PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
How can you leave the ABM treaty? The country that we signed it with no longer exists. When the USSR became the CIS we no longer were beholden to the ABM treaty.
Civil rights
- Thread starter campbelld
- Start date
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']How can you leave the ABM treaty? The country that we signed it with no longer exists. When the USSR became the CIS we no longer were beholden to the ABM treaty.[/quote]
Russia stepped in and took the position of the USSR.
Just like we want them to continue to abide by the other treaties we signed with them.
I am confident the Russian Duma passed a law stating they would assume the responsibility, debts etc of the former government.
CTL
Russia stepped in and took the position of the USSR.
Just like we want them to continue to abide by the other treaties we signed with them.
I am confident the Russian Duma passed a law stating they would assume the responsibility, debts etc of the former government.
CTL
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This just in....
The following things have changed.
1. Murder, as it is based on the 5th commandment is legal.
2. Theft, as it is based on the 7th commandment is legal.
3. Perjury or filing false affidavits, they are based on the 8th commandment these things are now legal.
4. Adultery is now no longer grounds for divorice as it is the 6th commandment and is clearly.... unacceptable.
5. The standard work week now is going to be seven days. It is clear that the third commandment menas nothing. Since there is no Sabbath there is no need for time away from work.
Welcome to the world that has no law based on Judeo-Christian values. Hope you enjoy your day.
Happy now?
:lol:[/quote]
None of those values are exclusive to the Judeo-Christian tradition. You act like no one ever thought murder or theft was wrong before there was a bible. An atheist can believe in all of those values without being a christian.
The following things have changed.
1. Murder, as it is based on the 5th commandment is legal.
2. Theft, as it is based on the 7th commandment is legal.
3. Perjury or filing false affidavits, they are based on the 8th commandment these things are now legal.
4. Adultery is now no longer grounds for divorice as it is the 6th commandment and is clearly.... unacceptable.
5. The standard work week now is going to be seven days. It is clear that the third commandment menas nothing. Since there is no Sabbath there is no need for time away from work.
Welcome to the world that has no law based on Judeo-Christian values. Hope you enjoy your day.
Happy now?
:lol:[/quote]
None of those values are exclusive to the Judeo-Christian tradition. You act like no one ever thought murder or theft was wrong before there was a bible. An atheist can believe in all of those values without being a christian.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This just in....
The following things have changed.
1. Murder, as it is based on the 5th commandment is legal.
2. Theft, as it is based on the 7th commandment is legal.
3. Perjury or filing false affidavits, they are based on the 8th commandment these things are now legal.
4. Adultery is now no longer grounds for divorice as it is the 6th commandment and is clearly.... unacceptable.
5. The standard work week now is going to be seven days. It is clear that the third commandment menas nothing. Since there is no Sabbath there is no need for time away from work.
Welcome to the world that has no law based on Judeo-Christian values. Hope you enjoy your day.
Happy now?
:lol:[/quote]
None of those values are exclusive to the Judeo-Christian tradition. You act like no one ever thought murder or theft was wrong before there was a bible. An atheist can believe in all of those values without being a christian.[/quote]
Yes in a vaccume.
With total disregard for the Founding Fathers religious beliefs.
With total ignorance of history.
The following things have changed.
1. Murder, as it is based on the 5th commandment is legal.
2. Theft, as it is based on the 7th commandment is legal.
3. Perjury or filing false affidavits, they are based on the 8th commandment these things are now legal.
4. Adultery is now no longer grounds for divorice as it is the 6th commandment and is clearly.... unacceptable.
5. The standard work week now is going to be seven days. It is clear that the third commandment menas nothing. Since there is no Sabbath there is no need for time away from work.
Welcome to the world that has no law based on Judeo-Christian values. Hope you enjoy your day.
Happy now?
:lol:[/quote]
None of those values are exclusive to the Judeo-Christian tradition. You act like no one ever thought murder or theft was wrong before there was a bible. An atheist can believe in all of those values without being a christian.[/quote]
Yes in a vaccume.
With total disregard for the Founding Fathers religious beliefs.
With total ignorance of history.
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='CTLesq']Yes in a vaccume.
With total disregard for the Founding Fathers religious beliefs.
With total ignorance of history.[/quote]
Well if anyone on here knows about total ignorance, it would be you.
And it's "vacuum"
With total disregard for the Founding Fathers religious beliefs.
With total ignorance of history.[/quote]
Well if anyone on here knows about total ignorance, it would be you.
And it's "vacuum"
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This just in....
The following things have changed.
1. Murder, as it is based on the 5th commandment is legal.
2. Theft, as it is based on the 7th commandment is legal.
3. Perjury or filing false affidavits, they are based on the 8th commandment these things are now legal.
4. Adultery is now no longer grounds for divorice as it is the 6th commandment and is clearly.... unacceptable.
5. The standard work week now is going to be seven days. It is clear that the third commandment menas nothing. Since there is no Sabbath there is no need for time away from work.
Welcome to the world that has no law based on Judeo-Christian values. Hope you enjoy your day.
Happy now?
:lol:[/quote]
None of those values are exclusive to the Judeo-Christian tradition. You act like no one ever thought murder or theft was wrong before there was a bible. An atheist can believe in all of those values without being a christian.[/quote]
Yes in a vaccume.
With total disregard for the Founding Fathers religious beliefs.
With total ignorance of history.[/quote]
CTL and PAD, you two really do love talking out of your asses. There was also the Code of Hammurabi http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
The commandments of the Jews were also more or less in the Code of Hammurabi. This is just one example. As was said, these laws form the basis of almost every great civilization.
So no, it wasn't created in a vacuum.
The following things have changed.
1. Murder, as it is based on the 5th commandment is legal.
2. Theft, as it is based on the 7th commandment is legal.
3. Perjury or filing false affidavits, they are based on the 8th commandment these things are now legal.
4. Adultery is now no longer grounds for divorice as it is the 6th commandment and is clearly.... unacceptable.
5. The standard work week now is going to be seven days. It is clear that the third commandment menas nothing. Since there is no Sabbath there is no need for time away from work.
Welcome to the world that has no law based on Judeo-Christian values. Hope you enjoy your day.
Happy now?
:lol:[/quote]
None of those values are exclusive to the Judeo-Christian tradition. You act like no one ever thought murder or theft was wrong before there was a bible. An atheist can believe in all of those values without being a christian.[/quote]
Yes in a vaccume.
With total disregard for the Founding Fathers religious beliefs.
With total ignorance of history.[/quote]
CTL and PAD, you two really do love talking out of your asses. There was also the Code of Hammurabi http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
The commandments of the Jews were also more or less in the Code of Hammurabi. This is just one example. As was said, these laws form the basis of almost every great civilization.
So no, it wasn't created in a vacuum.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This just in....
The following things have changed.
1. Murder, as it is based on the 5th commandment is legal.
2. Theft, as it is based on the 7th commandment is legal.
3. Perjury or filing false affidavits, they are based on the 8th commandment these things are now legal.
4. Adultery is now no longer grounds for divorice as it is the 6th commandment and is clearly.... unacceptable.
5. The standard work week now is going to be seven days. It is clear that the third commandment menas nothing. Since there is no Sabbath there is no need for time away from work.
Welcome to the world that has no law based on Judeo-Christian values. Hope you enjoy your day.
Happy now?
:lol:[/quote]
None of those values are exclusive to the Judeo-Christian tradition. You act like no one ever thought murder or theft was wrong before there was a bible. An atheist can believe in all of those values without being a christian.[/quote]
Yes in a vaccume.
With total disregard for the Founding Fathers religious beliefs.
With total ignorance of history.[/quote]
CTL and PAD, you two really do love talking out of your asses. There was also the Code of Hammurabi http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
The commandments of the Jews were also more or less in the Code of Hammurabi. This is just one example. As was said, these laws form the basis of almost every great civilization.[/quote]
And I can recall George Washington stating before he crossed the Delaware River to attack the Hessians "Thank you Hammurabi, may your laws guide us!"
Really people your hatred of Christianity blinds you to the fact the Founding Fathers were very religious, and their Judeo-Christian values infleunced the Consitiution, state constitutions and laws.
Not to mention the citation of God in the Preamble of the Declaration of Indepence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
The following things have changed.
1. Murder, as it is based on the 5th commandment is legal.
2. Theft, as it is based on the 7th commandment is legal.
3. Perjury or filing false affidavits, they are based on the 8th commandment these things are now legal.
4. Adultery is now no longer grounds for divorice as it is the 6th commandment and is clearly.... unacceptable.
5. The standard work week now is going to be seven days. It is clear that the third commandment menas nothing. Since there is no Sabbath there is no need for time away from work.
Welcome to the world that has no law based on Judeo-Christian values. Hope you enjoy your day.
Happy now?
:lol:[/quote]
None of those values are exclusive to the Judeo-Christian tradition. You act like no one ever thought murder or theft was wrong before there was a bible. An atheist can believe in all of those values without being a christian.[/quote]
Yes in a vaccume.
With total disregard for the Founding Fathers religious beliefs.
With total ignorance of history.[/quote]
CTL and PAD, you two really do love talking out of your asses. There was also the Code of Hammurabi http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
The commandments of the Jews were also more or less in the Code of Hammurabi. This is just one example. As was said, these laws form the basis of almost every great civilization.[/quote]
And I can recall George Washington stating before he crossed the Delaware River to attack the Hessians "Thank you Hammurabi, may your laws guide us!"
Really people your hatred of Christianity blinds you to the fact the Founding Fathers were very religious, and their Judeo-Christian values infleunced the Consitiution, state constitutions and laws.
Not to mention the citation of God in the Preamble of the Declaration of Indepence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='E-Z-B'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This just in....
The following things have changed.
1. Murder, as it is based on the 5th commandment is legal.
2. Theft, as it is based on the 7th commandment is legal.
3. Perjury or filing false affidavits, they are based on the 8th commandment these things are now legal.
4. Adultery is now no longer grounds for divorice as it is the 6th commandment and is clearly.... unacceptable.
5. The standard work week now is going to be seven days. It is clear that the third commandment menas nothing. Since there is no Sabbath there is no need for time away from work.
Welcome to the world that has no law based on Judeo-Christian values. Hope you enjoy your day.
Happy now?
:lol:[/quote]
None of those values are exclusive to the Judeo-Christian tradition. You act like no one ever thought murder or theft was wrong before there was a bible. An atheist can believe in all of those values without being a christian.[/quote]
Yes in a vaccume.
With total disregard for the Founding Fathers religious beliefs.
With total ignorance of history.[/quote]
CTL and PAD, you two really do love talking out of your asses. There was also the Code of Hammurabi http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
The commandments of the Jews were also more or less in the Code of Hammurabi. This is just one example. As was said, these laws form the basis of almost every great civilization.[/quote]
And I can recall George Washington stating before he crossed the Delaware River to attack the Hessians "Thank you Hammurabi, may your laws guide us!"
Really people your hatred of Christianity blinds you to the fact the Founding Fathers were very religious, and their Judeo-Christian values infleunced the Consitiution, state constitutions and laws.
Not to mention the citation of God in the Preamble of the Declaration of Indepence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.[/quote]
That's true, but you're suggesting that without Christianity, societies had no moral laws. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. all have a set of laws defining morality. So no, there was no "vacuum" as you keep insinuating.
The following things have changed.
1. Murder, as it is based on the 5th commandment is legal.
2. Theft, as it is based on the 7th commandment is legal.
3. Perjury or filing false affidavits, they are based on the 8th commandment these things are now legal.
4. Adultery is now no longer grounds for divorice as it is the 6th commandment and is clearly.... unacceptable.
5. The standard work week now is going to be seven days. It is clear that the third commandment menas nothing. Since there is no Sabbath there is no need for time away from work.
Welcome to the world that has no law based on Judeo-Christian values. Hope you enjoy your day.
Happy now?
:lol:[/quote]
None of those values are exclusive to the Judeo-Christian tradition. You act like no one ever thought murder or theft was wrong before there was a bible. An atheist can believe in all of those values without being a christian.[/quote]
Yes in a vaccume.
With total disregard for the Founding Fathers religious beliefs.
With total ignorance of history.[/quote]
CTL and PAD, you two really do love talking out of your asses. There was also the Code of Hammurabi http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
The commandments of the Jews were also more or less in the Code of Hammurabi. This is just one example. As was said, these laws form the basis of almost every great civilization.[/quote]
And I can recall George Washington stating before he crossed the Delaware River to attack the Hessians "Thank you Hammurabi, may your laws guide us!"
Really people your hatred of Christianity blinds you to the fact the Founding Fathers were very religious, and their Judeo-Christian values infleunced the Consitiution, state constitutions and laws.
Not to mention the citation of God in the Preamble of the Declaration of Indepence:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.[/quote]
That's true, but you're suggesting that without Christianity, societies had no moral laws. Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. all have a set of laws defining morality. So no, there was no "vacuum" as you keep insinuating.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='E-Z-B']I doubt our founding fathers would have been totally devoid of moral laws without Christianity. And they had the wisdom to see that too. Thus, why the Constitution includes the separation of church and state. Church is not needed to maintain order in the state.[/quote]
1. I am not suggesting that Christianity makes people devoid of moral flaws.
2. There is no affirmative statement within the Constitution separating Church from state. In the First Amendement to the Constitution Congress is forbiden from passing any laws abridiging freedom of religion.
The concept of separation of Church and state is a well founded principal of US Con Law. That being said, that does not make the separation of Church and state a zero sum game: In God We Trust on currency, the House and Senate begin each day with a prayer, Clinton goes to a church to denounce policies of Bush, state criminal laws are based on the 10 Commandements.
As for your last comment "Church is not needed to maintain order in the state." I never suggest that it was.
What I suggested was that people who believe Judeo-Christian had no poart in the writing of Federal and state laws either (1) don't have the first clue about what they are talking about or (2) hate Christianity to the point they don't have the first clue as to what they are talking about.
CTL
1. I am not suggesting that Christianity makes people devoid of moral flaws.
2. There is no affirmative statement within the Constitution separating Church from state. In the First Amendement to the Constitution Congress is forbiden from passing any laws abridiging freedom of religion.
The concept of separation of Church and state is a well founded principal of US Con Law. That being said, that does not make the separation of Church and state a zero sum game: In God We Trust on currency, the House and Senate begin each day with a prayer, Clinton goes to a church to denounce policies of Bush, state criminal laws are based on the 10 Commandements.
As for your last comment "Church is not needed to maintain order in the state." I never suggest that it was.
What I suggested was that people who believe Judeo-Christian had no poart in the writing of Federal and state laws either (1) don't have the first clue about what they are talking about or (2) hate Christianity to the point they don't have the first clue as to what they are talking about.
CTL
The-Bavis
CAGiversary!
[quote name='campbelld'][quote name='The-Bavis']You're right. The main argument that the Church makes, and lots of loudmouths transform into an argument against what's natural is really an argument against hedonism. The Church's main beef is against homosexuality as another form of hedonism. Any sexual activity that is not performed with the intent and or willingness for procreation is a sin. Homosexual sex can not result in a new life, and is therefore seen as immoral, as is masturbation, oral sex, etc.[/quote]
However, hedonism is totally subjective. I do not believe that homosexual sex is hedonistic. I am not of the belief that hedonism does not exist though. I go to school, I work, and I take care of a family among other things. These things do not satisfy my immediate desire for pleasure. I also do not believe there are many Christian couples who "practice what they preach" if you assert that this is their argument against homosexuality. How many of them truly intend to create a child each time they have sex? I think we would see much larger families if this were the case.[/quote]
That's the kicker, isn't it. I just stated the argument against it, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who preaches that belief and follows it. That said, however, trying to achieve a state where one is in tune with what they/their religion see as being perfect/correct is how we better ourselves and our society. There are those that achieve this state, but you won't hear them bragging about.
You state that your daily life does not fulfill your immediate desire for pleasure, but again, Christians must admit that some pleasures must be denied to live the life God intends.
However, hedonism is totally subjective. I do not believe that homosexual sex is hedonistic. I am not of the belief that hedonism does not exist though. I go to school, I work, and I take care of a family among other things. These things do not satisfy my immediate desire for pleasure. I also do not believe there are many Christian couples who "practice what they preach" if you assert that this is their argument against homosexuality. How many of them truly intend to create a child each time they have sex? I think we would see much larger families if this were the case.[/quote]
That's the kicker, isn't it. I just stated the argument against it, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who preaches that belief and follows it. That said, however, trying to achieve a state where one is in tune with what they/their religion see as being perfect/correct is how we better ourselves and our society. There are those that achieve this state, but you won't hear them bragging about.
You state that your daily life does not fulfill your immediate desire for pleasure, but again, Christians must admit that some pleasures must be denied to live the life God intends.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']This just in....
The following things have changed.
1. Murder, as it is based on the 5th commandment is legal.
2. Theft, as it is based on the 7th commandment is legal.
3. Perjury or filing false affidavits, they are based on the 8th commandment these things are now legal.
4. Adultery is now no longer grounds for divorice as it is the 6th commandment and is clearly.... unacceptable.
5. The standard work week now is going to be seven days. It is clear that the third commandment menas nothing. Since there is no Sabbath there is no need for time away from work.
Welcome to the world that has no law based on Judeo-Christian values. Hope you enjoy your day.
Happy now?
:lol:[/quote]
None of those values are exclusive to the Judeo-Christian tradition. You act like no one ever thought murder or theft was wrong before there was a bible. An atheist can believe in all of those values without being a christian.[/quote]
Murder and theft are very common occurances in nature, and therefore I see no moral problem with killing a man for his extra value meal.
[/sarcasm] (I hate doing this, but it seems to be necessary here)
The following things have changed.
1. Murder, as it is based on the 5th commandment is legal.
2. Theft, as it is based on the 7th commandment is legal.
3. Perjury or filing false affidavits, they are based on the 8th commandment these things are now legal.
4. Adultery is now no longer grounds for divorice as it is the 6th commandment and is clearly.... unacceptable.
5. The standard work week now is going to be seven days. It is clear that the third commandment menas nothing. Since there is no Sabbath there is no need for time away from work.
Welcome to the world that has no law based on Judeo-Christian values. Hope you enjoy your day.
Happy now?
:lol:[/quote]
None of those values are exclusive to the Judeo-Christian tradition. You act like no one ever thought murder or theft was wrong before there was a bible. An atheist can believe in all of those values without being a christian.[/quote]
Murder and theft are very common occurances in nature, and therefore I see no moral problem with killing a man for his extra value meal.
[/sarcasm] (I hate doing this, but it seems to be necessary here)
[quote name='The-Bavis'][quote name='campbelld'][quote name='The-Bavis']You're right. The main argument that the Church makes, and lots of loudmouths transform into an argument against what's natural is really an argument against hedonism. The Church's main beef is against homosexuality as another form of hedonism. Any sexual activity that is not performed with the intent and or willingness for procreation is a sin. Homosexual sex can not result in a new life, and is therefore seen as immoral, as is masturbation, oral sex, etc.[/quote]
However, hedonism is totally subjective. I do not believe that homosexual sex is hedonistic. I am not of the belief that hedonism does not exist though. I go to school, I work, and I take care of a family among other things. These things do not satisfy my immediate desire for pleasure. I also do not believe there are many Christian couples who "practice what they preach" if you assert that this is their argument against homosexuality. How many of them truly intend to create a child each time they have sex? I think we would see much larger families if this were the case.[/quote]
That's the kicker, isn't it. I just stated the argument against it, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who preaches that belief and follows it. That said, however, trying to achieve a state where one is in tune with what they/their religion see as being perfect/correct is how we better ourselves and our society. There are those that achieve this state, but you won't hear them bragging about.
You state that your daily life does not fulfill your immediate desire for pleasure, but again, Christians must admit that some pleasures must be denied to live the life God intends.[/quote]
The point is that not all of us want to live the life your god intends, and we don't want to be forced to either. You should live the life your god intended. Anything that you want me to do is an external preference. That is, it does not affect you and therefore should not be considered. It is a preference that my rights and liberties be removed so that you can achieve higher utility(well-being). In a Utilitarian society, that would be the obvious choice because there are far more Christians than anything else. The overall utility would skyrocket if we oppressed homosexuals just as it was when we were oppressing blacks and women. Sadly for you, we do not live in that Utilitarian society, and we probably never will.
However, hedonism is totally subjective. I do not believe that homosexual sex is hedonistic. I am not of the belief that hedonism does not exist though. I go to school, I work, and I take care of a family among other things. These things do not satisfy my immediate desire for pleasure. I also do not believe there are many Christian couples who "practice what they preach" if you assert that this is their argument against homosexuality. How many of them truly intend to create a child each time they have sex? I think we would see much larger families if this were the case.[/quote]
That's the kicker, isn't it. I just stated the argument against it, but you'd be hard pressed to find someone who preaches that belief and follows it. That said, however, trying to achieve a state where one is in tune with what they/their religion see as being perfect/correct is how we better ourselves and our society. There are those that achieve this state, but you won't hear them bragging about.
You state that your daily life does not fulfill your immediate desire for pleasure, but again, Christians must admit that some pleasures must be denied to live the life God intends.[/quote]
The point is that not all of us want to live the life your god intends, and we don't want to be forced to either. You should live the life your god intended. Anything that you want me to do is an external preference. That is, it does not affect you and therefore should not be considered. It is a preference that my rights and liberties be removed so that you can achieve higher utility(well-being). In a Utilitarian society, that would be the obvious choice because there are far more Christians than anything else. The overall utility would skyrocket if we oppressed homosexuals just as it was when we were oppressing blacks and women. Sadly for you, we do not live in that Utilitarian society, and we probably never will.
[quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
Murder and theft are very common occurances in nature, and therefore I see no moral problem with killing a man for his extra value meal.
[/sarcasm] (I hate doing this, but it seems to be necessary here)[/quote]
I'm not sure who said this, but "your freedom ends where my nose begins." Homosexual marriage would have no affect on you whatsoever. Murder, however, would take away all your rights and liberties. Theft would take away your right to maintain property that you have acquired. There is a slight difference between the practice of homosexuality or gay marriage and your examples.
Murder and theft are very common occurances in nature, and therefore I see no moral problem with killing a man for his extra value meal.
[/sarcasm] (I hate doing this, but it seems to be necessary here)[/quote]
I'm not sure who said this, but "your freedom ends where my nose begins." Homosexual marriage would have no affect on you whatsoever. Murder, however, would take away all your rights and liberties. Theft would take away your right to maintain property that you have acquired. There is a slight difference between the practice of homosexuality or gay marriage and your examples.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='campbelld'][quote name='sblymnlcrymnl']
Murder and theft are very common occurances in nature, and therefore I see no moral problem with killing a man for his extra value meal.
[/sarcasm] (I hate doing this, but it seems to be necessary here)[/quote]
I'm not sure who said this, but "your freedom ends where my nose begins." Homosexual marriage would have no affect on you whatsoever. Murder, however, would take away all your rights and liberties. Theft would take away your right to maintain property that you have acquired. There is a slight difference between the practice of homosexuality or gay marriage and your examples.[/quote]
That's only assuming I'm the one being murdered or robbed.
Anyway, my point wasn't really about gay marriage, it's that nature is not a valid argument for or against moral issues.
Murder and theft are very common occurances in nature, and therefore I see no moral problem with killing a man for his extra value meal.
[/sarcasm] (I hate doing this, but it seems to be necessary here)[/quote]
I'm not sure who said this, but "your freedom ends where my nose begins." Homosexual marriage would have no affect on you whatsoever. Murder, however, would take away all your rights and liberties. Theft would take away your right to maintain property that you have acquired. There is a slight difference between the practice of homosexuality or gay marriage and your examples.[/quote]
That's only assuming I'm the one being murdered or robbed.
Anyway, my point wasn't really about gay marriage, it's that nature is not a valid argument for or against moral issues.
SwiftyLeZar
CAGiversary!
It's very simple:
Allowing one group of people to marry, then saying another group can't have the same privilage because of their sexual preference is discrimination in its purest form.
Anybody remember when interracial marriages were illegal? How about when black people couldn't marry at all? Truly, some things never change.
Allowing one group of people to marry, then saying another group can't have the same privilage because of their sexual preference is discrimination in its purest form.
Anybody remember when interracial marriages were illegal? How about when black people couldn't marry at all? Truly, some things never change.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']It's very simple:
Allowing one group of people to marry, then saying another group can't have the same privilage because of their sexual preference is discrimination in its purest form.
Anybody remember when interracial marriages were illegal? How about when black people couldn't marry at all? Truly, some things never change.[/quote]
And anyone who understood the Equal Protection Clause of the US Con and the three tier approach to allowing the State to make distinctions between characteristics between, for example, race, gender, or sexual orientation would know that its not that simple.
CTL
Allowing one group of people to marry, then saying another group can't have the same privilage because of their sexual preference is discrimination in its purest form.
Anybody remember when interracial marriages were illegal? How about when black people couldn't marry at all? Truly, some things never change.[/quote]
And anyone who understood the Equal Protection Clause of the US Con and the three tier approach to allowing the State to make distinctions between characteristics between, for example, race, gender, or sexual orientation would know that its not that simple.
CTL
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='SwiftyLeZar']It's very simple:
Allowing one group of people to marry, then saying another group can't have the same privilage because of their sexual preference is discrimination in its purest form.
Anybody remember when interracial marriages were illegal? How about when black people couldn't marry at all? Truly, some things never change.[/quote]
And anyone who understood the Equal Protection Clause of the US Con and the three tier approach to allowing the State to make distinctions between characteristics between, for example, race, gender, or sexual orientation would know that its not that simple.
CTL[/quote]
Well, maybe it should be.
Allowing one group of people to marry, then saying another group can't have the same privilage because of their sexual preference is discrimination in its purest form.
Anybody remember when interracial marriages were illegal? How about when black people couldn't marry at all? Truly, some things never change.[/quote]
And anyone who understood the Equal Protection Clause of the US Con and the three tier approach to allowing the State to make distinctions between characteristics between, for example, race, gender, or sexual orientation would know that its not that simple.
CTL[/quote]
Well, maybe it should be.
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='SwiftyLeZar']It's very simple:
Allowing one group of people to marry, then saying another group can't have the same privilage because of their sexual preference is discrimination in its purest form.
Anybody remember when interracial marriages were illegal? How about when black people couldn't marry at all? Truly, some things never change.[/quote]
And anyone who understood the Equal Protection Clause of the US Con and the three tier approach to allowing the State to make distinctions between characteristics between, for example, race, gender, or sexual orientation would know that its not that simple.
CTL[/quote]
The Equal Protection Clause denies states the ability to discriminate. That would be the opposite of what you're saying here. A state cannot deny any person equal protection of the laws. That means that as long as marriage is a social institution we cannot deny homosexuals, crackheads, alcoholics, African-Americans, smokers, overweight people, or just plain ugly people the right to engage in it.
Allowing one group of people to marry, then saying another group can't have the same privilage because of their sexual preference is discrimination in its purest form.
Anybody remember when interracial marriages were illegal? How about when black people couldn't marry at all? Truly, some things never change.[/quote]
And anyone who understood the Equal Protection Clause of the US Con and the three tier approach to allowing the State to make distinctions between characteristics between, for example, race, gender, or sexual orientation would know that its not that simple.
CTL[/quote]
The Equal Protection Clause denies states the ability to discriminate. That would be the opposite of what you're saying here. A state cannot deny any person equal protection of the laws. That means that as long as marriage is a social institution we cannot deny homosexuals, crackheads, alcoholics, African-Americans, smokers, overweight people, or just plain ugly people the right to engage in it.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='campbelld'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='SwiftyLeZar']It's very simple:
Allowing one group of people to marry, then saying another group can't have the same privilage because of their sexual preference is discrimination in its purest form.
Anybody remember when interracial marriages were illegal? How about when black people couldn't marry at all? Truly, some things never change.[/quote]
And anyone who understood the Equal Protection Clause of the US Con and the three tier approach to allowing the State to make distinctions between characteristics between, for example, race, gender, or sexual orientation would know that its not that simple.
CTL[/quote]
The Equal Protection Clause denies states the ability to discriminate. That would be the opposite of what you're saying here. A state cannot deny any person equal protection of the laws. That means that as long as marriage is a social institution we cannot deny homosexuals, crackheads, alcoholics, African-Americans, smokers, overweight people, or just plain ugly people the right to engage in it.[/quote]
You couldn't be more mistake. Go look at the USSC three tiered approach to applying the equal protection clause. Being gay does not rise to the strict scrutiny standard afforded to race or religion.
CTL
Allowing one group of people to marry, then saying another group can't have the same privilage because of their sexual preference is discrimination in its purest form.
Anybody remember when interracial marriages were illegal? How about when black people couldn't marry at all? Truly, some things never change.[/quote]
And anyone who understood the Equal Protection Clause of the US Con and the three tier approach to allowing the State to make distinctions between characteristics between, for example, race, gender, or sexual orientation would know that its not that simple.
CTL[/quote]
The Equal Protection Clause denies states the ability to discriminate. That would be the opposite of what you're saying here. A state cannot deny any person equal protection of the laws. That means that as long as marriage is a social institution we cannot deny homosexuals, crackheads, alcoholics, African-Americans, smokers, overweight people, or just plain ugly people the right to engage in it.[/quote]
You couldn't be more mistake. Go look at the USSC three tiered approach to applying the equal protection clause. Being gay does not rise to the strict scrutiny standard afforded to race or religion.
CTL
[quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='campbelld']The Equal Protection Clause denies states the ability to discriminate. That would be the opposite of what you're saying here. A state cannot deny any person equal protection of the laws. That means that as long as marriage is a social institution we cannot deny homosexuals, crackheads, alcoholics, African-Americans, smokers, overweight people, or just plain ugly people the right to engage in it.[/quote]
You couldn't be more mistake. Go look at the USSC three tiered approach to applying the equal protection clause. Being gay does not rise to the strict scrutiny standard afforded to race or religion.
CTL[/quote]
Maybe I'm missing it. This is the Equal Protection Clause. Could you point that part out for me? I'm not too arrogant to admit when I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.
You couldn't be more mistake. Go look at the USSC three tiered approach to applying the equal protection clause. Being gay does not rise to the strict scrutiny standard afforded to race or religion.
CTL[/quote]
Maybe I'm missing it. This is the Equal Protection Clause. Could you point that part out for me? I'm not too arrogant to admit when I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='campbelld'][quote name='CTLesq'][quote name='campbelld']The Equal Protection Clause denies states the ability to discriminate. That would be the opposite of what you're saying here. A state cannot deny any person equal protection of the laws. That means that as long as marriage is a social institution we cannot deny homosexuals, crackheads, alcoholics, African-Americans, smokers, overweight people, or just plain ugly people the right to engage in it.[/quote]
You couldn't be more mistake. Go look at the USSC three tiered approach to applying the equal protection clause. Being gay does not rise to the strict scrutiny standard afforded to race or religion.
CTL[/quote]
Maybe I'm missing it. This is the Equal Protection Clause. Could you point that part out for me? I'm not too arrogant to admit when I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.[/quote]
Yes, and I am talking about the application of the Equal protection clause.
The Supreme Court applies a three tiered system of "suspect classifications" - race, religion, national origin, et al. Depending on what the government may be attempting to limit the government must show a greater degree of justification.
Sexual Orientation is all the way at the bottom, race all the way at the top.
Thats why the two are not equivilant. And I am not trying to be a dick, but thats why merely reading the EPC doesn't get you there and thats why you are mistaken.
CTL
You couldn't be more mistake. Go look at the USSC three tiered approach to applying the equal protection clause. Being gay does not rise to the strict scrutiny standard afforded to race or religion.
CTL[/quote]
Maybe I'm missing it. This is the Equal Protection Clause. Could you point that part out for me? I'm not too arrogant to admit when I'm wrong, but I just don't see it.[/quote]
Yes, and I am talking about the application of the Equal protection clause.
The Supreme Court applies a three tiered system of "suspect classifications" - race, religion, national origin, et al. Depending on what the government may be attempting to limit the government must show a greater degree of justification.
Sexual Orientation is all the way at the bottom, race all the way at the top.
Thats why the two are not equivilant. And I am not trying to be a dick, but thats why merely reading the EPC doesn't get you there and thats why you are mistaken.
CTL
[quote name='CTLesq']
Yes, and I am talking about the application of the Equal protection clause.
The Supreme Court applies a three tiered system of "suspect classifications" - race, religion, national origin, et al. Depending on what the government may be attempting to limit the government must show a greater degree of justification.
Sexual Orientation is all the way at the bottom, race all the way at the top.
Thats why the two are not equivilant. And I am not trying to be a dick, but thats why merely reading the EPC doesn't get you there and thats why you are mistaken.
CTL[/quote]
Now I understand. Thank you.
That may be the way it is currently applied, but if we are ranking these does that not defeat the equality? That tells me that a homosexual is protected less than a Chinese man. That's actually the opposite of equal. It's a hierarchy. Maybe the way that it is being applied is self-defeating. Our legal system doesn't always agree with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In fact sometimes the law is content to ignore them. You may remember that the war in which we currently participate is illegal by a standard that we helped set! In the same way the application of this clause is violating its fundamental promise.
Yes, and I am talking about the application of the Equal protection clause.
The Supreme Court applies a three tiered system of "suspect classifications" - race, religion, national origin, et al. Depending on what the government may be attempting to limit the government must show a greater degree of justification.
Sexual Orientation is all the way at the bottom, race all the way at the top.
Thats why the two are not equivilant. And I am not trying to be a dick, but thats why merely reading the EPC doesn't get you there and thats why you are mistaken.
CTL[/quote]
Now I understand. Thank you.
That may be the way it is currently applied, but if we are ranking these does that not defeat the equality? That tells me that a homosexual is protected less than a Chinese man. That's actually the opposite of equal. It's a hierarchy. Maybe the way that it is being applied is self-defeating. Our legal system doesn't always agree with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In fact sometimes the law is content to ignore them. You may remember that the war in which we currently participate is illegal by a standard that we helped set! In the same way the application of this clause is violating its fundamental promise.
David85
Banned
What people don't seem to get is that under the Mass Constitution there is no reason why gays shouldn't get married and every reason why they should.
Mass. has the oldest working Const. on the planet and the US one is based on it. We also have the best common sense as being the first State that wouldn't allow slaves.
Mass. has the oldest working Const. on the planet and the US one is based on it. We also have the best common sense as being the first State that wouldn't allow slaves.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='David85']What people don't seem to get is that under the Mass Constitution there is no reason why gays shouldn't get married and every reason why they should.
Mass. has the oldest working Const. on the planet and the US one is based on it. We also have the best common sense as being the first State that wouldn't allow slaves.[/quote]
On March 1, 1692, Salem, Massachusetts authorities charged Sarah Goode, Sarah Osborne, and a slave woman, Tituba, with practicing witchcraft. The arrests inaugurated the infamous Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Over the following months, more than 150 men and women in and around Salem were jailed on sorcery charges. Nineteen people eventually hanged on Gallows Hill and an additional victim was pressed to death.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/mar01.html
Yep, Good ol' Massachusetts.
Mass. has the oldest working Const. on the planet and the US one is based on it. We also have the best common sense as being the first State that wouldn't allow slaves.[/quote]
On March 1, 1692, Salem, Massachusetts authorities charged Sarah Goode, Sarah Osborne, and a slave woman, Tituba, with practicing witchcraft. The arrests inaugurated the infamous Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Over the following months, more than 150 men and women in and around Salem were jailed on sorcery charges. Nineteen people eventually hanged on Gallows Hill and an additional victim was pressed to death.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/mar01.html
Yep, Good ol' Massachusetts.
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
If this is going to be argued on a 14th ammendment issue I'll trade you tit for tat.
You end affirmative action, I support gay marriage.
Deal?
You end affirmative action, I support gay marriage.
Deal?
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='David85']What people don't seem to get is that under the Mass Constitution there is no reason why gays shouldn't get married and every reason why they should.
Mass. has the oldest working Const. on the planet and the US one is based on it. We also have the best common sense as being the first State that wouldn't allow slaves.[/quote]
On March 1, 1692, Salem, Massachusetts authorities charged Sarah Goode, Sarah Osborne, and a slave woman, Tituba, with practicing witchcraft. The arrests inaugurated the infamous Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Over the following months, more than 150 men and women in and around Salem were jailed on sorcery charges. Nineteen people eventually hanged on Gallows Hill and an additional victim was pressed to death.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/mar01.html
Yep, Good ol' Massachusetts.[/quote]
Well that is an example of failed justice system to say the least, itreally holds no water JSweeney, because it was nearly 100 years before the Mass Constitution. It would've still been a British Colony, and theoretically Britain's foul up.
It is indeed the oldest working constitution...But is all of America is supposed to listen to it since it hasn't changed much since it was enacted in 1780? Do we need to fight the Red Coats again too, just because it's the oldest working constitution (and though it doesn't matter too much in this argument, people may be ineterested to know it's not the oldest) doesn't make it right for the whole country. Times change, just because it has remained mostly the same doesn't mean it's perfect, in fact one could argue some of the Acts are very outdated.
Also, you're history is a bit off, while the US Constitutoin was ratified about 8 years after the Mass Constitution was created it's first meeting was held in 1776 which helped to create the prelude to the US Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, which was ratified in 1781. So, the US Constitution isn't based solely off of Massachusetts Constitution, thoug it and the other early state constitutions probably had some influence on it.
BTW let it be known I'm not saying whether gay marriage is a matter of right and wrong, I'm not here to support or denounce it...I'm just the nut who has to dish out history because my dad made me watch the History Channel way too much as a kid.
Mass. has the oldest working Const. on the planet and the US one is based on it. We also have the best common sense as being the first State that wouldn't allow slaves.[/quote]
On March 1, 1692, Salem, Massachusetts authorities charged Sarah Goode, Sarah Osborne, and a slave woman, Tituba, with practicing witchcraft. The arrests inaugurated the infamous Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Over the following months, more than 150 men and women in and around Salem were jailed on sorcery charges. Nineteen people eventually hanged on Gallows Hill and an additional victim was pressed to death.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/mar01.html
Yep, Good ol' Massachusetts.[/quote]
Well that is an example of failed justice system to say the least, itreally holds no water JSweeney, because it was nearly 100 years before the Mass Constitution. It would've still been a British Colony, and theoretically Britain's foul up.
It is indeed the oldest working constitution...But is all of America is supposed to listen to it since it hasn't changed much since it was enacted in 1780? Do we need to fight the Red Coats again too, just because it's the oldest working constitution (and though it doesn't matter too much in this argument, people may be ineterested to know it's not the oldest) doesn't make it right for the whole country. Times change, just because it has remained mostly the same doesn't mean it's perfect, in fact one could argue some of the Acts are very outdated.
Also, you're history is a bit off, while the US Constitutoin was ratified about 8 years after the Mass Constitution was created it's first meeting was held in 1776 which helped to create the prelude to the US Constitution, the Articles of Confederation, which was ratified in 1781. So, the US Constitution isn't based solely off of Massachusetts Constitution, thoug it and the other early state constitutions probably had some influence on it.
BTW let it be known I'm not saying whether gay marriage is a matter of right and wrong, I'm not here to support or denounce it...I'm just the nut who has to dish out history because my dad made me watch the History Channel way too much as a kid.
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']If this is going to be argued on a 14th ammendment issue I'll trade you tit for tat.
You end affirmative action, I support gay marriage.
Deal?[/quote]
Affirmative action tries to balance an existing inequality. It aims to provide equal protection not undermine it.
You end affirmative action, I support gay marriage.
Deal?[/quote]
Affirmative action tries to balance an existing inequality. It aims to provide equal protection not undermine it.
JSweeney
CAGiversary!
[quote name='"Duo_Maxwell"'][quote name='JSweeney'][quote name='David85']What people don't seem to get is that under the Mass Constitution there is no reason why gays shouldn't get married and every reason why they should.
Mass. has the oldest working Const. on the planet and the US one is based on it. We also have the best common sense as being the first State that wouldn't allow slaves.[/quote]
On March 1, 1692, Salem, Massachusetts authorities charged Sarah Goode, Sarah Osborne, and a slave woman, Tituba, with practicing witchcraft. The arrests inaugurated the infamous Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Over the following months, more than 150 men and women in and around Salem were jailed on sorcery charges. Nineteen people eventually hanged on Gallows Hill and an additional victim was pressed to death.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/mar01.html
Yep, Good ol' Massachusetts.[/quote]
Well that is an example of failed justice system to say the least, itreally holds no water JSweeney, because it was nearly 100 years before the Mass Constitution. It would've still been a British Colony, and theoretically Britain's foul up.
That wasn't really my intent. Considering the rather outlandish "We also have the best common sense" statement, I felt a little refresher would be germane. Every group of people have times and actions they are ashamed of, and to imply by historical actions that Mass. residents have a firmer grasp on common sense than other is just ludicrous.
Mass. has the oldest working Const. on the planet and the US one is based on it. We also have the best common sense as being the first State that wouldn't allow slaves.[/quote]
On March 1, 1692, Salem, Massachusetts authorities charged Sarah Goode, Sarah Osborne, and a slave woman, Tituba, with practicing witchcraft. The arrests inaugurated the infamous Salem Witch Trials of 1692. Over the following months, more than 150 men and women in and around Salem were jailed on sorcery charges. Nineteen people eventually hanged on Gallows Hill and an additional victim was pressed to death.
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/mar01.html
Yep, Good ol' Massachusetts.[/quote]
Well that is an example of failed justice system to say the least, itreally holds no water JSweeney, because it was nearly 100 years before the Mass Constitution. It would've still been a British Colony, and theoretically Britain's foul up.
That wasn't really my intent. Considering the rather outlandish "We also have the best common sense" statement, I felt a little refresher would be germane. Every group of people have times and actions they are ashamed of, and to imply by historical actions that Mass. residents have a firmer grasp on common sense than other is just ludicrous.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
Ah I see (my sarcaism detector is apparently shot right now, happens when you have to write a paper for 4 hours), now I understand and concur.
CTLesq
CAGiversary!
[quote name='campbelld'][quote name='CTLesq']
Yes, and I am talking about the application of the Equal protection clause.
The Supreme Court applies a three tiered system of "suspect classifications" - race, religion, national origin, et al. Depending on what the government may be attempting to limit the government must show a greater degree of justification.
Sexual Orientation is all the way at the bottom, race all the way at the top.
Thats why the two are not equivilant. And I am not trying to be a dick, but thats why merely reading the EPC doesn't get you there and thats why you are mistaken.
CTL[/quote]
Now I understand. Thank you.
That may be the way it is currently applied, but if we are ranking these does that not defeat the equality? That tells me that a homosexual is protected less than a Chinese man. That's actually the opposite of equal. It's a hierarchy. Maybe the way that it is being applied is self-defeating. Our legal system doesn't always agree with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In fact sometimes the law is content to ignore them. You may remember that the war in which we currently participate is illegal by a standard that we helped set! In the same way the application of this clause is violating its fundamental promise.[/quote]
Well under your theory there should be no heirarchy between race and gender - yet there is. Historically you were worse off because being black than being a woman. As a result the courts have sought to address those issues by creating an increasing burden for the government to prove when attempting to limit the rights of groups. Turns out the case law has determined that if you are gay you need less protection than if you are black or a woman or if you are a Jew.
And if your argument is that this treatment of gays doesn't comport with the constitution, then the same could be said for groups that are not considered "suspect classifications" (race/religion, etc.). I disagree with that analysis.
If your position is well, laws and times change - fine, but accept and have the courtesy to acknowledge that is not a legal argument, it is a wishful thinking argument - which while you are entitled to have it cannot be construed as people are being treated unfairly and it is illegal.
Finally, I disagree with your analysis that the current war we are in is illegal - both the US House and Senate voted to authorize war against Iraq.
CTL
Yes, and I am talking about the application of the Equal protection clause.
The Supreme Court applies a three tiered system of "suspect classifications" - race, religion, national origin, et al. Depending on what the government may be attempting to limit the government must show a greater degree of justification.
Sexual Orientation is all the way at the bottom, race all the way at the top.
Thats why the two are not equivilant. And I am not trying to be a dick, but thats why merely reading the EPC doesn't get you there and thats why you are mistaken.
CTL[/quote]
Now I understand. Thank you.
That may be the way it is currently applied, but if we are ranking these does that not defeat the equality? That tells me that a homosexual is protected less than a Chinese man. That's actually the opposite of equal. It's a hierarchy. Maybe the way that it is being applied is self-defeating. Our legal system doesn't always agree with the Constitution and Bill of Rights. In fact sometimes the law is content to ignore them. You may remember that the war in which we currently participate is illegal by a standard that we helped set! In the same way the application of this clause is violating its fundamental promise.[/quote]
Well under your theory there should be no heirarchy between race and gender - yet there is. Historically you were worse off because being black than being a woman. As a result the courts have sought to address those issues by creating an increasing burden for the government to prove when attempting to limit the rights of groups. Turns out the case law has determined that if you are gay you need less protection than if you are black or a woman or if you are a Jew.
And if your argument is that this treatment of gays doesn't comport with the constitution, then the same could be said for groups that are not considered "suspect classifications" (race/religion, etc.). I disagree with that analysis.
If your position is well, laws and times change - fine, but accept and have the courtesy to acknowledge that is not a legal argument, it is a wishful thinking argument - which while you are entitled to have it cannot be construed as people are being treated unfairly and it is illegal.
Finally, I disagree with your analysis that the current war we are in is illegal - both the US House and Senate voted to authorize war against Iraq.
CTL
[quote name='CTLesq']Well under your theory there should be no heirarchy between race and gender - yet there is. Historically you were worse off because being black than being a woman. As a result the courts have sought to address those issues by creating an increasing burden for the government to prove when attempting to limit the rights of groups. Turns out the case law has determined that if you are gay you need less protection than if you are black or a woman or if you are a Jew.
And if your argument is that this treatment of gays doesn't comport with the constitution, then the same could be said for groups that are not considered "suspect classifications" (race/religion, etc.). I disagree with that analysis.
If your position is well, laws and times change - fine, but accept and have the courtesy to acknowledge that is not a legal argument, it is a wishful thinking argument - which while you are entitled to have it cannot be construed as people are being treated unfairly and it is illegal.
Finally, I disagree with your analysis that the current war we are in is illegal - both the US House and Senate voted to authorize war against Iraq.
CTL[/quote]
You are right. There is a hierarchy, but what you are suggesting is that this hierarchy that determines which classifications are protected and in what order allows those at the bottom of the ladder to have their rights taken away at the state level.(?) I don't think that is the spirit of the clause or its application.
I will readily admit that I wishfully think our laws should be based on morality, but I think it is illegal based on the fact that an amendment we have in place is contradictory to one that we are trying to pass. The equal protection clause may be applied using a hierarchy of "suspect classifications," but do you actually think that the hierarchy of the equal protection clause is designed so that those at the bottom have no secured rights? Sorry. I repeat myself.
I should have said that the war was illegal by international law. Of course our war is legal based on the legality we alone define.
And if your argument is that this treatment of gays doesn't comport with the constitution, then the same could be said for groups that are not considered "suspect classifications" (race/religion, etc.). I disagree with that analysis.
If your position is well, laws and times change - fine, but accept and have the courtesy to acknowledge that is not a legal argument, it is a wishful thinking argument - which while you are entitled to have it cannot be construed as people are being treated unfairly and it is illegal.
Finally, I disagree with your analysis that the current war we are in is illegal - both the US House and Senate voted to authorize war against Iraq.
CTL[/quote]
You are right. There is a hierarchy, but what you are suggesting is that this hierarchy that determines which classifications are protected and in what order allows those at the bottom of the ladder to have their rights taken away at the state level.(?) I don't think that is the spirit of the clause or its application.
I will readily admit that I wishfully think our laws should be based on morality, but I think it is illegal based on the fact that an amendment we have in place is contradictory to one that we are trying to pass. The equal protection clause may be applied using a hierarchy of "suspect classifications," but do you actually think that the hierarchy of the equal protection clause is designed so that those at the bottom have no secured rights? Sorry. I repeat myself.
I should have said that the war was illegal by international law. Of course our war is legal based on the legality we alone define.
bread's done