jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 28, 2011 13:56:29 GMT -5
Like any contract, it can only work if both sides uphold it... ok, one more question: do you ever answer questions? It's too open ended of a question, though. Which social contract are you referring to? Thomas Hobbes' version of a social contract that most Dems seem to want in which a monarch rules over the savage masses? Or Jon Locke's version that equated "natural rights" to people, which did not include the "right" to be given something at the expense of another? Or one of the many other versions? Because although I believe in the social contract philosophy, we have a very warped contract right now full of self-indulgence and overt dependence that I absolutely do not believe in. A social contract does not mean people should get to choose how much of someone else's property they should be able to take - once we breached that barrier, IMO, the contract was broken.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Jul 28, 2011 13:59:47 GMT -5
The Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional law, signed by President Clinton on September 21, 1996. Again, if you don't like it, write to your congressperson and ask to have it changed... As constitutional as the Patriot Act? Just because it's passed and law doesn't make it constitutional in my book. Given I know my book doesn't count especially since it based on facts and cognotive reasoning.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Jul 28, 2011 14:02:03 GMT -5
It's good to be here, SV. I've been well and spending a lot of time at the cottage. I see not much has changed around here.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Jul 28, 2011 14:04:07 GMT -5
The Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional law, signed by President Clinton on September 21, 1996. Again, if you don't like it, write to your congressperson and ask to have it changed... As constitutional as the Patriot Act? Just because it's passed and law doesn't make it constitutional in my book. Given I know my book doesn't count especially since it based on facts and cognotive reasoning. It's constitutional until it is proven to be unconstitutional and overturned. You may not like it, but you have to deal with it...I don't agree with all of it either, but once again, you can write your congressperson if you want action...
|
|
SweetVirginia
Well-Known Member
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 17:56:15 GMT -5
Posts: 1,360
|
Post by SweetVirginia on Jul 28, 2011 14:06:49 GMT -5
It's good to be here, SV. I've been well and spending a lot of time at the cottage. I see not much has changed around here. Nope, same "dysfunctional family" type group here. Glad you're here.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Jul 28, 2011 14:06:58 GMT -5
As constitutional as the Patriot Act? Just because it's passed and law doesn't make it constitutional in my book. Given I know my book doesn't count especially since it based on facts and cognotive reasoning. It's constitutional until it is proven to be unconstitutional and overturned. You may not like it, but you have to deal with it...I don't agree with all of it either, but once again, you can write your congressperson if you want action... The corrupted justice system would never allow 90% of the unconstitutional BS that infects our government be challenged. I'm sure I would be found to have no standing to challenge any of it. It's sad that so many rights are weasled away in laws that can't be challenged or changed and the masses rejoice that for once their marriage is magically protected as much as the rock I keep by my drive keeps tigers away.
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 28, 2011 14:07:28 GMT -5
Specifically the need to disregard the 14th amendment in the DoDs Don't ask Don't Tell Policy and the disregard of the 14th and 1st Amendments regarding the definition of marriage. The first amendment is being violated how? Seriously, marriage defined as only between a man and a woman has been recognized throughout almost all civilizations throughout history; this isn't an evil Christians forcing their religion on you anymore than prohibiting murder is. Also, are you honestly telling us the 14th amendment was intended to protect gay rights? In about 1870? Silly people...
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 28, 2011 14:10:04 GMT -5
The Defense of Marriage Act is constitutional law, signed by President Clinton on September 21, 1996. Again, if you don't like it, write to your congressperson and ask to have it changed... As constitutional as the Patriot Act? Just because it's passed and law doesn't make it constitutional in my book. Given I know my book doesn't count especially since it based on facts and cognotive reasoning. The same can be said for Roe Vs. Wade...and many other legislative and judicial decisions and interpretations.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Jul 28, 2011 14:10:52 GMT -5
Specifically the need to disregard the 14th amendment in the Dodos Don't ask Don't Tell Policy and the disregard of the 14th and 1st Amendments regarding the definition of marriage. The first amendment is being violated how? Seriously, marriage defined as only between a man and a woman has been recognized throughout almost all civilizations throughout history; this isn't an evil Christians forcing their religion on you anymore than prohibiting murder is. Also, are you honestly telling us the 14th amendment was intended to protect gay rights? In about 1870? Silly people... If you really believe marriage has been one man one woman throughout history the naivety you display isn't worth debating. The 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law, don't ask don't tell violates this because the first amendment is not equally protecting homosexuals in the military as it does the heterosexuals.
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 28, 2011 14:15:16 GMT -5
The first amendment is being violated how? Seriously, marriage defined as only between a man and a woman has been recognized throughout almost all civilizations throughout history; this isn't an evil Christians forcing their religion on you anymore than prohibiting murder is. Also, are you honestly telling us the 14th amendment was intended to protect gay rights? In about 1870? Silly people... If you really believe marriage has been one man one woman throughout history the naivety you display isn't worth debating. The 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law, don't ask don't tell violates this because the first amendment is not equally protecting homosexuals in the military as it does the heterosexuals. In that case then Hate Crimes laws are unconstitutional since they give extra punishments for crimes due to who the victims are...thus there is a breach of equality. And adding to this...Affirmative Action laws are also unconstitutional.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2011 14:37:49 GMT -5
ok, one more question: do you ever answer questions? It's too open ended of a question, though. Which social contract are you referring to? ANY. seriously. i just want to know if a person considers the concept VALID. if not, a LOT of ideas flow from that.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2011 14:39:08 GMT -5
Because although I believe in the social contract philosophy, we have a very warped contract right now full of self-indulgence and overt dependence that I absolutely do not believe in. A social contract does not mean people should get to choose how much of someone else's property they should be able to take - once we breached that barrier, IMO, the contract was broken. this is precisely why i was more interested in the general question. i don't want to get into the practical application of it. just the concept.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Jul 28, 2011 14:43:20 GMT -5
If you really believe marriage has been one man one woman throughout history the naivety you display isn't worth debating. The 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law, don't ask don't tell violates this because the first amendment is not equally protecting homosexuals in the military as it does the heterosexuals. I would agree, along with medicare, medicaid and social security. In that case then Hate Crimes laws are unconstitutional since they give extra punishments for crimes due to who the victims are...thus there is a breach of equality. And adding to this...Affirmative Action laws are also unconstitutional. I agree along with medicare, medicaid and social security.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 18, 2024 21:39:28 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 28, 2011 15:19:42 GMT -5
Even though I'm a conservative I tend to disagree:
July 28, 2011 Home Depot Co-Founder: Obama Is Disrespecting Office
By Jeff Cox, CNBC.com
President Barack Obama's conduct during the debate over the debt ceiling has divided the country and will inflict damage that will last well after the battle is over, former New York Stock Exchange director and Wall Street stalwart Ken Langone said.
His conduct isn't the issue that divided the country. It's his political agenda that divided the country.
While he believes a debt deal will get done and in fact favors a plan closer to what the Democrats are proposing, Langone told CNBC that Obama's behavior has been "unpresidential."
President Obama was voted in at least partly because he wasn't a powerhouse in a political machine. He was a relative medium fish in a small pond. If you want a "Presidential" President, then vote in someone that's been around a while.
"He is dividing us as a nation," Langone said. "He's not bringing us together. He's willfully dividing us. He's petulant."
I don't know if he is willfully doing anything. I suspect that he is but don't know that he is. I think he is doing the best he can to get his agenda done but he just not that good a politician. I mean he's head of the democrats & yet some of them are putting distance between him & them (probably because of the next election).
He's petulant
Wow that's the first time I've seen that word used to criticize someone. I know what it means, I've just never seen someone use it before (except in a movie).
The co-founder of Home Depot sharply criticized the president for promoting class warfare through his repeated attacks against "fat cat" business executives and his targeting of tax loopholes.
Sorry but that's the left's agenda, rob from the rich & give to the poor. If Cox didn't expect something like this then he's a fool. Besides class warfare is often one of the first steps in socialist changes. You need an us against them mentality to get the ball rolling.
In sum, the behavior is symptomatic of Obama's disrespect for the office he holds, Langone said.
Nope, he just plain doesn't know any better & his local boys that he brought with him to Washington aren't skilled to the national level of politics so they can't help him from making big mistakes.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2011 15:41:33 GMT -5
same message. different president.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 28, 2011 15:57:15 GMT -5
"Didn't you say you weren't going to post here anymore?" I changed my mind...it's a woman's prerogative. Deal with it. ahhh.... the old "Deal with it .. quote, what would we do with out it. ;D
|
|
cme1201
Junior Associate
Tennis Elbow, Jock Itch, and Athletes Foot, every man has a sports life!
Joined: Apr 6, 2011 13:55:07 GMT -5
Posts: 5,503
|
Post by cme1201 on Jul 28, 2011 17:08:03 GMT -5
"Didn't you say you weren't going to post here anymore?" I changed my mind...it's a woman's prerogative. Deal with it. ahhh.... the old "Deal with it .. quote, what would we do with out it. ;D Have real conversations and discussions on subjects,
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 28, 2011 18:00:44 GMT -5
Marsha; you may not realize it but your statement that there is not a dimes worth of difference between them is actually quoting George Wallace of Alabama many years ago. Did not know you were a Red neck. More and more corporate execs are speaking out in reference to Obama. When you see Corporate people speaking up politically you know it is a serious problem. normally they keep quite about politics and just let their money do the talking.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2011 18:05:25 GMT -5
Marsha; you may not realize it but your statement that there is not a dimes worth of difference between them is actually quoting George Wallace of Alabama many years ago. Did not know you were a Red neck. More and more corporate execs are speaking out in reference to Obama. When you see Corporate people speaking up politically you know it is a serious problem. normally they keep quite about politics and just let their money do the talking. i saw the quotes. almost none of them mention "president" or "Obama". they mention that this showdown is insane, however.
|
|
handyman2
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 29, 2010 23:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 3,087
|
Post by handyman2 on Jul 28, 2011 18:29:30 GMT -5
DJ: You must need glasses, you might want to read the opening post here for starters and go back to Wynns statements about the mess.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2011 18:42:24 GMT -5
DJ: You must need glasses, you might want to read the opening post here for starters and go back to Wynns statements about the mess. i have read Wynns rant a few times. half of it is utter gibberish. but i didn't open the OP. i saw a list of letters at another website today. none of them mentioned Obama. but if ALL of the list in the OP contains Obama's name and NONE of mine does, i wonder which list was "cherry picked".
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,233
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 28, 2011 18:43:10 GMT -5
DJ: You must need glasses, you might want to read the opening post here for starters and go back to Wynns statements about the mess. PS- i don't need glasses (legally), but i wear them anyway.
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 28, 2011 19:03:36 GMT -5
ahhh.... the old "Deal with it .. quote, what would we do with out it. ;D Have real conversations and discussions on subjects, True so true.. ;D
|
|
ameiko
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 10:48:22 GMT -5
Posts: 812
|
Post by ameiko on Jul 28, 2011 21:51:07 GMT -5
The first amendment is being violated how? Seriously, marriage defined as only between a man and a woman has been recognized throughout almost all civilizations throughout history; this isn't an evil Christians forcing their religion on you anymore than prohibiting murder is. Also, are you honestly telling us the 14th amendment was intended to protect gay rights? In about 1870? Silly people... If you really believe marriage has been one man one woman throughout history the naivety you display isn't worth debating. The 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law, don't ask don't tell violates this because the first amendment is not equally protecting homosexuals in the military as it does the heterosexuals. Ok then MH, please tell us one major society where marriage was not defined as one man and one woman? Sure, there are some societies where men can have more than one wife but those men were the wealthiest and most powerful- a very small minority. Certainly, I can not think of any society that contributed to the world that defined marriage as intra-gender. So, please, enlighten us. And the 14th Amendment was not passed intending to protect homosexuals in anyway. To think otherwise is just gross ignorance. Of course, if we truly can should have equal protection, we need to: 1. level all tax rates- it's unfair to take more from the wealthy 2. kill all affirmative action 3. expand the draft to women 4. kill all gender specific or race specific funding. If you do all that, sure gays can serve. Hey let THEM catch bullets (along with other things) instead of me! WIN-WIN!!!!
|
|
deziloooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 16:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 10,723
|
Post by deziloooooo on Jul 28, 2011 23:27:58 GMT -5
If you really believe marriage has been one man one woman throughout history the naivety you display isn't worth debating. The 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law, don't ask don't tell violates this because the first amendment is not equally protecting homosexuals in the military as it does the heterosexuals. Ok then MH, please tell us one major society where marriage was not defined as one man and one woman? Sure, there are some societies where men can have more than one wife but those men were the wealthiest and most powerful- a very small minority. Certainly, I can not think of any society that contributed to the world that defined marriage as intra-gender. So, please, enlighten us. And the 14th Amendment was not passed intending to protect homosexuals in anyway. To think otherwise is just gross ignorance. Of course, if we truly can should have equal protection, we need to: 1. level all tax rates- it's unfair to take more from the wealthy 2. kill all affirmative action 3. expand the draft to women 4. kill all gender specific or race specific funding. If you do all that, sure gays can serve. Hey let THEM catch bullets (along with other things) instead of me! WIN-WIN!!!! "Ok then MH, please tell us one major society where marriage was not defined as one man and one woman?" Ameiko, why would you care if same sex couples were allowed to be legally married if that was their desire, how would it affect you personally, in fact why would you care..it would have nothing to do with you personally, just something between two people. If it was objecting to say two people, same sex holding hands, even a innocent hug or kiss, that happens now some times..even dancing together, in fact woman, straights, have been dancing together for ever it seems, granted the males no except in certain societys , religiose happenings..and not cheek to cheek granted but still..why is it a concern of yours , how does i affect YOU..just wondering, to me , it doesn't compute but possible I am missing something.
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Jul 29, 2011 8:14:49 GMT -5
If you really believe marriage has been one man one woman throughout history the naivety you display isn't worth debating. The 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law, don't ask don't tell violates this because the first amendment is not equally protecting homosexuals in the military as it does the heterosexuals. Ok then MH, please tell us one major society where marriage was not defined as one man and one woman? Sure, there are some societies where men can have more than one wife but those men were the wealthiest and most powerful- a very small minority. Certainly, I can not think of any society that contributed to the world that defined marriage as intra-gender. So, please, enlighten us. And the 14th Amendment was not passed intending to protect homosexuals in anyway. To think otherwise is just gross ignorance. Of course, if we truly can should have equal protection, we need to: 1. level all tax rates- it's unfair to take more from the wealthy 2. kill all affirmative action 3. expand the draft to women 4. kill all gender specific or race specific funding. If you do all that, sure gays can serve. Hey let THEM catch bullets (along with other things) instead of me! WIN-WIN!!!! I agree with all four points, don't know why you would think that I wouldn't. I would go one step further and say that income and property taxes are a violation of liberty. Your argument that the 14th amendment wasn't passed to protect homosexuals is ridiculous. With that line of thinking then the 1st amendment shouldn't protect phone conversations... I never said that other societies in past history recognized male/male or female/female marriage, but there are plenty of societies where polygamy and bigamy have been the norm for a very long time. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriageAncient Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[48] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[49] In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[50] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[51] An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[52] The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[53] For instance, Emperor Nero is reported to have engaged in a marriage ceremony with one of his male slaves. Emperor Elagabalus "married" a Carian slave named Hierocles.[54] It should be noted, however, that conubium existed only between a civis Romanus and a civis Romana (that is, between a male Roman citizen and a female Roman citizen), so that a so-called marriage between two Roman males (or with a slave) would have no legal standing in Roman law (apart, presumably, from the arbitrary will of the emperor in the two aforementioned cases).[55] Furthermore, "matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."[56] Still, the lack of legal validity notwithstanding, there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships existed in ancient Rome, but the exact frequency and nature of "same-sex unions" during that period is obscure.[57] In 342 AD Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[58] A same-sex marriage between the two men Pedro Díaz and Muño Vandilaz in the Galician municipality of Rairiz de Veiga in Spain occurred on April 16, 1061. They were married by a priest at a small chapel. The historic documents about the church wedding were found at Monastery of San Salvador de Celanova.[59]
|
|
jkapp
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 23, 2010 12:05:08 GMT -5
Posts: 5,416
|
Post by jkapp on Jul 29, 2011 8:20:06 GMT -5
Ok then MH, please tell us one major society where marriage was not defined as one man and one woman? Sure, there are some societies where men can have more than one wife but those men were the wealthiest and most powerful- a very small minority. Certainly, I can not think of any society that contributed to the world that defined marriage as intra-gender. So, please, enlighten us. And the 14th Amendment was not passed intending to protect homosexuals in anyway. To think otherwise is just gross ignorance. Of course, if we truly can should have equal protection, we need to: 1. level all tax rates- it's unfair to take more from the wealthy 2. kill all affirmative action 3. expand the draft to women 4. kill all gender specific or race specific funding. If you do all that, sure gays can serve. Hey let THEM catch bullets (along with other things) instead of me! WIN-WIN!!!! "Ok then MH, please tell us one major society where marriage was not defined as one man and one woman?" Ameiko, why would you care if same sex couples were allowed to be legally married if that was their desire, how would it affect you personally, in fact why would you care..it would have nothing to do with you personally, just something between two people. If it was objecting to say two people, same sex holding hands, even a innocent hug or kiss, that happens now some times..even dancing together, in fact woman, straights, have been dancing together for ever it seems, granted the males no except in certain societys , religiose happenings..and not cheek to cheek granted but still..why is it a concern of yours , how does i affect YOU..just wondering, to me , it doesn't compute but possible I am missing something. There's a lot of things that don't affect me yet are not accepted in society... A 30 yr old guy dating a 13 yr old girl doesn't affect me... A guy wanting two or more wives (or vice versa) doesn't affect me... A woman wanting to sell sex for money doesn't affect me... So should we now accept those things into society that don't effect anyone else?? Or do we only cherry-pick those things that you allow?
|
|
|
Post by magichat on Jul 29, 2011 8:23:12 GMT -5
"Ok then MH, please tell us one major society where marriage was not defined as one man and one woman?" Ameiko, why would you care if same sex couples were allowed to be legally married if that was their desire, how would it affect you personally, in fact why would you care..it would have nothing to do with you personally, just something between two people. If it was objecting to say two people, same sex holding hands, even a innocent hug or kiss, that happens now some times..even dancing together, in fact woman, straights, have been dancing together for ever it seems, granted the males no except in certain societys , religiose happenings..and not cheek to cheek granted but still..why is it a concern of yours , how does i affect YOU..just wondering, to me , it doesn't compute but possible I am missing something. There's a lot of things that don't affect me yet are not accepted in society... A 30 yr old guy dating a 13 yr old girl doesn't affect me... A guy wanting two or more wives (or vice versa) doesn't affect me... A woman wanting to sell sex for money doesn't affect me... So should we now accept those things into society that don't effect anyone else?? Or do we only cherry-pick those things that you allow? I would agree with all of those except the underage girl. Children that are not yet at the age of consent should have the protection of the government. See how easy this is, stay the fuck out of peoples lives...
|
|