Governator of California Vetoes Equal Rights for Gol Darn Homos - Page 2

pipelineaudio · 21st September 2007, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

A an aside, why is everything in California decided by referendum? In most states people elect legislatures and the legislatures enact laws.

Chicken politician syndrome

It happened here too, otherwise the Nicotene Nazis wouldnt have been able to sneak their Robert Wood Johnson enrichment program anti-tobacco laws in

Of course if they vote in something the government REALLY doesnt like (like voting against taxes for stadiums/ medical marajuana) theyll null the referendum results

Upchurch · 21st September 2007, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

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

Not sure if you caught this, but "Party of Jesus" usually refers to evangelical conservatives/republicans, in case you got confused thinking that it referred to any religious political figure.

Beerina · 21st September 2007, 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

There you go!

Drop the religious trappings, and the same things can be had with a civil contract.

Ironically, such legal do not, and cannot, depend on the religious trappings anyway. Hence there is really no difference -- you can even have the religous "half", anyway, if you want.

Earthborn · 21st September 2007, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

It is self-evident that people are created with inalienable rights.

There are no self-evident truths (and even that truth does not seem to be self-evident). Any claim to self-evidence is basically just an Appeal to "Because I Say So!".

Lonewulf · 21st September 2007, 01:33 PM

Do we all at least agree that generally, rights are considered Good Things (tm), and that violating them are Bad Things (tm)?

DoubtingStephen · 21st September 2007, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Do we all at least agree that generally, rights are considered Good Things (tm), and that violating them are Bad Things (tm)?

I think if you asked most Americans if they thought everybody should be treated with equal dignity under the law the vast majority would agree.

If you then further asked if gay people should have the same rights as everyone else there might be a significant number of folks that would back away from their prior response.

There seems to be a percentage of Americans who think it is appropriate to identify certain people who will be treated as second class citizens.

Lonewulf · 21st September 2007, 02:20 PM

Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen

I think if you asked most Americans if they thought everybody should be treated with equal dignity under the law the vast majority would agree.

If you then further asked if gay people should have the same rights as everyone else there might be a significant number of folks that would back away from their prior response.

There seems to be a percentage of Americans who think it is appropriate to identify certain people who will be treated as second class citizens.

On the contrary, I don't think that they really consider it as "violating their rights" to prevent homosexuals from being married. They might also point to such things as those "social contracts" instead of marriage as evidence that they follow the idea of marriage, just don't tread on the idea of religious marriage or somesuch.

Of course, I think it's all horse ****, but I think that many would say straight out that homosexuals should be granted rights. Just that getting them to accept that preventing them from marriage is a violating of said rights, is another thing altogether.

DoubtingStephen · 21st September 2007, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

On the contrary, I don't think that they really consider it as "violating their rights" to prevent homosexuals from being married. They might also point to such things as those "social contracts" instead of marriage as evidence that they follow the idea of marriage, just don't tread on the idea of religious marriage or somesuch.

Of course, I think it's all horse ****, but I think that many would say straight out that homosexuals should be granted rights. Just that getting them to accept that preventing them from marriage is a violating of said rights, is another thing altogether.

What you say rings true, sad, but most likely accurate I'm afraid.

Regardless of public opinion though, I'd be mighty pleased if my own government would get off my back. Preferably while I'm still alive too.

The Central Scrutinizer · 21st September 2007, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

"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.

Can you provide me with a list of these inalienable rights?

The Central Scrutinizer · 21st September 2007, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by DavidJames

I declare they are incorrect and disagree with that list. Now what?

Exactly.

pgwenthold · 21st September 2007, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Can you provide me with a list of these inalienable rights?

They are listed in the original document: Life, liberty, and perfuit of happineff, among others.

Don't take it up with me, take it up with the founders of the USA.

Lonewulf · 21st September 2007, 02:32 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Can you provide me with a list of these inalienable rights?

Not that I agree with the whole "born rights" thing, but...

http://www.lonang.com/foundation/2/f21.htm

Just what I found with a google search.

As for the Founding Fathers, whom this is all based on, they pretty much went with the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness approach. That, I can get jiggy with it.

The Central Scrutinizer · 21st September 2007, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Do we all at least agree that generally, rights are considered Good Things (tm), and that violating them are Bad Things (tm)?

Depends what they are.

Darth Rotor · 21st September 2007, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

They are listed in the original document: Life, liberty, and perfuit of happineff, among others.

Don't take it up with me, take it up with the founders of the USA.

Wasn't that in a letter to a King?

I had heard it was life, liberty, and property, and that the people referve all rightf, etc

DR

The Central Scrutinizer · 21st September 2007, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

They are listed in the original document: Life, liberty, and perfuit of happineff, among others.

Don't take it up with me, take it up with the founders of the USA.

Nothing makes me happier than burning down your home and killing your family and suffering no harm to myself as a result of my actions. So you agree that is my inalienable right?

Somehow I bet the answer is no.

Fnord · 21st September 2007, 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Cleon

Right here:
Originally Posted by Fnord

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.

__________________

Cleon, since you are a Moderator, I will address your statement...

I said PEOPLE, not Gay, not Atheist ... PEOPLE, as in "people in general." That was all I intended, no more and no less.

How do you infer a conflation of Gay and Atheist issues from that kind of broad generalization?

The Central Scrutinizer · 21st September 2007, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Not that I agree with the whole "born rights" thing, but...

http://www.lonang.com/foundation/2/f21.htm

Just what I found with a google search.

As for the Founding Fathers, whom this is all based on, they pretty much went with the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness approach. That, I can get jiggy with it.

Then I can never be put in jail because that violates my right to liberty.

FenrisWolf · 21st September 2007, 02:57 PM

The Central Scrutinizer: Do you have a point?

The authors of the declaration of independence came right out and admitted that they were making an assumption, right in the text:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

This means, "We're not going to argue about this, but instead we're going to make this our starting point. These are our basic assumptions and premises."

Now you could choose different assumptions or premises. But this isn't an ivory-tower term paper in theoretical philosophy, it's a practical real-world document with a very specific historical purpose, which is also spelled out right in the text:

"When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another [...] they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

This document isn't going to engage in any tedious first-year philosophy logical proofs. It's going to handwave all that in the interests of, y'know, getting to the actual point at hand: declaring political independence.

So I suppose you can ignore all the political context of the "unalienable rights" phase and try to twist it around to mean something other than what the authors meant by it. But don't pretend you've contributed anything positive or profound by doing so.

DoubtingStephen · 21st September 2007, 02:59 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

Cleon, since you are a Moderator, I will address your statement...

I said PEOPLE, not Gay, not Atheist ... PEOPLE, as in "people in general." That was all I intended, no more and no less.

How do you infer a conflation of Gay and Atheist issues from that kind of broad generalization?

Your message was posted in a thread about marriage started by a gay atheist.

The concern I had with your message was the seeming implication, by its presence in this thread, that the gay atheist who started the thread was seeking to partake in a religious activity. Nothing could possibly make me feel more nauseous than a religious service, not even an accidental ingestion of wheat.

You may have noticed that in California and the rest of the United States persons wishing to marry, as in Marriage, must obtain a license from the government. Despite the Party of Jesus infestation in our government, it is not necessary to obtain the permission of a practitioner of ancient superstitions and bigotry, yet.

Thus marriage is clearly and undeniably a civil contract, and your reference to persons who condemn religion (Me, Me, Me!) seeking a religious union (yuch!) was without any basis in fact.

Lonewulf · 21st September 2007, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Nothing makes me happier than burning down your home and killing your family and suffering no harm to myself as a result of my actions. So you agree that is my inalienable right?

Somehow I bet the answer is no.

Are you not capable of perceiving contradictions? I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your "right" does not supercede my right. Thus... your argument is soundly refuted. (By the way, the "pursuit of happiness" originally was meant as "the pursuit of property"... so you destroying my property, I.E., my home, is also arguably a violation of my rights. This would also include my dogs. Nope, looks like I'm covered completely!)

Try again, Kemo-Sabe.

Heh... I can imagine you, sitting at your computer, grinning like a fool as you think, "Oh, I got this guy THIS time! Hahahaha, this is gonna be so great... I mean, pursuit of happiness means any happiness, even that which supersedes other rights! I'm a GENIUS!" (No, don't worry, I don't actually believe that. My example required an actual thought...)

Seriously, 5 seconds of thought on the issue would have refuted the argument for you. Are you even trying?

I'd honestly LOVE to see this. Go ahead, Scrutinizer. Go ahead and demonstrate a single way you can simultaneously uphold your own rights to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, while simultaneously upholding mine and everyone else's, in a way that I could possibly disagree with. Here's a hint: You cannot contradict the idea. I.E., if you uphold your "right" to happiness by canceling my "right" to life or liberty, you lose the game. You up for it?

An ideal isn't a bad ideal merely because you misuse it and misunderstand it.

pipelineaudio · 21st September 2007, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

Not sure if you caught this, but "Party of Jesus" usually refers to evangelical conservatives/republicans, in case you got confused thinking that it referred to any religious political figure.

In the same way that Hovind's " Ive never seen a dog come from a bannana" applies to evolution

brodski · 21st September 2007, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by FenrisWolf

The Central Scrutinizer: Do you have a point?

The authors of the declaration of independence came right out and admitted that they were making an assumption, right in the text:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

and so the assumptions made by a group of traitors centuries ago should be the basis of of political discourse today? The DoI forms no law, nor is it part of the US constitution, it was political pamphleteering- a call to arms

Quote:

This means, "We're not going to argue about this, but instead we're going to make this our starting point. These are our basic assumptions and premises."

and they should not be challenged? Especially when their ideas are inherently self contradictory.

Quote:

So I suppose you can ignore all the political context of the "unalienable rights" phase and try to twist it around to mean something other than what the authors meant by it. But don't pretend you've contributed anything positive or profound by doing so.

But waivign it abbout to deomnstreate eth exsisatnce of rights does contribute somthign eiterh profuound or positive?
really? what?

Scrut didn't bring up the DoI pgwenthold did, to "prove" that rights exsist seperate from the state.

One wonders why, if the the authors of the DoI beleievd that rights could come from without the state, they bothered going to the trouble of establishing one at all.

brodski · 21st September 2007, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Are you not capable of perceiving contradictions? I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your "right" does not supercede my right. Thus... your argument is soundly refuted.

Try again, Kemo-Sabe.

Heh... I can imagine you, sitting at your computer, grinning like a fool as you think, "Oh, I got this guy THIS time! Hahahaha, this is gonna be so great..."

Seriously, 5 seconds of thought on the issue would have refuted the argument for you. Are you even trying?

I'd honestly LOVE to see this. Go ahead, Scrutinizer. Go ahead and demonstrate a single way you can simultaneously uphold your own rights to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, while simultaneously upholding mine and everyone else's, in a way that I could possibly disagree with. Here's a hint: You cannot contradict the idea. I.E., if you uphold your "right" to happiness by canceling my "right" to life or liberty, you lose the game. You up for it?

But with no state to protect, uphold and in effect grat rights to those whose rights conflict with, or woudl be impinged on by, the righst fo oterhs, no rights exist.

Without state and soeity tehre are no rights, tehy are a fiction which can only exist in a civilisation, and by being in a civilisation they become artefacts of the society that civilisation is based on.
There is no one absolute correct way to determine where one persons “rights” end and another's begin, and how those conflicts of “rights”. If rights were a natural phenomenon, separate from society, that would not be the case, there would be clear, easy obvious and natural solutions.

Lonewulf · 21st September 2007, 03:24 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

But with no state to protect, uphold and in effect grat rights to those whose rights conflict with, or woudl be impinged on by, the righst fo oterhs, no rights exist.

Which has nothing to do with what Scrutinizer and I are talking about. He's attacking the idea of the rights of life, liberty, and happiness being good things. Not that they are "in-born rights".

Quote:

Without state and soeity tehre are no rights, tehy are a fiction which can only exist in a civilisation, and by being in a civilisation they become artefacts of the society that civilisation is based on.
There is no one absolute correct way to determine where one persons “rights” end and another's begin, and how those conflicts of “rights”. If rights were a natural phenomenon, separate from society, that would not be the case, there would be clear, easy obvious and natural solutions.

I don't disagree. It also has nothing to do with what I said.

Seriously, is it so much to ask that people on this forum actually read what I say?

Here, I'll tattoo it on my signature.

This is all I've said on the subject, besides what you quoted:

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

Do we all at least agree that generally, rights are considered Good Things (tm), and that violating them are Bad Things (tm)?

And here, RIGHT here, on Post #52:

Quote:

Not that I agree with the whole "born rights" thing, but...

See? I don't agree with it. I said that. Right THERE. Where the quote is. Post #52. You're arguing with me on a non-issue.

However, the Founding Fathers stated that they considered these rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to be Good Things (tm). They also added in a creator, but I consider all that unnecessary. Remove the religion jargon, and take it as it is.

Now, can you provide a single reason why Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all human beings is a *bad* thing? Or why any society that actually upholds said ideals can be said to be a bad government?

A dictatorship, even a benevolent one, risks losing our liberty.

Death squads or wrongful executions or police actions that lead to death, violate the idea of the Life right.

And keeping people in their own station, and impeding their ability to become self-determined (I.E., keeping them from being able to "move up" in the world of capitalism), violates the Pursuit of Happiness/Property right.

ETA: Actually, I DO disagree on something. There is no "correct" way to determined rights? What about logic, morality, conscience, or just simply good ideas (which would trump bad ones)? Every human has a certain amount of desires. And, I don't hesitate to say, at LEAST 99% of human beings wish for: Life. Liberty. The Pursuit of Happiness.

I would say that any despotic government that treats it's people like **** are easily shown to be undesirable by the people that are stamped on by said government. It's easy to be casual about the violation of these rights, when you aren't the oppressed individual. How so many people in free countries seem to forget that simple fact.

FenrisWolf · 21st September 2007, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by brodski

and so the assumptions made by a group of traitors centuries ago should be the basis of of political discourse today? The DoI forms no law, nor is it part of the US constitution, it was political pamphleteering- a call to arms

Those same assumptions made by a group of traitors centuries ago are in large part the same assumptions that underpin US law today -- and, to make this somewhat on-topic, CA law too.

Originally Posted by brodski

and they should not be challenged? Especially when their ideas are inherently self contradictory.

I don't think they are self-contradictory, taken in context. As for challenging them, I have yet to see a better set of assumptions on which to base a state.

Quote:

But waivign it abbout to deomnstreate eth exsisatnce of rights does contribute somthign eiterh profuound or positive?
really? what?

I sincerely hope your keyboard is broken. Anyway, yes, it does contribute to the conversation, since it's very relevant when determining the rights of gays to consider the underpinning assumptions of the society in which those gays are living.

Quote:

Scrut didn't bring up the DoI pgwenthold did, to "prove" that rights exsist seperate from the state.

One wonders why, if the the authors of the DoI beleievd that rights could come from without the state, they bothered going to the trouble of establishing one at all.

If pgwenthold meant that rights exist separate from the state, I think he is wrong, and I know he is talking irrelevancies. The rights in question are not separate from a state but rather part of both the state of CA and the federal US government. So it's entirely unimportant to the discussion whether they would exist without a state when they are clearly in one.

I assume your "one wonders why" is rhetorical; if not, I refer you to the source text, it succeeds rather well as a justification for why they bothered.

Upchurch · 21st September 2007, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

In the same way that Hovind's " Ive never seen a dog come from a bannana" applies to evolution

How do come to that conclusion, or are you just really stretching to make an association fallacy?

eta: Tell you what, I'll present my supporting evidence and you present yours. I'm sure we can resolve this like rational people.

Here is a thread on this board where Party of Jesus explicitly is being used to refer to a (hypocritical) fundamentalist Republican.

What do you have?

pipelineaudio · 21st September 2007, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

How do come to that conclusion, or are you just really stretching to make an association fallacy?

Both parties are "the party of jesus". It is fraudulent to apply the term to one and not the other.

Fnord · 21st September 2007, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen

Your message was posted in a thread about marriage started by a gay atheist.

Ah. There's the problem. I did not know that you are gay or atheist. Had I known, I would still have posted anyway, but included a caveat like "Nothing personal against the OP" or something like that.

Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen

Despite the Party of Jesus infestation in our government...

"Party of Jesus"? Isn't this a "Straw Man" fallacy? If not, could you provide a link to their party headquarters?

Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen

... and your reference to persons who condemn religion (Me, Me, Me!) seeking a religious union (yuch!) was without any basis in fact.

It is based in fact. Unfortunately for me, the facts are wholly experiential, and therefore subjective. I know people (in general) who condem religion (in general) and who also seek a religious ceremony officiated by a religious leader to confirm their relationship.

Bottom line: What I posted was not directed at any one person or group in particular, and was based only on my personal experiences.

Upchurch · 21st September 2007, 04:09 PM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

Both parties are "the party of jesus". It is fraudulent to apply the term to one and not the other.

Oh, do you think so? Do you remember this?

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

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

Pretty much just walked into that one, huh?

Lonewulf · 21st September 2007, 04:12 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

"Party of Jesus"? Isn't this a "Straw Man" fallacy? If not, could you provide a link to their party headquarters?

Uh, if anything, it's a personal attack more than anything.

And seriously, the Republicans have a very very powerful reputation of being religious. The fact that any republican that goes against status quo (promotes stem cell research, abortion, etc.) gets attacked vigorously by his own party... well, that's actually status quo.

It's all part of the neo-conservative movement, mixed closely with the Evangelical movement. In fact, many evangelicals do praise Bush and the Republican party, and they usually tend to agree on gay marriage, abortion, etc.

DoubtingStephen · 21st September 2007, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

"Party of Jesus"? Isn't this a "Straw Man" fallacy? If not, could you provide a link to their party headquarters?

Why, yes, I certainly can provide a link and thank you very much for asking.
http://PartyofJesus.com/

pipelineaudio · 21st September 2007, 04:54 PM

By this nonsense reasoning we could call the Democrats "the party of hitler" since they pushed so many similar antismoking laws as the nazis did, even using the same terms

But that would be stupid

ponderingturtle · 21st September 2007, 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Lonewulf

On the contrary, I don't think that they really consider it as "violating their rights" to prevent homosexuals from being married. They might also point to such things as those "social contracts" instead of marriage as evidence that they follow the idea of marriage, just don't tread on the idea of religious marriage or somesuch.

That is very much what I was trying to get at. This is a moral issue for both sides, and as a moral issue any method you can achieve a moral state is valid.

Lisa Simpson · 21st September 2007, 06:24 PM

Would the Governator say "gol darn"? Seems more like that other bastion of the Party of Jesus, George W. Bush.

TragicMonkey · 21st September 2007, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson

Would the Governator say "gol darn"? Seems more like that other bastion of the Party of Jesus, George W. Bush.

I'd love to hear Arnold say "gol darn" in his accent.

Skeptic Guy · 21st September 2007, 07:02 PM

Originally Posted by Fnord

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.

Originally Posted by Fnord

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.

Bolding mine. It seems to me that you were tying atheism and religion together.

ETA: I know that Wikipedia can be suspect at times, but I was wondering if marriage had to refer to a religious ceremony and I don't think it does.

Quote:

A marriage is often declared by a wedding ceremony,[7] which may be performed by a religious officiator, through a similar government-sanctioned secular officiator, or (in weddings that have no church or state affiliation) by a trusted friend of the wedding participants.

pipelineaudio · 21st September 2007, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson

Would the Governator say "gol darn"? Seems more like that other bastion of the Party of Jesus, Jimmy Carter.

Fixed it for you to name the only president Ive ever actually seen/heard recorded say "gol durn"

We now return to the regular scheduled bigotry

Upchurch · 21st September 2007, 09:20 PM

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

By this nonsense reasoning we could call the Democrats "the party of hitler" since they pushed so many similar antismoking laws as the nazis did, even using the same terms

But that would be stupid

So, first you imply that the Democratic Party is the Party of Jesus. Then, you declare that both the Republican and Democratic parties are the Party of Jesus (anything else would be fraudulent, you said). Now, you're suggesting that the entire comparison is bogus and (I'm guessing) neither party is the Party of Jesus.

Why don't you take a moment to stop and think about what you actually mean and then get back to us. It might help clear up that persecution complex you have, too.

pipelineaudio · 21st September 2007, 10:36 PM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

So, first you imply that the Democratic Party is the Party of Jesus. Then, you declare that both the Republican and Democratic parties are the Party of Jesus (anything else would be fraudulent, you said). Now, you're suggesting that the entire comparison is bogus and (I'm guessing) neither party is the Party of Jesus.

Why don't you take a moment to stop and think about what you actually mean and then get back to us. It might help clear up that persecution complex you have, too.

wow! words in my mouth and a free psychoanalysis too!

skillz

Lonewulf · 22nd September 2007, 01:25 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

So, first you imply that the Democratic Party is the Party of Jesus. Then, you declare that both the Republican and Democratic parties are the Party of Jesus (anything else would be fraudulent, you said). Now, you're suggesting that the entire comparison is bogus and (I'm guessing) neither party is the Party of Jesus.

Why don't you take a moment to stop and think about what you actually mean and then get back to us. It might help clear up that persecution complex you have, too.

Originally Posted by Pipelineaudio

wow! words in my mouth and a free psychoanalysis too!

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

Both parties are "the party of jesus". It is fraudulent to apply the term to one and not the other.

How the hell can it be "words in your mouth" when he said, practically word for word, what you actually said?

21st September 2007, 12:23 PM	#41
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,863	Originally Posted by Puppycow A an aside, why is everything in California decided by referendum? In most states people elect legislatures and the legislatures enact laws. Chicken politician syndrome It happened here too, otherwise the Nicotene Nazis wouldnt have been able to sneak their Robert Wood Johnson enrichment program anti-tobacco laws in Of course if they vote in something the government REALLY doesnt like (like voting against taxes for stadiums/ medical marajuana) theyll null the referendum results
	__________________ Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it

21st September 2007, 12:55 PM	#43
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 30,416	Originally Posted by Fnord There you go! Drop the religious trappings, and the same things can be had with a civil contract. Ironically, such legal do not, and cannot, depend on the religious trappings anyway. Hence there is really no difference -- you can even have the religous "half", anyway, if you want.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?

21st September 2007, 01:23 PM	#44
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 6,345	Originally Posted by pgwenthold It is self-evident that people are created with inalienable rights. There are no self-evident truths (and even that truth does not seem to be self-evident). Any claim to self-evidence is basically just an Appeal to "Because I Say So!".
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

21st September 2007, 01:33 PM	#45
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10,375	Do we all at least agree that generally, rights are considered Good Things (tm), and that violating them are Bad Things (tm)?
	__________________ Writing.com Account

21st September 2007, 01:41 PM	#46
DoubtingStephen Queer Propagandist Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,545	Originally Posted by Lonewulf Do we all at least agree that generally, rights are considered Good Things (tm), and that violating them are Bad Things (tm)? I think if you asked most Americans if they thought everybody should be treated with equal dignity under the law the vast majority would agree. If you then further asked if gay people should have the same rights as everyone else there might be a significant number of folks that would back away from their prior response. There seems to be a percentage of Americans who think it is appropriate to identify certain people who will be treated as second class citizens.
	__________________ God Hates Mixed Fibers God Hates Barbers God Hates Crustaceans

21st September 2007, 12:43 PM	#42
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,464	Originally Posted by pipelineaudio 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 Not sure if you caught this, but "Party of Jesus" usually refers to evangelical conservatives/republicans, in case you got confused thinking that it referred to any religious political figure.

21st September 2007, 02:20 PM	#47
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10,375	Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen I think if you asked most Americans if they thought everybody should be treated with equal dignity under the law the vast majority would agree. If you then further asked if gay people should have the same rights as everyone else there might be a significant number of folks that would back away from their prior response. There seems to be a percentage of Americans who think it is appropriate to identify certain people who will be treated as second class citizens. On the contrary, I don't think that they really consider it as "violating their rights" to prevent homosexuals from being married. They might also point to such things as those "social contracts" instead of marriage as evidence that they follow the idea of marriage, just don't tread on the idea of religious marriage or somesuch. Of course, I think it's all horse ****, but I think that many would say straight out that homosexuals should be granted rights. Just that getting them to accept that preventing them from marriage is a violating of said rights, is another thing altogether.
	__________________ Writing.com Account

21st September 2007, 02:24 PM	#48
DoubtingStephen Queer Propagandist Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,545	Originally Posted by Lonewulf On the contrary, I don't think that they really consider it as "violating their rights" to prevent homosexuals from being married. They might also point to such things as those "social contracts" instead of marriage as evidence that they follow the idea of marriage, just don't tread on the idea of religious marriage or somesuch. Of course, I think it's all horse ****, but I think that many would say straight out that homosexuals should be granted rights. Just that getting them to accept that preventing them from marriage is a violating of said rights, is another thing altogether. What you say rings true, sad, but most likely accurate I'm afraid. Regardless of public opinion though, I'd be mighty pleased if my own government would get off my back. Preferably while I'm still alive too.
	__________________ God Hates Mixed Fibers God Hates Barbers God Hates Crustaceans

21st September 2007, 02:28 PM	#49
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 53,052	Originally Posted by pgwenthold "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. Can you provide me with a list of these inalienable rights?
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

21st September 2007, 02:29 PM	#50
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 53,052	Originally Posted by DavidJames I declare they are incorrect and disagree with that list. Now what? Exactly.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

21st September 2007, 02:30 PM	#51
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,211	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Can you provide me with a list of these inalienable rights? They are listed in the original document: Life, liberty, and perfuit of happineff, among others. Don't take it up with me, take it up with the founders of the USA.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

21st September 2007, 02:32 PM	#52
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10,375	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Can you provide me with a list of these inalienable rights? Not that I agree with the whole "born rights" thing, but... http://www.lonang.com/foundation/2/f21.htm Just what I found with a google search. As for the Founding Fathers, whom this is all based on, they pretty much went with the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness approach. That, I can get jiggy with it.
	__________________ Writing.com Account

21st September 2007, 02:33 PM	#53
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 53,052	Originally Posted by Lonewulf Do we all at least agree that generally, rights are considered Good Things (tm), and that violating them are Bad Things (tm)? Depends what they are.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

21st September 2007, 02:33 PM	#54
Darth Rotor Salted Sith Cynic Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 38,527	Originally Posted by pgwenthold They are listed in the original document: Life, liberty, and perfuit of happineff, among others. Don't take it up with me, take it up with the founders of the USA. Wasn't that in a letter to a King? I had heard it was life, liberty, and property, and that the people referve all rightf, etc 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

21st September 2007, 02:35 PM	#55
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 53,052	Originally Posted by pgwenthold They are listed in the original document: Life, liberty, and perfuit of happineff, among others. Don't take it up with me, take it up with the founders of the USA. Nothing makes me happier than burning down your home and killing your family and suffering no harm to myself as a result of my actions. So you agree that is my inalienable right? Somehow I bet the answer is no.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

21st September 2007, 02:36 PM	#56
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,623	Originally Posted by Cleon Right here: Originally Posted by Fnord 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. __________________ Cleon, since you are a Moderator, I will address your statement... I said PEOPLE, not Gay, not Atheist ... PEOPLE, as in "people in general." That was all I intended, no more and no less. How do you infer a conflation of Gay and Atheist issues from that kind of broad generalization?
	__________________ 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.**

21st September 2007, 02:37 PM	#57
The Central Scrutinizer Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 53,052	Originally Posted by Lonewulf Not that I agree with the whole "born rights" thing, but... http://www.lonang.com/foundation/2/f21.htm Just what I found with a google search. As for the Founding Fathers, whom this is all based on, they pretty much went with the Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness approach. That, I can get jiggy with it. Then I can never be put in jail because that violates my right to liberty.
	__________________ If I see somebody with a gun on a plane? I'll kill him. Lupus is Lupus tor central scrutineezer

21st September 2007, 02:57 PM	#58
FenrisWolf Scholar Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 60	The Central Scrutinizer: Do you have a point? The authors of the declaration of independence came right out and admitted that they were making an assumption, right in the text: "We hold these truths to be self-evident" This means, "We're not going to argue about this, but instead we're going to make this our starting point. These are our basic assumptions and premises." Now you could choose different assumptions or premises. But this isn't an ivory-tower term paper in theoretical philosophy, it's a practical real-world document with a very specific historical purpose, which is also spelled out right in the text: "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another [...] they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation." This document isn't going to engage in any tedious first-year philosophy logical proofs. It's going to handwave all that in the interests of, y'know, getting to the actual point at hand: declaring political independence. So I suppose you can ignore all the political context of the "unalienable rights" phase and try to twist it around to mean something other than what the authors meant by it. But don't pretend you've contributed anything positive or profound by doing so.
FenrisWolf Scholar Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 60	Last edited by FenrisWolf; 21st September 2007 at 02:59 PM.

21st September 2007, 02:59 PM	#59
DoubtingStephen Queer Propagandist Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,545	Originally Posted by Fnord Cleon, since you are a Moderator, I will address your statement... I said PEOPLE, not Gay, not Atheist ... PEOPLE, as in "people in general." That was all I intended, no more and no less. How do you infer a conflation of Gay and Atheist issues from that kind of broad generalization? Your message was posted in a thread about marriage started by a gay atheist. The concern I had with your message was the seeming implication, by its presence in this thread, that the gay atheist who started the thread was seeking to partake in a religious activity. Nothing could possibly make me feel more nauseous than a religious service, not even an accidental ingestion of wheat. You may have noticed that in California and the rest of the United States persons wishing to marry, as in Marriage, must obtain a license from the government. Despite the Party of Jesus infestation in our government, it is not necessary to obtain the permission of a practitioner of ancient superstitions and bigotry, yet. Thus marriage is clearly and undeniably a civil contract, and your reference to persons who condemn religion (Me, Me, Me!) seeking a religious union (yuch!) was without any basis in fact.
	__________________ God Hates Mixed Fibers God Hates Barbers God Hates Crustaceans

21st September 2007, 03:01 PM	#60
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10,375	Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer Nothing makes me happier than burning down your home and killing your family and suffering no harm to myself as a result of my actions. So you agree that is my inalienable right? Somehow I bet the answer is no. Are you not capable of perceiving contradictions? I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your "right" does not supercede my right. Thus... your argument is soundly refuted. (By the way, the "pursuit of happiness" originally was meant as "the pursuit of property"... so you destroying my property, I.E., my home, is also arguably a violation of my rights. This would also include my dogs. Nope, looks like I'm covered completely!) Try again, Kemo-Sabe. Heh... I can imagine you, sitting at your computer, grinning like a fool as you think, "Oh, I got this guy THIS time! Hahahaha, this is gonna be so great... I mean, pursuit of happiness means any happiness, even that which supersedes other rights! I'm a GENIUS!" (No, don't worry, I don't actually believe that. My example required an actual thought...) Seriously, 5 seconds of thought on the issue would have refuted the argument for you. Are you even trying? I'd honestly LOVE to see this. Go ahead, Scrutinizer. Go ahead and demonstrate a single way you can simultaneously uphold your own rights to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, while simultaneously upholding mine and everyone else's, in a way that I could possibly disagree with. Here's a hint: You cannot contradict the idea. I.E., if you uphold your "right" to happiness by canceling my "right" to life or liberty, you lose the game. You up for it? An ideal isn't a bad ideal merely because you misuse it and misunderstand it.
	__________________ Writing.com Account Last edited by Lonewulf; 21st September 2007 at 03:19 PM.

21st September 2007, 03:04 PM	#61
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,863	Originally Posted by Upchurch Not sure if you caught this, but "Party of Jesus" usually refers to evangelical conservatives/republicans, in case you got confused thinking that it referred to any religious political figure. In the same way that Hovind's " Ive never seen a dog come from a bannana" applies to evolution
	__________________ Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it

21st September 2007, 03:15 PM	#62
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,516	Originally Posted by FenrisWolf The Central Scrutinizer: Do you have a point? The authors of the declaration of independence came right out and admitted that they were making an assumption, right in the text: "We hold these truths to be self-evident" and so the assumptions made by a group of traitors centuries ago should be the basis of of political discourse today? The DoI forms no law, nor is it part of the US constitution, it was political pamphleteering- a call to arms Quote: This means, "We're not going to argue about this, but instead we're going to make this our starting point. These are our basic assumptions and premises." and they should not be challenged? Especially when their ideas are inherently self contradictory. Quote: So I suppose you can ignore all the political context of the "unalienable rights" phase and try to twist it around to mean something other than what the authors meant by it. But don't pretend you've contributed anything positive or profound by doing so. But waivign it abbout to deomnstreate eth exsisatnce of rights does contribute somthign eiterh profuound or positive? really? what? Scrut didn't bring up the DoI pgwenthold did, to "prove" that rights exsist seperate from the state. One wonders why, if the the authors of the DoI beleievd that rights could come from without the state, they bothered going to the trouble of establishing one at all.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,516

21st September 2007, 03:21 PM	#63
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,516	Originally Posted by Lonewulf Are you not capable of perceiving contradictions? I have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Your "right" does not supercede my right. Thus... your argument is soundly refuted. Try again, Kemo-Sabe. Heh... I can imagine you, sitting at your computer, grinning like a fool as you think, "Oh, I got this guy THIS time! Hahahaha, this is gonna be so great..." Seriously, 5 seconds of thought on the issue would have refuted the argument for you. Are you even trying? I'd honestly LOVE to see this. Go ahead, Scrutinizer. Go ahead and demonstrate a single way you can simultaneously uphold your own rights to liberty, life, and the pursuit of happiness, while simultaneously upholding mine and everyone else's, in a way that I could possibly disagree with. Here's a hint: You cannot contradict the idea. I.E., if you uphold your "right" to happiness by canceling my "right" to life or liberty, you lose the game. You up for it? But with no state to protect, uphold and in effect grat rights to those whose rights conflict with, or woudl be impinged on by, the righst fo oterhs, no rights exist. Without state and soeity tehre are no rights, tehy are a fiction which can only exist in a civilisation, and by being in a civilisation they become artefacts of the society that civilisation is based on. There is no one absolute correct way to determine where one persons “rights” end and another's begin, and how those conflicts of “rights”. If rights were a natural phenomenon, separate from society, that would not be the case, there would be clear, easy obvious and natural solutions.
brodski Tea-Time toad Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 15,516

21st September 2007, 03:24 PM	#64
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10,375	Originally Posted by brodski But with no state to protect, uphold and in effect grat rights to those whose rights conflict with, or woudl be impinged on by, the righst fo oterhs, no rights exist. Which has nothing to do with what Scrutinizer and I are talking about. He's attacking the idea of the rights of life, liberty, and happiness being good things. Not that they are "in-born rights". Quote: Without state and soeity tehre are no rights, tehy are a fiction which can only exist in a civilisation, and by being in a civilisation they become artefacts of the society that civilisation is based on. There is no one absolute correct way to determine where one persons “rights” end and another's begin, and how those conflicts of “rights”. If rights were a natural phenomenon, separate from society, that would not be the case, there would be clear, easy obvious and natural solutions. I don't disagree. It also has nothing to do with what I said. Seriously, is it so much to ask that people on this forum actually read what I say? Here, I'll tattoo it on my signature. This is all I've said on the subject, besides what you quoted: Originally Posted by Lonewulf Do we all at least agree that generally, rights are considered Good Things (tm), and that violating them are Bad Things (tm)? And here, RIGHT here, on Post #52: Quote: Not that I agree with the whole "born rights" thing, but... See? I don't agree with it. I said that. Right THERE. Where the quote is. Post #52. You're arguing with me on a non-issue. However, the Founding Fathers stated that they considered these rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness to be Good Things (tm). They also added in a creator, but I consider all that unnecessary. Remove the religion jargon, and take it as it is. Now, can you provide a single reason why Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all human beings is a bad thing? Or why any society that actually upholds said ideals can be said to be a bad government? A dictatorship, even a benevolent one, risks losing our liberty. Death squads or wrongful executions or police actions that lead to death, violate the idea of the Life right. And keeping people in their own station, and impeding their ability to become self-determined (I.E., keeping them from being able to "move up" in the world of capitalism), violates the Pursuit of Happiness/Property right. ETA: Actually, I DO disagree on something. There is no "correct" way to determined rights? What about logic, morality, conscience, or just simply good ideas (which would trump bad ones)? Every human has a certain amount of desires. And, I don't hesitate to say, at LEAST 99% of human beings wish for: Life. Liberty. The Pursuit of Happiness. I would say that any despotic government that treats it's people like **** are easily shown to be undesirable by the people that are stamped on by said government. It's easy to be casual about the violation of these rights, when you aren't the oppressed individual. How so many people in free countries seem to forget that simple fact.
	__________________ Writing.com Account Last edited by Lonewulf; 21st September 2007 at 03:52 PM.

21st September 2007, 03:40 PM	#65
FenrisWolf Scholar Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 60	Originally Posted by brodski and so the assumptions made by a group of traitors centuries ago should be the basis of of political discourse today? The DoI forms no law, nor is it part of the US constitution, it was political pamphleteering- a call to arms Those same assumptions made by a group of traitors centuries ago are in large part the same assumptions that underpin US law today -- and, to make this somewhat on-topic, CA law too. Originally Posted by brodski and they should not be challenged? Especially when their ideas are inherently self contradictory. I don't think they are self-contradictory, taken in context. As for challenging them, I have yet to see a better set of assumptions on which to base a state. Quote: But waivign it abbout to deomnstreate eth exsisatnce of rights does contribute somthign eiterh profuound or positive? really? what? I sincerely hope your keyboard is broken. Anyway, yes, it does contribute to the conversation, since it's very relevant when determining the rights of gays to consider the underpinning assumptions of the society in which those gays are living. Quote: Scrut didn't bring up the DoI pgwenthold did, to "prove" that rights exsist seperate from the state. One wonders why, if the the authors of the DoI beleievd that rights could come from without the state, they bothered going to the trouble of establishing one at all. If pgwenthold meant that rights exist separate from the state, I think he is wrong, and I know he is talking irrelevancies. The rights in question are not separate from a state but rather part of both the state of CA and the federal US government. So it's entirely unimportant to the discussion whether they would exist without a state when they are clearly in one. I assume your "one wonders why" is rhetorical; if not, I refer you to the source text, it succeeds rather well as a justification for why they bothered.
FenrisWolf Scholar Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 60

21st September 2007, 03:49 PM	#66
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,464	Originally Posted by pipelineaudio In the same way that Hovind's " Ive never seen a dog come from a bannana" applies to evolution How do come to that conclusion, or are you just really stretching to make an association fallacy? eta: Tell you what, I'll present my supporting evidence and you present yours. I'm sure we can resolve this like rational people. Here is a thread on this board where Party of Jesus explicitly is being used to refer to a (hypocritical) fundamentalist Republican. What do you have?
	Last edited by Upchurch; 21st September 2007 at 03:56 PM.

21st September 2007, 03:56 PM	#67
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,863	Originally Posted by Upchurch How do come to that conclusion, or are you just really stretching to make an association fallacy? Both parties are "the party of jesus". It is fraudulent to apply the term to one and not the other.
	__________________ Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it

21st September 2007, 04:00 PM	#68
Fnord Metasyntactic Variable Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 6,623	Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen Your message was posted in a thread about marriage started by a gay atheist. Ah. There's the problem. I did not know that you are gay or atheist. Had I known, I would still have posted anyway, but included a caveat like "Nothing personal against the OP" or something like that. Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen Despite the Party of Jesus infestation in our government... "Party of Jesus"? Isn't this a "Straw Man" fallacy? If not, could you provide a link to their party headquarters? Originally Posted by DoubtingStephen ... and your reference to persons who condemn religion (Me, Me, Me!) seeking a religious union (yuch!) was without any basis in fact. It is based in fact. Unfortunately for me, the facts are wholly experiential, and therefore subjective. I know people (in general) who condem religion (in general) and who also seek a religious ceremony officiated by a religious leader to confirm their relationship. Bottom line: What I posted was not directed at any one person or group in particular, and was based only on my personal experiences.
	__________________ 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.**

21st September 2007, 04:09 PM	#69
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 32,464	Originally Posted by pipelineaudio Both parties are "the party of jesus". It is fraudulent to apply the term to one and not the other. Oh, do you think so? Do you remember this? Originally Posted by pipelineaudio 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 Pretty much just walked into that one, huh?

21st September 2007, 04:12 PM	#70
Lonewulf Humanistic Cyborg Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 10,375	Originally Posted by Fnord "Party of Jesus"? Isn't this a "Straw Man" fallacy? If not, could you provide a link to their party headquarters? Uh, if anything, it's a personal attack more than anything. And seriously, the Republicans have a very very powerful reputation of being religious. The fact that any republican that goes against status quo (promotes stem cell research, abortion, etc.) gets attacked vigorously by his own party... well, that's actually status quo. It's all part of the neo-conservative movement, mixed closely with the Evangelical movement. In fact, many evangelicals do praise Bush and the Republican party, and they usually tend to agree on gay marriage, abortion, etc.
	__________________ Writing.com Account

21st September 2007, 04:22 PM	#71
DoubtingStephen Queer Propagandist Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 1,545	Originally Posted by Fnord "Party of Jesus"? Isn't this a "Straw Man" fallacy? If not, could you provide a link to their party headquarters? Why, yes, I certainly can provide a link and thank you very much for asking. http://PartyofJesus.com/
	__________________ God Hates Mixed Fibers God Hates Barbers God Hates Crustaceans

21st September 2007, 04:54 PM	#72
pipelineaudio Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 4,863	By this nonsense reasoning we could call the Democrats "the party of hitler" since they pushed so many similar antismoking laws as the nazis did, even using the same terms But that would be stupid
	__________________ Don't fear the REAPER, embrace it

21st September 2007, 06:21 PM	#73
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 50,715	Originally Posted by Lonewulf On the contrary, I don't think that they really consider it as "violating their rights" to prevent homosexuals from being married. They might also point to such things as those "social contracts" instead of marriage as evidence that they follow the idea of marriage, just don't tread on the idea of religious marriage or somesuch. That is very much what I was trying to get at. This is a moral issue for both sides, and as a moral issue any method you can achieve a moral state is valid.
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

21st September 2007, 06:24 PM	#74
Lisa Simpson Guest Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 22,349	Would the Governator say "gol darn"? Seems more like that other bastion of the Party of Jesus, George W. Bush.
Lisa Simpson Guest Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 22,349

21st September 2007, 06:33 PM	#75
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 59,722	Originally Posted by Lisa Simpson Would the Governator say "gol darn"? Seems more like that other bastion of the Party of Jesus, George W. Bush. I'd love to hear Arnold say "gol darn" in his accent.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.