Prince James said:
Actually, I do believe the gay rights movement began in the 60s, did it not?
Interestingly, it was biblical, homophobic bigots (The Oregon Citizens’ Alliance) that made me aware of the gay rights movement. Before that, I simply didn’t care about the genders of people’s sexual partners. It is not, however, left for me to wonder how I would have regarded my sexuality were it not for years of festering politics keeping the idea in my mind. Perhaps I would have come to terms, as such, with it, or maybe not. But life is, and the fact remains that it was not any “gay agenda”, but rather a horde of bigots, who compelled me to actually give it serious thought.
Are you saying that marijuana, if it is truly a gateway drug - which studies do show a correlation in marijuana usage before going onto heavier drugs - that people will not be more likely to try cocaine, crack, opium, or various other illegal drugs?
The correlation you note is more appropriately drawn to marijuana’s prohibition. Nobody seems to like the idea that concentrated sugars (e.g. high fructose corn syrup) or the addictive caffeine are gateway drugs, yet the idea has much merit. To the other, ever watch a toddler learn to get spun drunk? Round and round and round about . . . .
Gateway drugs: sugar, caffeine, alcohol, nicotine—all legal, I might remind. By the time a child gets to marijuana, the odds are that he or she is already quite familiar with the notion of altering their state of mind. Hell, I remember the strange sensation learning to do the Donald Duck impression on helium; are helium balloons a gateway to whippets (nitrous oxide)?
ACtually, gender all ready does play a role in determinations of prerequisites for certain activities. Women are prohibited from direct-combat roles in the military, for instance.
Would you consider it irrelevant if I found such a prohibition to be worthy of ridicule? History is rife with capable women in combat. I do agree that gender does already play a role in determining prerequisites; in many to most cases, I would call that role
discrimination, the inappropriate kind.
Some people respond that way, yes. But others can say "I do not want people to be obese, or retarded, because they suffer". This implies a hatred of the condition because of its causes, but not of the person, nor of a fear.
The presumption of a perception of suffering is the basis of fear. The thing is that hatred is irrational; it is possible to respond to fear rationally.
People did indeed go to war, but not over the bill of rights. The bill of rights came almost a decade after the American Revolution. Of course, some of the foundations of such were found in the Lockean Natural Law language of Jefferson's constitution, but "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is far different from the specific rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Moreover, societies can and do function outside of these rights and there is no ontological necessity in adhering to them, hence, arbitrary.
The Constitution is what is referred to, conceptually, as a “living document”. It evolves through amendments and progressive comprehension. The Bill of Rights, drawn in response to specific historical precedents, is hardly arbitrary.
I do not view history as progressive, but cyclic, on the foundation of human nature's predisposition to -not- learning from her mistakes, and not only that, but for true greatness and intelligence to be found in only a fraction of the population. For every Jefferson, there are a thousand Fillmores.
Your view would seem to refuse the possibility that a society, or the generations of individuals who compose it, can evolve. Breaking the cycles of history is an important part of human evolution, and a process we humans have yet to fully grasp.
So much for “free will”, then? We’re all just playing our parts? How forgiving: it’s a great excuse to be a hatemongering bigot, an excellent justification for refusing to even try.
Also, I am myself extremely for an amendment that would criminalize flag burning. I do not see why traitorous actions need be allowed.
Flag burning is traitorous? I would think pinheaded opposition to free speech more a betrayal of American principles, but that’s just me.
As governments, despite being formed "by the people, for the people", do take on aspects of actual beings, and that they take on a "life of their own" through the action of the leaders of said governments, and that they exist quite apart from the average voter's control (and only in collection can the voters matter at all), it would seem that yes, a government does demand "free speech" and various other rights. That they are limited in this realm in theory (but basically impossibly under practice if the populace is not willing to wage an armed insurrection) is only because tyranny can often be too difficult in certain situations to enforce. But you should also note that the Constitution has gradually moved towards said tyranny, through instituting such things as a constitutional amendment that allowed them to tax income legally.
People expect more of their government than guns and graft.
The government established by the Constitution derives from specific goals enumerated in the Preamble. The freedoms protected by the Bill of Rights are not “negative rights” of government. They describe issues of freedom for the people, protect the purpose of government against being devoured by government.
But this is all very tangential to the topic at hand.
It seemed important to you when you brought it up.
The constitution has, and continues to, exclude people. It used to exclude blacks and women and now excludes those under 18 from the right to vote.
See
Roper v. Simmons.
As to blacks and women, such is the nature of a “living document”. It evolves.
Or it shows the disaster of mandating social change. What is demanding homosexual marriage be legal but doign the same thing?
Prohibition took away people’s freedom to consume alcohol. What freedom is homosexual marriage removing from anyone?
The idea of “mandating social change” is far too broad, and conveniently allows you to overlook the details of
what is actually happening.
Massachusetts SUpreme Court ruling on gay marriage and the US Supreme Court Ruling on Medical Marijuana come to mind. I would also state that Eminent Domain rulings in the US Supreme Court are of a type of this legislation from the bench and amount to a wholesale acceptance of highway robbery.
In all three cases, the court applied the law as it was given to them. That one disagrees with the outcome does not mean the courts have invented anything.
If the prerequisite demands constitutionality, then the appropriate authorities for the determination of constitutionality ought to be asked to evaluate, in a system that allows appeal, said constitutionality, although actually, the public's vote should be considered in the very same rulings, as public will is -crucial- to the establishment of what it means to have a constitution in the first place.
The court
is the appropriate authority for the determination of constitutionality; the court does not simply reach out and decide, but rather is
asked to evaluate the issue by parties aggrieved by the circumstances in question. Public will is an interesting question; should we have another Civil War? Furthermore, if the public will is founded in assertions not reflected in fact, is it valid? “Public will” has been used to justify every kind of discriminatory policy knocked down by the Constitution.
In the gay fray, “public will” against homosexuality is so superstitious that it is very hard to respect heterosupremacists. In 1992, homophobes accused gays of being responsible for 95% of all child molestations, and attempted to pretend that only homosexuals engage in various acts considered beyond the mainstream (e.g. watersports, fisting, bestiality, &c.).
Is stupidity a proper foundation for public policy? I think not, but that’s just me.
But actually, miscegenation was widely held to be legal by many, many courts, before another court determined it differently. This tends to happen in our history a lot. If judicial ruling is to be considered so sacred, does not this undermine it?
The irrational basis of the bigotry held no water in a court determined to consider facts. Furthermore, Equal Protection came into play: one cannot grant a federal civil right to Californians only, for instance. A state issue, sure; we have a state-level constitutional right to privacy in my state, and that doesn’t necessarily bear weight in federal arguments pertaining to events and issues in other states.
I also found only that paper quoting that English Common Law as such. Considering a movie used the exact same quote and that is the listed thing on "sex-lexis" dictionary, would seem to indicate something amiss.
Sex-Lexis? Authoritative. Add it to the list.
Are you telling me that when a law says "the husband and the wife are one" and the wife is considered to have a legal right to protection and other such things from her husband, that she does not participate in the ownership of the property she maintains in the union with her husband?
I’m referring to a wife’s obligations: a wife, traditionally, is her husband’s whore.
John and Jane Doe make a contract. In this contract, John gets to watch professional wrestling and Jane gets to shop for shoes (whoa-ho, how sexist am I?) in exchange for John making sure that Jane has money to buy said shoes, and Jane giving him beer and nachos so he might enjoy Hulk Hogan kicking the hell out of some guy even moreso than normal. Now suppose that Jane wants to watch pro-wrestling with John? Does she have a right of violation of the contract if John refuses? Not at all! However, if she did not have the money to buy on shoes, well then, John would be in violation of the contract, now wouldn't he?
Now replace the above scenarios with the historical considerations. Men = Provide and get sex and cleaning. Women = Provide sex and cleaning, and get provided for. Either violate the other, the contract is broken.
I can’t believe people dedicate such energy to obliging someone to sexual intercourse. Again, you’re not paying attention to what is happening. How is “Jane watching professional wrestling” and “John penetrating Jane’s body with his penis” comparable? For Jane to watch professional wrestling, John’s body is not obliged to anything; for John to have sex with Jane, her body
is obliged to something.
Do you really
not see the difference?
It has aspects of prostitution to it, yes. As do almost all relationships. We do not give freely of ourselves, but always for a price. A prostitute is simply another example of the capitalistic system that underlies all actions.
Your point being?
As the parent of a daughter, perhaps I should educate her to understand that marriage is a lifelong contract by which she becomes a whore? Of course, I’m of that liberal school that apparently has been wrecking the idea of marriage, so it’s not an issue I will have to face, at least until she decides to get married to some chauvinist bozo who misses his mommy.
According to UN Treaties, apparently, races have the right to not be annihilated. Genocide and ethnic cleansing are internationally recognized as crimes against humanity. Signatories include the United States.
What do you know? Wow, evolution is genocide. You may be the first person on the planet so enlightened as to consider the issue of falling in love a war crime.
Really, how the hell am I supposed to take that argument? It’s ridiculous, insupportable.
A race can be exterminated by another race and we call it genocide. If someone were to screw a race out of existence purposefully, would not this be genocide? And is not this part of -every- instance of race mixing?
Purposefully? There’s the important point. Look, people can’t even agree on how to live next to one another. I cannot accept that the idea of falling in love is a war crime.
Races represent genetic adaptation to enviroments over thousands of years, as well as the foundations for cultures which produce either good or bad ends.
And if people fall in love across ethnic lines, one must choose to see that as something other than adaptive. Life is. People are. Humanity exists. Get over it.
What do you mean by "heterosexual v. homosexual risks"?
Any behavior involves risk. What are the risks of taking a shower? Or plugging in the vacuum cleaner? What do I mean? Should I draw you a picture?
You must also take into consideration that blacks and latinos are, on average, far less educated, as well as being generally disclined to the practice of contraceptive sex even with heterosexual relations. This is evidenced by the massive amount of bastard children born into these communities, as well as the sexual history of the men and women in terms of partners had over a life time.
Thank you for making, in your own way, my point: it isn’t hetero- vs. homo-sexual, but issues of environment, education, economy, &c.
As to Aquinas, there is much wrong with
Summa Theologica. It works well enough as long as one agrees to the assertions
a priori regarding the nature of reality. As Aquinas’ assertions are doubtful, his conclusions are questionable. We’ll have to explore this more deeply later.
