I am not comfortable with lawyers redefining things - I just don't trust them - do you?
chrysostom
- Thread starter chrysostom
- Start date
I am not comfortable with lawyers redefining things - I just don't trust them - do you?
the easy way is to encourage a man and a woman to get together and stay together - most of them will produce kids - really
Like Jefferson, Adams, and around half the founders when they redefined the nature of government among men?
I trust the rule of law they gifted us with over the whims and dispositions of men like you, who confuse their bias with the rule of thumb.
That was an easy dodge of an honest answer that unhorses you, but why should that surprise anyone. It's what you're left to do.
that is the truth - you see it as a dodge - now explain to everyone here what was not true about my post
why do you have to go back so far? -
why can't you talk about what is happening today?
I don't, but it's a fabulous way to unhorse your suspicion when you think about it.
I can, have, and do. I only just did. Can't you talk about the point, the rebuttal on your mistrust of "lawyers" that it brings into focus?
Mostly because whether or not it's true or you only believe it to be, it remains a dodge, an evasion, a lack of response to my rebuttal on your own point.
You were wrong on the court and you're wrong on the state and marriage. The court protects your rights and the next fellow's even when the exercise of those rights offends your sensibilities. And if the state thought marriage was all about children it would have evidenced the interest in simple ways I noted are absent from any licensing requirement.
That sort of thing.
And that's another dodge and a bit of goal post moving. First, because I didn't challenge the honesty of your belief, only stated you got an honest answer to its assumption/assertion and that you didn't address that response, which you still haven't.
I have explained what was errant in your post. Either you can address it or...you can keep moving.
I don't, but it's a fabulous way to unhorse your suspicion when you think about it.
I can, have, and do. I only just did. Can't you talk about the point, the rebuttal on your mistrust of "lawyers" that it brings into focus?
but you don't talk about bad judges who allow mothers to kill their babies and protect two guys living together
we agree on that
Actually, I've repeatedly said that Roe was one example of the Court getting an issue horribly wrong and to tragic consequences. My position on abortion was the foundation of my friendship with the founder here and began with his reading of my taking on the topic and advocating for the unborn.
I noted the inevitability of the decision here long before that decision was reached. I don't agree with their reasoning, but as a matter of contract and right to it I always thought the outcome was forgone. The Court protects rights. Individuals possess them. Even individuals who offend you, or me, or the next fellow.
Good ... the *state* is free to give birth and take care of THEIR kids.
I don't think they care about the kids one way or another ... as long as they have the ability to wash their hands of them. At least that is how the GOP feels.
So ... the GOP sees childbearing as cash flow ... nice to know.
It's amazing you'd ask since I just told you that I oppose Roe and agree with the ruling on gay marriage, though I oppose the reasoning in both decisions.
As to my why on abortion, I've stated it repeatedly elsewhere, but the short of it is that we all agree there's a right that can't be abrogated when vested, short of heinous conduct that doesn't apply to the unborn, and that the differences on when that vestment arrives are inherently arbitrary, that the only way we can avoid doing that which we aren't entitled to do is by protecting each potential point of vestment, regardless of where you think that point might or should be counted.
Or, abortion should be illegal, a thing that shouldn't be a mystery to any long term poster here. And I'd agree that there's no legitimate bar to homosexuals having the right to contract marriage.
was that true with slavery?
I'm not sure I understand your question. Slaves had the status of chattel, not persons. Where some states had various restrictions on what was permissible, on the whole a slave owner could do with his property as he would.
Slavery was inherently violative of Constitution protections and only the culturally supported bigotry of the day permitted a degree of blindness on the part of those who wielded power. Scott was a humiliatingly bad decision by the Court in relation to that, but one neither the legislative nor executive did much about, sadly.
Once you strip a being of human right any horror is possible and most are likely.
Have you noticed that among the hard right there's this peculiar tendency to myopic focus and concern? For instance, the state has an interest in happy, productive citizens. Marriage, with or without children, promotes both. Married people tend to be happier.
most of us don't understand lawyer talk - we just understand that bad judges seem to be protecting two guys living together but not the unborn baby - we do understand who is putting these judges on the court - just look at the four liberals clinton and obama put there - that is all you really need to know
:rotfl:
I know the two topics have nothing to do with one another. The reason to be anti-abortion should be based on one motive: protecting the unborn from DEATH. A death they have no choice in. Abortion always equals the death of a child. Two men or women marrying one another is a mere annoyance to those who hate homosexuals so much that they want them to live in misery. In the latter case, no one is being killed or needs protection.