The two are nowhere near the same. In one, two consenting adults want to form a legal social relationship. In the other, you want to be an idiot. Life is hard. It's even harder when you're stupid. Don't be stupider than you have to be.
And what if i wanted to marry a 12 year old who was tried as an adult in a court of law? The court found them to be of sound moral judgement and awareness of the consequences of their actions of at least that of an adult.
That doesn't apply as a counter example to discredit my argument, and doesn't make much sense in this context. The law doesn't state that you can marry anyone who has the mind of an adult, either. It states that you can marry someone who is of a certain age. However that is a creative criticism of a potential hypocrisy in the justice system and causes people to reevaluate why some laws exist. I don't think any 12 year old should be tried as an adult. They should instead be tried as someone with a mental health problem.
Thats my whole point in all this, devil. Nobody really knows whats right or whats wrong. Right and wrong is a function of popularity - thats it. Throughout all of history and even to today, the moral values of the many are imposed on the few who have to live their lives in fear because of it. Who am i to say homosexuality is immoral? Who are you to say prostitution, drugs, or pedophelia is immoral?
It is the duty of government to improve the lives of people. Laws have to be enacted based on what does and what doesn't improve the quality of life for people. If something such as pedophiles traumatize people's children, then pedophilia should be made illegal to protect all children from being traumatized by pedophiles. Societies with morals that don't make sense have historically been overtaken and conquered by those who do.
This argument is intellectually dishonest. It reclassifies a restriction as a right. As an example, it is as if the government told citizens they had a right to worship Buddah or not to worship Buddah. Anyone who wanted to worship Jesus or Yahweh would be doing it illegally and could be punished. But the intellectually dishonest would argue that those people who wish to worship differently were not discriminated against at all: after all, they had the same rights as everyone else - to worship Buddah or not to. Thus, they have presented a restriction as a right. Completly falacious and intellectually dishonest. Even more intellectually dishonest is continuing to argue that point. But then, ignoring logic, reason, or anything else that interrupts your hatred and bigotry is what we have come to expect from your posts.
I wholeheartedly disagree here. But its just an opinion, so im not gonna disagree. Youre absolutely entitled to hold any opinion you want.
You do not speak for we. If you disagree with my opinion, just say so. Theres no need to call my argumentation intellectually dishonest or fallacious when they arent.
Your may have your opinion. It's yours, no matter how ugly, bigoted, or hateful it may be. It is your opinion. I am fine with that and even defend your right to have it. Using demonstrably false logic to trick people into agreeing with you, is intellectually dishonest. There is no other way to put it, and it has nothing to do with your opinions. You have reclassified a restriction as a right - something that has been done by oppressors through the centuries. It is incorrect, and purposefully deceitful. The fact that you are aware of this makes your repetition of it intellectually dishonest. Have your opinion. If you must be intellectually deceitful to maintain it, that is your problem not anyone elses.
Ugly, bigoted, and hateful. Those are harsh words to describe the way i have presented my views. If thats how you feel about the way ive presented my views then i shudder to think how you'd react after hearing something that is actually hateful, bigoted, or ugly. I'm not sure if im not communicating my position clearly enough or if youre so entrenched in your position that you view anything incongruent with your values as unimaginably vile. If you recall the OP, just because we disagree doesnt make one of us wrong. Its entirely possible that we are both right but in different ways. I recommend you go back and reread the things ive said and think long and hard about whether you really think im hateful or a bigot. See if you can separate your emotion and need to defend the "rights" of homosexuals from your ability to synthesize new information and consider the merits of a different view. And if after rereading you still feel the same way then id call you intellectually dishonest.
Woah woah woah ... I been keeping up on this thread .... I even been watching even as it's gone way off the subject matter of the op.... It's Moose's thread he can let it go where he wants that being said I'm a "conservative" minded individual in the truest sense not in a right wing religious fanatical way mind u but the ideas that actually founded the ideology That being said there should be a separation of church and state and if that part of the constitution is upheld ...which is wat true conservatism is about then once "marriage" became a legal binding contract with legal implications and rights asserted to it, then it no longer falls under the religious realm of being... It becomes a legal entity and falls under the jurisdiction of the state ... Meaning that all who qualify under the law should be afforded access to that privilege I let it go up to this point because he arguments well were kinda laughable by both sides in this thread But the comment that the government duty is to make laws to improve it's citizens life's it the entirety of wat I find not only false but also the ideology of the democrats stance on how it makes policy The governments only job laid out by our constitution is to provide protections for it's people the whole reason this country was founded was on the idea that the governing body be it king or other not be overbearing and controlling of our way of life .. Our thoughts our beliefs our very to ability to reasonably control our own destiny in the pursuit of life liberty and pursuit of happiness This is where I get ticked off at democrats ... They get all worked up about republicans wanting to control our bedrooms... But yet every policy they enact is another form of control in every other portion of our lives None of it is the governments business nor are a large percentage of the policies that the democrats impose upon us.... It's not wat America was founded on, it's not the protection of it's citizens they make laws for.... The superior minded aristocratic historical law making ideology founded by them borders on or closely resembles parental control of anyone they find less then equal of mind or of circumstance .. The fact that they hold such distain for the majority of their voting bases is utterly amazing ... If it were not for the parent child nature of their relationship I'd think it would be almost impossible for them to hold any office at all
You are avoiding my point completely. It's called deflection, but I'll let it pass. My point is not about you opinions. I do believe they are hateful and bigoted - which is my opinion, and you are free to disagree. However, an opinion is different from a demonstrably false statement of law or logic, such as your "equal rights" argument, that you are using as a pseudo-objective justification for your opinion. As I demonstrated, that line of false logic is used to restrict rights, and using it to allegedly demonstrate rights, is wrong. It is objectively wrong, and not subject to opinion. All humans have the same rights. Anyone can be a man and own a company, or they can not own a company. See? women have the same rights as men. - I have just killed gender equality by reclassifying a restriction as a right. All people may choose to worship Jesus, or not worship Jesus. Nothing else. See? All religious faiths have the same rights. - I have just turned this country into a one religion nation by reclassifying a restriction as a right. Opinions are opinions. They are not intellectually dishonest. This is what the OP is about, where these opinions come from and a predisposition to having opinions. A logical syllogism is not an opinion. It is bound by rules of logic and honesty. The world is round - it is demonstrably so (even long before flight or space travel. To know this and use false logic to convince people otherwise, is intellectually dishonest. Have your opinion. Tell people that you think gay people should not be allowed to marry each other. Do not pretend your restriction is a right, and use such demonstrably false logic to justify your opinion to people who cannot tell the difference (This whole conversation is predicated on the notion that you are smart enough to understand the difference - otherwise, I wouldn't say intellectually dishonest, but simply stupid and deluded).
My counter to your argument lies in an earlier post. Clearly you missed it or you wouldnt be calling me intellectually dishonest. And with that i have officially run out of fucks to give about this discussion. Im going to bed. Its been fun ️
Missed it so badly that you could not find it and repost it for me to see I guess. In fact I missed it as if it did not exist. Hey, if you ever come up with an actual answer as to how your characterization of a restriction as a right does not disenfranchise the exact people you are allegedly ascribing equal rights too, let me know. I'm always available (if I'm around). Good luck with that. And have a good sleep
His reply was "it's not intellectually dishonest" when it blatantly is. That's about the extent of his response is to take a defensive stance and pout.
That's not accurate. Here's why. Like many conservatives, you're selectively reading the Constitution. The founders were a diverse group, with different philosophies and ideas about the role of government. The Constitution reflects that. The role of government is laid out in the preamble: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union establish Justice ensure domestic Tranquility provide for the common defence promote the general Welfare secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." So no, the only role of government isn't to simply provide protection. It's to do all of those things. My father always told me if you want to get to the heart of a matter, follow the money, so lets go there. In the Constitution, that would be the power tax. Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" Notice it mentions two specific things. To provide for the common defense and general welfare. The question then, is what does it mean when it says "promote the general Welfare"? Webster’s Dictionary 1828 Promote: To forward; to advance; to contribute to the growth, enlargement or excellence of any thing valuable. welfare: exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government; applied to states. So clearly, the founders felt that one of the roles of government was to improve the lives of the citizens, so much so that it's mentioned in the power to tax. But since the Constitution was written vaguely on purpose, there's been a lot debate about how they can go about that starting from day one. Read up on the Federalist Papers sometime. Again, you're being selective. America wasn't founded on one ideal. It was founded on many ideals. Same goes for "they hold such distain for the majority of their voting bases". It's not that they hold disdain for the "majority". It's that you're being selective about who the "majority" are. This is where I get "ticked off" at Republicans. Almost every time a law gets passed they don't like, they start going on about how the "will of the people" is being ignored, or worse, they start going on about how the Constitution is being "lawlessly shredded". They're completely oblivious to the fact that the Democrats also got elected, and thus they represent the "will of the people" too. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in the position to pass the laws you don't like. As for those laws being "unconstitutional", that's not up to conservatives to decide. That's what the Supreme Court is for. The bottom line is, the Constitution wasn't written for conservatives OR liberals. It was written to reflect the diverse opinions and ideals of We the People.
Didn't Obama raise the minimum wage just a little while back so that the "slaves" could be payed a little better and not live in total poverty? If not, then my bad.