As far as I can tell love is an emotion and cannot really be verified by an outside observer, which makes it a poor standard for law. Also, as far as I know in the United States (and very true in my area) love is not a prerequisit for a marraige. (considering in my area 15 min of paperwork and 50$ gets you a marraige) So we are both free to marry without love.
If homosexuality is a choice, then we both have the choice to marry a woman we love. Just like if a student chooses not to apply for student loans, that does not make their lack of desire for student loans an inequality.
On the flipside, If homosexuality is not a choice, but is instead an unintended trait. This is where the argument about love not being a requirment for marraige. They are totally free to marry woman I am free to marry (Excepting close realatives). It is tough luck to be born that way, but it's also tough luck to be born unintelgent, but we don't redefine NASA job requirments for those people who do not have the apptitude, yet the laws of our country are still equal in law if not in apptitude, if the unintelgente person becomes smarter, they can still try to become a rocket scientist, and thus our law and society is still equal.
BTW, I'm not trying to say that being gay is the same as being ugly, just a comparison of things that might get you fired that don't change your work. I appologise if I came off that way.
I don't have the right to marry a man, neither does a gay guy. All I'm saying is that under tha law we are equal. Neither one of us has rights not granted to the other one.
The majority is not always right, and neither is the minority. Just like you I vote my conscience, and my conscience says that homosexuality is a sin, there are certain non-negotiable things, and for many religious americans this may be one of them.
Stot the doublespeek, a gay can marry. They may not want to but there is absoultly no law (I am aware of) that states that a man cannot marry a woman, baised on his preference for men.
A gay person has every right I have, right now. It is just as illegal to punch me in the face as it is to punch him in the face. I can marry pretty much any woman I want, he can marry pretty much any woman I want. We are equal under the law in every way. Our desires may be different, but it's doubelespeek to say that the law treats us differently.
It is a shame if some place chooses to fire a worker just because they are gay. On the same hand, what is keeping an employer from fireing me just because he dosen't like my face? Should I have special protection from being fired for being unattractive?
All laws are the majority impsoing on minorities. The majority dosen't like pedophilla, and we impose our will on the minority of people who think it's just fine. Again the majority find cannabalism delporeable, and we impose this on the minority that does not.
I agree and disagree with you. There are good things that have been done by activist judges, but I would argue that it is a question of weither the ends justifty the means. If we cannot uphold our laws in the most tense of situations why should we uphold them at all?
I wouldn't have thought of it that way, I would have figured that farmers would be protective of their land, but what you are saying makes a lot of sense, it's a shame that people can't be truster to do it without regulation (it appears)
Anyone who farms the heck out of their land and makes their land useless for decades probabbly deserves barren land. Crop rotation is a great thing, but why force it on land owners?
Price fixing is never justified (IMO). If it kills off farmers who can't compete that's survival of the fittest. I am not an economist, so I honestly am probabbly not the most qualified to do this. I just think that social engineering usually is not good.
I would disagree on both poitns, everyone pays for police, but everyone benefits from their protection, and taxes baised on income make a lot of since here (Rich people have more to loose in theory). Also Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, All laws are publicly avaible.
On a side note, thanks for having a civil discussion with me, well thought out and polight people are sometimes in short supply in political debates.
What's there to up front about, it's pretty obvious that capitalism and democracy can't coexist without a touch of socialism.
Well, it seems you have outright theft of the majority voting themselfs other's property (But it is always for some good social cause), you have extortion (give us more, or we will vote ourselfs your property (But it's always for some good social cause), and then we have the mob "Yes this is extortion, give us money or else things burn." That's what to be upfront about.
Invoulentary Socalism violates the very core of liberty. Tax everyone baised on their cost, nothing more. Everyone benefits from military, everyone pays for military, Not everyone uses the public school, not everyone pays for public school, seems simple enough. Then we will have real justice . (I'm a rather poor collage student, before I get accused of being a rich white male)
Now she gets all the benefits of that military and police protection, the roads, the schools, etc, but doesn't have to pay for any of it! Do we really want to create a landed gentry whose offspring never have to work again?
So Mr Hilton hasn't paid a fair share for him and his family? Why should my child not be able to enjoy the fruit of my labor?
In a democracy it will always be possible for the majority to elect to give themselves the property of the minority. What progressive taxation buys you is a system that keeps that from happening.
Well as long as we are choosing which theif we give our money to, how about we let the mob get in on it? They are at least upfront about what they are doing.
I had about the same expirence: Driving home listining to the Drudge Report, he was practically calling for an armed revolt if we aren't alloud to keep sharing files.
Well as a self-described fundie I don't really find anything wrong with any of the film titles/descirptions. I mean I suppose there is a slight, slight chance that they are horribly mislabled and are actually hardcore porn, but seriously, I kinda want to see these baised on those descrptions.
I guess some religious parents might object to their young children being exposed to evolutionary thought, which is my guess as to what they are objecting to. (I didn't say it was a great argument, just my guess as to what it is)
Slashdot Mirror
As far as I can tell love is an emotion and cannot really be verified by an outside observer, which makes it a poor standard for law. Also, as far as I know in the United States (and very true in my area) love is not a prerequisit for a marraige. (considering in my area 15 min of paperwork and 50$ gets you a marraige) So we are both free to marry without love.
If homosexuality is a choice, then we both have the choice to marry a woman we love. Just like if a student chooses not to apply for student loans, that does not make their lack of desire for student loans an inequality.
On the flipside, If homosexuality is not a choice, but is instead an unintended trait. This is where the argument about love not being a requirment for marraige. They are totally free to marry woman I am free to marry (Excepting close realatives). It is tough luck to be born that way, but it's also tough luck to be born unintelgent, but we don't redefine NASA job requirments for those people who do not have the apptitude, yet the laws of our country are still equal in law if not in apptitude, if the unintelgente person becomes smarter, they can still try to become a rocket scientist, and thus our law and society is still equal.
Fair enough, I figured you "signed away" those rights. I learn something new every day, and stand corrected.
BTW, I'm not trying to say that being gay is the same as being ugly, just a comparison of things that might get you fired that don't change your work. I appologise if I came off that way.
I don't have the right to marry a man, neither does a gay guy. All I'm saying is that under tha law we are equal. Neither one of us has rights not granted to the other one.
At least around here, most of the employment contracts I see have the "We can dismiss you for any reason" part in them.
Fair enough, just don't expect me to tolerate your belifs either.
I think this is very true. As much as a disagree with the lifestyle all sin is equal in God's eyes.
You Sir, have very skillfully said what I had been stumbling for words for.
Sometimes the truth is blunt. I couldn't agree with you more.
Microsoft wants to be known as socially responsible
Well they just moved a peg away from evil in my book, and a mark twards morla responcibility.
The majority is not always right, and neither is the minority. Just like you I vote my conscience, and my conscience says that homosexuality is a sin, there are certain non-negotiable things, and for many religious americans this may be one of them.
Here is the plain truth:
Some people's morals do not blow in the wind of realativism, if something is wrong, it stays wrong, despite a pervert's attempts otherwise.
Stot the doublespeek, a gay can marry. They may not want to but there is absoultly no law (I am aware of) that states that a man cannot marry a woman, baised on his preference for men.
A gay person has every right I have, right now. It is just as illegal to punch me in the face as it is to punch him in the face. I can marry pretty much any woman I want, he can marry pretty much any woman I want. We are equal under the law in every way. Our desires may be different, but it's doubelespeek to say that the law treats us differently.
It is a shame if some place chooses to fire a worker just because they are gay. On the same hand, what is keeping an employer from fireing me just because he dosen't like my face? Should I have special protection from being fired for being unattractive?
All laws are the majority impsoing on minorities. The majority dosen't like pedophilla, and we impose our will on the minority of people who think it's just fine. Again the majority find cannabalism delporeable, and we impose this on the minority that does not.
I agree and disagree with you. There are good things that have been done by activist judges, but I would argue that it is a question of weither the ends justifty the means. If we cannot uphold our laws in the most tense of situations why should we uphold them at all?
Yep, isn't tolerance fun?
I wouldn't have thought of it that way, I would have figured that farmers would be protective of their land, but what you are saying makes a lot of sense, it's a shame that people can't be truster to do it without regulation (it appears)
Well I am a person and I belive this is wrong.
Anyone who farms the heck out of their land and makes their land useless for decades probabbly deserves barren land. Crop rotation is a great thing, but why force it on land owners?
Price fixing is never justified (IMO). If it kills off farmers who can't compete that's survival of the fittest.
I am not an economist, so I honestly am probabbly not the most qualified to do this. I just think that social engineering usually is not good.
I would disagree on both poitns, everyone pays for police, but everyone benefits from their protection, and taxes baised on income make a lot of since here (Rich people have more to loose in theory). Also Ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law, All laws are publicly avaible. On a side note, thanks for having a civil discussion with me, well thought out and polight people are sometimes in short supply in political debates.
What's there to up front about, it's pretty obvious that capitalism and democracy can't coexist without a touch of socialism.
Well, it seems you have outright theft of the majority voting themselfs other's property (But it is always for some good social cause), you have extortion (give us more, or we will vote ourselfs your property (But it's always for some good social cause), and then we have the mob "Yes this is extortion, give us money or else things burn." That's what to be upfront about.
Invoulentary Socalism violates the very core of liberty. Tax everyone baised on their cost, nothing more. Everyone benefits from military, everyone pays for military, Not everyone uses the public school, not everyone pays for public school, seems simple enough. Then we will have real justice . (I'm a rather poor collage student, before I get accused of being a rich white male)
Now she gets all the benefits of that military and police protection, the roads, the schools, etc, but doesn't have to pay for any of it! Do we really want to create a landed gentry whose offspring never have to work again?
So Mr Hilton hasn't paid a fair share for him and his family? Why should my child not be able to enjoy the fruit of my labor?
In a democracy it will always be possible for the majority to elect to give themselves the property of the minority. What progressive taxation buys you is a system that keeps that from happening.
Well as long as we are choosing which theif we give our money to, how about we let the mob get in on it? They are at least upfront about what they are doing.
I have to agree with you, since they aren't mentioned specifically in the constitution education is an enumerated right and belongs as a state right.
I had about the same expirence: Driving home listining to the Drudge Report, he was practically calling for an armed revolt if we aren't alloud to keep sharing files.
Well as a self-described fundie I don't really find anything wrong with any of the film titles/descirptions. I mean I suppose there is a slight, slight chance that they are horribly mislabled and are actually hardcore porn, but seriously, I kinda want to see these baised on those descrptions.
I guess some religious parents might object to their young children being exposed to evolutionary thought, which is my guess as to what they are objecting to. (I didn't say it was a great argument, just my guess as to what it is)