Reply With Quote
That's a good point.
"Won't someone please think about the children"?
-Mrs. Lovejoy
you can't be serious
That's a good point.
"Won't someone please think about the children"?
-Mrs. Lovejoy
I mentioned not stinking.I'm surprised no one ever mentioned the quality of life aspect.
If you're talking about smoking ordinances, I believe this question rests on how one views private property rights. If, as a property owner, I want to allow smoking -- a legal practice -- on my premises, that should not be subject to government regulation.
I would, however, say that government can require me (if my premises are open to the general public) to post appropriate signage at my entries stating that such practice is allowed on the premises.
People patronize business establishments by choice. They are not forced to enter any place of business so, if smoking bothers them and if they are properly warned that it could be encountered in a specific business, they are free to take their business elsewhere.
That's a tough question that can only be addressed once government is willing to emphatically state that second-hand smoke poses a definite health risk to people. Anectdotally, this has been established and I believe it to be true but, until it is a matter of policy, there's not much you can do.
However, once established, I believe you can make a criminal neglect case in much the same way as you can with pregnant mothers who use crack cocaine resulting in so-called "crack babies" and mothers who drink excessively, during pregnancy, resulting in fetal alcohol syndrome.
But, I do believe the two issues are separate; one related to what consenting adults do with a legal product on private property and the second being what legal obligations a parent has to safeguard their child.
He is serious, but what he didn't mention is that you can't discriminate based on race, and that is now enumerated in the cons ution, so while you were banning blacks and hispanic from marrying, you would also be banning everybody else.
sexual's rights are not enumerated, and they are not seen by the cons ution as a protected class. It's not that gays can't marry, it's that no man can marry any other man, nor can a woman marry another woman, gay or not (see it's not discriminatory); heterosexual men can't marry each other, either.
I didn't say the practice was right. Just that it would, for lack of a cons utional prohibition, be permissible. By the way, gays are not denied the "right" to get married, they just can't get government to redefine marriage in a way that recognizes gay unions in such a way that employers are forced to give them the same advantages as married heterosexuals.
I advocate abolishing the government and employment advantages that are derived by being married. Period.
As for marriage discrimination; many Catholic Churches refuse to marry divorced or non-catholic people. Jewish Synogogues don't marry non-Jews. There's a lot of discrimination in church. We came up with the "courthouse marriage" because some people were finding it hard to get a church to marry them and, damnit, they wanted to claim those benefits as well.
Look, if you buy my argument that government has no business in the marriage business at all, then people would be left to seek marital covenants in the place where they originated. The church.
Obviously, if this were the case, I find it hard to believe that blacks, hispanics, or even gays, would find it difficult to find a place by which to enter into a marriage. Why? because there are a mul ude of religions that now cater to specific demographics, including all races, nationalities, and sexual orientations.
This isn't about marriage, it's about en lements and the government needs to quit making it financially beneficial to be married if they aren't going to allow everyone to be married. Unfortunately, employers and insurers couldn't afford the cost of such a determination.
I personally don't care. If not for the government benefits derived from marriage, I doubt anyone else would care either.
I see your point. From that perspective, I agree to some extent
I actually believe that outside government, racial discrimination should not be illegal.
A faithful reading of the cons ution and of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will find that racial discrimination is only prohibited on the question of the denial of a person's cons utional rights.
I'll stipulate that decades of bad law -- affirmative action and abuse of the interstate commerce clause -- have diluted this fact but, it is a fact none-the-less.
While unpopular, and while I personally wouldn't patronize such a business, I believe a private citizen has the inalienable right to refuse to do business with anyone, for any reason, at any time -- including for reasons of race -- except when they are the government or when they are acting as an agent of the government or when they engage in any business with the government.
Well, that's a different way to see it.
because there would be too much trouble drawing the line between respectable gays and flambouyant gays. Personally, I dont think gays should be allowed to adopt, but if they must, it seems like there are SOME gay couples that woule have less of an adverse effect on children than others
excellent post
[QUOTE=smeagol]You think your friends are stupid and you come up with this analogy?
So for you, the color of the skin (or religion, or gender, or which ever dumb analogy you come up with next) is the same as somebody blowing smoke in my face, something that in the long run might actually kill me?
Unless you prove me right, I gave you more credit than what you deserve.
Another poor analogy (but better than the last one). Cero for two.QUOTE]
I didn't use those two analogies to form a direct distinction, I used them to force Chump to say that the reasons for a ban on smoking have nothing to do with the fact that someone smoking bothers us, because in those situations we are also bothered by a practice that we would never (again) try to make illegal.
After doing that I believed that it would be simpler to argue that either a ventilation system, or simply having non-smokers not frequent bars that allow smoking, resulting in a divide between the two typs of bars for the two types of patrons.
So, those were not meant to form a direct analogy, Jesus. Stop trying to attempt to understand, and subsequently to demean others arguments.
Another example of somebody jumping into a 6 page discussion, obviously reading portions, and pretending to understand what has developed.
I have said, almost half a dozen times, that they are not stupid for disagreeing with me, but for having views which they, admittedly, can not explain without the bible and are based on bigotry and hate.
And 101A, the rights of women were also not enumerated, it is simply that there is no need to make a distinction. We do no continue to subjugate women based on this fact, and we should not continue allowing the absence of laws to allow us to assume the creation of laws.
The sole job of the government is to provide for the needs of the people and keep the people safe from both foreign and domestic threats. A wholsale ban on gay marriage is not under this criteria.
Maybe, maybe you could argue for the ability for this issue to be decided by the states on the basis that the cons ution is silent on its legality, since that is the proper channel for laws as far as our cons ution goes (so long as the matter cannot too easily be traced back to the economic benefit of the nation, which would be a massive stretch in this situation).
So, ultimately, we all agree.
You have stupid friends.
The rights of women ARE now enumerated, the rights of gays are not.
Please explain to me where this definition of the role of the US govt. is described. It sure could be helpful in many disagreements.
All of us with the exception of Yonivore.
And let me take some steps to fix this situation. I do not mean to cast them all it that light. It was a sensational "Headline" meant to help grab attention, especially of the people who might avoid entering a straight up gay marriage thread.
I am dissapointed in their lack of reasoning in these matters, and was further upset by the fact that they all get furious with me for, though I have yet to yell or do anything other than simply ask for non-biblical reasons, not agreeing that since the issue has been decided by God and the bible, then it is wrong to even debate its morality.
I will never think somebody stupid for dissagreeing, but I will have a hard time refraining once they reach the point of the dogmatic stupor where they even accuse other people of sin just because they question their views on legislating the Bible.
Well, I just happen to be from the Locke-ian school that the only concievable way that government ever came about was simply for the good of the people. Also, even if you disagree with that, when we live in a democracy the only role of the government is professed to be of either helping or protecting the populace. There is no room for anything which does not fall within one of those two categories.
So, then why not have the rights of gays enumerated? This seems to be a circular issue.
1. We can't let gets marry because their rights aren't enumerated.
2. If gays can get married, they will have equal rights.
3. We can't let them marry until they have these equal rights that the marriage law is designed to provide.
The same people who oppose gay marriage will just the same oppose legislation that grants equal rights to all, regardless of sexual preferences.
And you cannot say that it would be wrong to now have their rights enumerated unless you believe it was wrong to do so for women, not unless you have some hidden argument that I have yet to be privy to.
Also, I still need to learn how this should not be, at best, something to be decided by the states.
I would argue that our government, regardless of how it was conceived, now exists above and outside of the people, it is the single largest organization in the universe, and to pretend that it exists "for the good or protection of the people alone", is altuistic, naive and not very constructive in a debate. In a political theory course, sure, but in reality, nope.
I would argue more and more each day that the people of this country exist for the government; to pay taxes to support it, and to be manipulated by its myriad tentacles in ways that even the most paranoid conspiracy theorist would shudder to consider.
Again, I do not have a problem with gays getting married. I just dont think men or women should marry people of their own gender.
Those are simply examples of our government not working properly. And you happen to be a fan of things being in our Cons ution and being relevant, or not being there and thus not fitting into this system...well, those aspects of our government do not support the Cons itutional ideal, nor the ideal of any of the founding fathers.
They wrote this Cons ution based, in part, on Lockes ideas, and this idea of a government that does not exist for the people is completely at odds with everything that it, and they, stood for.
My views are not high-minded ideals, but the basis of this country. And maybe your right, maybe it is operating contrary to the Cons ution...well, if that is the case then we need a new government, but so long as any aspect of the old school rule exists, we do not need to make laws based on these changes. We do not need to simply cower, give in, and accept the fate of our twisted mockery of a democratic government.
Hah, you know what I mean, now re-answer having subs uted sexual marriage if it makes you feel better.
And also, if the rights of gays are not enumerated, then I would suppose that means that, at least in your view, they have no rights. So if you use that argument to deny sexual marriage, then you should have to, by reasonable extrapolation, say that anything can be done to them, and they can have nothing, based on their lack of enumeration.
Correct me if I am wrong.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
