ARCHIVE: Hello. (funniest "hello" thread ever!)

[Fnord5]

You're the one who brought up the inalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence, so answer the question. Do non-citizens have an inalienable right to life -- yes or no?

Yes, they have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Basic rights for all humans. But non citizens do not have those rights protected by our government. To do so would require them to become citizens.

 

[Minerva]

I forgot to add this thought....I have witnessed many adults (implying that they have passed puberty) who have not the capacity for rational decision making. The ability to make a rational decision is subjective and not bound by puberty.

 

[Clete]

Stating that I dislike close minded people is not contradictory, Although I may dislike them, I still take into consideration what they say.

You didn't say you "disliked" them, you said you "abhor" them, which I'd bet is infinitely closer to what you really believe given the comment equating Christians with murderers.

ab·hor
1. To regard with extreme repugnance. ^source​

The comment was clearly self-contradictory.

Yes.
A pervert is someone who goes against social mores, which are defined by the society.
I would say that if defining that person as a pervert, no it is not. If done in an attempt to insult or marginalize them, yes, it is.

:rotfl:
Could you please explain to me how it is possible to call someone a pervert without insulting and marginalizing them? The whole purpose of the words existence is to insult and marginalize people who fall under its definition, which is precisely what a just society would want to do to such people, by the way.

I never said that homosexuality was not a perversion, just that they should be afforded the same rights as traditional marriage.

In that case why wouldn't pedophiles qualify for the same rights?
I know! Because they are felons, right?
Well homos were felons when you precious Declaration of Independence was written and they remained as such until less than a generation ago.
And why in your view, should pedophilia be a crime if homosexuality is not?

Ahh, but you see, I made that statement before anyone had said anything to me. Not really all that applicable to this situation.
A for effort though. :thumb:

No you didn't! You said that Lucky had a closed my in post #10, in RESPONSE to his post #8. Last time I checked, 10 came AFTER 8, but then again, I didn't major in logic.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[Minerva]

but then again, I didn't major in logic.

:rotfl:

 

[Fnord5]

First....Do you even have children? I have 4 and I watch them make rational decisions every day....even complex ones.(Then again I am the proud parent of some very intelligent children)

Second.....I am fully "read up" on my psychology.

Third.....Check your dictionary for the definition of the word "rational" then, pay close attention to your own words here....

"Children are incapable of making rational decisions until after puberty is complete"

You statement is incorrect. It is only your opinion that a child in unable to grasp an abstract situation and the resulting consequences.

Piaget.

Formal operational stage
The formal operational stage is the fourth and final of the stages of cognitive development of Piaget's theory. This stage, which follows the Concrete Operational stage, commences at around 11 years of age (puberty) and continues into adulthood. It is characterized by acquisition of the ability to think abstractly and draw conclusions from the information available. During this stage the young adult functions in a cognitively normal manner and therefore is able to understand such things as love, "shades of gray", and values. Lucidly, biological factors may be traced to this stage as it occurs during puberty and marking the entry to adulthood in Physiology, cognition, moral judgement (Kohlberg), Psychosexual development (Freud), and social development (Erikson).

Continues until completion of puberty. (that means I was right)

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Yes, they have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Basic rights for all humans.

Who endowed them with these rights?

But non citizens do not have those rights protected by our government. To do so would require them to become citizens.

So a non-citizen has these rights, but they're not protected by the government -- is that what you're saying?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Actually, polygamy is a felony. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-05-03-polygamy_x.htm
Yes, arguing for the overturning of incest laws is not illegal, but you cannot compare the two situations.

Same sex marriage is not a crime, incest and polygamy are. Same sex marriage has neither been formally legalized, or outlawed.

Here is the part you keep missing......

One can only be guilty of polygamy if one breaks the current law and gets married to more than one person. Therefore in a very real sense polygamy is illegal (or not legal however you would like to say it) just as homosexual marriage is not yet legal.

The question we are exploring is SHOULD EVERYONE have the same rights pertaining to marriage? (after all, that was your assertion)

Why should polygamy remain illegal, yet homosexual marriage should be legalized? Why defend one and not the other? Are you gay?

 

[Fnord5]

You didn't say you "disliked" them, you said you "abhor" them, which I'd bet is infinitely closer to what you really believe given the comment equating Christians with murderers.

ab·hor
1. To regard with extreme repugnance. ^source​

The comment was clearly self-contradictory.

OK, so I despise those that are close minded, that does not change the fact that I still take their thoughts under consideration. Not contradictory.

:rotfl:
Could you please explain to me how it is possible to call someone a pervert without insulting and marginalizing them? The whole purpose of the words existence is to insult and marginalize people who fall under its definition, which is precisely what a just society would want to do to such people, by the way.

You can call someone a pervert without using that word, the meaning is what's important. Arguing over a word when the clear focus is on the meaning behind it is an attempt to dodge.

In that case why wouldn't pedophiles qualify for the same rights?
I know! Because they are felons, right?
Well homos were felons when you precious Declaration of Independence was written and they remained as such until less than a generation ago.
And why in your view, should pedophilia be a crime if homosexuality is not?

I request a cite, both the original law, and its repeal.
And, the Declaration was written before the US was a nation state, so any laws were English in origin.

No you didn't! You said that Lucky had a closed my in post #10, in RESPONSE to his post #8. Last time I checked, 10 came AFTER 8, but then again, I didn't major in logic.

Resting in Him,
Clete

Two things. I said that I abhor closed minded people in my opening post, BEFORE anyone had said anything to me. It would be kind of hard to say that in response to anything when it was the first post in the thread.
And as for Lucky, his automatic assumption that I was a pervert before any real discussion had taken place is being close minded no matter which way you slice it.

And on a final note, I didn't major in logic either, I was for a while, but your statement implies a degree. :kookoo:
My current major is Government with an International Relations focus.

 

[Minerva]

Piaget.


Continues until completion of puberty. (that means I was right)

First, this is one persons interpretation. Maybe you should read ALL of what Piaget has to say concerning this subject. If I thought it was worth my time I would explain it to you but I have to say, (and I am usually not insulting) that you are an idiot! :wave2:

 

[Fnord5]

Here is the part you keep missing......

One can only be guilty of polygamy if one breaks the current law and gets married to more than one person. Therefore in a very real sense polygamy is illegal (or not legal however you would like to say it) just as homosexual marriage is not yet legal.

Here is the part you are missing completely, one is ILLEGAL, the other has no legal position, one way or the other. They cannot be compared, end of story.

The question we are exploring is SHOULD EVERYONE have the same rights pertaining to marriage? (after all, that was your assertion)

Yes, provided it is not in conflict with EXISTING laws.

Why should polygamy remain illegal, yet homosexual marriage should be legalized?

See above.

Why defend one and not the other? Are you gay?

I am surprised it took this long for someone to ask me that. It is a classic homophobic response to someone questioning your values.
For the answer though, no, I am not gay, nor do I agree with homosexuality from a religious point of view. That does not change how I feel politically.

 

[Fnord5]

First, this is one persons interpretation. Maybe you should read ALL of what Piaget has to say concerning this subject. If I thought it was worth my time I would explain it to you but I have to say, (and I am usually not insulting) that you are an idiot! :wave2:

You have a funny way of not being insulting.
I have read all of Piaget, and there is a consensus among psychologists.
By your "experience" your children have the ability to rationally decide to get married or not? I seriously doubt that they would even understand what marriage really is, let alone be able to make that decision.

 

[Fnord5]

Who endowed them with these rights?

God, Allah, Yahweh, take your pick.

So a non-citizen has these rights, but they're not protected by the government -- is that what you're saying?

Um yeah, thats just about exactly what I just typed, should I use smaller words next time?

 

[Clete]

OK, so I despise those that are close minded, that does not change the fact that I still take their thoughts under consideration. Not contradictory.

Okay, whatever you say.

:rotfl:
Could you please explain to me how it is possible to call someone a pervert without insulting and marginalizing them? The whole purpose of the words existence is to insult and marginalize people who fall under its definition, which is precisely what a just society would want to do to such people, by the way.

You can call someone a pervert without using that word, the meaning is what's important.

Dude! Are you smoking pot or something?

Who cares which word you use? If you called me a pervert, whether you actually used that word or not, I'd be offended! That's the purpose of calling someone that! It is also offensive to call someone a felon, or a murderer, or a rapist. Is it closed minded to call someone those things?

Arguing over a word when the clear focus is on the meaning behind it is an attempt to dodge.

You're the one worried about the word, and you're the one who called someone closed minded for having use it! :freak:

I request a cite, both the original law, and its repeal.

You're delusional if you don't believe that sodomy has been a capital crime in nearly every civilized nation for the last several centuries!

But to answer your question. Homsexuality was against the law in this country from it inception until the Sexual Offences Act 1967.

That's right, 1967. In case your math skills are as lacking as your logic skills are, that's a mere 40 years ago.

And, the Declaration was written before the US was a nation state, so any laws were English in origin.

Good point! Oooh! You really got me there!

Henry VIII introduced the first legislation against homosexuals in England with the Buggery Act of 1533, making buggery punishable by hanging.

Two things. I said that I abhor closed minded people in my opening post, BEFORE anyone had said anything to me. It would be kind of hard to say that in response to anything when it was the first post in the thread.

Nice point, except that I wasn't referring to that.

And as for Lucky, his automatic assumption that I was a pervert before any real discussion had taken place is being close minded no matter which way you slice it.

It wasn't an automatic assumption. You actively support what you have conceded is a perversion. That makes you a pervert. Just as actively supporting murder makes you a murderer. Simple really.

And on a final note, I didn't major in logic either. I said that I had thought about it. :kookoo:

Umm, you forget that this is an internet forum where your words are all still there where everyone can read them.

SUTG asked, "Are you any good at logic?"

To which you answered...

"Quite, I was majoring in it for a while."

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[One Eyed Jack]

God, Allah, Yahweh, take your pick.

Are you a deist?

Um yeah, thats just about exactly what I just typed, should I use smaller words next time?

No -- my vocabulary is fairly extensive, and I can avail myself of a dictionary if I need to. I was merely asking for a clarification.

 

[Minerva]

You have a funny way of not being insulting.
I have read all of Piaget, and there is a consensus among psychologists.
By your "experience" your children have the ability to rationally decide to get married or not? I seriously doubt that they would even understand what marriage really is, let alone be able to make that decision.

I said that usually I am not insulting. In your case, I made an exception. I did not say that my children could decide on issues such as marriage. This would be because they do not have the experience emotionally or socially to make a decision of that nature. What we were discussing is the fact that you said "Children are incapable of making rational decisions until after puberty is complete" You are now specifying a decision, and although they may not be able to make one concerning marriage, that does not imply that they are incapable of making a rational decision on other topics.

 

[Fnord5]

You're delusional if you don't believe that sodomy has been a capital crime in nearly every civilized nation for the last several centuries!

But to answer your question. Homsexuality was against the law in this country from it inception until the Sexual Offences Act 1967.

That's right, 1967. In case your math skills are as lacking as your logic skills are, that's a mere 40 years ago.

Hmn, when did the topic of sodomy get introduced?
Sure, gay men partake in the activity upon occasion, but sodomy is not even close to the same as homosexuality, and it excludes lesbians.

You still need to cite the origins of the outlawing of homosexuality. English law is not American law.

Are you a deist?

Not a chance. I am a firm believer in God, and His watch over mankind. I threw the other names for Him out there in case one applied better to your beliefs.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Quite, I was majoring in it for a while.

Uh-huh. Sure you were.

And on a final note, I didn't major in logic either. I said that I had thought about it

I'll tell you what -- you figure it out, you let us know.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Not a chance. I am a firm believer in God, and His watch over mankind.

Then wouldn't you agree that marriage was instituted by God between a man and a woman?

I threw the other names for Him out there in case one applied better to your beliefs.

You don't need to accomodate me -- I'm asking about your views. Just be straight with me. I don't have much stomach for appeasers.

 

[Fnord5]

My religious beliefs are held separate from my political views.

And as for the edit, a simple mistake.

 

[Clete]

Hmn, when did the topic of sodomy get introduced?
Sure, gay men partake in the activity upon occasion, but sodomy is not even close to the same as homosexuality, and it excludes lesbians.

You still need to cite the origins of the outlawing of homosexuality. English law is not American law.

Who are you talking too?

I know you are getting dog piled here a bit but come on already! You have to at least stay on the same page as the one you're talking too. Why is it necessary for me to keep reminding you of what YOU said?

You are the one who brought up the fact that homos should have equal rights because of the Declaration of Independence. I then pointed out the fact that homosexuality was illegal when the Declaration was written. IT WAS THEN YOU WHO BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT WE WERE UNDER BRITISH LAW WHEN THE DECLARATION WAS WRITTEN!!! So in response to that I cited the fact that Henry VIII made HOMOSEXUALITY illegal clear back in the 16th century!

I didn't bring up British law, you did! And in my previous post I cited, per your request, the precise piece of legislation that ended laws against homosexuality (not sodomy - sodomy is still against the law in most states) IN THIS COUNTRY in 1967. Why would such a piece of legislation be necessary if the activity hadn't been illegal?

Do you seriously doubt that homosexual activity was illegal for the first 200 years of this countries existence? If so, you really need to read some history books.

Resting in Him,
Clete