Gay marriage debate

[possumslayer]

Let 2 guys get married want harm me at all....but when these guys wants to claim a turd as a dependent on their taxes I am putting my foot down !

 

[fl0at]

It is never one person's "right" to violate the rights of another as you rightly point out. I cannot think of any way that gov't can endorse and legitimize homosexual marriages without assuring that the religious rights of others will be violated.

Ok, now I'm confused. You said religion is a choice, not a right.

So, given that it is a choice, if you choose to worship a religion that is offended by homosexual marriage, then your rights haven't been trampled on, because you made that choice.

So, exactly how would endorsement or legitimizing homosexual marriage impede the right to choose your religion?

Surely it will offend your choice of religion, but not your right to choose a religion.

 

[RespectTradition]

Ok, now I'm confused. You said religion is a choice, not a right.

So, given that it is a choice, if you choose to worship a religion that is offended by homosexual marriage, then your rights haven't been trampled on, because you made that choice.

So, exactly how would endorsement or legitimizing homosexual marriage impede the right to choose your religion?

Surely it will offend your choice of religion, but not your right to choose a religion.

You have the right to choose your own religion and then practice it. I thought that was a well settled principle. I am confused by what you are saying to him.

 

[fl0at]

You have the right to choose your own religion and then practice it. I thought that was a well settled principle. I am confused by what you are saying to him.

He said religion is a choice. He said sexual behavior is a choice.

He later said he can't see how government can endorse or legitimize homosexual marriage without "assuring that the religious rights of others will be violated."

So, basically, what I'm asking is this:

So, exactly how would endorsement or legitimizing homosexual marriage impede the right to choose your religion?

Given that the religion is the choice, but the only right is that one can choose.

 

[RespectTradition]

He said religion is a choice. He said sexual behavior is a choice.

He later said he can't see how government can endorse or legitimize homosexual marriage without "assuring that the religious rights of others will be violated."

So, basically, what I'm asking is this:



Given that the religion is the choice, but the only right is that one can choose.

OK, I see your question.

I can't speak for him, but the way I see it is this: Who you claim as your spouse does not impact or violate my rights. If however, the government specifies certain guidelines that must be followed by private entities when dealing with married couples, then the private entities might then find themselves obliged to act in violation of conscience. The right to choose your religion is meaningless without the right to live by its tenets.

That is why I advocate removing government from marriage altogether. Enforce contract law. That is the government's only acceptable role in this area, which is the most personal of all personal areas of life.

 

[fl0at]

Who you claim as your spouse does not impact or violate my rights. If however, the government specifies certain guidelines that must be followed by private entities when dealing with married couples, then the private entities might then find themselves obliged to act in violation of conscience.

I was unaware that private entities, such as Health Insurance agencies, etc, though "persons" by law... actually held religious beliefs.

By the by, what religion is Aflac? They have always "felt" Catholic, to me.

The right to choose your religion is meaningless without the right to live by its tenets.

Well, in that same vein, the right to choose your sexual preference is meaningless without the right to live by its tenets... which suddenly includes marriage.

That is why I advocate removing government from marriage altogether. Enforce contract law. That is the government's only acceptable role in this area, which is the most personal of all personal areas of life.

I agree that equality above all stand. Thus, your comment that government remove all marriage is one acceptable solution, unlikely though it may be.

At the same time, I find that it is unacceptable that people with chronic illnesses are allowed to take prescription medication (a privilege), while we, of seemingly good health, are not allowed.

Thus, it stands, that government should step aside and allow me the same privilege of taking a Valium, as it does for those who actually need the medication. Agree?

 

[RespectTradition]

I was unaware that private entities, such as Health Insurance agencies, etc, though "persons" by law... actually held religious beliefs.

By the by, what religion is Aflac? They have always "felt" Catholic, to me.



Well, in that same vein, the right to choose your sexual preference is meaningless without the right to live by its tenets... which suddenly includes marriage.




I agree that equality above all stand. Thus, your comment that government remove all marriage is one acceptable solution, unlikely though it may be.

At the same time, I find that it is unacceptable that people with chronic illnesses are allowed to take prescription medication (a privilege), while we, of seemingly good health, are not allowed.

Thus, it stands, that government should step aside and allow me the same privilege of taking a Valium, as it does for those who actually need the medication. Agree?

I am a private entity. The vast majority of small businesses are owned and run entirely by a single individual or family.

I agree, you should have the right to call yourself married if you want to. You do not have the right to insist that I call you married. I believe that God created the universe and I have that right, but I don't have the right to insist that you acknowledge that truth. I believe in your right to be wrong.

I would repeal all drug laws. They not only do not help, I believe that actually exacerbate problems. It's your body. Do what you want with it. I may try and talk you out of destroying your health and relationships with drugs, but I will not try and force you to give them up. Drug laws are like marriage laws. They are just a way of enforcing someone's morals on everyone else. Get rid of both of them. While we're at it, I would legalize prostitution as well.

 

[fl0at]

I am a private entity. The vast majority of small businesses are owned and run entirely by a single individual or family.

Indeed they are, and in a lot of cases, those small businesses are "persons," and the actions of the business are not the actions of the owner.

I would ask, though, for a quick run down of what requirements mandated by the government, and wholly against your rights, exist... if the license was extended to homosexuals.

I would also inquire as to the selectivity of your morals. After all, does your business serve those who do not, in fact, honor their father and mother?

I agree, you should have the right to call yourself married if you want to. You do not have the right to insist that I call you married. I believe that God created the universe and I have that right, but I don't have the right to insist that you acknowledge that truth. I believe in your right to be wrong.

Agree to the drugs and prostitutes.

I generally insist that nobody call me married. Gives the wrong impression.

However, if you desire to not call homosexual marriage, marriage, would you be offended if someone called your marriage an infection?

So, if I ever ask you... are you infected? Try not to think I mean "with the zombie plague."

 

[RespectTradition]

Indeed they are, and in a lot of cases, those small businesses are "persons," and the actions of the business are not the actions of the owner.

I would ask, though, for a quick run down of what requirements mandated by the government, and wholly against your rights, exist... if the license was extended to homosexuals.

I would also inquire as to the selectivity of your morals. After all, does your business serve those who do not, in fact, honor their father and mother?



Agree to the drugs and prostitutes.

I generally insist that nobody call me married. Gives the wrong impression.

However, if you desire to not call homosexual marriage, marriage, would you be offended if someone called your marriage an infection?

So, if I ever ask you... are you infected? Try not to think I mean "with the zombie plague."

There was a case a couple of years back where a lady who ran a B&B got in trouble because she wouldn't rent to a gay couple. Incidentally, she wouldn't rent to an unmarried straight couple either. She lost the court case and was given the choice, assist in what she considered a sin or close down. That is one example. Is it necessary to give more?

My morals and the selectivity of them are my own. I have the right to be a hypocrite if I want to. What does that prove? I personally have no desire to treat anyone any differently based upon group identity. So what. I should be able to without facing legal consequences. Social, economic, etc consequences are fine. Other should have the right to shun me for my actions, or refuse to do business with me, but the government is obligated to treat us all the same.

People can call my marriage whatever they want. I don't really care about others' opinions for most things. At least, not in a way that truly impacts my life. I get curious about what other people think, but that knowledge does not help or harm me in any way.

 

[fl0at]

There was a case a couple of years back where a lady who ran a B&B got in trouble because she wouldn't rent to a gay couple. Incidentally, she wouldn't rent to an unmarried straight couple either. She lost the court case and was given the choice, assist in what she considered a sin or close down. That is one example. Is it necessary to give more?

She was sued for discrimination. The government did not force her to do anything.

The courts did. Granted, the judicial is a branch of government, but by that logic, the Government made McDonald's pay $50 million for hot coffee.

So yea, I think we'll need more examples.

My morals and the selectivity of them are my own. I have the right to be a hypocrite if I want to. What does that prove? I personally have no desire to treat anyone any differently based upon group identity. So what. I should be able to without facing legal consequences. Social, economic, etc consequences are fine. Other should have the right to shun me for my actions, or refuse to do business with me, but the government is obligated to treat us all the same.

People can call my marriage whatever they want. I don't really care about others' opinions for most things. At least, not in a way that truly impacts my life. I get curious about what other people think, but that knowledge does not help or harm me in any way.

I can respect these statements. As long as you are comfortable being a hypocrite and a carrier of disease, then who am I to argue.

 

[RespectTradition]

She was sued for discrimination. The government did not force her to do anything.

The courts did. Granted, the judicial is a branch of government, but by that logic, the Government made McDonald's pay $50 million for hot coffee.

So yea, I think we'll need more examples.



I can respect these statements. As long as you are comfortable being a hypocrite and a carrier of disease, then who am I to argue.

What grounds was there for a discrimination suit? Lawsuits are a civil remedy for violations of law. Breach of contract? Sure, there are laws about honoring contract. Incompetence? Yep, there are laws, mostly rooted in common law, about incompetence in certain situations. Discrimination? Ok, there are laws, such as the Civil Rights Act, that outlaw it.

As you can see, lawsuits do not exist in a vacuum. They exist because of laws. That is where we get the term lawsuit. One presses ones suit, or complaint, about law violations.

To force someone to behave in a proscribed manner is to take away their freedom. I don't see how that can be denied. I can understand an argument that honestly says, yes, we will take away those rights but I think it is for a greater good. The problem is, now you are making the same justification for denying freedom that the people advocating against gay marriage are making. If your logic is sound, so is theirs, in principle.

You think it is wrong to discriminate. I think it is wrong to be gay. You think it is fine to be gay. I think that private discrimination can be acceptable. Who is right and who is wrong becomes a value judgment. Since it is a value judgment, it relies upon one's values.

The first amendment guarantees us the right to have and live by our own values. There is no constitutional guarantee against private discrimination. That leads one to conclude that using the weight of government to force your values on someone else is unacceptable but that using your own property to discriminate is acceptable, at least under our supposed supreme law of the land.

Even if you ignore the constitution and make this a more philosophical debate, rather than legal, I still think we must land on the side of maximizing freedom and minimizing coercion. That means some people may, not matter how repulsive, treat other groups badly in the private sphere. Otherwise they are not free. Conversely, anyone has the ability to self-define their own relationships and live by their own principles. Neither side should be able to force the other to accede to their wishes.

 

[fl0at]

What grounds was there for a discrimination suit? Lawsuits are a civil remedy for violations of law. Breach of contract? Sure, there are laws about honoring contract. Incompetence? Yep, there are laws, mostly rooted in common law, about incompetence in certain situations. Discrimination? Ok, there are laws, such as the Civil Rights Act, that outlaw it.

As you can see, lawsuits do not exist in a vacuum. They exist because of laws. That is where we get the term lawsuit. One presses ones suit, or complaint, about law violations.

Intentional tort to name one.

To force someone to behave in a proscribed manner is to take away their freedom. I don't see how that can be denied. I can understand an argument that honestly says, yes, we will take away those rights but I think it is for a greater good. The problem is, now you are making the same justification for denying freedom that the people advocating against gay marriage are making. If your logic is sound, so is theirs, in principle.

You think it is wrong to discriminate. I think it is wrong to be gay. You think it is fine to be gay. I think that private discrimination can be acceptable. Who is right and who is wrong becomes a value judgment. Since it is a value judgment, it relies upon one's values.

Your issue here, then, is with the court system itself, and you are applying a slippery slope argument to the case.

If you are unhappy with your inability to discriminate, that is an issue of judicial reform.

Saying that a marriage license for a homosexual will cause you to lose your ability to discriminate is simply not true.

You can discriminate all you want, however, you might be challenged in court. If you have a legal, factual and "right" to your said discrimination, then your discrimination will be upheld.

What you are saying is simply not true. You will not be forced to stop your discrimination. You won't even be forced to conclude that being gay is acceptable. You will be perfectly allowed your bigotry.

The first amendment guarantees us the right to have and live by our own values. There is no constitutional guarantee against private discrimination. That leads one to conclude that using the weight of government to force your values on someone else is unacceptable but that using your own property to discriminate is acceptable, at least under our supposed supreme law of the land.

Again, if the finding of the court was indeed contrary to the Constitution, it would have made it to the Supreme Court. Did it?

You reasoning is flawed. To state that something is un-Constitutional... requires that it be found un-Constitutional. Was it?

Even if you ignore the constitution and make this a more philosophical debate, rather than legal, I still think we must land on the side of maximizing freedom and minimizing coercion. That means some people may, not matter how repulsive, treat other groups badly in the private sphere. Otherwise they are not free. Conversely, anyone has the ability to self-define their own relationships and live by their own principles.

We can make it legal or philosophical. Maximizing freedom would be to create all equal, do you not find?

Minimizing coercion and maximizing freedom cannot exist simultaneously, because, to make all equal, there must be coercion.

Neither side should be able to force the other to accede to their wishes.

So, you are saying that:
1. Your original thought on removing marriage completely, has no basis, since it would force others, who want marriage, against their wishes.

2. Your defense of heterosexual marriage also has no basis, because it forces homosexuals to stay un-married, against their wishes.

Interesting. I feel that you find yourself in a conundrum.

 

[RespectTradition]

Intentional tort to name one.




Your issue here, then, is with the court system itself, and you are applying a slippery slope argument to the case.

If you are unhappy with your inability to discriminate, that is an issue of judicial reform.

Saying that a marriage license for a homosexual will cause you to lose your ability to discriminate is simply not true.

You can discriminate all you want, however, you might be challenged in court. If you have a legal, factual and "right" to your said discrimination, then your discrimination will be upheld.

What you are saying is simply not true. You will not be forced to stop your discrimination. You won't even be forced to conclude that being gay is acceptable. You will be perfectly allowed your bigotry.



Again, if the finding of the court was indeed contrary to the Constitution, it would have made it to the Supreme Court. Did it?

You reasoning is flawed. To state that something is un-Constitutional... requires that it be found un-Constitutional. Was it?



We can make it legal or philosophical. Maximizing freedom would be to create all equal, do you not find?

Minimizing coercion and maximizing freedom cannot exist simultaneously, because, to make all equal, there must be coercion.



So, you are saying that:
1. Your original thought on removing marriage completely, has no basis, since it would force others, who want marriage, against their wishes.

2. Your defense of heterosexual marriage also has no basis, because it forces homosexuals to stay un-married, against their wishes.

Interesting. I feel that you find yourself in a conundrum.

Your logic is flawed. A case cannot be made in court unless there is law to base it on. Therefore, to assert that the government enforcing its own laws does not force someone to do something is absurd.

I apply no hypothetical slippery slope arguments. The sides of the argument that I described exist at this very point in time. A hundred years ago, you could go to jail for being gay. Were you still free to be gay? By your logic, the answer is yes. By normal standards of reasoning, any action that faces government sanction is not an action that you are free to perform. How is that hard to understand?

There are problems in our courts, no doubt. But we can't fix all problems at once. Can we not acknowledge that the courts behave in a certain manner and then base arguments on other issues on the underlying assumption that the courts will continue in their behaviors?

You said: "Again, if the finding of the court was indeed contrary to the Constitution, it would have made it to the Supreme Court. Did it?

You reasoning is flawed. To state that something is un-Constitutional... requires that it be found un-Constitutional. Was it? "

Do you seriously believe that? Dred Scot, Plessy v Fergusen, gonzales v raich

The court makes mistakes. Do you think that separate but equal was indeed constitutional before that case was overturned? or do you think it was still unconstitutional, just that the SC had ruled incorrectly due to their biases?

Maximizing freedom has nothing to do with making people equal. Treating people equal before the law is different from making people equal. I do not want, nor do I suggest true equality among people. Some people are simply more intelligent than others. Since there is currently no good way to increase intelligence, should we find the least intelligent person, determine their iq and then administer drugs to everyone else that will kill brain cells and make us all have equal intelligence? Of course not, that is absurd. True equality between people is impossible and undesirable. The law can, however, treat a stupid person exactly the same in the same circumstances as an intelligent person. Equality under the law is not only possible, but desirable.

As to your closing points:

1) I don't suggest ending marriage. I suggest ending government sanction and control of marriage. No one loses his or her ability to be married. No one has the ability to force others to accept their definitions either.

2) I made no defense of heterosexual marriage. Nor did I make any attacks against homosexual marriage. What is this supposed to mean?

 

[fl0at]

Your logic is flawed. A case cannot be made in court unless there is law to base it on. Therefore, to assert that the government enforcing its own laws does not force someone to do something is absurd.

Again, tort. It is law. United States Code: Title 28,CHAPTER 171—TORT CLAIMS PROCEDURE | LII / Legal Information Institute

I apply no hypothetical slippery slope arguments. The sides of the argument that I described exist at this very point in time. A hundred years ago, you could go to jail for being gay. Were you still free to be gay? By your logic, the answer is yes. By normal standards of reasoning, any action that faces government sanction is not an action that you are free to perform. How is that hard to understand?

Facing government sanction, and receiving government sanction are two different things.

The slippery slope comes from believing that one will necessitate the other, and then using it as defense from starting the change.

There are problems in our courts, no doubt. But we can't fix all problems at once. Can we not acknowledge that the courts behave in a certain manner and then base arguments on other issues on the underlying assumption that the courts will continue in their behaviors?

You said: "Again, if the finding of the court was indeed contrary to the Constitution, it would have made it to the Supreme Court. Did it?

You reasoning is flawed. To state that something is un-Constitutional... requires that it be found un-Constitutional. Was it? "

Do you seriously believe that?

Yes.

Dred Scot, Plessy v Fergusen, gonzales v raich

Which of those two weren't Supreme Court cases? Oh wait, they both were. I refer you to the above.

The court makes mistakes. Do you think that separate but equal was indeed constitutional before that case was overturned? or do you think it was still unconstitutional, just that the SC had ruled incorrectly due to their biases?

Until it was unconstitutional, it wasn't unconstitutional. Once it was unconstitutional, it was unconstitutional. Had it been ruled constitutional... get this... it would have been constitutional.

Maximizing freedom has nothing to do with making people equal. Treating people equal before the law is different from making people equal. I do not want, nor do I suggest true equality among people. Some people are simply more intelligent than others. Since there is currently no good way to increase intelligence, should we find the least intelligent person, determine their iq and then administer drugs to everyone else that will kill brain cells and make us all have equal intelligence? Of course not, that is absurd.

Does not follow. Equality under the law is not the same as equal identity.

In your not-so-thought-out rubbish, you imply that equality must be absolute. Everyone must have the same hair color, eye color, flesh color, height, weight, IQ, brain size, penis size, sexual preference and favorite football team.

In short, it is a fallacious attempt at defense of inequality under the law, without, in any way shape or form, even coming close to sniffing law, or rational thought.

Equal treatment, therefore, does not follow equal attribute.

True equality between people is impossible and undesirable. The law can, however, treat a stupid person exactly the same in the same circumstances as an intelligent person. Equality under the law is not only possible, but desirable.

I think you have missed something, somewhere. I suggest a re-read.

Equal treatment is implied in equality, not clones. I feel remiss in that I did not explain that, though I am not quite sure why I would have had to in the first place.

As to your closing points:

1) I don't suggest ending marriage. I suggest ending government sanction and control of marriage. No one loses his or her ability to be married. No one has the ability to force others to accept their definitions either.

2) I made no defense of heterosexual marriage. Nor did I make any attacks against homosexual marriage. What is this supposed to mean?

If marriage is indeed a government controlled license, as put forth by a few, here, then ending of that license is the same as ending the definition by which that license is garnered.

If it is only a state recognized definition, appropriate for only a select group, and you wish to abolish that, then not only are you forcing others to use your definition of marriage, in that, any definition will do, against their will... but you are, at the same time, forcing them to accept that government sanctions disappearance.

Which, by your standard, is unacceptable.

Clear?

 

[RespectTradition]

Again, tort. It is law. United States Code: Title 28,CHAPTER 171—TORT CLAIMS PROCEDURE | LII / Legal Information Institute




Facing government sanction, and receiving government sanction are two different things.

The slippery slope comes from believing that one will necessitate the other, and then using it as defense from starting the change.



Yes.



Which of those two weren't Supreme Court cases? Oh wait, they both were. I refer you to the above.




Until it was unconstitutional, it wasn't unconstitutional. Once it was unconstitutional, it was unconstitutional. Had it been ruled constitutional... get this... it would have been constitutional.



Does not follow. Equality under the law is not the same as equal identity.

In your not-so-thought-out rubbish, you imply that equality must be absolute. Everyone must have the same hair color, eye color, flesh color, height, weight, IQ, brain size, penis size, sexual preference and favorite football team.

In short, it is a fallacious attempt at defense of inequality under the law, without, in any way shape or form, even coming close to sniffing law, or rational thought.

Equal treatment, therefore, does not follow equal attribute.




I think you have missed something, somewhere. I suggest a re-read.

Equal treatment is implied in equality, not clones. I feel remiss in that I did not explain that, though I am not quite sure why I would have had to in the first place.




If marriage is indeed a government controlled license, as put forth by a few, here, then ending of that license is the same as ending the definition by which that license is garnered.

If it is only a state recognized definition, appropriate for only a select group, and you wish to abolish that, then not only are you forcing others to use your definition of marriage, in that, any definition will do, against their will... but you are, at the same time, forcing them to accept that government sanctions disappearance.

Which, by your standard, is unacceptable.

Clear?

Your first point is making my point. Any discrimination lawsuit is the government forcing a belief system. I am glad you agree. You said in a previous post that it was not. "She was sued for discrimination. The government did not force her to do anything" - you

Facing government sanction and receiving it are two different things. Just like being shot during a mugging is different from being mugged at gunpoint. In one, the action, in the other, the threat. Either way you gave up your money because of the gun.

I am going out on a limb here and thinking you were against the Citizens United ruling. Were the Justices wrong? Do you think the first amendment covers corporate speech? Being constitutional and being ruled constitutional are two very different things. If the SC decided CA was so big it deserved a third senator, that wouldn't make it constitutional just because they said so.

You said "Maximizing freedom would be to create all equal" in a previous post. I simply responded in a way that showed freedom and equality are not related. I also said "Equality under the law is not only possible, but desirable".

You seem to be suggesting in your closing that when I suggest giving people freedom I am actually taking people's freedom. Is that what you are saying?

 

[fl0at]

Your first point is making my point. Any discrimination lawsuit is the government forcing a belief system. I am glad you agree. You said in a previous post that it was not. "She was sued for discrimination. The government did not force her to do anything" - you

And just what did the government force her to do? By setting the standard of law, the government has not forced anyone to comply. That is why there was no penal aspect to the suit. Only civil.

The government, by paving the way for civil suit in law, did not, in any way, force its usage.

Please feel free to explain government support, or force, in a civil lawsuit.

I would love to hear how Judge Judy is a governmental force, brow beating all her minions over back rent.

Facing government sanction and receiving it are two different things. Just like being shot during a mugging is different from being mugged at gunpoint. In one, the action, in the other, the threat. Either way you gave up your money because of the gun.

You think inflicted bodily harm is equal to monetary harm? Good to know. But, I wouldn't make many bets in Vegas.

I am going out on a limb here and thinking you were against the Citizens United ruling. Were the Justices wrong? Do you think the first amendment covers corporate speech?

I don't mind the Citizens United ruling.

Being constitutional and being ruled constitutional are two very different things. If the SC decided CA was so big it deserved a third senator, that wouldn't make it constitutional just because they said so.

Actually, since the SC interprets what the Constitution means... then yea, it would be constitutional.

You said "Maximizing freedom would be to create all equal" in a previous post. I simply responded in a way that showed freedom and equality are not related. I also said "Equality under the law is not only possible, but desirable".

You seem to be suggesting in your closing that when I suggest giving people freedom I am actually taking people's freedom. Is that what you are saying?

Yup. Which is why I said maximum freedom cannot exist without coercion. You have to take some freedoms to give others.

 

[RespectTradition]

And just what did the government force her to do? By setting the standard of law, the government has not forced anyone to comply. That is why there was no penal aspect to the suit. Only civil.

The government, by paving the way for civil suit in law, did not, in any way, force its usage.

Please feel free to explain government support, or force, in a civil lawsuit.

I would love to hear how Judge Judy is a governmental force, brow beating all her minions over back rent.



You think inflicted bodily harm is equal to monetary harm? Good to know. But, I wouldn't make many bets in Vegas.



I don't mind the Citizens United ruling.




Actually, since the SC interprets what the Constitution means... then yea, it would be constitutional.



Yup. Which is why I said maximum freedom cannot exist without coercion. You have to take some freedoms to give others.

When the government sets a standard, then allows you to be sued under that standard, and then stands ready to enforce the ruling on you, then yes, the government forces you to comply.

If something is constitutional, it doesn't change to unconstitutional without a change to the constitution. A court decision overriding another court decision only emphasizes the fallibility of the court system. You are confusing legal with constitutional.

Minimum freedom cannot exist without coercion. The total absence of coercion is impossible unless you are alone. What is your point? Since it is not possible to maximized freedom without a minimum of coercion (because the two are the same you know), then we may as well have more coercion and less freedom?

 

[RespectTradition]

You think inflicted bodily harm is equal to monetary harm? Good to know. But, I wouldn't make many bets in Vegas.

And I never said bodily harm is equal to monetary harm. I plainly stated they were different. However, in the example I used, I did say that the use of force and the threat of force both resulted in you being robbed. The point being that just because the two are not equivalent, they could still have similar outcomes.

 

[NEO]

If homosexuality was "natural" it would go with science and two males or two females would be able to create a child. Since they can't, no matter how much anyone wants to debate it, homosexuality does not go "with" nature but against.

Beyond that, marriage in this country has become such a joke that I really don't care.

I'm not "legally" married to my wife and have 3 kids. We were married by a preacher though. Just don't have a license. I'm cool with that. Allows me to funnel high income to her at alot less tax than if we were married.

 

[fl0at]

When the government sets a standard, then allows you to be sued under that standard, and then stands ready to enforce the ruling on you, then yes, the government forces you to comply.

Ah, so that is why there aren't any more homicides, drunk driving incidents or cases of molestation. The government "forced" compliance, and therefore, nothing but compliance has occurred.

Government does not force you to comply. They simply punish you if you do not. You always have options.

If something is constitutional, it doesn't change to unconstitutional without a change to the constitution. A court decision overriding another court decision only emphasizes the fallibility of the court system. You are confusing legal with constitutional.

If it is the Supreme Court, the interpreting body of the Constitution, that says it is Constitutional, it is not a fallibility of the court system, it is a fallibility of the Constitution. Or, have you forgotten Marbury vs Madison?

You are confusing legal with constitutional. Because, since Marbury vs Madison, judicial review ends with the Supreme Court.

Minimum freedom cannot exist without coercion. The total absence of coercion is impossible unless you are alone. What is your point? Since it is not possible to maximized freedom without a minimum of coercion (because the two are the same you know), then we may as well have more coercion and less freedom?

You are struggling. To be painfully clear, coercion is acceptable to maximize freedom. You cannot have one without the other.

Therefore, to maximize freedom, you must also increase coercion. Which is acceptable.

You can also have increased coercion, and decreased freedom, but you cannot have increased freedom without coercion.

And I never said bodily harm is equal to monetary harm. I plainly stated they were different. However, in the example I used, I did say that the use of force and the threat of force both resulted in you being robbed. The point being that just because the two are not equivalent, they could still have similar outcomes.

If the outcome is only robbery, then yes. However, there are more outcomes than just robbery, therefore, this does not follow.

I can say all kinds of ridiculous and pointless things using this same logic.

Let's try!

"And I never said sex with a minor is equal to sex with a consenting adult. I plainly stated they were different. However, in the example I used, I did say that sex with a minor and sex with an adult both resulted in pregnancy. The point being that just because the two are not equivalent, they could still have similar outcomes."


"And I never said bombing Iraq is equal to nuking Iraq. I plainly stated they were different. However, in the example I used, I did say that bombing Iraq and nuking Iraq both resulted in destroyed buildings. The point being that just because the two are not equivalent, they could still have similar outcomes."

Fun.

 

[fl0at]

If homosexuality was "natural" it would go with science and two males or two females would be able to create a child. Since they can't, no matter how much anyone wants to debate it, homosexuality does not go "with" nature but against.

Can something unnatural, be natural? As in, does nature allow for a certain bit of un-natural occurrence, naturally?

If so, in that nature has un-natural occurrences, quite naturally, then the un-natural, is in fact, natural.

 

[VOLatile]

ITT, NEOCON will ignore the "unnatural" occurrences of homosexuality in species other than Homo sapien.

 

[RespectTradition]

Therefore, to maximize freedom, you must also increase coercion. Which is acceptable.

Since coercion is the opposite of free choice, then I suppose to maximize nutrition you must also increase hunger. Or how about, to maximize profits you must also increase losses. Maybe, to maximize noise you must also increase silence.

That is just plain silly.

You said "Facing government sanction, and receiving government sanction are two different things." and I agree that they are two different things. I am glad to see that you can also find examples of where two different things can lead to some similar results. That is why you can see that the possibility that someone can bring suit and get government backing for their position can lead to the same result as an outright ban from the government.

 

[fl0at]

Since coercion is the opposite of free choice, then I suppose to maximize nutrition you must also increase hunger. Or how about, to maximize profits you must also increase losses. Maybe, to maximize noise you must also increase silence.

That is just plain silly.

As hunger will increase the urge to eat, therefore increasing nutrition, then yes. In fact, eating when not hungry will rather have a drastic effect on nutrition.

That was silly of you.

Losses are not the opposite of profit. Very silly of you.

Silence is not the opposite of noise, it is the lack of noise. Again, you and I agree. Those are all quite silly.


Coercion is also not the opposite of free choice. Coercion is the force, directly or indirectly, applied to alter behavior.

You still have the free choice of:
1. being receptive to the coercion
2. not being receptive to the coercion

You said "Facing government sanction, and receiving government sanction are two different things." and I agree that they are two different things. I am glad to see that you can also find examples of where two different things can lead to some similar results. That is why you can see that the possibility that someone can bring suit and get government backing for their position can lead to the same result as an outright ban from the government. At least you can use analogy. I was beginning to think all you could do was take an analogy as a literal statement to be picked apart rather than seeing how its similarities could be applied to the current discussion.

There are zero similarities to the current discussion.

Bringing suit, and obtaining court ordered cessation of an event... is not the same as the government ordering cessation of the event.

Your analogy is as flawed as it is worthless. That two things can have similar outcomes is NOT the same as having similar beginnings.

Government outright ban (the beginning) is not the same as court intervention (the end).

Government acceptance (the beginning) is not the same as court intervention (the end).

Government backing (the beginning) is not the same court ordered acceptance (the end).

Even if the outcomes are similar: the beginning... (and I'll slow down here)... is not the same... as the end. Well, unless you are God, I suppose.

 

[RespectTradition]

As hunger will increase the urge to eat, therefore increasing nutrition, then yes. In fact, eating when not hungry will rather have a drastic effect on nutrition.

That was silly of you.

Losses are not the opposite of profit. Very silly of you.

Silence is not the opposite of noise, it is the lack of noise. Again, you and I agree. Those are all quite silly.


Coercion is also not the opposite of free choice. Coercion is the force, directly or indirectly, applied to alter behavior.

You still have the free choice of:
1. being receptive to the coercion
2. not being receptive to the coercion







There are zero similarities to the current discussion.

Bringing suit, and obtaining court ordered cessation of an event... is not the same as the government ordering cessation of the event.

Your analogy is as flawed as it is worthless. That two things can have similar outcomes is NOT the same as having similar beginnings.

Government outright ban (the beginning) is not the same as court intervention (the end).

Government acceptance (the beginning) is not the same as court intervention (the end).

Government backing (the beginning) is not the same court ordered acceptance (the end).

Even if the outcomes are similar: the beginning... (and I'll slow down here)... is not the same... as the end. Well, unless you are God, I suppose.

I honestly can't tell if you are serious or not. If you are not being humorous, then I would strongly question your grasp of logic.

As long as the court is a government court, and as long as it has the power, backed by the government to enforce its rulings, then yes, the court IS the government.

"No ma'am, I did not grab your butt just then, it was just this hand that is connected to me."