Gay Marriage Phobia

[Drawmack]

So, tell me, why do you believe that “no person has the right to infringe upon the rights of another person”? It’s not as if it is unnatural.

Because the documents written by the founding fathers which our legal system is based on state that. It doesn’t make it a religious belief! Actually it doesn’t make it a belief it makes it a fact. Do you believe that living, healthy pine needles are green? Is that a religious belief?

So, tell me, why do you believe that the state does not have “the right to impinge on a woman’s right to privacy”?

I never said that I believed that, I said that the judges stated that. I will only respond to questions which actually address what I said. Now that I’ve killed this Red Herring would you like it for dinner?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Because the documents written by the founding fathers which our legal system is based on state that. It doesn’t make it a religious belief! Actually it doesn’t make it a belief it makes it a fact. Do you believe that living, healthy pine needles are green? Is that a religious belief?

Well, aren’t you the least bit curious why they say so? And, for that matter, why should we abide by their opinions?

I never said that I believed that, I said that the judges stated that. I will only respond to questions which actually address what I said. Now that I’ve killed this Red Herring would you like it for dinner?

All right, then, why do the judges believe that the state does not have “the right to impinge on a woman’s right to privacy”?

 

[fix]

There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion – and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.

So, if some item is true it should not be a law simply because some people hold that as part of a religion? If Christians hold that rape is wrong should that not be illegal simply because it is also part of a religious system to hold it is evil?

 

[WillieWonka]

So, if some item is true it should not be a law simply because some people hold that as part of a religion? If Christians hold that rape is wrong should that not be illegal simply because it is also part of a religious system to hold it is evil?

No. He speaks only of inconsistency with religion. Note he says nothing about consistency with religion.

You are correct that Christians have a religious belief that rape should be outlawed. So, outlawing rape is consistent with religion. But, outlawing rape is also consistent with many other beliefs and attitudes.

There are obviously many things which are outlawed and that outlawing is consistent with religion. Boeis is not suggesting a consistency test where we throw out anything consistent with religion.

He is saying that inconsistency with religion is not grounds to outlaw behavior. So, if a religion says, “No,” that is insufficient grounds to outlaw the behavior. There may be other grounds to outlaw the behavior, but inconsistency with religion is not one of them.

Religion does not get a veto. What religion says doesn’t matter under the US Constitution.

 

[Drawmack]

Well, aren’t you the least bit curious why they say so? And, for that matter, why should we abide by their opinions?

Because the people who wrote those documents were, for the most part, highly trained legal professionals. Thus they understood how the legal system could be used to undermine itself if certain safe-guards were not built into the system. So, they built a natural boundary line on any right conveyed to any person or entity that it shall not impinge upon the rights of another person or entity.

Because these were not their opinions. These were tried and true means of defining the legal boundaries between rights conveyed to persons and entities such that defining the limits of any right becomes possible.

Just because someone says or does something does not mean that what they are saying or doing is rooted in a religious ideal. When I cut my grass I do it because it grows regardless of whether God makes it grow or not. Both atheists and Christians cut their grass.

All right, then, why do the judges believe that the state does not have “the right to impinge on a woman’s right to privacy”?

Because, according to the documents our legal system is based on, one person’s (or entity’s) rights end where another person’s (or entity’s begin). This being the case the state (an entity) does not have the right to impinge on a woman’s (a person) right to privacy.

 

[Drawmack]

So, if some item is true it should not be a law simply because some people hold that as part of a religion? If Christians hold that rape is wrong should that not be illegal simply because it is also part of a religious system to hold it is evil?

Just because something can be defended with the tenants of a religion does that mean that it’s only defense is the tenants of said religion?

 

[fix]

No. He speaks only of inconsistency with religion. Note he says nothing about consistency with religion.

You are correct that Christians have a religious belief that rape should be outlawed. So, outlawing rape is consistent with religion. But, outlawing rape is also consistent with many other beliefs and attitudes.

There are obviously many things which are outlawed and that outlawing is consistent with religion. Boeis is not suggesting a consistency test where we throw out anything consistent with religion.

He is saying that inconsistency with religion is not grounds to outlaw behavior. So, if a religion says, “No,” that is insufficient grounds to outlaw the behavior. There may be other grounds to outlaw the behavior, but inconsistency with religion is not one of them.

Religion does not get a veto. What religion says doesn’t matter under the US Constitution.

So, if the religion says “no” that is a non starter regardless of why it says no?

 

[fix]

Just because something can be defended with the tenants of a religion does that mean that it’s only defense is the tenants of said religion?

Just because a religion says some item is evil does not mean it is not evil or should be rejected simply because it has a religious foundation.

 

[fix]

Because the people who wrote those documents were, for the most part, highly trained legal professionals.

Ok, so these highly trained people received this knowledge from some golden tablets? What is the training based on?

Thus they understood how the legal system could be used to undermine itself if certain safe-guards were not built into the system. So, they built a natural boundary line on any right conveyed to any person or entity that it shall not impinge upon the rights of another person or entity.

And where do these rights come from?

Because these were not their opinions. These were tried and true means of defining the legal boundaries between rights conveyed to persons and entities such that defining the limits of any right becomes possible.

From where?

Just because someone says or does something does not mean that what they are saying or doing is rooted in a religious ideal. When I cut my grass I do it because it grows regardless of whether God makes it grow or not. Both atheists and Christians cut their grass.

Is there a difference between grass cutting and unnatural acts?

Because, according to the documents our legal system is based on, one person’s (or entity’s) rights end where another person’s (or entity’s begin). This being the case the state (an entity) does not have the right to impinge on a woman’s (a person) right to privacy.

And the one’s who invented this “right” to privacy received this idea from where?

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

No. He speaks only of inconsistency with religion. Note he says nothing about consistency with religion.

He says: “However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law.”

You are correct that Christians have a religious belief that rape should be outlawed. So, outlawing rape is consistent with religion. But, outlawing rape is also consistent with many other beliefs and attitudes.

All of those beliefs and attitudes are, ultimately, rooted in faith of one kind or another.

There are obviously many things which are outlawed and that outlawing is consistent with religion. Boeis is not suggesting a consistency test where we throw out anything consistent with religion.

He doesn’t propose any test at all. We can only guess how he would implement the above legal principle. But he does believe that the US Constitution somehow “precludes” such enshrinement in law.

He is saying that inconsistency with religion is not grounds to outlaw behavior. So, if a religion says, “No,” that is insufficient grounds to outlaw the behavior. There may be other grounds to outlaw the behavior, but inconsistency with religion is not one of them.

Indeed, that is what he is saying. He wishes this to be so. But all laws are grounded on religion in the larger sense. So either he is tilting at windmills or he is singling out particular religious grounds for exclusion.

Religion does not get a veto. What religion says doesn’t matter under the US Constitution.

Religion does not need a veto other than through the voice of the people as for example in the passage of a voter proposition or through their elected representatives. (The CA justices invented gay marriage, the people of CA vetoed that on religious grounds by enacting an amendment to the state constitution.)

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

These were tried and true means of defining the legal boundaries between rights conveyed to persons and entities such that defining the limits of any right becomes possible.

You are not addressing the question. Why do they believe in rights? How do they justify these legal boundaries?

Just because someone says or does something does not mean that what they are saying or doing is rooted in a religious ideal. When I cut my grass I do it because it grows regardless of whether God makes it grow or not. Both atheists and Christians cut their grass.

Either you justify your positions or you don’t. If you don’t then the position is, itself, unjustified. If you justify your position then you are relying on other supporting positions which must, themselves, be justified. Eventually, one way or another, you arrive at an unjustified position that you must take on faith.

Because, according to the documents our legal system is based on, one person’s (or entity’s) rights end where another person’s (or entity’s begin). This being the case the state (an entity) does not have the right to impinge on a woman’s (a person) right to privacy.

Why?! You are simply telling me that so-and-so said there are rights, you are simply passing the buck to others.

 

[Drawmack]

Just because a religion says some item is evil does not mean it is not evil or should be rejected simply because it has a religious foundation.

No one is making this claim. Could you please answer my question.

Just because something can be supported with the tenants of a religion does that mean that is can only be, or must be, supported with the tenants of that religion?

 

[Drawmack]

You are not addressing the question. Why do they believe in rights? How do they justify these legal boundaries?

Really, your asking why they believe in rights. For an answer to your question I will direct you to a study of historic totalitarian governments where the people had no rights. Again, facts not beliefs.

They justify the legal boundaries thusly. If everyone must have rights, which we learn from studying historic totalitarian regimes that we must, then those rights must be protected. In protecting your rights boundaries must be placed on other people’s rights so that they do not infringe on your rights because two contradictory rights cannot exist at the same time in the same place. It’s simply logical fact supported by physics, again fact and not belief.

Either you justify your positions or you don’t. If you don’t then the position is, itself, unjustified. If you justify your position then you are relying on other supporting positions which must, themselves, be justified. Eventually, one way or another, you arrive at an unjustified position that you must take on faith.

No, you can justify a position with historic, evidentiary fact. For example if you run into a tree head first will it hurt? Is your answer based on belief or fact? According to your line of logic above your answer would be based on belief.

(BTW: I should give you credit. This has to be the most ridiculous application of Acquinas’ unmoved mover argument I have ever seen.)

On the other hand if I asked, if you run into a tree head first will I laugh? The answer to that question is based on belief.

Why?! You are simply telling me that so-and-so said there are rights, you are simply passing the buck to others.

Nope, I also explain why that person said they are rights. And, this is all information you could get with a couple google searches about the founding fathers.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Really, your asking why they believe in rights. For an answer to your question I will direct you to a study of historic totalitarian governments where the people had no rights. Again, facts not beliefs.

And what is wrong with “totalitarian governments where the people had no rights”?

They justify the legal boundaries thusly. If everyone must have rights…

But why must everyone have rights?

No, you can justify a position with historic, evidentiary fact.

It is a historic, evidentiary fact that Hitler exterminated six million Jews. Does that make it right? What historic, evidentiary fact are you advancing when you call that evil?

(BTW: I should give you credit. This has to be the most ridiculous application of Acquinas’ unmoved mover argument I have ever seen.)

This is kindergarten stuff. But I’m glad you see the connection.

Nope, I also explain why that person said they are rights. And, this is all information you could get with a couple google searches about the founding fathers.

Here is one such quote to jog your memory:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

 

[Drawmack]

And what is wrong with “totalitarian governments where the people had no rights”?

But why must everyone have rights?

Please study the history of totalitarian governmental regimes where the people had no rights for an answer to these questions. You might want to start with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia especially the Great Terror.

It is a historic, evidentiary fact that Hitler exterminated six million Jews. Does that make it right? What historic, evidentiary fact are you advancing when you call that evil?

Could you please point to one place where I called the holocaust evil? The holocaust was an atrocity because it involved the extermination of peoples. No society that has advocated the destruction of large portions of it’s own population has ever lasted very long (in the grand scheme of things). There are other evidences of this throughout history. Another recent example is Communist USSR. So, from the historical evidence that governments who exterminate large portions of their population crumble under their own weight one can determine that this is not an efficient or effective way to operate a government and therefore it should not be allowed. No moral basis for this argument, simple interpretation of the facts.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

Please study the history of totalitarian governmental regimes where the people had no rights for an answer to these questions. You might want to start with Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia especially the Great Terror.

Why don’t you just answer the question. I assume you have studied this.

Could you please point to one place where I called the holocaust evil?

I apologize for the presumption.

The holocaust was an atrocity because it involved the extermination of peoples.

What’s so atrocious about that?

No society that has advocated the destruction of large portions of it’s own population has ever lasted very long (in the grand scheme of things).

So you are offering a Darwinian justification for human rights.

Let us suppose, for a minute, that your assertion is true. Doesn’t that then imply that the problem will take care of itself? The Darwinian struggle will weed out the societies that don’t work. We don’t need to bother ourselves over such questions.

Ironically, it was the Darwinian view of human society that led Hitler to the Holocaust.

 

[WillieWonka]

So, if the religion says “no” that is a non starter regardless of why it says no?

If a religion says,“No,” it is not grounds for outlawing behavior. The reason the religion says, “No,” doesn’t matter.

 

[WillieWonka]

Just because a religion says some item is evil does not mean it is not evil or should be rejected simply because it has a religious foundation.

Nobody contends that is the case. Inconsistency with religious belief is not grounds to outlaw behavior. Religion doesn’t matter.

 

[Bubba_Switzler]

If a religion says,“No,” it is not grounds for outlawing behavior. The reason the religion says, “No,” doesn’t matter.

It matters to many people like me. And we vote according to our religious beliefs. And that’s how it matters to the law. That’s how behaviors that are contrary to religion get outlawed.

The only question now is whether the courts will try to stop that from happening.

It would be impossible for the courts to strike down every law that is based on beliefs taken on faith but it would be trivial to selectively strike down laws that are based on specific (e.g. Christian), religious beliefs.

 

[Drawmack]

Why don’t you just answer the question. I assume you have studied this.

This is the fourth time I am answering the question. Study historic totalitarian governmental regimes and you will understand that individual citizens need rights in order for the country to function properly.

What’s so atrocious about that?

Go reread the part of the post you edited out – that was my topic sentence, the rest of the paragraph explained why it was atrocious.

So you are offering a Darwinian justification for human rights.

Nope. I’m saying that if a system of government, or governmental practice, has been attempted, repeatedly, and failed, repeatedly, then we have historical evidence that this type of government, or governmental practice, does not lead to a successful society and that historical fact is reason enough to avoid these types of governments and governmental practices in the future.

Let us suppose, for a minute, that your assertion is true. Doesn’t that then imply that the problem will take care of itself? The Darwinian struggle will weed out the societies that don’t work. We don’t need to bother ourselves over such questions.

I wasn’t making a Darwinian argument that was your assertion – not mine. Here’s your straw man back. Do you teach classes in logical fallacy?

Ironically, it was the Darwinian view of human society that led Hitler to the Holocaust.

Ubermench was Nitche’s theory not Darwin’s. Zarathustra was standard issue to the Nazi soldiers with their uniform and fire arm.