Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.

Author Topic: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.  (Read 24977 times)

Molson

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 419

  • Offline
Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
« Reply #100 on: November 14, 2008, 10:38:52 am »
Quote from: JesseL
That line of reasoning always struck me as a little disingenuous. You could easily apply it to miscegenation or other kinds of segregation as well.

I actually agree with you, which is why I made the argument.

The 9th amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

the 9th and the 10th are, imo, the most ignored amendments in the Constitution. The 9th essentially states that while the most prominent, or important, rights are listed in the Bill of Rights, there are others that are not listed that are just as valid as those that are listed. So, yes, I would say that if my argument was made in a discussion on segregation it would be just as valid. Notice I didn't claim that they don't actually have or deserve these special/different rights, just that they are special/different. Currently there is equal access to the institution of marriage which is defined as being between a man and a woman. What they are asking for is a redefinition of marriage, to include those of the same sex, which is not the same as asking for equal rights (and consequently one of the biggest reasons I lean toward being "anti" gay marriage). 
It stands to reason that where there is sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there is service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the maste

WeTheArmed.com

  • Advertisement
  • ***

    Ishpeck

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1467
      • The Ishpeckian Network

    • Offline
    Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
    « Reply #101 on: November 14, 2008, 10:42:12 am »
    So it the Interstate Highway system, the airports, most mass transportation, and the police. Everyone pays for them. But not everyone uses them. Are these unconscionable? It depends on whose ox is being gored.

    Whether it's unconscionable doesn't depend on who is wronged by it.  A contract is either unjust or it is not.  Justice is either served or it is not.  But picking and choosing which indentured services are justifiable and which aren't is far too arbitrary to be considered acceptable among civilized people.

    Regarding freeways: Even if you never drive on one, your food is likely delivered to you by them.  Same with many air ports.  Those things could be argued to be of personal benefit to the citizens who are compelled to pay for them.  That doesn't mean I think they are justified.  It just gives us some direction as to whether or not that mode of government can be debated over amongst rational people.
     
    I make a simple statement of economic fact and you respond with a personal attack?

    I had no intentions on making it into a personal attack.  I'm sorry that it came across that way.  I was merely trying to put things into perspective:  Everyone, not just gays, is getting screwed where Social Security is involved.  So it's silly to suppose that gays are singled out as the soul victims where Social Security is involved.

    The fact remains that while everyone pays into the system, many marriage benefits of the system available to straight people are denied to gay people. That's inequitable, and it is the same argument that you're making against Social Security.

    See, the problem here is not whether or not marriage "benefits" are granted to one kind of union or another.  The problem is that the government is reserving to itself the right to pick and choose who they will give benefits to after everyone was compelled to pay for those services.  It doesn't matter if it's a denial of services to gay couples, polygamist ... groupies?, or one of those technophilia human-android couples or no kind of couple at all (like wanting your benefits to default to your brother-in-law who became a really close friend).  In the end, the government reserves the right to dictate the terms of the agreement to you and you are forever at its mercy -- straight or otherwise.
    Ishpeck's Law: As United States political discourse grows longer, the probability of Ronald Reagan being used as a justification for one's argument approaches one.
    http://www.ishpeck.net/

    Molson

    • Member
    • **
    • Posts: 419

    • Offline
    Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
    « Reply #102 on: November 14, 2008, 10:54:19 am »
    I have a hard time with the gay marriage debate. Personally I believe that anyone should be able to marry anyone, or anything for that matter. If you love your toaster passionately enough and want to share the rest of your life with it, and you can find someone to perform the ceremony, go for it. The problem arises when there is a forced acceptance. Sure, you can marry your toaster, but don't expect me to recognize it as a marriage. Optimally, I don't want the government involved in the issue of marriage one way or the other, as their involvement forces social acceptance. Basically, we should either have no income tax or a flat tax; no deductions, no special exemptions, nothing. Unfortunately that is not the case and has an infinitesimally small chance of ever being the case, which leads me to my dilemma: How do I stay true to my opinion when the current situation forces a contradiction?
    It stands to reason that where there is sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there is service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to be the maste

    springmom

    • Staff Member Emeritus
    • Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 1886
      • Panagia Icons

    • Offline
    Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
    « Reply #103 on: November 14, 2008, 11:00:18 am »
    Ishpeck, we ARE the government.  If enough people in this country want changes in the social security system to allow beneficiary naming in the same way as regular insurance policies, it will get done.  What you're missing is that there are NOT enough people who want to see this change.  

    Social Security reform is a perennial topic in this country.  Comes up in every congressional session, is yapped about by every candidate for everything above city council.  But relatively little change occurs.  Certainly there is no indication that even reformers have considered the changes you're suggesting.  Why?  Because they know perfectly well that the majority of the American people would oppose it.  And they'd like to keep their jobs.

    This country is pretty good, on the whole, doing "live and let live".  But they're not likely to expand Social Security benefits to beneficiaries other than spouses, because the original intent of the thing was to ensure that if Granddad dies, Grandma still has enough money to buy (barely) the basics to keep body and soul together.  It is not intended to be an insurance policy with a guaranteed payout at death; so it's not structured that way.  

    Jan
    If a thing looks too good to be true, best to shoot it.  Just in case.

    -----Fionna Glenanne, Burn Notice


    I agree with the Court that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States.  I do so because the right to keep and bear a

    Ishpeck

    • Contributor
    • ****
    • Posts: 1467
      • The Ishpeckian Network

    • Offline
    Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
    « Reply #104 on: November 14, 2008, 11:02:38 am »
    How do I stay true to my opinion when the current situation forces a contradiction?

    You don't.  This is why so many people tell you that straight marriages are so integral to society.  Because if you were really to correct all the great big flaws implicit in our government(s), many people who subsist on extortiontax money will have to actually work for a living. OH THE HUMANITIES!

    But it's important -- and I would really like it if our gay patriots would get on board with this idea -- to correct the ever-meddling tendencies of government so that we don't have to have insane amounts of conflict over every issue that hits the ballots.  If government were less involved with peoples' lives, there would be less emotional attachment to any one issue... so the things that do get voted in your non-preferred way still don't botch-up everything you hold dear.

    Ishpeck, we ARE the government.

    Sort of.

    If enough people in this country want changes in the social security system to allow beneficiary naming in the same way as regular insurance policies, it will get done.
     

    This is part of my gripe with it:  "If enough people" want something, sure it can happen.  Except the bailouts are proof positive that even then, the majority opinion can't sway Congress from screwing with us.

    And it shouldn't require a huge movement with millions of people marching their indignant march of civil reform.  If it's wrong, it's wrong and it doesn't matter whether it's one million or just three or four people who are being victimized by it.

    What you're missing is that there are NOT enough people who want to see this change.
     

    Yeah, I know.  "Liberty and justice for all" is more of a slogan than a real explanation of how things are.

    Social Security reform is a perennial topic in this country.  Comes up in every congressional session, is yapped about by every candidate for everything above city council.  But relatively little change occurs.

    Because there's a conflict of interests.  Congress now gets to pay itself outta Social Security funds.  S'like locking the fox in your hen house and expecting it to protect them with its cunning and instincts.

    Certainly there is no indication that even reformers have considered the changes you're suggesting.  Why?  Because they know perfectly well that the majority of the American people would oppose it.  And they'd like to keep their jobs.

    And that, too.

    This country is pretty good, on the whole, doing "live and let live".

    Agreed.

    But they're not likely to expand Social Security benefits to beneficiaries other than spouses, because the original intent of the thing was to ensure that if Granddad dies, Grandma still has enough money to buy (barely) the basics to keep body and soul together.  It is not intended to be an insurance policy with a guaranteed payout at death; so it's not structured that way.

    People used to call it "SSI."  The "I" stood for "insurance."  Of course, it was a misnomer, but that's how it was sold to the public at the time.  Lots of deception, to trick people into cooperation just long enough to make it an inescapable precedent. 

    A lot of people don't even understand what Social Security is or how it works.  And I believe that if they really knew, there'd be a lot more resistance to the modus operandi.
    Ishpeck's Law: As United States political discourse grows longer, the probability of Ronald Reagan being used as a justification for one's argument approaches one.
    http://www.ishpeck.net/

    Swarthytart

    • Junior Member
    • *
    • Posts: 8

    • Offline
    Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
    « Reply #105 on: November 14, 2008, 12:00:34 pm »
    Face it, Ishy.  Springmom just schooled you.

    Thernlund

    • WTA Staff
    • Senior Contributor
    • *****
    • Posts: 14101

    • Offline
    Re: Prop 8 in California - Sensitive Subject - Think Twice, Type Once.
    « Reply #106 on: November 14, 2008, 12:07:27 pm »
    All right kids.  We're done here I think.


    -T.
    Arizona  Arm yourself because no one else here will save you.  The odds will betray you, and I will replace you...

    Help support WeTheArmed.com by visiting our sponsors.