. If SCOTUS does agree with a challenge, that a person's rights have been violated under the equal protection clause, it does indeed have the constitutional power to rule as it did in all the other decisions I mentioned above. Some, even many may not like it, but that is the top of the appeals process.
While there have been questions about the Bill of Rights and whether states were subject to them, that has been cleared up by a number of SCOTUS decisions. The Tenth Amendment was surely not intended to give the states a pass on the other rights amendments.
And we cannot just pick and choose. What if a state doesn't care much for the 2d Amendment and simply ignores it? Most of us would say that's not okay. So when SCOTUS finds a violation of the due process or equal protection clauses, it doesn't matter what the states want. If they're that upset, call for an Article V convention, or get Congress to pass an amendment outlawing gay marriage.
-
Except that when a 14th Amendment (or any other for that matter) challenge is made, the federal court system does come into play on it. If SCOTUS does agree with a challenge, that a person's rights have been violated under the equal protection clause, it does indeed have the constitutional power to rule as it did in all the other decisions I mentioned above. Some, even many may not like it, but that is the top of the appeals process.
While there have been questions about the Bill of Rights and whether states were subject to them, that has been cleared up by a number of SCOTUS decisions. The Tenth Amendment was surely not intended to give the states a pass on the other rights amendments.
And we cannot just pick and choose. What if a state doesn't care much for the 2d Amendment and simply ignores it? Most of us would say that's not okay. So when SCOTUS finds a violation of the due process or equal protection clauses, it doesn't matter what the states want. If they're that upset, call for an Article V convention, or get Congress to pass an amendment outlawing gay marriage.
Except that 'equal protection' is only defined in one direction... the destruction of society. Any perversion that people want to participate in and that has been made 'popular' through the secular media is now an 'equal protection' issue.
The States and the people and all other constitutional rights are then defined as being subject to the SCOTUS ruling on that subject.
It's utter stupidity...
-
Yes. I did.
- Who then if not the people, should determine what is right when it comes to "moral" issues among consenting adults?
- If not the people, who should determine what is morally right among consenting adults?
- Who will set these standards that the people shouldn't violate, and even more so, how are they to be enforced?
- I've asked you a couple of times who should set those standards and who should enforce them?
- If not "the people" as supported by the Supreme Law of the Land, who then should determine what is morally right between consenting adults?
I won't hold my breath.
-
Except that 'equal protection' is only defined in one direction... the destruction of society. Any perversion that people want to participate in and that has been made 'popular' through the secular media is now an 'equal protection' issue.
The States and the people and all other constitutional rights are then defined as being subject to the SCOTUS ruling on that subject.
It's utter stupidity...
The equal protection and due process clause is designed to ensure that individuals receive the same protection from the laws of a state as everyone else, and not be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty or property. IOW it was designed to protect the minority from the majority. I won't even argue the term "perversion", as that's a judgment call. I will say that Lawrence v. Texas decided that since if certain sexual acts among heterosexuals were not prosecuted, neither should the same acts be among homosexuals. Such laws are considered a violation of due process when vague and designed to deprive someone of life, liberty or property.
For the most part, conservatives generally opt for less intrusion into their lives, and should be supportive of protections against the violation of their privacy.
-
The equal protection and due process clause is designed to ensure that individuals receive the same protection from the laws of a state as everyone else, and not be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty or property. IOW it was designed to protect the minority from the majority. I won't even argue the term "perversion", as that's a judgment call. I will say that Lawrence v. Texas decided that since if certain sexual acts among heterosexuals were not prosecuted, neither should the same acts be among homosexuals. Such laws are considered a violation of due process when vague and designed to deprive someone of life, liberty or property.
Using that logic, then neither should those same acts be prosecuted among bestialists and the bestialists have an 'equal protection' issue because they 'love' animals. And neither should those same acts be prosecuted among pedophiles and the pedophiles have an 'equal protection' issue because they 'love' little children.
For the most part, conservatives generally opt for less intrusion into their lives, and should be supportive of protections against the violation of their privacy.
Yeah, like these results from said 'protections'...
(http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/liberal-logic-101-366.jpg)
-
Using that logic, then neither should those same acts be prosecuted among bestialists and the bestialists have an 'equal protection' issue because they 'love' animals. And neither should those same acts be prosecuted among pedophiles and the pedophiles have an 'equal protection' issue because they 'love' little children.
So, it appears to me, the debate is the letter of the law vs the intent of the law.
Lawyers get rich debating the letter of the law and the rest of us have to live with the intent of the law.
-
The equal protection and due process clause is designed to ensure that individuals receive the same protection from the laws of a state as everyone else, and not be arbitrarily deprived of life, liberty or property. IOW it was designed to protect the minority from the majority. I won't even argue the term "perversion", as that's a judgment call. I will say that Lawrence v. Texas decided that since if certain sexual acts among heterosexuals were not prosecuted, neither should the same acts be among homosexuals. Such laws are considered a violation of due process when vague and designed to deprive someone of life, liberty or property.
For the most part, conservatives generally opt for less intrusion into their lives, and should be supportive of protections against the violation of their privacy.
It's the constant struggle between the XIV Amendment Federal Equal Protection Clause and the X Amendment's Federalism.
In essence, the argument always seems to boil down to a State arguing that it has a Constitutionally-protected right to (in one way or another) discriminate, segregate, or treat a minority of its residents in an unequal manner than the majority based on some qualifying trait, and the Federal government arguing that the Constitution does not grant a State government (ot its people) the power (or the right) to legislate an inequity in treatment to a portion of its residents based on a qualifying trait.
To say that the Equal Protection Clause is defined (or used) only with the idea of destroying society is just ignorant.
Brown v. Board of Education - Ended segregation
Loving v. Virginia - Repealed all anti-misogyny laws
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke - Ended the use of strict racial quotas designed to satisfy Affirmative Action laws in colleges and Universities
-
So, it appears to me, the debate is the letter of the law vs the intent of the law.
Lawyers get rich debating the letter of the law and the rest of us have to live with the intent of the law.
My point is that there was no 'equal protection' issue. Marriage to one person of the opposite sex was not denied to any group. It was available to all.
A small segment of society wanted their 'feelings' to take precedence over the law... and they got it. Not because there was a legal or constitutional issue but because of their 'feelings'.
Given that 'feelings' are now constitutionally-protected, you can expect every other perversion to seek constitutional protection for the 'feelings'...
-
To say that the Equal Protection Clause is defined (or used) only with the idea of destroying society is just ignorant.
To deny that the equal protection clause is being used to destroy society is to be willfully blind to reality...
-
(http://truestreetcars.com/forums/attachments/pics-videos/30139d1334299885-ript-zombie-thread.png)
4 people left arguing. All 4 have given long thought to their stances.
I'll check back in a year or so. :laugh:
-
So, it appears to me, the debate is the letter of the law vs the intent of the law.
Lawyers get rich debating the letter of the law and the rest of us have to live with the intent of the law.
....as the Supreme Court does? :laugh:
-
Using that logic, then neither should those same acts be prosecuted among bestialists and the bestialists have an 'equal protection' issue because they 'love' animals. And neither should those same acts be prosecuted among pedophiles and the pedophiles have an 'equal protection' issue because they 'love' little children.
That argument says that if anyone is protected by the 14th Amendment then everyone must regardless of any legitimate state interest in denying that protection. And of course that's false on several levels. I'm not aware of any SCOTUS decision since the 14th Amendment was ratified that required protection of those engaged in harming others. It's once again the slippery slope argument that has yet to show prospect, with of course all due respect. Every case has a stage that gives a state the opportunity to show a compelling state interest in the discrimination.
Yeah, like these results from said 'protections'...
(http://liberallogic101.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/liberal-logic-101-366.jpg)
[/quote]
So am I to interpret that you do not believe in due process, equal protection of the laws, or the privacy of individuals. Everyone has the opportunity to file lawsuits, even those who challenge the laws from a Christian perspective, (eg: Hobby Lobby).
-
....as the Supreme Court does? :laugh:
Are they wrong all the time, of just when you don't agree with them?
-
Are they wrong all the time, of just when you don't agree with them?
Come on, man!
When I don't agree with them, of course.
-
That argument says that if anyone is protected by the 14th Amendment then everyone must regardless of any legitimate state interest in denying that protection. And of course that's false on several levels.
Yet gays had the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as did you and I. The ruling was based on 'feelings' and has opened the door to any other perversion that puts 'feelings' over facts.
I'm not aware of any SCOTUS decision since the 14th Amendment was ratified that required protection of those engaged in harming others. It's once again the slippery slope argument that has yet to show prospect, with of course all due respect. Every case has a stage that gives a state the opportunity to show a compelling state interest in the discrimination.
So you agree that the unborn are not human and are not 'harmed' by being killed, dismembered and sold for parts? I'm not sure that was even considered as being on the slippery slope back in the 70's, yet here it is.
And you say that the slippery slope argument 'has yet to show prospect'...
So am I to interpret that you do not believe in due process, equal protection of the laws, or the privacy of individuals. Everyone has the opportunity to file lawsuits, even those who challenge the laws from a Christian perspective, (eg: Hobby Lobby).
It's that slippery slope that you claim 'has yet to show prospect'...
-
Come on, man!
When I don't agree with them, of course.
No one wins every argument (except my wife).
The SCOTUS is the designated Solomon of our most contentious issues.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, as Carole King would say.
Maybe our system of government in general is the worst, with the possible exception of every other system of government that's ever existed or exists today.
-
No one wins every argument (except my wife).
The SCOTUS is the designated Solomon of our most contentious issues.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, as Carole King would say.
Maybe our system of government in general is the worst, with the possible exception of every other system of government that's ever existed or exists today.
:laugh:
I suppose we just have to get used to 'losing' right now. Not happy about it.
-
That argument says that if anyone is protected by the 14th Amendment then everyone must regardless of any legitimate state interest in denying that protection. And of course that's false on several levels.
Yet gays had the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as did you and I. The ruling was based on 'feelings' and has opened the door to any other perversion that puts 'feelings' over facts.
That argument was considered specious by the court because for several years, most jurisdictions that didn't allow gay marriage nonetheless did allow various legal arrangements from living together without being arrested to full blown domestic partnerships. By the time of the SCOTUS decision, 38 states had legalized gay marriage, and over 40 federal and district courts had struck down bans. Additionally public opinion had turned around dramatically on the issue. All of that led the Court to find that legitimate and compelling state interests simply didn't exist and found both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th required a finding in favor of legal gay marriage, religious and slippery slope concerns notwithstanding.
I'm not aware of any SCOTUS decision since the 14th Amendment was ratified that required protection of those engaged in harming others. It's once again the slippery slope argument that has yet to show prospect, with of course all due respect. Every case has a stage that gives a state the opportunity to show a compelling state interest in the discrimination.
So you agree that the unborn are not human and are not 'harmed' by being killed, dismembered and sold for parts? I'm not sure that was even considered as being on the slippery slope back in the 70's, yet here it is.
And you say that the slippery slope argument 'has yet to show prospect'...
What you are attempting to do is to lay every perceived and real moral quandary at the feet of gay marriage. Even the Court in Roe recognized differences during the various trimesters. The Catholic Church didn't consider the first stage fetus as a human with a soul until the 1850s. As for what's been on FoxNews for the past few days, I imagine that has been going on for some time, and it will turn out to hurt the liberals in that area. I don't see a gay issue involved in fetal body part sales. While most Americans have no issue with organ donation or stem-cell research, looking at those videos is alarming to many.
So am I to interpret that you do not believe in due process, equal protection of the laws, or the privacy of individuals. Everyone has the opportunity to file lawsuits, even those who challenge the laws from a Christian perspective, (eg: Hobby Lobby).
It's that slippery slope that you claim 'has yet to show prospect'...
I think you seriously missed the point, with of course, all due respect.
-
That argument was considered specious by the court because for several years, most jurisdictions that didn't allow gay marriage nonetheless did allow various legal arrangements from living together without being arrested to full blown domestic partnerships. By the time of the SCOTUS decision, 38 states had legalized gay marriage, and over 40 federal and district courts had struck down bans. Additionally public opinion had turned around dramatically on the issue. All of that led the Court to find that legitimate and compelling state interests simply didn't exist and found both the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th required a finding in favor of legal gay marriage, religious and slippery slope concerns notwithstanding.
Well of course the court had to say they rejected those arguments in order to conclude as they did. I thought that rather obvious... and meaningless. Do you really believe that just because the Court defined-away several completely valid arguments that it means that the Court got it right? Circular arguments are great, aren't they?
The fact that 40 courts have struck down bans simply shows that the court system is regularly used to thwart the will of the people and force States and people to accept behaviors that they don't want.
Leaving the decision to the States was the right thing to do. Let the States and the people decide what they want but, oh no, we have to mandate it onto people who don't want it. The media has been pushing the gay agenda for almost 50 years, recently into the schools because you have to indoctrinate them early if you want it to be successful. Appeal to public opinion is another logical fallacy.
The purpose of the Constitution was to limit government, not force the States and the people to accept behaviors and legalize murders that they don't want.
What you are attempting to do is to lay every perceived and real moral quandary at the feet of gay marriage.
Nah, that's just you insisting on a ridiculous interpretation in an attempt to invalidate my point. Don't worry, most people aren't aware of the tactic.
Obviously my point was clearly that the 'slippery slope' you insist 'has yet to show prospect' has already happened wrt abortion such that the unborn are being murdered, dismembered and sold for profit and it is beginning already for the 'gay marriage' decision because Christians are already being targeted with lawsuits for not baking cakes. That's not really much of a 'slope'... it's more like a cliff.
Even the Court in Roe recognized differences during the various trimesters. The Catholic Church didn't consider the first stage fetus as a human with a soul until the 1850s. As for what's been on FoxNews for the past few days, I imagine that has been going on for some time, and it will turn out to hurt the liberals in that area. I don't see a gay issue involved in fetal body part sales. While most Americans have no issue with organ donation or stem-cell research, looking at those videos is alarming to many.
The point was that the slippery slope argument that you don't think has 'shown prospect' has, in fact, already occurred wrt abortion. We can already see it beginning with the 'gay marriage' decision and lawsuits for not baking people cakes.
But nice try again...
I think you seriously missed the point, with of course, all due respect.
I think you seriously misrepresent the points, with of course, all due respect...
-
Well of course the court had to say they rejected those arguments in order to conclude as they did. I thought that rather obvious... and meaningless. Do you really believe that just because the Court defined-away several completely valid arguments that it means that the Court got it right? Circular arguments are great, aren't they?
The fact that 40 courts have struck down bans simply shows that the court system is regularly used to thwart the will of the people and force States and people to accept behaviors that they don't want.
Leaving the decision to the States was the right thing to do. Let the States and the people decide what they want but, oh no, we have to mandate it onto people who don't want it. The media has been pushing the gay agenda for almost 50 years, recently into the schools because you have to indoctrinate them early if you want it to be successful. Appeal to public opinion is another logical fallacy.
The purpose of the Constitution was to limit government, not force the States and the people to accept behaviors and legalize murders that they don't want.
Nah, that's just you insisting on a ridiculous interpretation in an attempt to invalidate my point. Don't worry, most people aren't aware of the tactic.
Obviously my point was clearly that the 'slippery slope' you insist 'has yet to show prospect' has already happened wrt abortion such that the unborn are being murdered, dismembered and sold for profit and it is beginning already for the 'gay marriage' decision because Christians are already being targeted with lawsuits for not baking cakes. That's not really much of a 'slope'... it's more like a cliff.
The point was that the slippery slope argument that you don't think has 'shown prospect' has, in fact, already occurred wrt abortion. We can already see it beginning with the 'gay marriage' decision and lawsuits for not baking people cakes.
But nice try again...
I think you seriously misrepresent the points, with of course, all due respect...
If the purpose of the Constitution was to simply limit government and empower states, it might have been preferable to leave the Articles of Confederation in place, or leave the Bill of Rights out, all amendments after the 12th, and certainly not start the Constitution with "We the People". Should of said "We the States". Then all of these years of trying to define individual rights could have been left up to each state. But it isn't that way.
A completely valid argument to one opponent of a court case is unsound to the other side. The arguments for or against gay marriage aside, domestic partnership laws of the various states didn't help their position of marriage when they were asked to provide a legitimate compelling state interest for withholding it from the gay community. Religious and tradition arguments were the main thrust, and since most states already had gay marriages, those didn't strike the Court as compelling in light of the 14th Amendment.
I agree public opinion shouldn't dictate whether someone's rights should be recognized, but as I said, given all the rest of the history, it likely made it easier for the High Court.
And we're discussing the gay marriage issue, so abortion and its various issues aren't relevant to this particular discussion.
-
If the purpose of the Constitution was to simply limit government and empower states, it might have been preferable to leave the Articles of Confederation in place, or leave the Bill of Rights out, all amendments after the 12th, and certainly not start the Constitution with "We the People". Should of said "We the States". Then all of these years of trying to define individual rights could have been left up to each state. But it isn't that way.
OK, let's pick this apart one bad statement at a time.
The limit is on the 'federal' government, not government in general.
The States were not 'empowered'. They already had all the power.
Whether it would have been 'preferable' to pursue any of the paths you cite assumes that your first two statements were true. They aren't, therefore...
A completely valid argument to one opponent of a court case is unsound to the other side.
Well, they will act like it is because court cases are about 'winning', not finding the truth. If you don't know that, it may explain this rather naive reliance on court decisions as some sort of absolute truth.
The arguments for or against gay marriage aside, domestic partnership laws of the various states didn't help their position of marriage when they were asked to provide a legitimate compelling state interest for withholding it from the gay community.
The legitimate State interest is the preservation of the existing family unit, including children. The fact that the courts said that the interest wasn't 'legitimate' doesn't mean that it wasn't. Remember, the purpose of court is to win, not to find the truth.
Religious and tradition arguments were the main thrust, and since most states already had gay marriages, those didn't strike the Court as compelling in light of the 14th Amendment.
Perfectly valid arguments. The fact that the Court did not insist that 2 justices recuse themselves because they were obviously biased because they had performed gay weddings shows that the purpose of courts is to win, not find the truth.
I agree public opinion shouldn't dictate whether someone's rights should be recognized, but as I said, given all the rest of the history, it likely made it easier for the High Court.
If you really believed that I wouldn't expect you to keep using the argument.
And we're discussing the gay marriage issue, so abortion and its various issues aren't relevant to this particular discussion.
Of course it is relevant. You were the one who brought it up when you cited the 14th Amendment, Roe v Wade and said that the 'slippery slope' argument 'has yet to show prospect'.
Now that it has blown up in your face, you don't want to talk about it any more.
With all due respect, of course...
-
OK, let's pick this apart one bad statement at a time.
The limit is on the 'federal' government, not government in general.
The 14th Amendment is a limitation on all government units.
The States were not 'empowered'. They already had all the power.
Then why did the Constitution apply to a state that would not vote to ratify, and further why does it only take 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment? And did the 19th Amendment permit states to withhold the women's right to vote until they ratified it? The rights of the people do trump the powers of the state when so determined by the courts if necessary.
Well, they will act like it is because court cases are about 'winning', not finding the truth. If you don't know that, it may explain this rather naive reliance on court decisions as some sort of absolute truth.
Always been told how naïve I am concerning our Constitution. I believe that, now that you've...ratified it.
The legitimate State interest is the preservation of the existing family unit, including children. The fact that the courts said that the interest wasn't 'legitimate' doesn't mean that it wasn't. Remember, the purpose of court is to win, not to find the truth.
If the state interest is the preservation of the existing family unit, gay marriage is probably the last thing they should be worried about, given the breakup of the family unit in every way possible having nothing to do with gay marriage.
Perfectly valid arguments. The fact that the Court did not insist that 2 justices recuse themselves because they were obviously biased because they had performed gay weddings shows that the purpose of courts is to win, not find the truth.
I made the case that the High Court is the final step, not necessarily the correct one (depending on one's opinion) in all cases.
Of course it is relevant. You were the one who brought it up when you cited the 14th Amendment, Roe v Wade and said that the 'slippery slope' argument 'has yet to show prospect'.
Now that it has blown up in your face, you don't want to talk about it any more.
Okay, gay marriage is directly linked to abortion and the selling of body parts. :facepalm2: I'm guessing gun control efforts by the liberals are also part of that plan to ultimately legalize gay marriage and child sex.. And remember, the government didn't require vaccinations for our kids until they started planning for gay marriage. I guess I missed all those linkages, thus confirming your concerns about my naivety. :laugh:
Again read what I said WRT the slippery slope argument in the gay marriage issue. You and others believe that this decision will ultimately lead to atrocities like legalized pedophilia and bestiality. Since those activities require victims, I doubt very much there's any linkage. Hope that helped.
-
The 14th Amendment is a limitation on all government units.
You were referring to the Constitution when you said it was a limitation on government. Now you are switching to the 14th Amendment. If the 14th Amendment completely changed the meaning of the Constitution from a limitation on the federal government to a limitation on the States and the people... then perhaps the evidence of federal misconduct in its ratification is true.
The truth is that the 14th Amendment is being applied in a manner that validates the States' concerns of the time and not in accordance with the rest of the Constitution...
Then why did the Constitution apply to a state that would not vote to ratify, and further why does it only take 3/4 of the states to ratify an amendment? And did the 19th Amendment permit states to withhold the women's right to vote until they ratified it? The rights of the people do trump the powers of the state when so determined by the courts if necessary.
If the rights of the people come from the Courts because of the 14th Amendment... then the people have no rights...
Lots of federal shenanigans around the 14th Amendment... for a reason, no doubt...
It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified. (http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/its-time-to-tell-the-truth-the-14th-amend-was-not-ratified/)
"The feds have seized, virtual total control, over every aspect of our lives via the 14th amendment’s “due process” clause. They have concocted a never ending series of “duties and rights” to “justify federal control” based upon that amendment. So I think it is only fair to ask a simple question."
"WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT LEGITIMATELY RATIFIED?"
"Do you know the answer to that question? Of course not. You only know the lies you were taught in government schools and by the complicit criminal media."
Always been told how naïve I am concerning our Constitution. I believe that, now that you've...ratified it.
Perhaps it is your belief in an erroneous application of an unratified 14th Amendment that is the problem.
If the state interest is the preservation of the existing family unit, gay marriage is probably the last thing they should be worried about, given the breakup of the family unit in every way possible having nothing to do with gay marriage.
It's the last thing the Supreme Court should have been ruling in favor of, yes...
I made the case that the High Court is the final step, not necessarily the correct one (depending on one's opinion) in all cases.
No... the people are the final step.
The Supreme Court is not “Independent” (http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/they-have-lied-to-us-about-the-courts-independence/)
"We are told from the time we can think and walk that we have this great system of government built on a system of brilliant checks and balances. It is pounded into our heads in school and in the media. The bulwark of this genius is supposedly our “independent” judiciary. It is indispensable to maintaining our supposed freedoms. It stands guard over our freedoms! The whole tale is such a load of CRAP."
"Today I am going to discuss what it means to have an independent vs. a dependent judiciary. When you finish reading this you will have been given an objective framework with which to analyze the independence of the court’s performance, probably for the first time in your life, and you will then be able to articulate what the real problem is with the system. Instead of just feeling like it is broken."
"You will be able to see how it is an utter FRAUD. So let’s begin."
Okay, gay marriage is directly linked to abortion and the selling of body parts. I'm guessing gun control efforts by the liberals are also part of that plan to ultimately legalize gay marriage and child sex.. And remember, the government didn't require vaccinations for our kids until they started planning for gay marriage. I guess I missed all those linkages, thus confirming your concerns about my naivety. :laugh:
I simply said that you were the one who brought up the 14th Amendment, Roe v Wade and 'slippery slope' argument that allegedly 'has yet to show prospect' and now that it has blown up in your face, you don't want to talk about it any more. But I do know how you like to draw ridiculous conclusions to try and invalidate some else's point. That and the liberal use of emoticons used as 'argument'...
Again read what I said WRT the slippery slope argument in the gay marriage issue. You and others believe that this decision will ultimately lead to atrocities like legalized pedophilia and bestiality. Since those activities require victims, I doubt very much there's any linkage. Hope that helped.
Too bad the unborn cannot speak to you about 'slippery slope' and victims. You might change your mind about the lack of 'linkage'.
Hope that helped...
-
You were referring to the Constitution when you said it was a limitation on government. Now you are switching to the 14th Amendment. If the 14th Amendment completely changed the meaning of the Constitution from a limitation on the federal government to a limitation on the States and the people... then perhaps the evidence of federal misconduct in its ratification is true.
The truth is that the 14th Amendment is being applied in a manner that validates the States' concerns of the time and not in accordance with the rest of the Constitution...
If the rights of the people come from the Courts because of the 14th Amendment... then the people have no rights...
Lots of federal shenanigans around the 14th Amendment... for a reason, no doubt...
It’s time to tell the truth; the 14th amendment was never ratified. (http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/its-time-to-tell-the-truth-the-14th-amend-was-not-ratified/)
"The feds have seized, virtual total control, over every aspect of our lives via the 14th amendment’s “due process” clause. They have concocted a never ending series of “duties and rights” to “justify federal control” based upon that amendment. So I think it is only fair to ask a simple question."
"WAS THE 14TH AMENDMENT LEGITIMATELY RATIFIED?"
"Do you know the answer to that question? Of course not. You only know the lies you were taught in government schools and by the complicit criminal media."
Perhaps it is your belief in an erroneous application of an unratified 14th Amendment that is the problem.
It's the last thing the Supreme Court should have been ruling in favor of, yes...
No... the people are the final step.
The Supreme Court is not “Independent” (http://www.thetruthaboutthelaw.com/they-have-lied-to-us-about-the-courts-independence/)
"We are told from the time we can think and walk that we have this great system of government built on a system of brilliant checks and balances. It is pounded into our heads in school and in the media. The bulwark of this genius is supposedly our “independent” judiciary. It is indispensable to maintaining our supposed freedoms. It stands guard over our freedoms! The whole tale is such a load of CRAP."
"Today I am going to discuss what it means to have an independent vs. a dependent judiciary. When you finish reading this you will have been given an objective framework with which to analyze the independence of the court’s performance, probably for the first time in your life, and you will then be able to articulate what the real problem is with the system. Instead of just feeling like it is broken."
"You will be able to see how it is an utter FRAUD. So let’s begin."
I simply said that you were the one who brought up the 14th Amendment, Roe v Wade and 'slippery slope' argument that allegedly 'has yet to show prospect' and now that it has blown up in your face, you don't want to talk about it any more. But I do know how you like to draw ridiculous conclusions to try and invalidate some else's point. That and the liberal use of emoticons used as 'argument'...
Too bad the unborn cannot speak to you about 'slippery slope' and victims. You might change your mind about the lack of 'linkage'.
Hope that helped...
There is little doubt that during and after Reconstruction, many supporters of the Confederacy refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment due in large part to the tactics used against the Southern states to complete the ratification process. But for many decades, the USSC has rejected that, and today whether or not some want to challenge its legality as part of the Constitution, doing so is a fool's errand, and even they know it.
But just think how great our society would be without the 14th. We wouldn't have had to provide citizenship to our former slaves; the Black Codes might still be in effect along with the later Jim Crow laws; we could keep blacks in their own schools; interracial marriages could be outlawed; most laws permitting discrimination could still remain; bedroom privacy would no longer be permitted; women...and men could be denied birth controls...But at least our ante-bellum social order would still be intact.
But to your concern that the rights of individuals were and should be up to the whim of the states. Rights come from God and nature and cannot be granted, only protected. Nor do rights come from the courts or any man-made governmental entity. They simply exist.
Yes, perhaps my naivety comes from an acceptance of the 14th Amendment. But I'll accept that and continue to embrace all of the rights amendments. They are all part of the Constitution I admire.
Yes, the people are the final step, and earlier in this argument, I asked why you (pl) didn't push for a constitutional amendment or an Article V convention of states if gay marriage is of such concern to you (pl). Past that I'd like to hear what else you think the people can do.
You continue to use abortion as a rationale for your assertion that gay marriage will lead to legalized use of victims in sexual acts. If you wish to continue discussing abortion, by all means lets move that topic to another thread. And you charge me with liking ridiculous conclusions...(not enough emoticons :pondering:).
I believe we understand each other's positions.
-
:laugh:
I suppose we just have to get used to 'losing' right now. Not happy about it.
I just think that you don't want to lose any.
Ted Cruz: Obama’s 20 Unanimous Supreme Court Losses Outpace Bush and Clinton
by JOEL GEHRKE July 1, 2014 12:31 PM
President Obama has seen 20 unanimous defeats before the Supreme Court during the five and a half years of his presidency, a pace that outstrips former presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, according to a review of his record since 2009 by Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas). “President Obama’s unanimous Supreme Court loss rate, for the five and half years of his presidency, is nearly double that of President Bush and is 25 percent greater than President Clinton,” Cruz notes in a survey of how Obama’s lawyers performed before the high court. Bush lost 15 cases unanimously, while Clinton lost 23 — but those defeats came over an eight-year period. When Cruz released his first report on the topic in April of 2013, he pointed out that Obama had lost nine cases unanimously since January of 2012. This latest installment takes account of the four most recent unanimous rulings against Obama, and the seven handed down by the court before 2012.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/381676/ted-cruz-obamas-20-unanimous-supreme-court-losses-outpace-bush-and-clinton-joel-gehrke
You really need to stop listening to the doom and gloom brigade.
-
There is little doubt that during and after Reconstruction, many supporters of the Confederacy refused to acknowledge the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment due in large part to the tactics used against the Southern states to complete the ratification process. But for many decades, the USSC has rejected that, and today whether or not some want to challenge its legality as part of the Constitution, doing so is a fool's errand, and even they know it.
Well of course the SCOTUS has rejected challenges to the 14th Amendment. LOL! Did you expect anything different? People do need to understand 'the tactics' that were employed and that there was good reason and solid opposition to the 14th Amendment for the very reason that it has turned out to be such a disaster.
The fact remains that the 14th Amendment was imposed on this country by the federal government in Wash D.C. and this country has suffered ever since.
But just think how great our society would be without the 14th. We wouldn't have had to provide citizenship to our former slaves; the Black Codes might still be in effect along with the later Jim Crow laws; we could keep blacks in their own schools; interracial marriages could be outlawed; most laws permitting discrimination could still remain; bedroom privacy would no longer be permitted; women...and men could be denied birth controls...But at least our ante-bellum social order would still be intact.
That would be the fallacy of the false dilemma. You assume that these things could not have been rectified by any means other than the 14th Amendment. That is a belief, and not a fact.
What we do know is that without the 14th Amendment, abortion and 'gay marriage' would be State issues and would not be imposed on everyone by a non-independent court. States could even 'change their mind' if gay marriage gets out of hand (which it eventually will). Now, there is no choice (just like abortion), which is the point of making it a SCOTUS decision. The States and the people have no choice. It is imposed by judicial fiat.
But to your concern that the rights of individuals were and should be up to the whim of the states. Rights come from God and nature and cannot be granted, only protected. Nor do rights come from the courts or any man-made governmental entity. They simply exist.
I like the way you refer to States powers as a 'whim'. They are, however, anything but a 'whim'. They are the original foundation for this republic. The civil war was only superficially about slavery, which could have been resolved many different ways other than mass slaughter. It was about the Federal government taking control of the States and we can see how that worked through the 14th Amendment. That much is clear.
I do know how you like to characterize arguments in certain ways for effect, however.
Yes, perhaps my naivety comes from an acceptance of the 14th Amendment. But I'll accept that and continue to embrace all of the rights amendments. They are all part of the Constitution I admire.
They would not 'all' be part of the Constitution that you so admire if they had been constitutionally-adopted. So you like a Constitution that was turned on it's head by federal shenanigans during Reconstruction. That's not something to be proud of...
You continue to use abortion as a rationale for your assertion that gay marriage will lead to legalized use of victims in sexual acts. If you wish to continue discussing abortion, by all means lets move that topic to another thread. And you charge me with liking ridiculous conclusions...(not enough emoticons :pondering:).
You are the one who brought it up as though it was some kind of support for 'gay marriage' so if their was a ridiculous conclusion, it was certainly yours. Then when it got turned against your position, you wanted to drop it or move it somewhere else. Well of course you do...
I believe we understand each other's positions.
Unfortunately, what I get from you is a consistent, deliberate effort to misrepresent both the facts and the arguments of those who oppose your positions...
-
I just think that you don't want to lose any.
You really need to stop listening to the doom and gloom brigade.
But, is it because Obama had thrown so much 'poop' on the wall, so-to-speak....that he compiled said record?
IOW...on how many cases did he get his desired outcome?
Secondly, he's in hyper-drive right now with 'only' a year and one-half remaining, so I'd imagine he's going to keep them busy.
-
Unfortunately, what I get from you is a consistent, deliberate effort to misrepresent both the facts and the arguments of those who oppose your positions...
I will leave that as the last word. Have a good day.
-
I will leave that as the last word. Have a good day.
Yep, you too.
-
There is No "Fourteenth Amendment"!
by
David Lawrence
U.S. News & World Report
September 27, 1957
A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.
The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:
Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the "Fourteenth Amendment."
Congress — which had deprived the Southern States of their seats in the Senate — did not lawfully pass the resolution of submission in the first instance.
The Southern States which had rejected the amendment were coerced by a federal statute passed in 1867 that took away the right to vote or hold office from all citizens who had served in the Confederate Army. Military governors were appointed and instructed to prepare the roll of voters. All this happened in spite of the presidential proclamation of amnesty previously issued by the President. New legislatures were thereupon chosen and forced to "ratify" under penalty of continued exile from the Union. In Louisiana, a General sent down from the North presided over the State legislature.
Abraham Lincoln had declared many times that the Union was "inseparable" and "indivisible." After his death, and when the war was over, the ratification by the Southern States of the Thirteenth Amendment, abolishing slavery, had been accepted as legal. But Congress in the 1867 law imposed the specific conditions under which the Southern States would be "entitled to representation in Congress."
Congress, in passing the 1867 law that declared the Southern States could not have their seats in either the Senate or House in the next session unless they ratified the "Fourteenth Amendment," took an unprecedented step. No such right — to compel a State by an act of Congress to ratify a constitutional amendment — is to be found anywhere in the Constitution. Nor has this procedure ever been sanctioned by the Supreme Court of the United States.
President Andrew Johnson publicly denounced this law as unconstitutional. But it was passed over his veto.
Secretary of State Seward was on the spot in July 1868 when the various "ratifications" of a spurious nature were placed before him. The legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey had notified him that they rescinded their earlier action of ratification. He said in his official proclamation that he was not authorized as Secretary of State "to determine and decide doubtful questions as to the authenticity of the organization of State legislatures or as to the power of any State legislature to recall a previous act or resolution of ratification." He added that the amendment was valid "if the resolutions of the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey, ratifying the aforesaid amendment, are to be deemed as remaining of full force and effect, notwithstanding the subsequent resolutions of the legislatures of these States." This was a very big "if." It will be noted that the real issue, therefore, is not only whether the forced "ratification" by the ten Southern States was lawful, but whether the withdrawal by the legislatures of Ohio and New Jersey — two Northern States — was legal. The right of a State, by action of its legislature, to change its mind at any time before the final proclamation of ratification is issued by the Secretary of State has been confirmed in connection with other constitutional amendments.
The Oregon Legislature in October 1868 — three months after the Secretary's proclamation was issued — passed a rescinding resolution, which argued that the "Fourteenth Amendment" had not been ratified by three fourths of the States and that the "ratifications" in the Southern States were "usurpations, unconstitutional, revolutionary and void" and that, "until such ratification is completed, any State has a right to withdraw its assent to any proposed amendment."
What do the historians say about all this? The Encyclopedia Americana states:
"Reconstruction added humiliation to suffering.... Eight years of crime, fraud, and corruption followed and it was State legislatures composed of Negroes, carpetbaggers and scalawags who obeyed the orders of the generals and ratified the amendment."
W. E. Woodward, in his famous work, "A New American History?" published in 1936, says:
"To get a clear idea of the succession of events let us review [President Andrew] Johnson's actions in respect to the ex-Confederate States.
"In May, 1865, he issued a Proclamation of Amnesty to former rebels. Then he established provisional governments in all the Southern States. They were instructed to call Constitutional Conventions. They did. New State governments were elected. White men only had the suffrage the Fifteenth Amendment establishing equal voting rights had not yet been passed]. Senators and Representatives were chosen, but when they appeared at the opening of Congress they were refused admission. The State governments, however, continued to function during 1866.
"Now we are in 1867. In the early days of that year [Thaddeus] Stevens brought in, as chairman of the House Reconstruction Committee, a bill that proposed to sweep all the Southern State governments into the wastebasket. The South was to be put under military rule.
"The bill passed. It was vetoed by Johnson and passed again over his veto. In the Senate it was amended in such fashion that any State could escape from military rule and be restored to its full rights by ratifying the Fourteenth Amendment and admitting black as well as white men to the polls."
In challenging its constitutionality, President Andrew Johnson said in his veto message:
"I submit to Congress whether this measure is not in its whole character, scope and object without precedent and without authority, in palpable conflict with the plainest provisions of the Constitution, and utterly destructive of those great principles of liberty and humanity for which our ancestors on both sides of the Atlantic have shed so much blood and expended so much treasure."
Many historians have applauded Johnson's words. Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, known today as "liberals," wrote in their book, "The Growth of the American Republic":
"Johnson returned the bill with a scorching message arguing the unconstitutionality of the whole thing, and most impartial students have agreed with his reasoning."
James Truslow Adams, another noted historian, writes in his "History of the United States":
"The Supreme Court had decided three months earlier, in the Milligan case, ... that military courts were unconstitutional except under such war conditions as might make the operation of civil courts impossible, but the President pointed out in vain that practically the whole of the new legislation was unconstitutional. ... There was even talk in Congress of impeaching the Supreme Court for its decisions! The legislature had run amok and was threatening both the Executive and the Judiciary."
Actually, President Johnson was impeached, but the move failed by one vote in the Senate.
The Supreme Court, in case after case, refused to pass on the illegal activities involved in "ratification." It said simply that they were acts of the "political departments of the Government." This, of course, was a convenient device of avoidance. The Court has adhered to that position ever since Reconstruction Days.
Andrew C. McLaughlin, whose "Constitutional History of the United States" is a standard work, writes:
"Can a State which is not a State and not recognized as such by Congress, perform the supreme duty of ratifying an amendment to the fundamental law? Or does a State — by congressional thinking — cease to be a State for some purposes but not for others?"
This is the tragic history of the so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" — a record that is a disgrace to free government and a "government of law."
Isn't the use of military force to override local government what we deplored in Hungary?
It is never too late to correct injustice. The people of America should have an opportunity to pass on an amendment to the Constitution that sets forth the right of the Federal Government to control education and regulate attendance at public schools either with federal power alone or concurrently with the States.
That's the honest way, the just way to deal with the problem of segregation or integration in the schools. Until such an amendment is adopted, the "Fourteenth Amendment" should be considered as null and void.
There is only one supreme tribunal — it is the people themselves. Their sovereign will is expressed through the procedures set forth in the Constitution itself.
[END]
[OCR'd text from U.S. News & World Report, September 27, 1957, page 140 et seq.]
-
A MISTAKEN BELIEF — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the "Fourteenth Amendment" — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America. No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three fourths of the States of the Union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called "Fourteenth Amendment" was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the Union at the time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it. So it failed of ratification.
Yeah, it's pretty sad the facts that are and have been suppressed.
It's crystal-clear that the federal government has been usurping the powers of the States and the people and using those powers against them for a very long time.
-
Yeah, it's pretty sad the facts that are and have been suppressed.
It's crystal-clear that the federal government has been usurping the powers of the States and the people and using those powers against them for a very long time.
ONly since 1860 or so!
-
You guys can live in that ante-bellum society. The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and I doubt any lawsuit would go any further than the trash can. As I said before, if only the states could determine which rights existed, what a paradise this would be. And they wouldn't be bound by those first 8 amendments which some still believe only restrict the federal government. The South would have been able to secede, wars would have been fought over the Western states, blacks would not be able to claim any rights existed for them...or even that they might be citizens. I might not have been able to get married. No birth control, lots of back-alley abortions, no privacy in anyone's bedroom...blacks would have to be in their own schools. I wouldn't have moved to South Carolina and would miss out on peach season.
Hey, why don't you guys start a lawsuit to invalidate Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment. Orly Taitz told me she's already prepared a case... :smokin:
-
You guys can live in that ante-bellum society. The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution and I doubt any lawsuit would go any further than the trash can. As I said before, if only the states could determine which rights existed, what a paradise this would be. And they wouldn't be bound by those first 8 amendments which some still believe only restrict the federal government. The South would have been able to secede, wars would have been fought over the Western states, blacks would not be able to claim any rights existed for them...or even that they might be citizens. I might not have been able to get married. No birth control, lots of back-alley abortions, no privacy in anyone's bedroom...blacks would have to be in their own schools. I wouldn't have moved to South Carolina and would miss out on peach season.
Hey, why don't you guys start a lawsuit to invalidate Reconstruction and the 14th Amendment. Orly Taitz told me she's already prepared a case... :smokin:
You can make light of whatever you wish Mac but in the end the TRUTH still matters. Abe Lincoln walked all over the Constitution and opened wide the doors through which every progressive since has walked. That is the TRUTH whether or not you or anyone else here EVER recognize the fact!
-
You can make light of whatever you wish Mac but in the end the TRUTH still matters. Abe Lincoln walked all over the Constitution and opened wide the doors through which every progressive since has walked. That is the TRUTH whether or not you or anyone else here EVER recognize the fact!
I make light only of the tinfoil nature of some "historians" and their beliefs that somehow things were better before 1860 because of the sovereignty of the states and their individual determination of what rights people should have.
But the rest was not offered lightly. We are a great Country not simply because of our good history and Constitution, but because we threw off the evils of slavery and time after time rejected the attempts to curtail individual rights and freedoms. No Bigun, it was not all tongue-in-cheek humor.
-
I make light only of the tinfoil nature of some "historians" and their beliefs that somehow things were better before 1860 because of the sovereignty of the states and their individual determination of what rights people should have.
But the rest was not offered lightly. We are a great Country not simply because of our good history and Constitution, but because we threw off the evils of slavery and time after time rejected the attempts to curtail individual rights and freedoms. No Bigun, it was not all tongue-in-cheek humor.
And those things, according to you, would never have happened without all of the illegalities under Lincoln and after! I don't believe that for a second!
You sound just like Obama and Kerry! It's the Iran deal or WAR? Well NO! It isn't!
-
And those things, according to you, would never have happened without all of the illegalities under Lincoln and after! I don't believe that for a second!
You sound just like Obama and Kerry! It's the Iran deal or WAR? Well NO! It isn't!
You edited your post. Can't imagine what it said before. If I understand what you were trying to say in the first sentence, certainly the rights amendments wouldn't have happened in the South, nor would any of the several civil rights laws enacted beginning in 1865. The South wouldn't have needed their infamous Black Codes, since slavery would have been required by every state. But the 14th Amendment cases didn't involve just the Southern states by any stretch, as challenges to laws under the due process and equal protection amendments have emanated from every part of the Country.
I do know that war would have ultimately come regardless, since the South absolutely wanted more slave states and considered the West open to such claims. It was one of the big issues leading to the Civil War.
But all of that aside, you don't believe any of it, so fine. I can't understand Americans, especially conservatives making a case for "states rights", especially slave states, over the rights and freedoms of individuals.
But in any case, please don't toss the Obama/Kerry BS at me again, thanks.
-
You edited your post. Can't imagine what it said before. If I understand what you were trying to say in the first sentence, certainly the rights amendments wouldn't have happened in the South, nor would any of the several civil rights laws enacted beginning in 1865. The South wouldn't have needed their infamous Black Codes, since slavery would have been required by every state. But the 14th Amendment cases didn't involve just the Southern states by any stretch, as challenges to laws under the due process and equal protection amendments have emanated from every part of the Country.
I do know that war would have ultimately come regardless, since the South absolutely wanted more slave states and considered the West open to such claims. It was one of the big issues leading to the Civil War.
But all of that aside, you don't believe any of it, so fine. I can't understand Americans, especially conservatives making a case for "states rights", especially slave states, over the rights and freedoms of individuals.
But in any case, please don't toss the Obama/Kerry BS at me again, thanks.
OK Mac! It's very clear to me that you and I are never going to see eye to eye on much of anything and I have no wish to further injure your delicate sensibilities so I'll just leave it as it is.
I edited both this and my previous post only to correct spelling errors. I do that a lot these days.
-
OK Mac! It's very clear to me that you and I are never going to see eye to eye on much of anything and I have no wish to further injure your delicate sensibilities so I'll just leave it as it is.
I edited both this and my previous post only to correct spelling errors. I do that a lot these days.
Trust me Bigun, there's nothing about me you could injure. Just keep the silly attempts at ad hominums to yourself if you can't just debate an issue. But I do agree with you, there's not much we agree on.
Have a nice evening.
-
You edited your post. Can't imagine what it said before. If I understand what you were trying to say in the first sentence, certainly the rights amendments wouldn't have happened in the South, nor would any of the several civil rights laws enacted beginning in 1865. The South wouldn't have needed their infamous Black Codes, since slavery would have been required by every state. But the 14th Amendment cases didn't involve just the Southern states by any stretch, as challenges to laws under the due process and equal protection amendments have emanated from every part of the Country.
I do know that war would have ultimately come regardless, since the South absolutely wanted more slave states and considered the West open to such claims. It was one of the big issues leading to the Civil War.
But all of that aside, you don't believe any of it, so fine. I can't understand Americans, especially conservatives making a case for "states rights", especially slave states, over the rights and freedoms of individuals.
But in any case, please don't toss the Obama/Kerry BS at me again, thanks.
Bigun knew Jeff Davis.
-
Bigun knew Jeff Davis.
Not personally i didn't but I have read a good deal about him!