Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
It's gettin haaawt in here!Alyrium Denryle wrote:Do you have some sort of problem with language moron?
I'm just impressed that you actually believe that you can simply substitute synonyms as if the intended meaning doesn't change. Especially the synonym you found for "certain."what do you think it says? The exact opposite of what the wording actually means?
The intended meaning didn't change at all. All I did was put it in the vernacular, two hundred years into the future; another example in the Bill of Rights would be "security." Back then, security meant what privacy means now; privacy two hundred years ago meant going to the latrine.revprez wrote: I'm just impressed that you actually believe that you can simply substitute synonyms as if the intended meaning doesn't change. Especially the synonym you found for "certain."
Rev Prez
Sure it did. Especially when you substituted "guaranteed" for "certain."Xenophobe3691 wrote:The intended meaning didn't change at all.
That's one way to put it. Another way is that you randomly or selectively picked synonyms (specifically, your choice of "gauranteed" [selective] and "dismissed" [which is just a bad word to put in]).All I did was put it in the vernacular, two hundred years into the future...
And what do you base this on?another example in the Bill of Rights would be "security." Back then, security meant what privacy means now; privacy two hundred years ago meant going to the latrine.
How about "certain" as in "particular."And the synonym for "certain" is the closest, widely used word I saw. Look through the synonym list and find better. Please.
I can't change my skin color. I can choose not to engage in homosexual activity.Darth Wong wrote:Score another win for the Tyranny of the Majority. 50 years ago, the same "will of the people" argument could have been made in favour of racial segregation and general mistreatment of black people.
Irrelevant. The point remains that "will of the people" is a piss-poor moral argument. The analogy is still valid on that argument.revprez wrote:I can't change my skin color. I can choose not to engage in homosexual activity.Darth Wong wrote:Score another win for the Tyranny of the Majority. 50 years ago, the same "will of the people" argument could have been made in favour of racial segregation and general mistreatment of black people.
Granted.Darth Wong wrote:Irrelevant. The point remains that "will of the people" is a piss-poor moral argument. The analogy is still valid on that argument.
This seems like a pretty touchy issue. I'll drop it.Besides, when you were 12 years old, did you choose to be attracted to girls rather than guys, or did it just happen? Homosexuality is not a conscious choice, and it is unreasonable for the government to demand celibacy.
Beats me. Would eating meat be acceptable if we could change our species?JediToren wrote:Would racial segregation be acceptable if you could choose your skin color?
OK.revprez wrote:Granted.Darth Wong wrote:Irrelevant. The point remains that "will of the people" is a piss-poor moral argument. The analogy is still valid on that argument.
On the contrary, that question was posed in a much calmer fashion than many posts made in other threads where you have continued to participate. Could it be that you are avoiding the question because you have no answer, not because it's "touchy"?This seems like a pretty touchy issue. I'll drop it.Besides, when you were 12 years old, did you choose to be attracted to girls rather than guys, or did it just happen? Homosexuality is not a conscious choice, and it is unreasonable for the government to demand celibacy.
completely irrelevant, considering that eating meat -is- considered acceptable to the majority of people. and that there are other species who depend upon meat as their solitary food source.revprez wrote:Beats me. Would eating meat be acceptable if we could change our species?JediToren wrote:Would racial segregation be acceptable if you could choose your skin color?
Rev Prez
Defining marriage as a heterosexual institution is acceptable to the majority as well.Darth_Zod wrote:completely irrelevant, considering that eating meat -is- considered acceptable to the majority of people. and that there are other species who depend upon meat as their solitary food source.
Just in this case.Darth Wong wrote:On the contrary, that question was posed in a much calmer fashion than many posts made in other threads where you have continued to participate. Could it be that you are avoiding the question because you have no answer, not because it's "touchy"?
That very well may be. But I really do concede.Nobody wakes up at 12 and chooses to be heterosexual, so the reverse is obviously true of homosexuality as well.
ok, now lets see how it really changes if we substitute certain ack in, and use it in the vernacular.I'm just impressed that you actually believe that you can simply substitute synonyms as if the intended meaning doesn't change. Especially the synonym you found for "certain."
The meaning doesnt change much. Now it simply means that "Because cerain rights are listed in this constitution, does not mean that you cant give yurselves rights above and beyond them"The listing in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be interpreted as such to deny or dismiss others kept by the people.
If you want I can turn up the heat you miserable excuse for human being.It's gettin haaawt in here!
Sure it does, because now "certain" can be interpreted as being restrictive rather than expansive--in short, not all assertions of rights are rights.Alyrium Denryle wrote:The meaning doesnt change much.
Not exactly. "Give" may or may not imply a mechanism for recognizing further rights. The Tenth Amendment offers the solution.Now it simply means that "Because cerain rights are listed in this constitution, does not mean that you cant give yurselves rights above and beyond them"
Man, that was pretty strained, even for you.Alyrium Denryle wrote:If you want I can turn up the heat you miserable excuse for human being.
Absolutely none. They should all be repealed.What objective reason can you think of for the existence of an anti-sodomy law?
Other than appeasing the majority of Americans who are against it? None.How about the matter of hmosexual marriage? Can you think of a reason for a secular government to make it illegal?
Objectively, you're probably right.And dont give me that states rights bullshit, remember, it was states rights that allowed things like slavery to exist. Human rights cannot be left to the majority, or for states to decide.
except that eating meat is apart of essential nutritional health. on the other hand marriage is purely a social institution that provides no real substantial benefits beyond what the government allows. there are plenty of logical reasons to eat meat and continue doing so. the same cannot be said about marriage.revprez wrote:Defining marriage as a heterosexual institution is acceptable to the majority as well.Darth_Zod wrote:completely irrelevant, considering that eating meat -is- considered acceptable to the majority of people. and that there are other species who depend upon meat as their solitary food source.
Rev Prez
Wrong, marriage is a tradition that occurs in every single culture known to Anthropologists, and with such similar parameters that it's considered a species-wide trait. Unless you consider people like the Yanomamo getting married as a fluke just because they have no government.Darth_Zod wrote: except that eating meat is apart of essential nutritional health. on the other hand marriage is purely a social institution that provides no real substantial benefits beyond what the government allows. there are plenty of logical reasons to eat meat and continue doing so. the same cannot be said about marriage.
It depends on how you front-load the poll. If you present the poll as a "GAYS WILL RUIN MARRIAGE" question, then you'll get a primarily negative response. If, however, you present it as an equal-rights question, you'll get a primarily positive response.revprez wrote:Defining marriage as a heterosexual institution is acceptable to the majority as well.Darth_Zod wrote:completely irrelevant, considering that eating meat -is- considered acceptable to the majority of people. and that there are other species who depend upon meat as their solitary food source.
Rev Prez
Straw Man. I said marriage is a social institution, not a governmental one.Xenophobe3691 wrote:Wrong, marriage is a tradition that occurs in every single culture known to Anthropo ogists, and with such similar parameters that it's considered a species-wide trait. Unless you consider people like the Yanomamo getting married as a fluke just because they have no government.Darth_Zod wrote: except that eating meat is apart of essential nutritional health. on the other hand marriage is purely a social institution that provides no real substantial benefits beyond what the government allows. there are plenty of logical reasons to eat meat and continue doing so. the same cannot be said about marriage.
the government merely determines the rights a married couple is entitled to that a single couple is notFrank Hipper wrote:Since when is it the business of government to "sanctify" anything, or defend anything's "sanctity"?
Wonder what the odds are of a bill to defend the sanctity of Roman Catholic communion?
