it seems the cali judge has a good reason to overturn.

[IPorange]

I merely pointed out that Hitler's number two was a homosexual as well as a good portion of his staff. You are the one who went off on ashes, etc. It's the little sensational, emotionally driven rants you throw in that make for laughable dialogue. Add to the fact you seem to think you know enough about me to tell me what I believe. Clearly with what you've said I've said, you have no clue.

Alright. Explain what you meant when you said "doesn't spell out utter hatred."

 

[lumberjack4]

Kind of like tax breaks for those who are married, those who have children, EIC qualified, affirmative action, quotas, scholarships, having states jump through even more hoops on voting rights based on racial discrimination decades ago, Native American benefits, and numerous other entities?

There are endless examples of the government setting aside separate institutions to enforce "equality". I think some of you are confusing "equality" with liberty as well. Also, I'm still waiting for all of those arguing for equality to now give me the new definition of marriage that grants equality to all parties. Lumberjack, can you tell me what the new definition is? I am asking for the definition where there is true equality for any and all. Give me a specific legal definition of marriage as if you could make law.

I am against all this. Equal treatment by the government to all. No special benefits to anyone for any reason.

 

[IPorange]

Feel free to pose as many questions as you like. If they assume homosexuality is immoral, than we've run full circle. If they don't I'll answer them. Don't get ticked off if I don't answer it the way you were hoping.

 

[IPorange]

I am against all this. Equal treatment by the government to all. No special benefits to anyone for any reason.

Hello, fellow Marxist.

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

Prove to me how homosexuality is immoral. Go.

Prove to me how beastiality is immoral. Go.

Prove to me how killing someone is immoral. Go.

Prove to me how speeding is immoral. Go.

The problem with any of these scenarios is that immorality is relative... which is something I think CSpin has been trying to point out repeatedly (i.e. it is not a black or white issue and therefore has to be defined).

 

[IPorange]

Prove to me how beastiality is immoral. Go.

Prove to me how killing someone is immoral. Go.

Prove to me how speeding is immoral. Go.

The problem with any of these scenarios is that immorality is relative... which is something I think CSpin has been trying to point out repeatedly (i.e. it is not a black or white issue and therefore has to be defined).

It is apparently black and white enough to tell a whole group of people that they are immoral for loving each other and wanting to be equally treated.

1. Bestiality is immoral because an animal is not capable of offering consent, in the same way a heavily mentally disabled person or a young child is unable. It is immoral because it can often inflict physical pain on an animal for no other purpose than pleasure.

2. Speeding isn't immoral, it is unethical, as it is breaking a just law in place for the joint protection of all motorists, and potentially endangering them.

Still waiting for someone to tackle why homosexuality is immoral. Go.

 

[CSpindizzy]

I can't answer your questions because they assume homosexuality is immoral in a secular way, and I don't see how it is.

So I take it you can't answer the question. That's what I expected. I guess I wasn't so off-base in my "rants" as you like to think.

My questions are not based on homosexuality being immoral. Each post you make proves my point that you do not bother reading. It's not based on assuming anything that you cannot answer my questions. You just CAN'T answer them period.

I can't answer your question because I would not be able to prove something in particular is immoral to someone who does not even believe in morality.

Where have I said I believe homosexuality is immoral?

 

[BigPapaVol]

Prove to me how beastiality is immoral. Go.

Only one party to the thing is consenting. Your rights end where someone / something's rights begin. There are clearly exceptions to this diddy, but utilitarianism isn't at play in the bestiality debate.

Prove to me how killing someone is immoral. Go.

again, presumably only one is consenting and one is clearly being harmed by the lone consenting party.

Prove to me how speeding is immoral. Go.

It's not, until the speed lends itself to wanton disregard for the safety of those third parties who might be injured by said speed.

The problem with any of these scenarios is that immorality is relative... which is something I think CSpin has been trying to point out repeatedly (i.e. it is not a black or white issue and therefore has to be defined).

Immorality is relative to some degree, but not when we're dealing with consenting adults in their bedrooms, on the kitchen floor, in the back of the theater, etc.

 

[CSpindizzy]

It is apparently black and white enough to tell a whole group of people that they are immoral for loving each other and wanting to be equally treated.

1. Bestiality is immoral because an animal is not capable of offering consent, in the same way a heavily mentally disabled person or a young child is unable. It is immoral because it can often inflict physical pain on an animal for no other purpose than pleasure.

2. Speeding isn't immoral, it is unethical, as it is breaking a just law in place for the joint protection of all motorists, and potentially endangering them.

Still waiting for someone to tackle why homosexuality is immoral. Go.

Wow. I got a great laugh at that one. Are you now saying morality exists? And it is solely defined by consent? An animal cannot consent? An animal has no way of offering consent for anything?

Immorality is now based on pain? Is that limited to the animals or does that concept include humans as well? S&M and bondage are now out the door....

You say "young child". What defines young child? A flat age across the board? What age? Who determines what age? How is that determined? I'm asking because these things do have to be determined in order to enforce your self-defined immoral act.

 

[IPorange]

Wow. I got a great laugh at that one. Are you now saying morality exists? And it is solely defined by consent? An animal cannot consent? An animal has no way of offering consent for anything?

Immorality is now based on pain? Is that limited to the animals or does that concept include humans as well? S&M and bondage are now out the door....

You say "young child". What defines young child? A flat age across the board? What age? Who determines what age? How is that determined? I'm asking because these things do have to be determined in order to enforce your self-defined immoral act.

It's all giggles over here as well. Keep hiding in the gray to avoid the actual concept: two consenting adults should not be discriminated against.

Immorality is when one party's will and rights are over-running another's.

Defining "when a young child begins" is a staw man. It doesn't matter where that begins and ends for this discussion, since we are definitively discussing adults. Your argument about when childhood begins works just as well against heterosexual consent and marriage as it does gay marriage (which is to say not at ALL). You can not claim to have it defined well enough for the criteria of heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

 

[CSpindizzy]

It's all giggles over here as well. Keep hiding in the gray to avoid the actual concept: two consenting adults should not be discriminated against.

Immorality is when one party's will and rights are over-running another's.

Defining "when a young child begins" is a staw man. It doesn't matter where that begins and ends for this discussion, since we are definitively discussing adults. Your argument about when childhood begins works just as well against heterosexual consent and marriage as it does gay marriage (which is to say not at ALL). You can not claim to have it defined well enough for the criteria of heterosexuals but not homosexuals.

We're discussing marriage. I really don't know what you're discussing...looks more like a venting on Christianity. Using Webster to write laws or something...

You brought up consent and equality. I am asking you about those things. You ramble on about vague terms. Speaking of being in the gray area. I am asking a 'black and white' question based on your generalizations. You say adult. Based on your desire to give equality, you have to legally define what the age of consent and an adult is. You have to define what marriage is - what it can and cannot include. You cannot make some wild claim and whine about "oh it has to be equal" and then not be expected to define what that is based on the law. You come here saying it cannot be based on morality but cannot even define the concept. Then you come on here saying a certain version of a Barnes an Noble purchase should define our laws.

And now you say two consenting adults should not be discriminated against. Is this your definition of marriage? Is this your final answer?

 

[IBlvNTmWrk]

It is apparently black and white enough to tell a whole group of people that they are immoral for loving each other and wanting to be equally treated.

1. Bestiality is immoral because an animal is not capable of offering consent, in the same way a heavily mentally disabled person or a young child is unable. It is immoral because it can often inflict physical pain on an animal for no other purpose than pleasure.

2. Speeding isn't immoral, it is unethical, as it is breaking a just law in place for the joint protection of all motorists, and potentially endangering them.

Still waiting for someone to tackle why homosexuality is immoral. Go.

Immorality is relative to some degree, but not when we're dealing with consenting adults in their bedrooms, on the kitchen floor, in the back of the theater, etc.

Who is telling a group of people that they are immoral? If anyone is, imo that would be limited to an opinion.

But back to the questions listed.

1. I will make an assumption that beastiality does not harm the animal. For all we know, the animal may enjoy it and even "offer" consent? There is no harm or injury occurring... how are the animal's "rights" being violated? why is this immoral?

2. True... only one may be consenting, but the other could be threatening my life or just trying to steal something from my property. Either way someone was killed but what or who defines when it is immoral?

3. At what limit does the speed eventually lead to a wanton disregard for the safety of others. Would that be a subjective decision or is that finite.

Point being... immorality is completely relevant. What many thought were immoral decades ago, some would not give a second thought today. Or, to use the same logic as IPOrange... webster says the following:

morrality - conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles

 

[IPorange]

We're discussing marriage. I really don't know what you're discussing...looks more like a venting on Christianity. Using Webster to write laws or something...

You brought up consent and equality. I am asking you about those things. You ramble on about vague terms. Speaking of being in the gray area. I am asking a 'black and white' question based on your generalizations. You say adult. Based on your desire to give equality, you have to legally define what the age of consent and an adult is. You have to define what marriage is - what it can and cannot include. You cannot make some wild claim and whine about "oh it has to be equal" and then not be expected to define what that is based on the law. You come here saying it cannot be based on morality but cannot even define the concept. Then you come on here saying a certain version of a Barnes an Noble purchase should define our laws.

And now you say two consenting adults should not be discriminated against. Is this your definition of marriage? Is this your final answer?

I thought you were playing dumb, now I am starting to wonder. Are you seriously so unable to connect all the dots from my post?

Surely not, you must be just being as argumentative as possible in an attempt to stonewall.

For the nth time, and in bold:

I do not have to define adulthood. That makes no logical sense in this discussion. I have clearly outlined why many times.

I have given you the definition of marriage in this thread and shown that what is being discussed in no way contradicts it. Let me say that again, in case you ask for it again: I HAVE GAVE YOU THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE. You yourself pointed out that the dictionary definition did not necessarily rule out either homosexual marriages or polygamy. YOU said that. I don't know why you then try to turn it around and say it does. Likewise, I have no idea why you are dismissive of the dictionary as a source for the meaning of the word, and belittle me for turning to it as an impartial authority of definitions.

The equality that I am advocating for is one where the government treats all people blind to their color, ethnicity, creed, religion, gender, orientation, whatever. I have said this before. I am saying a loving couple seeking a marriage license should receive the same license and title no matter what that couple is composed of.

What's that? What if more than a couple wants to get hitched? I wouldn't have a problem with that either, if they were in a loving and committed relationship, forming a household.

What's that? What about the tax ramifications? benefits? Maybe the government shouldn't be in the social engineering business, and not give benefits to people for getting hitched.


Also, I didn't mention Christianity in my last post. At all. When you said it wasn't about any religious teachings or beliefs, I have all but begged you to let me know what it is then that makes it wrong for two gay people to be allowed to marry. You have been combative (and insulting) and say you don't have to until I re-answer all the questions I have already responded to.

You are arguing for an endless stalemate of the "status quo" because who can say where the lines are-- best to leave it as it is.

Sorry, I disagree.

Now then, feel free to demand I define marriage again, or quit "squirming" out of your questions. That only you are allowed to ask apparently.

 

[IPorange]

Who is telling a group of people that they are immoral? If anyone is, imo that would be limited to an opinion.

But back to the questions listed.

1. I will make an assumption that beastiality does not harm the animal. For all we know, the animal may enjoy it and even "offer" consent? There is no harm or injury occurring... how are the animal's "rights" being violated? why is this immoral?

2. True... only one may be consenting, but the other could be threatening my life or just trying to steal something from my property. Either way someone was killed but what or who defines when it is immoral?

3. At what limit does the speed eventually lead to a wanton disregard for the safety of others. Would that be a subjective decision or is that finite.

Point being... immorality is completely relevant. What many thought were immoral decades ago, some would not give a second thought today. Or, to use the same logic as IPOrange... webster says the following:

morrality - conflicting with generally or traditionally held moral principles

1. Non-sentient beings do not have free will, and are unable to offer consent. Not sure where you are struggling with this concept.

2. You know these are classic questions that have been addressed by brilliant people in the past, right?

If it was defense, then the other person was attempting to destroy the free will and rights of the original "killer," and he was justified in defending his life. It's very simple: the one that initially attempts to destroy the existence of the other is the immoral one. One has the right to defend their life. But you know this.

3. It is a circumstantial and subjective decision, that can be constrained with societal laws. Much like age of consent. This is in no way similar to deciding two consenting adults are to be treated differently for decisions that violates no one else's safety or free will.

I don't think many would define morality as synonymous with "mob rule" or "popular opinion."

Since someone else has returned us there, Webster's defines "moral" as

: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>

So is discriminating based on taboo or personal judgement right or wrong, if the party in question isn't hurting or infringing on anyone?

 

[CSpindizzy]

Why does it not make sense? YOU brought up consenting adults. YOU brought up equality in marriage. How can you say something is equal when you cannot even define the boundaries? Are you really that ignorant to say a vague definition out of one particular dictionary makes law? I even ask you what definition would even hold up legally. You keep insisting a dictionary's definition does that when clearly it is vague.

YOU say two consenting adults - I say what about others and what defines adult. You gave me the dictionary definition which now goes beyond this again vaguely worded statement above.

As for not mentioning Christianity in your last post what does that have to do with anything???? Do you want some cookie for that? Am I supposed to jump for joy and pat you on the head??? The whole aspect of religion was in regard to morality needing to be removed from government. Read the next part slowly - religious views and personal morality cannot be removed from government. It has played a part and always will play a part. I have avoided pinning anything down to Christianity but again, as I've said repeatedly, all you seem to be able to do is take swipes at "Biblical bases".

So again, pardon me for repeatedly asking you the same question. I am forced to because you give vaguely worded responses that differ each time you post them. I simply asked for a clarification and what would suffice for a legal definition. The response you gave was different from your first answer. I cannot help it that you give inconsistent answers.

I answered your questions as well. Tell me where I ever said my personal belief was that homosexuality was immoral. My questions have only been in response to statements you've made. Your question is based on something I've not stated.

 

[CSpindizzy]

Non-sentient beings do not have free will? We're saying humans are the only beings with free will? Seriously asking for clarification: how do non-sentient beings then decide to find a same sex mate and warm a rock? Are you saying there is a drive forcing two same sex animals to join together to try and procreate? Or any other behavior for that matter?

 

[IPorange]

Non-sentient beings do not have free will? We're saying humans are the only beings with free will? Seriously asking for clarification: how do non-sentient beings then decide to find a same sex mate and warm a rock? Are you saying there is a drive forcing two same sex animals to join together to try and procreate? Or any other behavior for that matter?

Yes, I am saying animal behavior is not driven by a consciousness aware of itself. They do what they do because of instincts and primitive thinking skills. Generally, animals do not have higher thinking processes. Notice their lack of technology or advanced language.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

The circle jerk going on is quite entertaining........

 

[IPorange]

Don't come here and get me excited OE, you'll make me lose.

 

[OrangeEmpire]

Just think baseball...

 

[CSpindizzy]

Just looking at the definition of sentience - relating to feelings and perceptions. Not seeing where technology comes into play. There are humans that would not meet that criteria as far as higher thinking skills as well. Are we just limiting this to humans in general though? And what of primates who have displayed higher thinking skills?

Threadjack....

 

[IPorange]

You mean like gorillas with 300 word sign language vocabularies? I don't know. Gets kind of creepy there. I do know that they ask for bananas and such an awful lot.

 

[BeecherVol]

My dog has figured out that he can take a dump in the neighbors yard.

 

[CSpindizzy]

You mean like gorillas with 300 word sign language vocabularies? I don't know. Gets kind of creepy there. I do know that they ask for bananas and such an awful lot.

Like I said, some humans drop below that threshold, whatever Webster says it is. Guess they lose their rights after that.

 

[lawgator1]

Article by Leaonard Pitts sort of pretty much utterly destroys the complaint that the uber-right has about the judge.



He had no right to judge.

That, in a nutshell, is the gist of last week's uproar over a ruling by Vaughn Walker. Walker is the federal judge, originally appointed by Ronald Reagan and generally regarded, according to the Associated Press, as ``a conservative with libertarian leanings,'' who struck down Proposition 8, California's ban on same sex marriage.

It turns out there is a rumor -- never confirmed or denied -- that Walker himself is gay. That has launched proponents of the ban into a full-fledged tizzy.

Maggie Gallagher, chairwoman of the National Organization for Marriage, blasted him as ``an openly gay federal judge . . . substituting his views for those of the American people and our Founding Fathers . . .''
Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association called for Walker's impeachment and said the jurist should have recused himself because ``his own personal sexual proclivities utterly compromised his ability to make an impartial ruling.''

Matt Barber of something called the Liberty Counsel accused Walker of ``extreme bias in favor of his similarly situated homosexual activist plaintiffs.''

And so on.

According to this line of ``thinking,'' a homosexual may competently judge a traffic dispute or an assault charge, but not anything having to do with, well . . . being a homosexual. For that, you need a judge who is as straight as the crease in George Will's pants.

But there is a hole in that ``logic'' wide enough to dance the Rockettes through. Every individual is a compilation of culture, experience, opinions, emotions and personal biases, so every judge brings baggage to the table.

But we trust a judge to put that baggage aside and decide an issue on its merits. You don't ask him to recuse himself unless something he has said or done suggests a conflict of interest.

Walker's critics judge him biased not because of something he's said or done, but because of something he supposedly is. By that logic, we must consider every heterosexual judge who ever ruled against gay rights as biased. Indeed, that reasoning would require women judges to recuse themselves from cases with women plaintiffs, Jewish judges to abandon cases with Jewish defendants, white judges to leave cases tried by white lawyers.

Nor is that remote and abysmal possibility what's most offensive here. No, what truly rankles is the implicit suggestion that only straight people can fairly and dispassionately judge when and if gay men and lesbians should be granted equality -- and that straights have an unquestioned right to make that judgment.

It's a theme that recurs whenever one group seeks freedom and another bars the way. Whether we are talking men and women, whites and blacks, or immigrants and the native born, there is always this hubristic notion that one group has the God-given right to set the terms and timetable by which another will be free.
Consider what John Wayne said in 1971 when Playboy asked him about discrimination against blacks. ``I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility,'' he told the magazine. ``I don't believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people.''
In other words, when black folk passed muster with the Duke, they could be given the rights the Constitution said were theirs from birth.

You hear echoes of that paternalism in Maggie Gallagher's suggestion that gay and lesbian freedoms are subject to the will of ``the American people.''

But freedom that can be taken at a whim is not freedom at all. And to whatever degree they believe themselves entitled to that whim, the American people deceive themselves and dishonor their heritage.

Gay men and lesbians want to be free.

And it's the rest of us who have no right to judge.