Heroscapers

Heroscapers (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/index.php)
-   General (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Decision 2016 (https://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=53250)

Dad_Scaper September 18th, 2016 05:33 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
The line that "government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage" is absolute horse-puckey. First of all, (1) government has been in the business of defining marriage for a loooooooong time. Government cares about marriage for reasons that are deeply rooted in the common law, going back centuries and even millenia. So don't plant that flag that "government should get out of marriage" as if it meant something that was possible. Becuase, (2) it's not happening. As a practical matter, for reasons deeply - and I mean deeply - rooted in the law, those two things are not being separated.

Which means, (3) when you are telling people that government should get out of the marriage business, when they are complaining of an injustice, what you are *really* saying to them is f*** off. It is exactly the same as telling them, in the words of Paul Simon (who was actually doing an old folk song), you will care about them when they craft you a shirt without seam or needlework, and when they find you an acre of land between the salt water and the sea strand. You are telling them to wait for the impossible, and that is an outrage. Justice need not wait until you are ready to open the door for it. That line is routinely offered by people who do not need justice now, so they are perfectly content, from their comfy chairs, to talk about some fantasy world in which they might be willing to agree that others should have the same freedoms they already do.

Just so you know, Nukatha. That "government should be out of the business of marriage" line is an absolute slap in the face to people who want justice now. It's telling them to wait for something that will never, ever happen, and they know it, even if you don't.

Finally, (4) Johnson demonstrably knows nothing about governance. He brings some state house experience to the job, just like Clinton, except that Clinton was also a U.S. Senator and the Secretary of State. So, you know, just like Johnson, except a zillion times more qualified.

Meanwhile, (5) while you're still riding around on Johnson's *ahem* bandwagon, it would be courteous of you to acknowledge the point that dok made more eloquently than I, which is that the baggage that's been attached to Clinton has been, literally, unsubstantiated accusations from an industry that exists solely to make accusations. For the same reason that you and I believe in "innocent until proven guilty," I believe you should be able to point to a single actual flame, before advocating for someone clearly less qualified.

Dysole September 18th, 2016 06:18 PM

Break It Down
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2110476)
Dysole, you know what I meant, and what the Libertarian stance on the topic is.

I am well aware of the stances. I am also well aware that in BASICALLY SIXTY PERCENT of all states I can be fired (unless I work for the government), evicted, or denied a loan because I am a trans lesbian and I have no legal recourse. Because here's the thing Nukatha. When I've heard people talking about participating in something that goes against their religious beliefs, it isn't the conscientious objector to war stuff. It is almost entirely involving people who are LGBTQ (and even if it's not all, that's the vast majority). I certainly don't think a church should be required to perform any ceremony they don't want to, but once you're out in the public sphere, it's a different set of rules. Sorry if this comes across as less than charitable, but it just feels like people are using religious beliefs to hide behind discrimination (which is interestingly something that also happened during the large Civil Rights movement).


Quote:

I don't follow. The only amendment to pass in the 20s was the 19th, guaranteeing that no individual can be denied the right to vote on the basis of sex.
Show me exactly where in the Constitution marriage was ever established. Furthermore, I would argue that such legal benefits to marriage are, in fact, unconstitutional. Heck, Loving v Virginia would never have been a thing if governments had not attempted to overstep their bounds and define marriage.
Couldn't find the 20s case so that could easily be my brain misremembering at a late hour but in the Obergefell (finally looked it up) case, several other earlier court decisions were cited as establishing the right to marry was one of the rights granted by the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution. Whether or not the Court redefined marriage is an interesting argument since by the same logic, the court redefined marriage in Loving vs. Virginia which now allowed people of different races to get married.

Quote:

Oh, its absolutely hard, and for good reason. A system of government that rapidly bends to the daily whims of the populace or elected officials is chaotic and unstable. Relatively slow change is the only way to get things done on the grand scale. However, the president can still advocate for his/her causes, and as Mr. Obama and others before him have demonstrated: There are little to no consequences for overstepping one's Constitutional executive powers, allowing them to pseudo-legislate from their desk until Congress or the Court tells them otherwise.
Again, if I see the nation as worse off in 2020 than today under Clinton or Trump, then I cannot vote for either. Can you honestly say that a 2020 after 4 years of a Johnson administration would be worse than 4 years under Mrs. Clinton?
Yes. Yes I can. For one, no other libertarians are in Congress so he's in a worse position than Obama has been unless of course he becomes a Republican using the Libertarian label. We've been over why that's bad for me personally. For two, I have some problems with how Libertarianism reaches its conclusions based on its assumptions so I can't exactly say I'm fond of what they would do in office. For three, a few of Johnson's positions (I want to say vaccine and one other) instantly make me not want to cast a vote for him. I think there's plenty of reasonable doubt here.

~Dysole, who again apologizes if she comes across as harsh. This is an emotional topic for her.

wriggz September 18th, 2016 09:34 PM

Re: Break It Down
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dysole (Post 2110492)
~Dysole, who again apologizes if she comes across as harsh. This is an emotional topic for her.

There are a few issue where you are fully allowed to be harsh. Human rights is definitely one of them.

I like the idea of individual freedoms (as seen above I'm actually in support of Trump's right to Privancy regarding his tax and health history). However, there are times where the common good and common sense have to override bigotry and tradition.

Equal rights for all humans is something that should not be based in political parties. "Some Animals are more Equal" is a quote that quickly comes to mind. We have to be vigilant, we have to be careful, and we have to stay the course.

But, wriggz you might say; You don't support the Right to firearms. It is true, I don't think this is a "God (universal, Biological, etc) given right". I think it is a privilege, and one you should prove. No one has the right to own nuclear weapons or even drive, the first is forbidden the second is a privilege. However, everyone has the Right to prove they are worthy of the privilege. You want to own a 9mm, Prove it.

It all comes back to the lottery of life. It would be wonderful if we voted for the candidate that was best for everyone, not ourselves, but I suspect that would be asking too much.

Ranior September 18th, 2016 10:49 PM

Re: Ahem
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2110476)
Again, if I see the nation as worse off in 2020 than today under Clinton or Trump, then I cannot vote for either. Can you honestly say that a 2020 after 4 years of a Johnson administration would be worse than 4 years under Mrs. Clinton?

For the record, even if you see the nation as worse off under Clinton or Trump, you absolutely can vote for either since those are the only two who can actually win. Yes you may think you are picking between the lesser of two evils and you may not actually want either person to be president....but those are your only two choices that can actually win.

Casting your vote for anyone else is your choice, but it will have as much effect on who wins as if you never cast it at all. As many of us here have and will point out, we care more than that. Although many of us also think Clinton will make a fine president so we aren't voting for someone we don't like. But even if I didn't, I'd still only cast my vote for someone that can actually win.

As for the second part, uhm yes. Easily. I think things will clearly be better with 4 years of a Clinton administration than a Johnson administration. I understand many feel otherwise, but I'm sure many also feel like I do.

Nukatha September 19th, 2016 10:45 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

The line that "government shouldn't be in the business of defining marriage" is absolute horse-puckey. First of all, (1) government has been in the business of defining marriage for a loooooooong time. Government cares about marriage for reasons that are deeply rooted in the common law, going back centuries and even millenia. So don't plant that flag that "government should get out of marriage" as if it meant something that was possible. Becuase, (2) it's not happening. As a practical matter, for reasons deeply - and I mean deeply - rooted in the law, those two things are not being separated.
Except that we're not talking about any historical precedent here. I'm talking about the legal powers actually enumerated to the federal government in the US Constitution, which says nothing about giving the government the power to define marriage. An amendment ratified by the states is necessary to do so.

Quote:

Which means, (3) when you are telling people that government should get out of the marriage business, when they are complaining of an injustice, what you are *really* saying to them is f*** off. It is exactly the same as telling them, in the words of Paul Simon (who was actually doing an old folk song), you will care about them when they craft you a shirt without seam or needlework, and when they find you an acre of land between the salt water and the sea strand. You are telling them to wait for the impossible, and that is an outrage. Justice need not wait until you are ready to open the door for it. That line is routinely offered by people who do not need justice now, so they are perfectly content, from their comfy chairs, to talk about some fantasy world in which they might be willing to agree that others should have the same freedoms they already do.

Just so you know, Nukatha. That "government should be out of the business of marriage" line is an absolute slap in the face to people who want justice now. It's telling them to wait for something that will never, ever happen, and they know it, even if you don't.
If I may make the claim, I don't need the government to legitimize my marriage. It doesn't make my union any more legitimate to know that some bureaucrat signed off on some certificate. Its a union between two individuals. (3 if you're religious and count God), but the State is not in there, and has no reason to be in there. And what justice are you talking about at this point anyways? Last I checked, as it stands since Obergefell v. Hodges, marriage equality is a thing in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Quote:

Finally, (4) Johnson demonstrably knows nothing about governance. He brings some state house experience to the job, just like Clinton, except that Clinton was also a U.S. Senator and the Secretary of State. So, you know, just like Johnson, except a zillion times more qualified.
Are you feeling alright? How, in your mind, does a two-term governor of a State 'know nothing of governance'?

Quote:

Meanwhile, (5) while you're still riding around on Johnson's *ahem* bandwagon, it would be courteous of you to acknowledge the point that dok made more eloquently than I, which is that the baggage that's been attached to Clinton has been, literally, unsubstantiated accusations from an industry that exists solely to make accusations. For the same reason that you and I believe in "innocent until proven guilty," I believe you should be able to point to a single actual flame, before advocating for someone clearly less qualified.
From today's news: it isn't a smoking gun on Hillary directly, but it is on those just under her. http://regated.com/2016/09/paul-comb...troy-evidence/

Clinton knew very early on that the assault on the Libya compound was not due to a Youtube video, and did make statements contrary to the that, with some ambiguity to fall back on, as is usual for politicians.

She seems to think that Mr. Comey called her 'truthful' after her testimony. She also lied about that whole 'Landed under sniper fire' thing.

Now, say what you will, but I cannot think of any reason to lie about that last one. It doesn't benefit her personally or politically to claim to have needed to duck and cover, and I believe it says a lot about her character. I can't vote for that.

Dad_Scaper September 19th, 2016 10:49 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
I understand. In your fantasy world, marriage can be separated from the government.

You carry on in your fantasy world. The rest of us will try to make the real world - in which the two are inseparable, and have been for *centuries* - as good as we can for those of us who have to live in it.

I've heard Johnson in interviews. For a former governor, he does, in fact, sound clueless. Surprisingly so. Regardless, he's not nearly as qualified as Clinton. And I don't need to see another video throwing smoke at Clinton. After all these years of phony scandals and unfounded accusations, I'm ready to see some fire. If you haven't got it, admit you haven't got it and don't ask me to watch your video.

All Your Pie September 19th, 2016 11:00 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
The precedent of giving the government powers not enumerated in the constitution (but also not specifically prohibited) is one that goes back to very near the founding of the nation and upheld through practically every Supreme Court decision from there on out. Without that principle, the federal government can do practically nothing. The same reason you've given for why its involvement in marriage is also unconstitutional would also void all federal regulatory laws, conservation, and aid. I'm not currently inclined to look up the court case that ruled this way; maybe I'll do it later.

Those federal marriage benefits aren't just the satisfaction of knowing that your marriage is recognized by the state. It comes with tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and numerous other federal provisions. Two people can be perfectly happy in their non-federal union, but that won't help them if their spouse dies and they don't have access to any of their property.

Dad_Scaper September 19th, 2016 11:15 PM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Government interference in marriage goes back to long, long before the founding of the United States. Didn't any of you guys see Braveheart? That story - literally - starts with government interference with marriage, and a practice that goes back to ancient times.

Land rights, inheritance rights, taxes, authority over children, all of it. The fabric of the activities of a married person's daily life is absolutely interwoven with both (1) the government and (2) the spouse, and there is no magic want that will separate the strands.

Nukatha September 20th, 2016 12:20 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Those federal marriage benefits aren't just the satisfaction of knowing that your marriage is recognized by the state. It comes with tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and numerous other federal provisions. Two people can be perfectly happy in their non-federal union, but that won't help them if their spouse dies and they don't have access to any of their property.
All of which, save the tax benefits, (which I also disagree with), can easily be written down in a legal agreement between any two persons, outside of the government or any legal marriage.

Dad_Scaper, tradition doesn't make something right. "The way we have always done things" is an incredibly weak argument.

Quote:

I've heard Johnson in interviews. For a former governor, he does, in fact, sound clueless. Surprisingly so. Regardless, he's not nearly as qualified as Clinton. And I don't need to see another video throwing smoke at Clinton. After all these years of phony scandals and unfounded accusations, I'm ready to see some fire. If you haven't got it, admit you haven't got it and don't ask me to watch your video.
I didn't link to a video.
If you prefer, here's a link from thehill. Feel free to skip the video and just read the article. http://thehill.com/policy/national-s...clinton-emails
And name for me three things that Mrs. Clinton has accomplished.

All Your Pie September 20th, 2016 12:58 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Naturally, you can accomplish most things by means of a legal agreement. However, marriage is a simple and all-encompassing way to get all the things you want from entering into a spousal relationship with someone all at once. Maybe an equivalent system where marriage and its benefits are separate could be created, but I'm not sure why we would bother. If your position is just that marriage should not be something inherently recognized by or related to the state, period, then I'm not sure why it would be worth going to all the trouble to change that. Seems to be a largely superficial difference to me.

I suppose I should also mention who I'm going to vote to elect in this election thread. It's Hilary, mostly for reasons that have been enumerated by other people. Plus I dread another conservative justice being appointed to the Supreme Court. Republicans have had their eye on the abortion and gay marriage decisions for a while, and a conservative-leaning majority could roll both of those back and would certainly prevent any further social progress. That's about the gist of my decision-making.

Dad_Scaper September 20th, 2016 01:02 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Nukatha (Post 2110777)
Quote:

Those federal marriage benefits aren't just the satisfaction of knowing that your marriage is recognized by the state. It comes with tax benefits, hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights, and numerous other federal provisions. Two people can be perfectly happy in their non-federal union, but that won't help them if their spouse dies and they don't have access to any of their property.
All of which, save the tax benefits, (which I also disagree with), can easily be written down in a legal agreement between any two persons, outside of the government or any legal marriage.

Dad_Scaper, tradition doesn't make something right. "The way we have always done things" is an incredibly weak argument.

I'm not saying "right" or "not right." I'm saying it's the way it *is*. You are either deliberately or blindly misunderstanding my point. You want to say "in an ideal world, the government would not be involved in marriage." My response is not to agree or to disagree, just to say that we do not have the benefit of building from scratch. We live in a world where the two are deeply intertwined, and cannot be separated, so when you lecture the victims of injustice about your ideal world, you are telling them they will never have justice. Ever.

Edit: a written agreement between two people does not bind all the private and public parties whose relationships with either are affected because each has a spouse.

wriggz September 20th, 2016 08:28 AM

Re: Decision 2016
 
My cousin and uncle recently got married. My cousin always said that marriage was for 'breeders'. my uncle is 60 and his partner is 70 so they are not apt to care about what society thinks.

Why did they get married? Definitely for the inexpensive legal benifits that are instantly recognized. Maybe for the same reason my atheist wife did, to declare before friends family and strangers that we love each other and will so forevermore. Maybe being raised in a culture that celibate marriage they wanted to feel included. Maybe they wanted a party?

At the end of the day this has no impact on anyone but the couple and the way the government views them. Your God wI'll recognise your marriage and not theurs. Why the he'll should any one else care? Do you also dis agree with my marriage since my wife is an athesis? What about other religions (non abrahamic)? You have a right to your views but don't interfere with the rights of others, as they arnt interferin with you (those words are mysteriously close to the wrods of a wise man).

I enjoy open debates. Gun control, best education systems, tax systems, these are topics of debate. In instances of equal human rights there is no debate. You are wrong when you treat some people more equal than others and are a bigot.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:56 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2022 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.