Posted on 06/01/2005 9:24:53 AM PDT by Fester Chugabrew
You didn't do well in college... Perversion is a human deviation of anatomical function.
Who is he that is not of woman borne?
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
You are smearing the ideas of Ayn Rand. I know the works of Ayn Rand, and unlike you, I understand what she wrote.
Hardly. Much of Ayn Rand's egotism comes from John Locke and that of Thomas Hobbes before him and with a smattering of Freiderich Neitzche's nihilism.
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
She argues that it was indeed based on a metaphysical fact of our existence...
"Is the concept of value, of "good or evil" an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of reality-- or is it based on a metaphysical fact, an an unalterable condition of man's existence?"
The Metaphysics of Ethics? Immanuel Kant? Or is it Aristotle's Metaphysics? She questions...
Metaphysics not only suggests, it requires belief in some higher power than the Self to define what is good or bad. I prefer to use logic, it requires no emotion to color the outcome of a conclusion. What is The Geneology of Morals (borrowing from Neitzche's title)?
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
You represent everything that is against the idea of the individual and of capitalism.
Capitalism is this axiom:
So long as there is someone willing to pay, there will always be someone willing to collect... (an axiom that is mine and original.)
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Of course, you have yet to define what a "right" is, in terms of where it is derived from in the U.S. Constitution.
You cannot or must not, because it will take you right to the Declaration of Independence - - and what does that say?
If you have ever studied Ayn Rand, you would also know that it is a Marxist tactic to take words out of context and attribute things to them that were never said, as you have repeatedly done with mine.
It is also a Marxist tactic to change the subject as you have repeatedly done here.
A lot of Marxists have also read Ayn Rand - - study of your enemy is logical to subvert what they have said. (I don't agree with Ayn Rand chapter and verse.)
It is also an uncontrollable Marxist habit to attack and smear the Christians. You did attempt it, but I never said I wasn't a Christian until you made that mistake. I let you hang yourself like a Judas.
Keep digging, the philosophical hole in which you pretend to stand is getting deeper and deeper and exposes your Sophist tactics...
You are a Marxist troll... a Trotskyite quizzling...
You must be one of those Liberaltarians I've read about to last this long on this board. Thanks for being the irrelevant 2% of the political population, oh and thanks for voting for Bush.
Now go hit your bong and watch another rerun of Gilligan's Island while you still live in your parents basement.
(Words of another FR poster that apply directly to you...)
'I have no more words for you... My voice is in my sword...'
'Who is he that is not of woman borne?'
We are still laughing at you :)
But of course, that's okay because you know that you're right, right?
The arrogant atheist professors who hold a monopoly on preaching in our schools are infected lousy with Inexcusable hubris and a self-aggrandizing sense of intellectual infallibility. In their narrow-minded zeal they exceed that of the strictest fundamental theist.
Um, and when we enter into a contract and I take your money without fulfilling the my side of the contract becuase our guns are bigger than yours, then what?
I have been arguing that it shouldn't be a matter of civil law at all. A better word than *religious* would be that marriage (or unions, whatever you want to call them) are personal rites. It should be completely between the people entering into it.
Yeah, I know how the ideal libertarian world would like to work. Unfortunately, contracts in a libertarian world absent civil law are unenforceable except to the extent that my armory is bigger than yours.
If they wish to get sanction from a particular religion for their union, that is their choice. If they don't desire any sanction from any religious group, that is also their choice.
That is already the case.
The government should not be involved in any way; that includes in granting them special privileges because they get married, like tax exemptions.
Actually I would concur with that, nor should there be a marriage penalty. But the vast preponderance of Americans are not gonna give up their deductions for dependents. So it goes.
That way, if two gay men get married with the blessing of a religious group, or if they choose to just say vows to themselves with some friends over to witness, that would be their choice.
Could we can the newspeak and speak English? Marriage is and always has been in the USA the union of one man and one woman. And in point of fact, any American fulfilling that, the age requirments and the blood relative requirement can marry. If the government abridged the right of lesbians and gays to get married when they fulfilled those requirements that would violate civil rights laws and the constitutions guarantee of equal treatment. As it is, it does not.
Nobody else would be forced to acknowledge their union as valid if they didn't want to. There would be no civil benefits to getting married, for heterosexual or homosexual marriage (monogamous or polygamous). No tax breaks; nothing.
Fine by me as long as you understand that marriage is a word with meaning. Doing an Orwell on it is no better than redefining is. Nothing prevents any citizen from entering into contracts right now. Nothing.
:-} Right, and the arbiter that convenes the juries is who, the contractee with the biggest guns? Am I to understand that you an anarcho libertarian type?
Decree is your word, it doesn't apply in a constitutional republic. Royalty issues decrees, in America we legislate. So your argument here is with yourself. Good luck.
Yep, they can make Constitutional law & 'regulations', - but not decrees.
Like I said, argue with yourself on decrees, it doesn't interest me.
Reasonable regulations. I agree.
Right, so the states can regulate marriage.
Unreasonable reg. -- Why should I care if Bruce wants to 'marry' you? - I don't.
Since Bruce is presumably a male he can not marry another male. Words have meaning. Newspeak doesn't interest me wither. But you've already agreed that states can regulate marriage, if you insist on changing the meaning of words then lobby your legislature to do so. Here, I won't wish you luck.
They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.
There is no infringement, anybody can make contracts with anybody else. You just can't urinate down my leg and call ir April showers.
Wrong. -- The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.
I want you to cite me the relevant section of the constitution supporting your idea. Failing that you should retract the statement. Good luck here, you're gonna need it.
So I guess we agree that while government can regulate marriage, they can not abridge the right to marry?
Certainly and since the definition of marriage since the founding of this country has been the union of one man and one woman, I think you've seen the light.
:-} We've gone from no government involvement to some government involvement. That was quick.
But the government does not have the authority to stop individuals from freely ENTERING INTO any contract as long as that contract does not infringe on someone else's rights to life, liberty, or property.
Certainly they do. Can a 12 year old enter into a marriage contract, a work contract or any other contract? Of course the answer is no. Laws preclude it and those laws are made by legislatures so your statement fails with even the least of scrutiny.
The *libertarians are anarchists* is a straw man. I have not called for the elimination of all civil law, just civil law that has no legitimate authority.
You forgot to add, IYHO. But in America there are many opinions, you only get one vote. You don't get to pick and choose laws for the rest of us.
The enforcement of contracts and the protection of individuals from foreign and domestic threats to life, liberty, and property are the only legitimate functions of government.
In libertarinaville, in America it is different and there is nothing unconstitutional about it. States regualte marriage, that power is constitutionally granted and long standing in American jurisprudence. It simply is, to argue otherwise is simply a waste of time.
Tell that to the Mormons.
It was told to the Mormons by Abe Lincoln, they don't need to hear again at this late stage.
Marriage is not something the state has the authority to define.
Right, it is a word with meaning and you sure the hell don't have a right to redefine it. Glad we're clear on that.
Right, and the arbiter that convenes the juries is who, the contractee with the biggest guns?
No, we have a Constitutional government that convenes juries, walsh. I suggest you do more study on how its supposed to operate.
Am I to understand that you an anarcho libertarian type?
From what I can see, you're virtually incapable of understanding me, or the Constitution I've pledged to support & defend.
You can't even make a rational argument, Guitarman can. He's wrong but lucid, you need to go back and read the Constitution, the Federalist papers and the Declaration of Independence. Then get back to me.
Congress doesn;t regulate marriage, the states do.
States can "regulate", but they cannot make laws that decree marriage 'illegal' based on what the state legislators think will be beneficial to society. - Neither feds nor states have ever been delegated such prohibitive powers. --
--- they can make Constitutional law & 'regulations', - but not decrees.
Decree is your word, it doesn't apply in a constitutional republic.
That's my point. - Thanks.
Royalty issues decrees, in America we legislate. -- argue with yourself on decrees, it doesn't interest me.
Yep, we legislate under rule of constitutional law, not rules as decreed by politicians.
You can't marry your sister. You can't marry a two year old.
Reasonable regulations. I agree.
Right, so the states can regulate marriage.
Amazing, -- you got my point.
If you don't live in Mass you can't marry somebody of the same sex.
Unreasonable reg. -- Why should I care if Bruce wants to 'marry' you? - I don't.
Since Bruce is presumably a male he can not marry another male.
So you claim, begging the question.
the Words have meaning. Newspeak doesn't interest me wither. But you've already agreed that states can regulate marriage,
Yep, reasonable regulations.
The states and Congress can certainly amend the constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woma if they so choose.
They could try, but I doubt that such an amendment could be drafted to avoid infringing on our individual right to make valid contracts.
There is no infringement, anybody can make contracts with anybody else. You just can't urinate down my leg and call it April showers.
There you go 'boldly' contradicting yourself again. You've been arguing that you & Bruce can't contract to 'marry'.
Dude, when they amend the constituion that is the law of the land until further amendment. There is no judicial review --- . Sorry.
Wrong. -- The USSC could issue an opinion that such an Amendment was repugnant to Constitutional principles. -- And any government Official, at any level, could then refuse to enforce such an Amendment, on the grounds that it violated Constitutional principles.
I want you to cite me the relevant section of the constitution supporting your idea. Failing that you should retract the statement. Good luck here, you're gonna need it.
I cite Article VI, wherein ALL officials in the US are sworn to support our Constitutional principles as the Law of the Land.
_______________________________________
jwalsh07 writes an aside:
You can't even make a rational argument, -- you need to go back and read the Constitution, the Federalist papers and the Declaration of Independence. Then get back to me.
You just attempted above to refute my rational arguments. -- You failed. Get back to me when you gather the courage to try again.
You must be one of those Liberaltarians I've read about to last this long on this board. Thanks for being the irrelevant 2% of the political population, oh and thanks for voting for Bush.
Now go hit your bong and watch another rerun of Gilligan's Island while you still live in your parents basement.
(Words of another FR poster that apply directly to you...)
Your repeating yourself. And we are still laughing at you, little petty despot. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.