I offer the same bet that I did above: Five thousand dollars says that I can prove you wrong on that statement.[/quote[
:lol: based off of what? the supreme court is the last word on constitutionality
because it says it is??? circular logic, my friend
.
if i may cite Thomas Jefferson here:
The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches... To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.
I already told you: The court of public opinion does not mean jack squat.
exactly. you are fully willing to impose a wildly unpopular overhaul of the basis of our society against the will of the people by utilizing the coercive power of the state. you are willing to overthrow the notion of rule of law and soveriegnty of the people in order to get your way.
but one day the little unaccountable princelings you are seeking to set up might not be so accomadating to you. that's the danger of abandoning
process for
policy.
I am hereby offering my previous $5,000 bet to you, except, in this case, I do not deny that you have not seen this as an argument. However, I feel that I can point out a very high-profile instance, that you should know about, where this argument was used, therefore, giving you no excuse, other than mere stupidity, for not knowing it. If I can do that, then you owe me $5,000. If I can't, then I will pay you $5,000. Do you accept that challenge?
no. one the one hand i don't gamble, and on the other i am nowhere near rich enough yet to be playing with that kind of money. however, i'd love to see your example.
Easy twenty thousand bucks if you accept all of the above challenges. How confident are you that I can't prove you wrong?
i'm pretty confident, actually.
no, institutions are different from individual portions of them. for example, i can destroy my current marriage by cheating on my wife and then beating her, without effecting my neighbors marriage a whit; the
institution remains largely undamaged by the actions that dramatically damage my
particular part of it. however, if i were to change the law to require husbands to mildly beat their wives and cheat on them at least once a year, then i have damaged the
institution of marriage, even if my neighbor refuses to obey me and his
particular relationship remains just fine.
What is your rational basis for thinking that?
i really don't see how this is not blindingly obvious. someone has to define marraige for the state. previously, that has been the legislature (as it should be) or, in some cases, the people directly via referendums. once you remove the right of the people to define marriage (either directly or via their elected representatives), then they have no right to define it as one
man and one
woman.
but neither do they have the right to define it as
one man and
one woman. by overthrowing the popular will on this you have also overthrown that which kept the state from issuing equal recognition to polygamous or incestual relationships. they must have their "right" to a marriage licence the same as the monogamous homosexuals; and it would be a violation of the newly expanded 14th amendment to deny it to them.
it's not a slippery slope, it is a tautology.
that children raised without fathers suffer for it? seriously? in a post-'great society' world you need a source.
On average, children raised without fathers are more likely to show signs of psychological maladjustment, they are more likely to have difficulties at school, difficulty in getting even to underperform, or to drop out of school early, to have less school completed. They are more likely to be represented in the statistics on delinquency and unconventional social behaviour, and they seem to have difficulty establishing and maintaining intimate relationships, particularly heterosexual relationships once they move into adulthood... Children who have close warm relationships with their fathers are better adjusted psychologically, perform better at school, are less likely to be involved in antisocial behaviour, and seem to do better in their relationship with peers, as children, as adolescents, and as adults.
1. i would like to see an explanation of what you think marriage is,
A union between two people who love each other in a romantic way, so that they may come together and form a household.
then i have to ask (utilizing your reasoning here) why you are bigoted against muslims? do you hate them or fear them for being polygamous, or do you seek to wrongfully discriminate against them for some other reason?
and who says it has to be romantic love? that's not even the historical norm - for millenia people married because they had to, because so-and-so was available, because social convention said they had to marry that person, because their parents picked their spouse for them... the notion of romantic love being a defining part of marriage rather than merely a hopeful addition is a relatively recent one (added, i might add, due to the preference of the same people you now deride).
and why must they come together to form a household? do you hate people who are married and live apart? my wife and i are currently in two separate states due to my job; and when i was deployed she was living with her parents, in their household. was our marriage (by your definition) anulled during that time period?
Because there are benefits associated with marriage.
no, i don't think that is it. if that were the case then the homosexual advocacy movement would be satisfied with the (far more popular and more achievable) goal of civil unions which include all the same government benefits (but, as i recall, without the tax punishment). as much as you swear that
"I couldn't give less of a rats ass if the church down the street thinks that my marriage is an abomination.", this is a social battle. the homosexual advocacy movement wants to
force people to accept them as an equal alternative to traditional sexuality and marriage.
Gay marriage is poised to be legalized, judicially, because there is no rational reason not to legalize it. Incest and polygamy are illegal at a secular level because there are secular reasons to ban them.
but that is no argument at all; you are basically stating that you believe that the legalization of polygamy and incestual marriages can never happen because no judge disagrees with you on this matter. which is preposterous.
Incest used to be legal (e.g. the monarchs of Europe "keeping it in the family"), but then it was proven (emphasis on that last word) that children who are the spawn of incest have a significantly higher risk of genetic disorders. That has been proven by science.
yes. specifically it has been proven that it usually takes several generations of consistent inbreeding for this to occur. however, this line of argument has three problems for you: 1. it means that you are willing to place the definition of marriage within the context of producing children via sexual interaction between the two members of the union. i hardly think i need to draw out how that is a realm that does not include homosexual unions. 2. it means that you are willing (see above) to restrict people's actions based on possibilities of what the
children might do. and 3. it means that you are willing to deny marriage and children to those whom you deem genetically unfit; eugenics at it's best. should dwarves be allowed to reproduce? how about people with a history of breast cancer? how about
any genetic anomaly; or someone who carries a recessive allele for it? your above claim (that we should not allow those to marry whose children might be less than 'optimal') would exclude them all.
polygamy is illegal at a secular level because of all the benefits that are associated with marriage. If you have more than one spouse, who gets the benefits? Who gets primary decision-making power when you're medically incapacitated? Who gets all your assets upon death, without any will?
all easily handled through checkboxes on the actual application form itself; with the latest form submitted binding, just like with wills. my life insurance forms include the same questions (do you want your wife to get it? if not then whom? divided by what percentage, if among multiple individuals? allocated in lump sum or regular checks? etc). that's not even a
pretend argument.
Before you do that, I would like to know why you italicized the word "wide." Why would you put such an emphasis on that?
because this is not the kind of 'won the popular vote but lost the electoral college' kind of issue that we saw in the 2000 election. the American people have stated clearly - liberal states, conservative states, and swing states all alike - no less than thirty times, and typically by large majorities that they want to define marriage as between a man and a woman. i find this to be an important point; that what we are discussing here is not simply taking a matter on a knife-edge and tilting it one way or the other; it is blatantly overthrowing popular soverignty in order to get your way.
You deny them rights by voting against their right to marry.
you have no more right to force the people to issue you a marriage license if you do not meet their qualifications than you do to force them to issue you a truckers license under the same circumstances.
You deny them sentimental value by forcing them to settle with a bastardized "domestic partnership."
then we're right back at polygamy and incest.