IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags arnold schwarzenegger , California issues , California politics , equal rights issues , gay rights

Reply
Old 20th September 2007, 04:35 PM   #1
DoubtingStephen
Queer Propagandist
 
DoubtingStephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
Governator of California Vetoes Equal Rights for Gol Darn Homos

The Governator of California has terminated a bill that would have granted equal rights under the law to fags and dykes. Using Party of Jesus formula number one, the Governator stated that it was not up to the [insert_branch_of_government_recognizing_rights_of_ fags] to decide this matter, it should be up to [branches_of_government_not_honoring_rights_of_fags].

Here are some examples of how Party of Jesus Rule Number One is applied:
  • In Iowa, when a court said all people should have equal rights, Party of Jesus Rule Number One said “It’s not up to the courts”
  • In California, when the legislature said all citizens should have equal rights, Party of Jesus Rule Number One said”It’s not up to the legislature”
The important point to remember is that, in order to be a member of the Party of Jesus in good standing, you must always oppose equal rights if it means fags and dykes have rights too.

As a known, practicing California taxpayer I have a message for the Governator, “Ah’ll be Baaack!”
DoubtingStephen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2007, 05:32 PM   #2
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 59,744
He's still angry because gay men don't find him attractive anymore since he totally lost his figure. What happened, Arnold? You went from Tom of Finland to Tom Arnold. Sad.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2007, 09:56 PM   #3
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Yokohama, Japan
Posts: 25,888
A an aside, why is everything in California decided by referendum? In most states people elect legislatures and the legislatures enact laws.

Arnold's position is that the matter should be decided by referendum?

If he opposes gay marraige, thats fine although I don't agree with it, but it's clearly bogus to say the legislature cannot decide this because they are the people's representatives.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2007, 10:04 PM   #4
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
 
shemp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: People's Democratic Republic of Planet X
Posts: 40,827
He's just biased against girly men. He wants to pump them up.
__________________
If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.
"...just as a magnet attracts iron filings, Trump shemp attracts, and is attracted to, louts." - George Will
"[shemp is] a most notable coward, an infinite and endless liar, an hourly promise breaker, the owner of no one good quality." - Shakespeare
shemp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th September 2007, 10:15 PM   #5
DoubtingStephen
Queer Propagandist
 
DoubtingStephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
A an aside, why is everything in California decided by referendum?
1) It is too easy to get a referendum on the ballot
2) It is too easy to trick the sheeple into signing a petition to get an issue on the ballot by lying to them about what they are signing.

I agree that it should be up to the legislature to make laws, I mean, DUH!

I do resent having my civil rights used as a political toy. I think my State and Federal governments should recognize the fact that I have the same civil rights as all of my fellow citizens.

Now, to be fair, the California Legislature has been making steady progress in incremental bits. When I was hospitalized last year my registered domestic partner had the same legal access to visit me as a married person would have to visit their spouse. But my rights are inherently mine, not some sort of a Christmas present granted by a benevolent government. It is the responsibility of the government to recognize the inherent rights of citizens.

It seems to me that this song and dance about my civil rights is being done to appease bigots afflicted with religious beliefs and misdirect voter attention away from the real, important issues facing our state like crumbling infrastructure and deeply deficient schools.
DoubtingStephen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 04:29 AM   #6
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,746
Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen View Post
The Governator of California has terminated a bill that would have granted equal rights under the law to fags and dykes. Using Party of Jesus formula number one, the Governator stated that it was not up to the [insert_branch_of_government_recognizing_rights_of_ fags] to decide this matter, it should be up to [branches_of_government_not_honoring_rights_of_fags].

Here are some examples of how Party of Jesus Rule Number One is applied:
  • In Iowa, when a court said all people should have equal rights, Party of Jesus Rule Number One said “It’s not up to the courts”
  • In California, when the legislature said all citizens should have equal rights, Party of Jesus Rule Number One said”It’s not up to the legislature”
The important point to remember is that, in order to be a member of the Party of Jesus in good standing, you must always oppose equal rights if it means fags and dykes have rights too.

As a known, practicing California taxpayer I have a message for the Governator, “Ah’ll be Baaack!”
Well the reasoning is somewhat different. In both it is that the closer one is to the public the more authority one has to promote such change.

In your view what should be the method for legalizing gay marriage? If the courts say something then is that enough, or should the legislature make the decision? What role should referendums have in government?
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 05:26 AM   #7
MelBrooksfan
Graduate Poster
 
MelBrooksfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,009
Usually, they both seem to act within their boundaries. IE, courts don't "legalize" gay marriage per se. Rather, they strike down laws against it as unconstitutional. Odd thing is, seems that it's perfectly acceptable for the courts or legislatures to rule against gay marriage, just not for it.
MelBrooksfan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 05:50 AM   #8
Lisa Simpson
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 22,349
The mayor of San Diego had said he would veto a bill supporting gay-marriage, but then he changed his mind and admitted his adult daughter is gay.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlates...935328,00.html
Lisa Simpson is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 06:22 AM   #9
LordoftheLeftHand
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 1,188
Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen View Post
Here are some examples of how Party of Jesus Rule Number One is applied:
  • In Iowa, when a court said all people should have equal rights, Party of Jesus Rule Number One said “It’s not up to the courts”
  • In California, when the legislature said all citizens should have equal rights, Party of Jesus Rule Number One said”It’s not up to the legislature”
This is a typical position for people who pay lip service to "limited government". Steven Colbert summed it up once "I'm a small government guy, unless the president wants to do something."

LLH
LordoftheLeftHand is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 06:22 AM   #10
DoubtingStephen
Queer Propagandist
 
DoubtingStephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
In your view what should be the method for legalizing gay marriage?
When a duly elected legislature passes a law that expands the rights of citizens, its merits should be considered without reference to any type of religious delusion.

When a court in the normal course of its business finds that a law that sets up a specific class of people who will be denied civil rights available to those not members of the minority group is unconstitutional, politicians should not jump up and down, scratching their armpits and muttering fundamentalist hate-monger buzzwords. Sanctity of Marriage my derriere.
DoubtingStephen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 06:24 AM   #11
DoubtingStephen
Queer Propagandist
 
DoubtingStephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,545
Originally Posted by MelBrooksfan View Post
Odd thing is, seems that it's perfectly acceptable for the courts or legislatures to rule against gay marriage, just not for it.
Well said!
DoubtingStephen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 06:28 AM   #12
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,468
Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson View Post
The mayor of San Diego had said he would veto a bill supporting gay-marriage, but then he changed his mind and admitted his adult daughter is gay.
It's a lot harder to dehumanize someone when they have a name and a face that you gave them.


(Happy B-Day, Lisa and Mel)
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 06:31 AM   #13
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,746
Originally Posted by MelBrooksfan View Post
Usually, they both seem to act within their boundaries. IE, courts don't "legalize" gay marriage per se. Rather, they strike down laws against it as unconstitutional. Odd thing is, seems that it's perfectly acceptable for the courts or legislatures to rule against gay marriage, just not for it.
Which is basicly my point. Both sides accept and support what ever rulings are in their favor. And reject those that are not.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 06:33 AM   #14
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,746
Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen View Post
When a duly elected legislature passes a law that expands the rights of citizens, its merits should be considered without reference to any type of religious delusion.

When a court in the normal course of its business finds that a law that sets up a specific class of people who will be denied civil rights available to those not members of the minority group is unconstitutional, politicians should not jump up and down, scratching their armpits and muttering fundamentalist hate-monger buzzwords. Sanctity of Marriage my derriere.
These are not positions about general legal and governing principles though. It is basicly "I really believe I am right and any way that I can get my way works for me".

And that is something both sides of this issue share.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 06:34 AM   #15
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,746
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
It's a lot harder to dehumanize someone when they have a name and a face that you gave them.


(Happy B-Day, Lisa and Mel)
Cheney seems to manage it.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 06:40 AM   #16
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 32,468
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
Cheney seems to manage it.
Well, even Cheney (and the rest of the Bush administration) softened their hard line position to a more neutral let-the-states-figure-it-out position in the last election.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 06:48 AM   #17
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,746
Originally Posted by Upchurch View Post
Well, even Cheney (and the rest of the Bush administration) softened their hard line position to a more neutral let-the-states-figure-it-out position in the last election.
Why shouldn't they, look at how many state passed constitutional amendments banning it.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 07:12 AM   #18
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,052
Why do gays hate California and, by extension, America?
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 07:26 AM   #19
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,185
Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen View Post
But my rights are inherently mine, not some sort of a Christmas present granted by a benevolent government.
Um yes they are.

For example:

If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.

Quote:
It is the responsibility of the government to recognize the inherent rights of citizens.
There is no such thing as inherent rights.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 07:41 AM   #20
Darth Rotor
Salted Sith Cynic
 
Darth Rotor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 38,527
Originally Posted by geni View Post
There is no such thing as inherent rights.
Perhaps in the UK, but you will find that the foundational document regarding "rights" for the American form of governance and legal system is that all rights are reserved to the people, except as modified by either the Constitution, or due process of law. In that respect, there are inherent rights, such as my right to stare at the wall, in abundance.

What this leads to, for example in a state like Texas where a Constitutional referendum against gay marriage was voted in a couple of years ago, is either leaving people to exercise their inherent rights, or making an explicit restriction via a law, or the proper enactment of a law. IF that law (or in this case a state constitutional amendment) be Unconstitutional (vis a vis "The Supreme Law Of The Land" aka the US Constitution) then that law or amendment will be struck down in due course after a suitable challenge to it is mounted. (I expect that will eventually happen in Texas.)

American gun laws are likewise restrictions in the inherent right to own a gun, and liquor laws restrictions on the general right to distill, sell and drink what I please.

DR
__________________
Helicopters don't so much fly as beat the air into submission.
"Jesus wept, but did He laugh?"--F.H. Buckley____"There is one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth ... His mirth." --Chesterton__"If the barbarian in us is excised, so is our humanity."--D'rok__ "I only use my gun whenever kindness fails."-- Robert Earl Keen__"Sturgeon spares none.". -- The Marquis

Last edited by Darth Rotor; 21st September 2007 at 07:45 AM.
Darth Rotor is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 07:59 AM   #21
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Central Scrutinizer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 53,052
Originally Posted by geni View Post
There is no such thing as inherent rights.
This is correct. Rights are granted by societies.
__________________
If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him.

Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer
The Central Scrutinizer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 08:23 AM   #22
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 20,228
Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer View Post
This is correct. Rights are granted by societies.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights. Among these rights are life, liberty, and the purfuit of happineff."

It is self-evident that people are created with inalienable rights. These rights are not granted by the state, or by society. They exist with the property of being.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 08:27 AM   #23
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
 
Lonewulf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 10,375
Originally Posted by ponderingturtle View Post
These are not positions about general legal and governing principles though. It is basicly "I really believe I am right and any way that I can get my way works for me".

And that is something both sides of this issue share.
Unfortunately, all too true.
__________________
Writing.com Account
Lonewulf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 08:28 AM   #24
LibraryLady
Emeritus
 
LibraryLady's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 14,126
Idiot.


Not you, DoubtingStephen. The Governator.

Idiot.
__________________
What I tell you three times is true.
LibraryLady is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 08:47 AM   #25
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights. Among these rights are life, liberty, and the purfuit of happineff."

It is self-evident that people are created with inalienable rights. These rights are not granted by the state, or by society. They exist with the property of being.
I declare they are incorrect and disagree with that list. Now what?
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 09:47 AM   #26
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,746
Thinking on this, doesn't this just show that he is becomeing a good politician? He knows that signing this will lose him more than it will benefit him, but that he can't just say that. So he needs to craft his explanation in some fashion as a statement of political belief and not personal belief.

Makes sense, and would seem to be the best political decision.
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 09:58 AM   #27
Fnord
Metasyntactic Variable
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,623
No one has denied gays the right to marry.

(... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...)

A man and a woman can still get married to each other even if one or both of them is gay.

Okay, that one came out of left field. Now assume that a person who is encountering the concept of gay marriage for the first time is asking these two questions:

1) What is the purpose of marriage?

2) Given the answer to #1, why would any two people of the same gender want to be married to each other?

Of course, the answer to #1 may obviate the answer to #2, but play along nicely...
__________________
Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory;
Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things;
and Knowledge is the reasoned belief in provable things.
Belief itself proves nothing.
Fnord is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 10:07 AM   #28
Skeptic Guy
Raccoon Death Squad Leader
 
Skeptic Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 6,990
Marriage provides for legal recognition of the union that allows the partner(s) to provide each other with medical, legal, and economical benefits. And there are the religious aspect too.

I think this answers question 2, also.
__________________
"Our history is in part a battle to the death of inadequate myths" - Carl Sagan

Even Mother TeresaWP doubted.
Skeptic Guy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 10:10 AM   #29
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,185
Originally Posted by Darth Rotor View Post
Perhaps in the UK, but you will find that the foundational document regarding "rights" for the American form of governance and legal system is that all rights are reserved to the people, except as modified by either the Constitution, or due process of law. In that respect, there are inherent rights, such as my right to stare at the wall, in abundance.
That is mearly a version of the common law principle that anything that is not illegal is legal. Since american law is based on english common law it is quite hard to get around that but it could be done.

Legal principles are not inherent rights.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 10:20 AM   #30
Fnord
Metasyntactic Variable
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,623
Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy View Post
Marriage provides for legal recognition of the union that allows the partner(s) to provide each other with medical, legal, and economical benefits. And there are the religious aspect too. I think this answers question 2, also.
There you go!

Drop the religious trappings, and the same things can be had with a civil contract. If fact, such a contract could have the same termination clauses and penalties built in as a pre-nuptual agreement. Keep in mind that marriage is the leading cause of every divorce ever committed.

It seems odd to me that people would claim the right to a religious union on the one hand, and condemn religion in general on the other. I guess its sorta like those folks who lay claim to a religion but only show up in its houses of worship for holidays, weddings, funerals, et cetera.
__________________
Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory;
Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things;
and Knowledge is the reasoned belief in provable things.
Belief itself proves nothing.
Fnord is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 10:22 AM   #31
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by Fnord View Post
There you go!

Drop the religious trappings, and the same things can be had with a civil contract. If fact, such a contract could have the same termination clauses and penalties built in as a pre-nuptual agreement. Keep in mind that marriage is the leading cause of every divorce ever committed.

It seems odd to me that people would claim the right to a religious union on the one hand, and condemn religion in general on the other. I guess its sorta like those folks who lay claim to a religion but only show up in its houses of worship for holidays, weddings, funerals, et cetera.
Atheist rights activism and gay rights activism are entirley seperate issues. Thanks for deliberately conflating them to misrepresent people you disagree with.
ImaginalDisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 10:40 AM   #32
Fnord
Metasyntactic Variable
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,623
Originally Posted by ImaginalDisc View Post
Atheist rights activism and gay rights activism are entirley seperate issues. Thanks for deliberately conflating them to misrepresent people you disagree with.

Uhh ... where did I conflate the two issues? Don't presume more than the evidence can support.

But since you brought it up, I do know gay people who would not set foot in a church except to get married. They rail against institutionalized religion on the one hand, and then demand the blessings of those same institutions on the other. And then they call me a hypocrite when I try to explain church doctrine to them.

Some people just look for trouble, especially where there is none.
__________________
Belief is the subjective acceptance of a (valid or invalid) concept, opinion, or theory;
Faith is the unreasoned belief in improvable things;
and Knowledge is the reasoned belief in provable things.
Belief itself proves nothing.
Fnord is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 10:48 AM   #33
Cleon
King of the Pod People
 
Cleon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 25,682
Originally Posted by Fnord View Post
Uhh ... where did I conflate the two issues?
Right here:

Originally Posted by Fnord View Post
It seems odd to me that people would claim the right to a religious union on the one hand, and condemn religion in general on the other. I guess its sorta like those folks who lay claim to a religion but only show up in its houses of worship for holidays, weddings, funerals, et cetera.
__________________
"People like me are what stand between us and Auschwitz." - Newt Gingrich
Cleon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 10:51 AM   #34
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,185
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights. Among these rights are life, liberty, and the purfuit of happineff."
Not self-evident. Not true either.

Quote:
It is self-evident that people are created with inalienable rights. These rights are not granted by the state, or by society. They exist with the property of being.
Name one.

Last edited by geni; 21st September 2007 at 10:57 AM.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 10:56 AM   #35
geni
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
geni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 28,185
Originally Posted by Skeptic Guy View Post
Marriage provides for legal recognition of the union that allows the partner(s) to provide each other with medical, legal, and economical benefits.

And this is worth doing why?


Quote:
And there are the religious aspect too.
No relgious marriage predates the current version with state based records.
geni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 10:57 AM   #36
ImaginalDisc
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 10,219
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
Right here:
Cleon: 1. Fnord: 0.
ImaginalDisc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 11:12 AM   #37
brodski
Tea-Time toad
 
brodski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 15,516
Originally Posted by pgwenthold View Post
"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their creator certain inalienable rights.
A statement whcih is an appeal to authority, begs the question and is generally evasive. Come off it, "certain" rights, what are those rights.

Quote:
Among these rights are life, liberty, and the purfuit of happineff."
and just how inhernt are these, can the state restrict liberty, by (for exampel) imprisionigna citizen? How aout teh endign of life?
And if liberty was so "inalienable" how come it took almost 100 years for them to be granted to the slaves? Did the freed slaves take these rights, or were they granted to them by a change in society.

Quote:
It is self-evident that people are created with inalienable rights.
it's wishful thinking nonsense.
Quote:
These rights are not granted by the state, or by society.
you would have a hard time having any of them without state or soceity, what rights can exist in the war of all against all?

Quote:
They exist with the property of being.
Did you just claim that they have material exsistence?
Or even that rights can be demonstrated without begging the question or an appeal to imiganry sky-daddies?
Would you care to list these rights, and then demonstrate that they “exist with the property of being”.
brodski is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 11:34 AM   #38
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 50,746
Originally Posted by Fnord View Post
Uhh ... where did I conflate the two issues? Don't presume more than the evidence can support.

But since you brought it up, I do know gay people who would not set foot in a church except to get married. They rail against institutionalized religion on the one hand, and then demand the blessings of those same institutions on the other. And then they call me a hypocrite when I try to explain church doctrine to them.

Some people just look for trouble, especially where there is none.
Ok exactly what does institutionalized religion do for marriage in the US? As far as I can tell, given that say reverends of the universal life church can marry people, it would seem you are creating a strawman.

We need to bring back the values of the Pilgrims I think. Ban Christmas and get the church out of the marrying business(the Pilgrims did not think that the church had much to do with marriage as a role for the church in the wedding was not mentioned in the bible, so they had civil ceremonies)
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 12:19 PM   #39
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 59,744
I love it when some thrice-divorced multiple-adultery-committing politician stands up to talk about the special holiness of marriage.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st September 2007, 12:21 PM   #40
pipelineaudio
Illuminator
 
pipelineaudio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 4,863
Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen View Post
The Governator of California has terminated a bill that would have granted equal rights under the law to fags and dykes. Using Party of Jesus formula number one, the Governator stated that it was not up to the [insert_branch_of_government_recognizing_rights_of_ fags] to decide this matter, it should be up to [branches_of_government_not_honoring_rights_of_fags].
Not sure if you caught this, but the guvernator is a republican, in case you got confused thinking ahhhhnold was in the same party as Sharpton/Jackson
__________________
Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it
pipelineaudio is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:32 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.