Obama switching positions.

#103
#103
slh1089 said:
Yes, however some have argued that that may not be 100% correct. What sucks is we done have TJ or George Mason sitting around to help us out.
Click to expand...

We do have the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, Locke, Shaftsbury, Hutcheson, Butler, and Hume to help us out, though; so, unless the arguments against "pursuit of happiness" being construed as related to property rights can find evidence for their own assessment in the writings of these figures, then it is safe to assume that the "pursuit of happiness" ought to be understood according to the Lockean definition.
 
#107
#107
golfballs said:
However, there's no doubt that gay marriage has an impact on society. Those who argue against it say it has a negative affect, therefore should be outlawed. Same reason as a lot of laws that are currently in place.
Click to expand...

Not directed at you at all, but this point of view still puzzles me. Proponents in NC talked about gay marriage and the negative impact, and wanting to 'protect society'. Those evil gays must be stopped from destroying the sanctity of marriage which is held in such esteem today.

I've said before that the actual term 'marriage' is not important to me; however access to the same benefits afforded to heterosexual couples through marriage is very important - and this is a lot more than simply tax breaks/money. I would be fine with a civil union based federal benefit structure, and leave marriage as a religious union/ceremony. Get it out of government altogether.

I really don't see how providing gays access to same privileges as straight couples is destroying society. The view is a lot different from the other side.
 
#108
#108
gcbvol said:
Not directed at you at all, but this point of view still puzzles me. Proponents in NC talked about gay marriage and the negative impact, and wanting to 'protect society'. Those evil gays must be stopped from destroying the sanctity of marriage which is held in such esteem today.

I've said before that the actual term 'marriage' is not important to me; however access to the same benefits afforded to heterosexual couples through marriage is very important - and this is a lot more than simply tax breaks/money. I would be fine with a civil union based federal benefit structure, and leave marriage as a religious union/ceremony. Get it out of government altogether.

I really don't see how providing gays access to same privileges as straight couples is destroying society. The view is a lot different from the other side.
Click to expand...

I'm not one of those people. Im just saying that is one of their arguments
 
#109
#109
slh1089 said:
Is the level of risk of two guys having the ability to marry the same as a young child driving a car?
Click to expand...

How is a 14 year old voting risking the safety of others?

If safety (or impact on) others is the criteria why can't we limited the soft drink consumption of fat people? Afterall, their diabetes will impact others.

I just don't buy the pursuit of happiness as a blanket right that means anything goes.

Likewise, I don't buy the other angle that "safety of others" vaguely stated is a blanket tool for the government to prevent certain behaviors for certain groups
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#110
#110
golfballs said:
Issues related to the degradation of the family unit.

U can look this stuff up
Click to expand...

It is interesting that these "negative effects" that are cited are eerily familiar with the "negative effects" that would result from allowing women to vote, allowing blacks to use the same public facilities as whites, including women in the workforce, etc.

Basically, the same close-minded, bigoted justification is recycled, polished and used over and over again.
 
#112
#112
therealUT said:
It is interesting that these "negative effects" that are cited are eerily familiar with the "negative effects" that would result from allowing women to vote, allowing blacks to use the same public facilities as whites, including women in the workforce, etc.

Basically, the same close-minded, bigoted justification is recycled, polished and used over and over again.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also, there doesn't seem to be too much sanctity involved once the divorce rate passes 50%. I just do not see how that argument holds much weight.
 
#113
#113
slh1089 said:
Agreed. Also, there doesn't seem to be too much sanctity involved once the divorce rate passes 50%. I just do not see how that argument holds much weight.
Click to expand...

I don't think it holds up - clearly there is not enough societal damage from gay couples to use that as a justification.

I fall back to the symbolism of the term being the only legit claim the anti-marriage crowd has. If marriage does for all intents and purposes MEAN a man and a woman joining til death (even if they don't make it) then forcibly changing the MEANING does infringe on straight couples.

NOTE: I don't have a problem with gay marriage - just pointing out what I believe is a legit argument for those that oppose it on symbolic terms. The evidence that the symbolism is real is found in how hard gay couples fight to have the symbolism attached to their union. It is a social construct.
 
#114
#114
therealUT said:
We do have the writings of Jefferson, Franklin, Locke, Shaftsbury, Hutcheson, Butler, and Hume to help us out, though; so, unless the arguments against "pursuit of happiness" being construed as related to property rights can find evidence for their own assessment in the writings of these figures, then it is safe to assume that the "pursuit of happiness" ought to be understood according to the Lockean definition.
Click to expand...

I direct you to Arthur Schlesinger's article in the "William and Mary Quarterly". It is called "The Lost Meaning of The Pursuit of Happiness."
 
#115
#115
volinbham said:
I don't think it holds up - clearly there is not enough societal damage from gay couples to use that as a justification.

I fall back to the symbolism of the term being the only legit claim the anti-marriage crowd has. If marriage does for all intents and purposes MEAN a man and a woman joining til death (even if they don't make it) then forcibly changing the MEANING does infringe on straight couples.

NOTE: I don't have a problem with gay marriage - just pointing out what I believe is a legit argument for those that oppose it on symbolic terms. The evidence that the symbolism is real is found in how hard gay couples fight to have the symbolism attached to their union. It is a social construct.
Click to expand...

I agree. The semantic argument holds the most wait because the literal meaning does relate to a woman.
 
#118
#118
slh1089 said:
I direct you to Arthur Schlesinger's article in the "William and Mary Quarterly". It is called "The Lost Meaning of The Pursuit of Happiness."
Click to expand...

Schlesinger artfully avoids Locke, Hutcheson, Butler, and Hume: impressive dodge that also serves to avoid the question of what the connotation of happiness was for those individuals. Writing at the same time, and having had correspondence with American Colonists as a staunch supporter of the idea of a sovereign people, Kant defines happiness as necessarily entailing "power, riches, honor, and health".

Adams does state that "happiness should be the end of government"; however, Mandeville states almost the exact same thing, yet firmly believes that this is accomplished through allowing vice before ultimately reaching the conclusion that happiness is very much connected to property (as any good Hobbesian would agree).

The bottom line is that while Schlesinger believes he has "at last corrected" everyone on their understanding of the "pursuit of happiness" his argument is not convincing at all and, moreover, completely dodges the question of how happiness was contextually defined for those men (instead, he simply focuses on defining "pursuit").
 
#119
#119
Thank goodness that Barney Frank retired. Romney, if given the opportunity, would probably pin him down and shave his head in the halls of congress!
 
#120
#120
golfballs said:
:whatever:

That can't be serious. LOL
Click to expand...

Oh, they're serious alright. I doubt it will have legs, but they'd love for Romney to have to burn up a couple of news cycles apologizing to the relatives of a deceased gay man that he bullied 40 years ago.
 
#122
#122
hog88 said:
I just think that now that the cat is out of the bag he has to propose something allowing gay marriage at the federal level. Otherwise his jesture is empty.
Click to expand...

No, he will do nothing and blame republicans for not allowing him to do anything
 
#123
#123
golfballs said:
No, he will do nothing and blame republicans for not allowing him to do anything
Click to expand...

I think he has to have a proposal, plan or bill to campaign on or risk his base waking up to the fact he is an empty suit.
 
#124
#124
hog88 said:
I think he has to have a proposal, plan or bill to campaign on or risk his base waking up to the fact he is an empty suit.
Click to expand...

Details like that don't matter. He will say whatever he wants to. It hasn't stopped him in the past.
 
#125
#125
golfballs said:
Details like that don't matter. He will say whatever he wants to. It hasn't stopped him in the past.
Click to expand...

I agree, the press should do their job and pepper him with questions about his plan to legalize it along with his plan after he is re-elected and free to do what he wants to do.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top