Judge Roy Moore vs Chris Cuomo on States Rights, the Constitution, and Marriage

[Sonny Tufts]

Hello. Do you actually have a cohent intelligent argument as to why if we allow same sex marriage we shouldn't allow adult incest, polygamy, polyamory or any other arrangement of consenting adults? Because it seems that you don't.

Do you have an intelligent argument why monogamous gay marriage should not be allowed? It seems you don't. Because that is the issue, not the other kinds of relationships.

 

[staerker]

Do you have an intelligent argument why monogamous gay marriage should not be allowed? It seems you don't. Because that is the issue, not the other kinds of relationships.

Poor soul, you're still looking to the almighty State for approval? It will stab you in the back once you turn around.

 

[jmdrake]

Do you have an intelligent argument why monogamous gay marriage should not be allowed? It seems you don't. Because that is the issue, not the other kinds of relationships.

The point I've made throughout this thread, that you seem afraid to directly address, is that if monogamous gay marriage should be allowed then there is absolutely no reason that polyamory or polygamy or adult incest shouldn't be allowed. And frankly, gay marriage already is allowed in all 50 states. It just doesn't come with the extra "goodies" that have been awarded heterosexual marriage. Prior to Loving v. Virginia you could be arrested for being in an interracial marriage. Today you can be arrested for being in a polygamous marriage or a polyamorous marriage or an adult incest marriage. In fact in some states any of those things are felonies. I don't give a crap if two dudes get married. But to pretend, as you are, that such an arrangement is somehow more "wholesome" than three people getting marriage or a father marrying his 18 year old daughter is retarded.

/thread

 

[jmdrake]

I am not sure if you are taking this position or simply asking a question. But I will ask (to you or anyone), does the government have the right to outlaw polygamy or the like? Why can't people do as they choose (so long as they are adults) with Their own body and well being? Why must the govt even define marriage? What's the point other than to give special privileges and to promote "all knowing" govt ideals of marriage between 1 man and 1 woman as the end all be all

The government should be totally out of the marriage business. I personally know people in a virtual polygamous relationship, but if they were to go before a preach and have a wedding ceremony, even without applying for a license from the state, they could be arrested. The gay marriage movement wants to pretend either that this situation doesn't exist, or that a man marrying two women is somehow worse than two women or two men marrying. Only 18% of Americans support polygamy while 58% support gay marriage. So spare be the BS that this is all about "marriage equality" and "freedom." It's no more about equality and freedom than NAFTA and the TPP are about free trade.

 

[jmdrake]

Poor soul, you're still looking to the almighty State for approval? It will stab you in the back once you turn around.

^This

 

[osan]

Do you have an intelligent argument why monogamous gay marriage should not be allowed? It seems you don't. Because that is the issue, not the other kinds of relationships.

I see that you are suffering from a common misapprehension. Throughout its existence, the term "marriage" has always referred to the union of a man and a woman, whether monogamously or otherwise. Many emperors and many African cultures held with the practice of polygamous marriage. IIRC, there have even been cultures, albeit vanishingly few, where women took on more than one husband. Until just so very recently, "marriage" has not included homosexual unions.

Words are important. If you realized how important, you would understand that words such as this must remain constant in their meanings. If they do not, endless trouble arises. Examples of this trouble are abundant and often revolve around current understandings of given words, vis-à-vis their meanings from ages past. Religious understandings have gone to deep Hell as the result of the semantic shift of words, not to mention their casually dismissive attitudes that have lead to all manner of dangerously careless misuse of those words even in a very narrow time slice.

To alter the meaning of a word is to destroy our ability to understand history. This is a fact against which one cannot effectively argue. I have had this discussion with people and have utterly destroyed them without the need to even be awake, it is that cut and clear... like shooting fish in a barrel. Language, being the single most important thing we ever learn, should be held with commensurate reverence, respect, and care. Sadly, we ignorantly and foolishly take language for granted, rarely becoming proficient in its use and fain applying our skills, such as they may be, with little skill. By this means do we diminish ourselves, our forebears, and damn our posterity in likewise.

To alter the definition of "marriage" to include homosexuals is to doom us to misunderstanding of aspects of the old world, for in but a generation or two when queer marriage becomes indistinguishable from the traditional form, there will be a subtle but profound psychological shift in the perception of history. Some may argue that thsi is a good thing. I say it is catastrophic, because from these slight parallax shifts there may result earth-moving side-effects, what many refer to as "unintended consequences".

I am wholly against "gay marriage" as an expansion of the legal maxim of "marriage". It stands to bleed into non-legal use, especially the vernacular, and that will alter the fundamental consciousness of people in ways that cannot be rationally deemed as good by anyone save those with the expressed intent of causing such deviance of thought and perception from a validly and anciently established order.

Forgetting the issue of whether the "state" should have anything to do with marriage, beyond the just enforcement of contract disputes between parties, I am in favor of allowing homos to pair-up in terms precisely equivalent to "marriage", but using a different name. "Civil union" was one of the terms offered up a while back and it is as good as any, yet the queers railed against this. There is a subtle psychological point at issue here that perhaps many people do not recognize, lingering just beneath the surface. It is that of "normalcy" and perhaps more importantly, "acceptability". The homos are, consciously or otherwise, trying to force acceptability of queer unions by expropriating the tradtional term, "marriage" and forcing the new usage upon the rest. This is a reprehensible act that, IMO, is rightly resisted. So insecure are these people in the propriety of what they do, yet so deeply avaricious is their drive to force everyone to "accept" them, that they are now engaged in this frenzied push to place the rest in a legalistic arm-bar by "stealing" the traditionalist term "marriage" and making it their own.

Were these people secure in the knowledge that what they do is just and within the bounds of their prerogative, they would have no problem with another term. Stealing "marriage" is their way of plastering a false veneer of "normal" upon that which is clearly not. What these pathetic sad-sacks do not realize is that being "abnormal" in this way is no big deal insofar as their prerogative is concerned. They stand well within it when they choose queer over normal, and I have absolutely no problem with that at all.

The problem for me, however, is that not only are they demanding to be accepted as "normal", they also demand to be praised for what they choose. To this I take singular exception and will smack the living crap out of anyone who attempts to force such a thing upon me. The truly frightening thing about these people is their mindless frenzy where non-acceptance is encountered. During the Stonewall anniversary way back 20 years or so ago, some smarmy little twerp in a speedo, a self-advertising member of Queer Nation attempted to hump my leg. I told him to stop. He advanced. I told him to stop again. No joy. I them told him that I would break parts of his body if he so much as touched me. This got people's attention. Many stopped dead in their tracks. I make a rapid exit from the area in order not to get my ass beaten - possibly to death - by a bunch of homos with "burn the witch" radiating from their eyes. It was a brief moment, but the apprehension I experienced has never left my memory.

Make no mistake about it, the gay marriage deal runs far more deeply than the mere legalities. There is an entire psych battle being waged and, IMO, freedom is losing badly.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

To alter the meaning of a word is to destroy our ability to understand history. This is a fact against which one cannot effectively argue.

If that were true we could never understand Shakespeare, for whom certain words had different meanings than they have today. We don't seem to have any trouble in understanding texts that are even older, although the meanings of words have changed in the interim.

Language changes constantly. "Husband" originally meant a house owner. "Assassin" meant a hashish-eater. "Awful" meant wonder-inspiring. "Fun" meant to cheat or hoax. "Bully" meant a good person, or a darling. "Nice" meant foolish or silly. How has the change in these and other words impeded our understanding of history?

I am wholly against "gay marriage" as an expansion of the legal maxim of "marriage". It stands to bleed into non-legal use, especially the vernacular, and that will alter the fundamental consciousness of people in ways that cannot be rationally deemed as good by anyone save those with the expressed intent of causing such deviance of thought and perception from a validly and anciently established order.

You mean that mindless prejudice against gays might disappear? And you think that's a bad thing because irrational bigotry is a valid social order?

The homos are, consciously or otherwise, trying to force acceptability of queer unions by expropriating the tradtional term, "marriage" and forcing the new usage upon the rest. This is a reprehensible act that, IMO, is rightly resisted. So insecure are these people in the propriety of what they do, yet so deeply avaricious is their drive to force everyone to "accept" them, that they are now engaged in this frenzied push to place the rest in a legalistic arm-bar by "stealing" the traditionalist term "marriage" and making it their own.

Given your visceral loathing of gays (your rhetoric betrays you), I can see why you would find it unacceptable to treat them the same as straights when it comes to a legally-recognized union.

Stealing "marriage" is their way of plastering a false veneer of "normal" upon that which is clearly not.

It's more normal than you would like to think.

They stand well within it when they choose queer over normal, and I have absolutely no problem with that at all.

What proof do you have that they choose to be gay? Can you positively rule out a genetic factor?

The problem for me, however, is that not only are they demanding to be accepted as "normal", they also demand to be praised for what they choose. To this I take singular exception and will smack the living crap out of anyone who attempts to force such a thing upon me.

The fact that you got all bent out of shape by some guy who hit on you indicates that you're the one who's insecure and who has to express how macho you were.

Make no mistake about it, the gay marriage deal runs far more deeply than the mere legalities. There is an entire psych battle being waged and, IMO, freedom is losing badly.

You have a very strange and warped concept of freedom. Apparently yours is nowhere near "live and let live".

 

[Peace&Freedom]

Language changes constantly. "Husband" originally meant a house owner. "Assassin" meant a hashish-eater. "Awful" meant wonder-inspiring. "Fun" meant to cheat or hoax. "Bully" meant a good person, or a darling. "Nice" meant foolish or silly. How has the change in these and other words impeded our understanding of history?

Speaking of language, the above post is a clinic lesson in flipping words around to turn an avoidance of making a case into a demand that the other side do so.

You mean that mindless prejudice against gays might disappear? And you think that's a bad thing because irrational bigotry is a valid social order?

What is your basis for defining rejection of sexual immorality as mindless prejudice or irrational hatred?

Given your visceral loathing of gays (your rhetoric betrays you), I can see why you would find it unacceptable to treat them the same as straights when it comes to a legally-recognized union.

Cultural judgments of behavior are a separate matter from legal recognition. It is legal to attend a place of worship, and it is legal to attend a strip joint. Which has higher social respect, and is treated better, regardless of law?

It's more normal than you would like to think.

It not a matter of his thinking it. Homosexuality has been understood to be abnormal for thousand of years, across most populations and civilizations. The other side must state the merits for calling it normal, not just declare it.

What proof do you have that they choose to be gay? Can you positively rule out a genetic factor?

Rule out a genetic factor? As in, prove a negative? The burden is on the advocate to positively prove there is a genetic or morphological basis for the claim that homosexuality is inborn. And beyond that, to show (if that could be proven) that there is a group right to have gay marriages protected by law, compared to heterosexual marriage, incestuous marriages, polygamous marriages, etc.

The fact that you got all bent out of shape by some guy who hit on you indicates that you're the one who's insecure and who has to express how macho you were.

Perhaps he was commenting about not enjoying the government being used to impose a false legitimacy for gay marriage, or other social left values on him. His talk about hitting was over the issue, your talk was about attacking a person.

You have a very strange and warped concept of freedom. Apparently yours is nowhere near "live and let live".

The history of civilization is neither strange nor warped. Freedom, to a person with a historic view of the matter, involves respecting the Author of liberty. Freedom to a Christian Libertarian means supporting the maximum liberty of man under God's law. Not apart from that law. A whole lot of people who believe so, absolutely will not be allowed to "live and let live" in a land that pushes the social left view upon them through law.


P.S.: Note that Tufts' response to this (a few posts ahead) was not to positively make his case, but to continue to ask questions framed so as to demand that the other side prove a negative. I decline to do that, and just note my observation about his rhetorical tactics were re-confirmed.

 

[osan]

If that were true we could never understand Shakespeare, for whom certain words had different meanings than they have today. We don't seem to have any trouble in understanding texts that are even older, although the meanings of words have changed in the interim.

Excuse me, but that is bullshit. Most people, I would bet well above 95% in America, would have a terrible time parsing Shakespearian sentences. I consider my language skills to be fair to middling, which is to say, far and away superior to that of the average man whose skills are all but nonexistent, and even I still have some trouble with certain passages. Moreover, I have noticed in myself and have suspected it in others that many of Shakespeare's expressions offer only a general sense of their fuller and more detailed meanings. I know what he is saying and often get a sense of the profundity of his precise meaning. Nevertheless, I am pretty certain that there are subtleties that I am missing.

Language changes constantly.

Not all language changes constantly, but more importantly it is not change that matters so much as the sort of change.

"Assassin" meant a hashish-eater.

It is actually the plural form of "hashish user", but its actual applicable meaning is precisely that which it is today. The hashishiyyin were a Muslim sect who would, well... asssassinate rivals after consuming hashish. The relevant meaning was that of assassins. The eating/using hashish part was just the device for uniquely identifying and distinguishing them from others. Therefore, the fundamental and "inner" meaning of the term has, in fact, not changed a bit since the 13th or 14th century.

"Awful" meant wonder-inspiring.

That is correct, and the current vernacular usage is not right. Now, taking that example and reading a text from, oh, say the Victorian period where the author describes an "awful sight", is would be very easy for the reader to conclude that the vision was of necessity terrible, when in fact it may have been something very different.

I used to design programming languages and write compilers - taught compiler construction - and one of the cardinal rules is that keywords never alter their meanings. There is strong reason for this - the machine is stupid and if you tell it the wrong thing by using a keyword incorrectly, the machine will DO the wrong thing. In the military, certain organizations have developed very specific communications languages such that miscommunication becomes a very difficult thing.

"Fun" meant to cheat or hoax

.

That was originally the VERB form of the word, not the noun.

"Bully" meant a good person, or a darling.

That is right. Teddy Roosevelt is often portrayed as saying "bully" when he was pleased with something. And with this you once again make my point. Bully derived from the Dutch "boel" - "lover". Through the 17c it morphed into a "good man" and then one who is essentially a loudmouth, and finally to one who picks on the weak. So if I have no knowledge of the etymological origins of the word and read a book from 1470 and it tells of the bully whom "he held in the highest esteem", I might be lead to infer that this guy was mentally impaired in some significant manner, to be in love with an abuser.

"Nice" meant foolish or silly. How has the change in these and other words impeded our understanding of history?

I cannot, off the top of my head, say how those particular words may have altered our understanding of historical texts. I can, however, say that such alterations have indeed caused endless trouble for many people. The understanding of religious texts is a prime example. I knew a man who nearly became my father in law. He had been an ordained Jesuit and an enormously erudite man, specializing in ancient languages including Aramaic, Hebrew, Latin, and Greek. His PhD thesis was a new translation and analysis of the New Testament wherein he demonstrated the manifold problems of determining the proper semantic content of the various passages. This was the man who first taught me to appreciate language and demonstrated to me how delicate the semantics of words and sentences can be.

You mean that mindless prejudice against gays might disappear? And you think that's a bad thing because irrational bigotry is a valid social order?

Those are YOUR words, not mine. Perhaps this is a reflection of your own positions. It has absolutely nothing to do with mine. But if an individual chooses to be bigoted, that is his business and nobody holds any authority to force him to think/feel otherwise.

Given your visceral loathing of gays (your rhetoric betrays you), I can see why you would find it unacceptable to treat them the same as straights when it comes to a legally-recognized union.

You don't know shit about me, pal. I don't even loathe people such as yourself who make assumptions based on an apparent lack of analytic skill and very bad transactional habits. To wit: had your habits been up to snuff, you would have asked whether I loathe homos prior to making your weakly founded accusations.

If you want to dance, for God's sake learn how before getting on the floor.

It's more normal than you would like to think.

Since you have no idea what I think, but base your opinion on a very superficial parse of my expressions, I'd have to say you're talking our your other end.

What proof do you have that they choose to be gay? Can you positively rule out a genetic factor?

Firstly, I have several queer friends some of whom I have known more than 40 years. I've had dozens of queer acquaintances. Many say they "knew" by the time they were in 6th grade that they had no interest in girls, but a very substantial proportion - just guessing here @ ca. 20-25% - told me in no uncertain terms that they chose to be gay or were directed to that lifestyle by third parties.

All that aside, they still choose to be gay, just as I chose to be straight. I could VERY easily have chosen the queer lifestyle. I grew up in a place where rape and physical beatings were a daily reality for children. I've watched kids only a year or two younger than myself curled up in fetal balls in a corner, twitching after being gang-raped by other students and even teachers. I had all the opportunity in the world to go full-queer and it would have been easy for me in terms of environmental support. But I had no interest in it and CHOSE to be what I am as the matter of nature. I assume that gay people do the same, but it is still a choice. They can and often DO choose to lead the straight lifestyle, even today. They might be miserable in it - I cannot speak for them - but they most definitely can make that choice. So yeah, it is most definitely a choice. We are men, not amoebae. We think and act pursuant to those thoughts; we do not merely react to stimuli in deterministic ways.

The fact that you got all bent out of shape by some guy who hit on you indicates that you're the one who's insecure and who has to express how macho you were.

If that is what you took from what I wrote, then you have a terrible problem with reading comprehension. I've been "hit on" by more men than you could shake your foreshortened stick at and on many occasions I have been so very flattered by it. In fact, several of my wife's colleagues are in love with me. The instance in question, first of all, was not one of being hit on. It was one of a complete stranger in a speedo attempting to hump my bare leg (it was August and I was in shorts) and I was not interested. I politely told him to stop and he refused to respect my wishes. I told him once again and he still advanced upon me. That was when I became more forceful. If you think he had the right to rub his uninvited weenie on my knee, then you lack all credibility. I simply asserted my right to travel unmolested by a stranger who, like a dog in the mood, decided mine was as good a post to hump as any. That you took anything else away from what I wrote shows you have a problem of some sort.

You have a very strange and warped concept of freedom. Apparently yours is nowhere near "live and let live".

And you appear to have a terrible comprehension deficit. You have my sympathy and that is no sarcasm.

 

[osan]

Speaking of language, the above post is a clinic lesson in flipping words around to turn an avoidance of making a case into a demand that the other side do so.

Nice catch. I'd not seen it in a way I could articulate. Very good.

What is your basis for defining rejection of sexual immorality as mindless prejudice or irrational hatred?

I don't even go so far as to call it immoral - it is just abnormal... and THAT is OK. This goes right back to the original point I made about the importance of words not losing their original meanings. "Normal" in the common usage dates from the very beginning of the 16th century, meaning "common" or "typical". Homosexuality, even in this age of gay manufacture, is not at all common or typical in the broader population. Were it, say, 40% I would say otherwise. But <10% I would not call "normal". But here "normal" has morphed into "acceptable" with a very specific sideband implication of "healthy" or "morally upright". THAT is the problem the homos have with being labeled "abnormal" - it is taken as a clinical assessment of disease, and that is the fault of the straight "community" whose medical "experts" deemed it a sickness, rather than just an odd mutation of habit, the reward of which was bad enough in terms of the propagation of specific blood lines. But no, their fear of "it" drove them to connote it as "sick" and therefore to be stamped out like smallpox. Now we suffer the backlash of that stupidity with the liberal douchebags forcing the queer upon our children in subtle ways such that those who would have grown up straight now choose the gay. I take exception to that bit. I had a student named Rayon Brown - black kid and as flaming as anyone you have ever seen. He was a really cool kid and we got along famously. I had no problem with his orientation because it was ever so obvious that he was wired that way. But I see lots of kids now choosing to be queer because of what they are taught in the schools - I've even had a few tell me this, so it is not my imagination. A couple of my daughter's friends were on that side of the fence and they told me they felt they'd been pushed to it by what they learned in school. This was in Vancouver, WA, just for information's sake, a VERY conservative community. So much so, I am really surprised this shit flew there, but there it was.

Cultural judgments of behavior are a separate matter from legal recognition.

That is a really important distinction to know and understand. Kudos.

Homosexuality has been understood to be abnormal for thousand of years, across most populations and civilizations. The other side must state the merits for calling it normal, not just declare it.

Places like Japan in the old days regarded queer as abnormal, yet such people were not to my knowledge warred upon. They had something of a different view of sexuality from the West. No warring, but it was still not looked upon as normal. This whole "normal" issue really should be addressed and corrected so people can get their undies unbunched. This nonsense is helping nobody.

Perhaps he was commenting about not enjoying the government being used to impose a false legitimacy for gay marriage, or other social left values on him.

That is essentially correct. That he seemed so eager to paint me a... dare I say it... "homophobe" seems to say more about him than myself... but what the hell do I know?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Speaking of language, the above post is a clinic lesson in flipping words around to turn an avoidance of making a case into a demand that the other side do so.

You must have missed the point -- that I was responding to a claim that "To alter the meaning of a word is to destroy our ability to understand history. This is a fact against which one cannot effectively argue." We understand history quite well even though the meanings of words change, which should be obvious because we know the original meaning of the words I gave as examples.

What is your basis for defining rejection of sexual immorality as mindless prejudice or irrational hatred?

What is your basis for characterizing it as sexually immoral?

The burden is on the advocate

Fine. The suggestion was that gays choose to be so. Let the one who made the suggestion prove that this is the case. And I'm not talking about choosing to engage in homosexual acts; I'm referring to the inclination to do so, as I think Osan was (if I'm wrong I'm sure he'll correct me).

Perhaps he was commenting about not enjoying the government being used to impose a false legitimacy for gay marriage

What makes gay marriage illigitimate?

Freedom, to a person with a historic view of the matter, involves respecting the Author of liberty. Freedom to a Christian Libertarian means supporting the maximum liberty of man under God's law. Not apart from that law. A whole lot of people who believe so, absolutely will not be allowed to "live and let live" in a land that pushes the social left view upon them through law.

Would you prefer the ability to push your notion of "God's law" on everyone else?

Here's the thing: no one has ever been able to demonstrate how hetero marriages are adversely affected by extending legal marriage to gays. Nor has anyone demonstrated any other societal harm that would result, other than (a) spurious slippery-slope arguments of the same ilk that were made against anti-miscegenation laws, and (b) the desire that gays be forever considered "abnormal", as if their abnormality somehow justified different legal treatment.

 

[Sonny Tufts]

I cannot, off the top of my head, say how those particular words may have altered our understanding of historical texts. I can, however, say that such alterations have indeed caused endless trouble for many people.

I can't disagree with your example involving the problematic translation of religious texts. But going back to your original objection to allowing "marriage" to refer to gay unions, how in the world would this impede out understanding of history? Are you concerned that future generations might forget that at one time it was restricted to hetero couples?

THAT is the problem the homos have with being labeled "abnormal" - it is taken as a clinical assessment of disease, and that is the fault of the straight "community" whose medical "experts" deemed it a sickness, rather than just an odd mutation of habit, the reward of which was bad enough in terms of the propagation of specific blood lines. But no, their fear of "it" drove them to connote it as "sick" and therefore to be stamped out like smallpox.

You make a very good point. But consider: let's assume that gays constitute <10% of the population. How does this uncommonality justify not permitting them to marry?

with the liberal douchebags forcing the queer upon our children in subtle ways such that those who would have grown up straight now choose the gay.

I take it from your post that your objection would also apply to conservative douchebags who seek to "cure" gay kids?

 

[William Tell]

The fact that you got all bent out of shape by some guy who hit on you indicates that you're the one who's insecure and who has to express how macho you were.

So, we are supposed to like being sexually assaulted by perverts in your sick world?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

So, we are supposed to like being sexually assaulted by perverts in your sick world?

No. But the guy he described is no more representative of gay people than a drunken frat boy who gropes an unconsenting girl is representative of straights.

 

[OReich]

Right. Let's let brothers and sisters marry, father and daughters or mothers and sons marry, multiple people marry, and any other configuration anybody can come up with. The idea that somehow gays are some special case is laughable.

No, you misunderstand the argument. The Equal Protection Clause says that laws have to be applied equally, which means every individual must have the same rights and get the same govt privileges, regardless of gender/race/religion. Saying men can marry women, but women cannot marry women, thus violates the equal protection clause. Saying ALL individuals can marry ONE individual does not violate ppl's rights, as all ppl have the same rights, men can marry one person, women can marry one person. Banning polygamy and incestuous marriage do NOT violate the equal protection clause, because the same rule applies to all. The current model which doesn't allow same-sex marriage means that men can do something women cannot do, and vice versa. Banning polygamy and incest treats all ppl exactly the same, NO ONE can marry more than one person, EVERYONE can only marry one person, NO ONE can marry a family member, no arbitrary distinctions based on gender nor any other status.

 

[jmdrake]

No, you misunderstand the argument. The Equal Protection Clause says that laws have to be applied equally, which means every individual must have the same rights and get the same govt privileges, regardless of gender/race/religion. Saying men can marry women, but women cannot marry women, thus violates the equal protection clause. Saying ALL individuals can marry ONE individual does not violate ppl's rights, as all ppl have the same rights, men can marry one person, women can marry one person. Banning polygamy and incestuous marriage do NOT violate the equal protection clause, because the same rule applies to all. The current model which doesn't allow same-sex marriage means that men can do something women cannot do, and vice versa. Banning polygamy and incest treats all ppl exactly the same, NO ONE can marry more than one person, EVERYONE can only marry one person, NO ONE can marry a family member, no arbitrary distinctions based on gender nor any other status.

I don't "misunderstand" the argument. Your argument is stupid and you are trolling. Saying that a father can't marry a daughter is indeed an arbitrary distinction. There is no functional difference between saying that people same family cannot marry and saying that people of the same gender cannot marry. Even atheist Stephan Moleneaux understands that there is a difference between same heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage and that society has a greater interest in protecting heterosexual marriage. Look 10 minutes in.

 

[OReich]

I don't "misunderstand" the argument. Your argument is stupid and you are trolling. Saying that a father can't marry a daughter is indeed an arbitrary distinction. There is no functional difference between saying that people same family cannot marry and saying that people of the same gender cannot marry. Even atheist Stephan Moleneaux understands that there is a difference between same heterosexual marriage and homosexual marriage and that society has a greater interest in protecting heterosexual marriage. Look 10 minutes in.

So are you arguing that the equal protection clause doesn't require gender equality under state law? Can the states ban interracial marriage too?

And there is a huge FUNCTIONAL difference between banning polygamy and banning same-sex marriage. Banning incest is based on an existing family relationship, and it only limits you from marrying a half dozen ppl. Banning same-sex marriage is based on GENDER, an arbitrary category representing nothing, and it limits you from marrying half of the human race. The state may be irrational in determining that a father and daughter shouldn't get married, but the fact that she is the man's daughter represents actual facts about their relationship towards each other (let alone the health risks associated with procreation). Assuming that it is unhealthy for two men to marry, however, is based solely on gender, its ignorant and baseless.

Ultimately, you're arguing against a legitimate equal protection clause application by changing to a different topic, an argument which would invalidate the EP clause altogether. Hence my original point: are you saying the EP clause doesn't require race/gender neutral laws? Are you arguing that the EP clause bans ANY LAWS which would discriminate based on being in a family? Are you saying its discriminatory to grant parental rights to parents, because this discriminates on the basis on parenthood? No, discrimination based on parenthood may be dumb, but it doesn't violate the EP clause. Discriminating based on race or gender absolutely creates arbitrary categories that have no basis in reality.

Again, are you saying the EP clause doesn't require race/gender neutral laws? Are you saying that a law banning blacks from having parental rights is just as discriminatory as banning non-parents from having parental rights over a kid that isn't theirs? Parental status is not an arbitrary, made up category, its an actual, factual logical distinction, and its based on voluntary decisions by the actors involved. The parent chose to have the baby, a human being doesn't choose to be a different skin color or the same gender as the person they choose to marry.

 

[jmdrake]

So are you arguing that the equal protection clause doesn't require gender equality under state law? Can the states ban interracial marriage too?

Are you and idiot or just a troll? Did you even bother watching the video I posted where atheist libertarian Stephen Moleneaux clearly stated that society has more legitimate interest in heterosexual marriage than in homosexual marriage? No I guess you didn't. In case you don't know, interracial couples can have kids without contrived and/or artificial means. Furthermore since most black people are part white and many white people are part black but don't know it, technically most any marriage is an "interracial marriage."

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Knock it off, OReich. Everybody knows that you are the sock puppet of poster MaybeMaybeNot:




Both appear to be half Israeli:

My parents are Israeli citizens (mom was born there),...

I'm half-Israeli,...

Both are from Florida:

In Florida, where I live,

I'm in Florida;

Both start pro Israel treads with the same theme:

your argument...holds Muslims to lower standards (my entire argument).

Should Palestine be held to lower standards than Israel?

Both extensively use the abbreviation "ppl" for the word "people." Sometimes their phrasing is similar:

...Palestine executes ppl....

Palestine executes ppl...

More extensive use of "ppl" in single posts:

You ppl just hold Muslims to zero standards,...
...and the ppl who have run Egypt.

Why aren't you ppl calling out Palestine...
...I just don't know why you ppl criticize...
.

...where ppl have actual rights...
...ppl flip out...
When ppl argue that Israel...
...tells its ppl to go get themselves killed...
...then ppl blame Israel...

Arafat was a terrorist that murdered innocent ppl...

Both post extensively on gay rights and the equal protection clause. One example here:

Discrimination based on sexual orientation is just gender discrimination, no? ... That's just admitting to violating the Equal Protection Clause, its labeling ppl for the sake of labeling ppl.

So you're saying that democratic votes should over come the constitution's equal protection clause? Are you saying that LEGALLY the equal protection clause cannot invalidate statutes (when it does actually), or are you saying we should ignore the constitution on this and/or other issues?

Both make very long posts on Israeli defense, using similar bold highlighting for key sentences (go to posts to see actual highlighting because it won't highlight in a thread.):

What do the critics of Israel think it should do? Just relinquish the PA territories, knowing they're going to keep attacking anyway? Just pretend the Palestinians are a bunch of tolerant liberals, sign a unilateral peace treaty, pretend the PA signed it, and then hope the PA will be inspired and sign it the next day? They're just going to attack. Palestine is the side that needs to change its position away from the unconditional destruction of Israel. And Hamas needs to be destroyed, unless they promise to change their actions/positions before they're destroyed.

I just can't stand the one-sidedness and double standards that ppl apply to Israel. I'm a libertarian and atheist who takes pride in my Jewish culture. My parents are Israeli citizens (mom was born there), I've been a libertarian since I read Ayn Rand freshman yr, and a Ron Paul supporter (and Republican) the moment someone told me a libertarian Republican was running for president. Israel is not perfect, and I disagree with every single they do that go against the principles of liberty and equality, in a socially liberal sense. But compared to the Palestinians and the surrounding Muslim nations (also at war with Israel right now), Israel is the Free State Project.

It seems like so many groups of ppl are ignorant about the Arab-Israeli conflict, and choose to implant other historical events into Arab-Israeli history, just so ppl can repeat their ideology and favorite talking points. They call Jewish immigrants "colonists" because they were white and literate. They call Israel an apartheid state when its the only country in the region where Muslims vote in legitimate elections, let alone where women are treated with any real decency. They claim (or heavily imply) that Palestinians are willing co-exist with Jews in an equal and free society... because they want to believe that Palestinians are like them. They claim the Palestinians only want the West Bank and Gaza, which totally ignores their words and actions since the occupation began, and their endless invasions and genocidal promises before the occupation began. And then they poo-poo the Palestinian radicalism, as if they can't help but commit terrorism in response to Israel's existence. Israel is criticized far more than Palestine because ppl don't expect any decency from Palestine.


Arab-Israeli History, WWI-1967
Israel did not steal land until the 1947 war started by the Arabs (and I'm not condoning it). Israel did not steal land from a Palestinian state, there has never ever been a Palestinian state until the exact same day Israel was created. When the allies defeated the Ottoman Empire in WWI, Britain and France received League of Nations temporary governing mandates, and these became Jordan, Israel, Palestine, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon. Britain also played a role in creating Saudi Arabia (rebelling against Ottomans forever) and Egypt (British territory for a long time) right around the same time. The Palestine Mandate initially included Jordan until 1923. Israel did not get "the majority of the land."

Israel's 1947 proposed boundaries (by the UN), which they accepted, were 55% Jewish (before an inch of land was stolen), and didn't even include Jerusalem. This is a tiny fraction of the Ottoman Empire, but ppl like to pretend that Israel got "the majority of the land" because it was the majority of the Palestine mandate in 1947, ignoring the fact that it was one of several mandates for future states, and ignoring the fact that the Palestine mandate used to include all of Jordan. The Muslim nations could not accept a Jewish country on Muslim soil, because they're really f'n gung ho about Muslim land, so they invaded and promised to kill all the Jews. In the ensuing 47-48 war, Israel committed the unforgivable crime of kicking out 700,000 Muslims, in response to the invasion and to the Muslim nations kicking out their Jews. They also conquered more land. They couldn't trade land/ppl back... because the Muslim nations were not offering that, they were still promising to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews. Just looking at a map ignores the fact that one side is constantly promising to kill everyone on the other side.

The Arabs then invaded Israel repeatedly, wars in which Israel was nearly destroyed and every Jew slaughtered or enslaved (not an exaggeration), and in the 1967 war, Israel conquered the West Bank (including Jerusalem, the holy grail) and Gaza. They annexed Jerusalem and some more land so they could have defensible borders (and Jerusalem, lol). The Arab nations rejected a peace treaty for the West Bank and Gaza, or a peace treaty for Jerusalem too. They still opposed Israel's existence entirely and promised to kill all the Jews.

Arab-Israeli History, 1967-present
In 1993, Israel and the "formerly terrorist" PLO signed the Oslo Accords. Israel agreed to plan for a future Palestinian state and allow some autonomy by creating the PA (answering to the PLO). The PLO/PA agreed to two major obligations, 1. to stop the use of terrorism (they violated it within two years), and 2. to amend the part of their charter calling for Israel's destruction (they have yet to amend their charter).

In 2000, Israel offered 95% of the West Bank and Gaza (but not Jerusalem), and the dismantling of the majority of the settlements. Arafat/PA not only rejected the deal, they refused to counter-offer, because after forty yrs, Palestinians were still opposed to any peace treaty with Israel. They responded by unleashing the third ("second?") Intifada, killing 500 innocent civilians with suicide bombings between 2000-2005 (many more Palestinians died).

90+% of the suicide bombings came from Gaza, the tiny portion of Palestinian land that's overpopulated, more unemployed, more young, more radical/angry. Hence, Israel started building a wall/fence (depends where you look, I don't care what you call it) around Gaza, which destroyed their economy (combined with checkpoints, blockages etc.) and made them even more radical and crazy. I'm not even arguing against the wall, I'm just being blunt and honest, it backfired to at least some extent. But, all the suicide bombings ended... until the West Bank started sending them. So, Israel started building the wall around the West Bank (or within the West Bank to keep out settlements), and then the suicide bombings stopped for good. The Palestinians would still like to kill Jews on the sidewalk everyday, the wall is the only thing stopping them. Whether that justifies the wall or not, critics need to accept that fact.

In 2005, Israel left Gaza unilaterally, without a peace treaty, but kept the blockade (which is how Gaza gets weapons, another inconvenient fact ppl don't like to acknowledge). Hamas kept firing rockets. Ppl say its because of the occupation. Hamas says its not. Hamas says it wants to destroy Israel, and they'll still say they want to kill all the Jews depending on the TV network asking them. Stop pretending Hamas doesn't want what they say they want, they're clear and unambiguous about it.

So when ppl criticize Israel, I just want ppl to understand what they're talking about. Stop it with the ignorance and double standards. Israel has the right to fire rockets at rocket launchers, and they have the right to build some settlements in order to make their land defensible from neighbors promising to kill every Jew. That is their right to self-defense, just like you have to right to stab someone even if they're only using their fists to fight you. Maybe Israel goes too far at times, sure, they're a country at war. But they are fighting a legitimate threat to their safety and existence, and this ignorance about Arabs just throwing rockets or crappy rockets has to end. This is a war.

I don't support all the settlements, not even close. I don't support the settlements being built just because of the Israeli teens that were just murdered. But, ppl need to understand that these settlements could be used as negotiating chips towards a future peace deal. Israel offered to dismantle the majority of them in 2000, and unilaterally dismantled all the Gaza settlements. The religious/Orthodox minority would riot over their dismantlement, and that would just entertain the secular majority that can't stand the religious minority (for political reasons). It makes it the perfect bargaining chip, majority support but riots to show it was a painful sacrifice. Israel's secular majority wants part of the West Bank because the inhabitants of the West Bank repeatedly say "We're going to destroy your country," and also "kill all the Jews" depending on time of day. Israel would have let them have all of the West Bank and more, they've offered it repeatedly, but Palestine doesn't want it. Therefore, letting them have the West Bank without a peace treaty is just asking to be invaded. You don't just get to invade a country repeatedly and not expect to lose land. You don't just get infinite attempts to destroy Israel.

Hamas MP (Hamas is ruling party in Gaza, they're funded and armed by Iran), telling Palestinians to get themselves killed for religious martyrdom and anti-Israel propaganda: "For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly exceed at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children."

......


Criticizing Israel isn't anti-semitic, and being anti-Zionist isn't anti-Semitic (I'm anti-Zionist, I'm for total church and state separation). However, if you're anti-Zionist but NOT anti-Sharia law, you're definitely an anti-Semite and a bigot. If you blatantly hold the only Jewish nation to completely different standards than the rest of the world, that's anti-Semitism. If you wanna criticize Israel's secular democracy for having a pro-Jewish immigration policy, then criticize Palestinian Sharia law for their fifty billion racist and bigoted laws. If you wanna criticize Israel for hitting civilians when they try to take out Palestine's rocket launchers, then criticize Gaza's govt for TARGETING civilians with thousands of rockets per yr, promising to kill every Jew, and using human shields. Don't just bitch and whine about a secular democracy being attacked by a half dozen Sharia law shitholes, be OBJECTIVE and hold all human beings to the same standards.

Israel has offered 20+ peace treaties, Palestine has rejected all and offered NONE, simply promising to destroy Israel, and on top of that Israeli Muslims have equal rights in Israel. Palestine and the Arabs have been invading Israel and promising to destroy and implement Sharia law for 70 yrs, they want to destroy the one country where ppl have actual rights (Muslim women vote in Israel ffs, they have RIGHTS), and when Israel responds, ppl flip out as if they're not being hit by thousands of rockets per yr. When ppl argue that Israel is the sole country on Earth that cannot destroy rocket launchers currently firing rockets at their schools, that's anti-Semitism. When Hamas (funded and armed by Iran) tells its ppl to go get themselves killed for propaganda purposes and religious martyrdom, because they know they can't win militarily, and then ppl blame Israel for Hamas' use of human shields, that's anti-Semitism. Telling the one Jewish country to lay down and die because their medieval savage invaders use human shields is anti-Semitism. Just hold all human beings to the same standards, and stop defending Palestine's bullshit.

Palestine executes ppl for leaving Islam, criticizing Islam or selling land to Jews, they don't let Jews pray at holy sites, their schools and media demonize Jews. If you call Israel's secular democracy 'apartheid' even though Muslims have equal rights, but don't call Palestine 'apartheid' for their fifty thousand bigoted laws, you're a bigot and and an anti-Semite who holds Jews to different standards just as an excuse for bashing them.


All of Israel's critics love to whine about Netanyahu, even though every (or nearly every) Palestinian leader EVER has murdered Jewish children solely for being Jewish. Al-Husseini, the leader in 1948, was in the Nazi SS, recruiting North Africans for the Holocaust. Arafat was a terrorist that murdered innocent ppl, Abbas (the current leader) funded the 1972 Olympic massacre. If you whine about Netanyahu, but you're not whining about Gaza's govt spokesman saying Jews eat babies, you're a bigot and an anti-Semite.

 

[jmdrake]

Knock it off, OReich. Everybody knows that you are the sock puppet of poster MaybeMaybeNot:




Both appear to be half Israeli:




Both are from Florida:






Both start pro Israel treads with the same theme:






Both extensively use the abbreviation "ppl" for the word "people." Sometimes their phrasing is similar:






More extensive use of "ppl" in single posts:








Both post extensively on gay rights and the equal protection clause. One example here:







Both make very long posts on Israeli defense, using similar bold highlighting for key sentences (go to posts to see actual highlighting because it won't highlight in a thread.):

LOL. Some troll just got outed!