Race for the presidency political discussion thread

[Onacara]

Originally Posted by Fourshadow

Except you.

Admins "can't" put people on ignore there genius since then they couldn't see when they were violating the terms of service.

[Fezzikthedoor]

Originally Posted by Bannister

Right now they are fighting for equality and would appreciate you standing beside them and acknowledge them as a "human beings" with certain "inalienable" rights. Even if you also consider them sinners.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Hmmm...what we come up with here is a question of what exactly an unalienable right is.

First, though, let us set aside two things, these being the question of whether such truths are, in fact, self-evident as there are many who would argue that such individualist principles should take a back seat to the collective needs of the State, and also the area from which these rights originate by allowing that "creator" can be seen as a divine influence, the natural march of philisophical evolution, or an accident of biological evolution.

The word itself, unalienable, is pretty strange when you think about it, and wasn't really in common use even when it was penned a couple of hundred years ago. An alienable right is one that exists outside the confines of the natural human experience; it is, in other words, something that is not universal to each and every person but is rather granted or denied by the dictates of a society. The right to vote, for example, is alienable, since ones eligibility is based upon residency, criminal background, age, ect. What we have to ask, then, before we can even consider gay marriage, is if marriage itself is something that is controlled by outside forces (alienable) or rather an innate yearning that humans gravitate towards naturally (unalienable)?

Certainly we can all agree that society is able to interpose its will upon individuals that wish to be acknowledged as married, and most of us can probably agree that in the macro-sociological sense these controls are a good thing inasmuch that they help to influence both the fesability of continued genetic variety (sorry, kissing cousins!) as well as encourage the continuation of the culture itself. Its not a new idea, after all--Caeser Augustus put laws in place to help promote the idea of what we would equate to "traditional" marriage both for what he considered the moral fortitude of the empire as well as simply to produce more children...and I'm sure we all know that the Romans of the time were not exactly moral prudes. That such controls continue to this day in many different forms--paligamy, bestiality, whatever you call it when you're f***ing your sister--makes it clear to me, that the form marriage takes is completely up to society; after all, there are several societies that allow paligamy or relatively close interbreeding within the family line.

Still, the question remains, is the desire to marry something that exists within each person? Is it innate to the human experience, and if so, doesn't that argue for it being an unalienable right? There is an argument to be made here, too, I think, since just as there has never been a fully athiestic society (which isn't a proof of God, mind you) there has never been a culture which thrived for any amount of time without some form of a bonding ritual, or marriage. While there may be individuals within that society who choose to exist outside of such norms, such a social bond is found the world over.

The problem with this line of reasoning is that one could easily say that it is not marriage that is the unalienable right here, but rather the desire to reproduce or to be loved. Marriage is nothing more than a name given to such biological or emotional feelings that helps to provide stability for the children that spring from such a union. Ah, but taken one step further, it could also be argued that what I have just described--the need to reproduce, be loved, and create a stable environment for the raising of the young--fall under the idea of the Pursuit of Happiness....an unalienable right as defined by our founders.

Couldn't anything be considered an unalienable right, though, if it brings you happiness? Of course not--we have to consider whether such personal pursuit brings direct harm to another person, essentially stripping them of their Life, Liberty, or pursuit of Happiness. Here is where we enter the gray area, though, since you have to start to pick and choose whose rights are more important.

Still with me, folks? If so, here's where I come down on the issue, having walked through it this way. There is no right to marriage, but marriage is also a "victemless crime". If two people wish to express their emotions and desires by such a ritual, society should allow it; however, a society retains the right to place incentives in the forms of whatever benifits it might see fit to give those forms of marriage that it believes will help the society as a whole.

Why not just call it "marriage" and "gay marriage"? Better yet, in my Libertarian fantasy world, do what Guido says and keep the government out of the whole business!

[Granite-M]

Originally Posted by Fezzikthedoor

Couldn't anything be considered an unalienable right, though, if it brings you happiness? Of course not--we have to consider whether such personal pursuit brings direct harm to another person, essentially stripping them of their Life, Liberty, or pursuit of Happiness. Here is where we enter the gray area, though, since you have to start to pick and choose whose rights are more important.

Excellent post, but I would point out one thing. On the bit I emphasized, you seem to be saying that, if there's no harm to other people, then there's no reason to outlaw a thing. I would examine this from the inverse perspective: is there harm to people if a thing is outlawed?

I've already said that I don't think that gay marriage causes harm to others, and I further submit that outlawing gay marriage does cause harm to the homosexuals it restricts, in several ways. It relegates them to a second-class citizen status, refusing them rights afforded others without due cause. It prevents them from enjoying the legal protections given to peple who are married, such as inheritance, visitation rights, or alimony. It prevents them from raising children together, which in turn constitutes harm to every child that languishes in foster care due to a lack of eligible adoptive parents.

Although the word "marriage" may have religious connotations that cause serious disagreement, I think that, at the very least, denying gays all of the legal rights and priveleges of marriage does constitute harm, and therefore is a shameful violation of the "all men are created equal" precept.

[ewabbie]

All right already. Gays are people too and should have the same rights as everyone else. Can we move on.

Back to our new leader President Elect Obama. Promoter of mediocrity.
I came across this and found it interesting.

Originally Posted by John Burton Akron

As a high school teacher, I have recently been inspired by Barack Obama and his tax plan as communicated to ''Joe the Plumber.'' Obama's plan calls for increasing taxes on achievers and spreading the wealth to the less fortunate. Such logic has encouraged me to change my classroom grading.
At present, the system I use is really unfair, according to Obama's Harvard reasoning. It has been my experience that those students who typically study more usually earn higher grades than those students who don't put in the same amount of time. As a result of this terrible injustice, I am going to alter my grading procedure by taking points from the higher achievers and distributing them to those students who don't achieve at that level.
The ultimate goal, of course, is to get everybody to meet at the middle to be a C student; and isn't that what we want, mediocrity? Because if one achieves more than others, then others start feeling bad, or worse, get envious and feel less advantaged.
The only glitch I see in my plan is the potential of the achievers noticing that no matter how hard they work they will always be C students, so I fear a loss of motivation. But I trust Obama when he says that real change occurs when you pull the bottom up.

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by ewabbie

All right already. Gays are people too and should have the same rights as everyone else. Can we move on.

Back to our new leader President Elect Obama. Promoter of mediocrity.
I came across this and found it interesting.

Blah, blah, blah. Talk about . All the wealthy work soo hard and are so smart, while the middle and lower class are so lazy and stupid. Yeah, that's been pretty much established.

So under Obama's plan, businesses are all of a sudden going to relocate, ship jobs over seas and outsource jobs. Geez, because they haven't been doing that at all aready? Please, businesses have been relocating from certain parts of the country to other parts (usually the south) to cut costs and get cheaper labor for years. Big businesses have been outsourcing jobs from within the company to other businesses who pay less and don't have benefits. Big businesses have been shipping jobs over seas for years. So just because Obama is President, don't act like these things are going to just start to happen.

[InfinityMax]

Yeah, we've had that one come up. It's a crock. The number of logical fallacies involved in this ludicrous analogy is staggering. Historical data also suggests that this little horror story mindwarp is a complete load of manure - the tax burden was different under Clinton, and somehow, against all odds, rich people still found the motivation to get out of bed, and not lie around looking for their welfare checks.

Promoter of mediocrity is a silly title - except, maybe you mean promoter of mediocrity among the people who like to take shots at him. This grade communism thing is a thoroughly mediocre attempt to get mediocre people to dislike the guy the author doesn't like.

And it's no surprise you don't want to discuss gay marriage any more. I've seen this particular debate several times, and it seems to follow a pretty solid timeline. Something like:

Fruit-loving liberal hippy (FLLH) says gay marriage should be legal.
Hate-mongering religious conservative (HMRC) says it's a sin.
FLLH says so what.
HMRC attempts to defend his position and find some constitutional reason gay marriage should be illegal, and begins to look like a retard.
FLLH pokes holes in HMRC's ludicrous, bigoted argument by pointing out logical fallacies and disgusting inequities.
HMRC lists a couple dozen Bible verses.
FLLH doesn't care, because FLLH doesn't use the Bible to determine national policy. Probably because FLLH is Wiccan.
HMRC flails and comes up with completely bizarre explanations of how the country will be destroyed, straight people will start sleeping with goats, and our nation will be overrun by Canadian freedom fighters if gay marriage is legalized.
FLLH points out that HMRC should probably cut back on his meds.
HMRC wants to discuss something else, because continuing the discussion at this point makes him sound stupid, inconsistent, bigoted and a little crazy.

That's how it usually goes. The hippies win this argument every time. At some point, irrational fear and homophobic hatred fall to logic that is not even that hard for the average dude to see on his own. And yet, more than half the nation continues to vote based on fear and hatred, ignoring common sense in favor of listening to Rush Limbaugh and their Bible-thumping preachers, and gay marriage stays illegal.

[InfinityMax]

Originally Posted by Hahma

All the wealthy work soo hard and are so smart, while the middle and lower class are so lazy and stupid. Yeah, that's been pretty much established.

Sadly, it's true. I am pretty lazy, and remarkably stupid. As a member of the middle class, I rarely do any work. I just sit around, pick my belly button, watch Bravo reality TV and sit on the toilet.

That's why I'm a Democrat - I'm lazy and all I want is a handout. If Nukatha were here, he could tell you all that's probably because I'm part black.

[ewabbie]

Originally Posted by Hahma

So under Obama's plan, businesses are all of a sudden going to relocate, ship jobs over seas and outsource jobs.

I hope businesses stop shipping jobs overseas. Never said they would ship more over seas. As a matter of fact, four years ago I lost my job (computer programmer) to a man in India. I found another job. Oh, and I am definitely middle class. And could benefit if Obama pays for my kids college education. But that does not mean I agree with his ideas. Exit polls showed over 60% (forget the exact number but it was in the 60's) of the people who voted for Obama disagreed with his spread the wealth plan. Go figure.

[skyknight]

And for good reason....most people understand that taking from people that have more than us is wrong. I have never nor will I ever figure out the entitlement attitude that so many have. How anyone can say, hey look, you worked real hard and made a bunch or you got real lucky and somehow came into money....and now you owe it to me because I merely exist is beyond my comprehension I guess. I will never understand this sort of mentality... Many arguments I can at least see where others are coming from wheter I agree or disagree. This one is as odd to me as trying to justify burning books or something along that line....it just totally does not make sense to me.

[ewabbie]

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

... watch Bravo reality TV and sit on the toilet.

That is the beauty of this county. A middle class person has the opportunity to have a TV is his bathroom.

Oh..and in my previous post I thought I was agreeing with you that every person has the same rights. I was just tired of reading those long posts about the same thing over and over and it just triggered another long post.

Edit: I do not personally believe in gay marriage but I also do not believe the government (or myself) should have a say what people do in their personal life. The less government the better.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by ewabbie

That is the beauty of this county. A middle class person has the opportunity to have a TV is his bathroom.

Or a toilet in his living room.

[jbbnbsmith]

Originally Posted by InfinityMax

That's why I'm a Democrat - I'm lazy and all I want is a handout. If Nukatha were here, he could tell you all that's probably because I'm part black.

It's obvious that you are not black. Just look at your avatar, clearly a caucasian robot. Gulp on the other hand...just a black guy dancing in his underwear.