Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,582 Year: 2,839/9,624 Month: 684/1,588 Week: 90/229 Day: 1/61 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Case against Kim Davis dismissed
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 20 of 103 (790426)
08-30-2016 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Faith
08-30-2016 8:23 AM


Sounds good but it's really just a form of tyranny that denies freedom of belief to those you disagree with, because there is no way to have freedom of opinion if you are forbidden to act on it.
For example, when gay people had the opinion that they should be able to get married, but they were forbidden to act on this opinion ... yes, I recall how you denounced that as a "form of tyranny".
Wait, no, that wasn't you, was it. I must be thinking of someone else.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 8:23 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 10:19 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 32 of 103 (790441)
08-30-2016 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by Faith
08-30-2016 10:19 AM


Ah yes, now it's ANY opinion, right? Just any old opinion has a right if my opinion has a right. If someone thinks people should marry dogs that should be treated as an opinion to be respected. An opinion that has rights, that should be protected by law so that it can be acted upon. Of course. The opinion that men who are attracted to boys should be allowed to act on it is gaining favor in some quarters. Obviously since it's somebody's opinion it should be respected.
Well, that's what you seemed to be saying. If what you meant was that it's only tyranny if you and people who agree with you aren't allowed to act on your opinions, and fuck everyone else, then it would have been franker of you to say so; then we'd know where you stand.
And then you could try to explain what makes you so fucking special.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 10:19 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 11:38 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 35 of 103 (790453)
08-30-2016 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Faith
08-30-2016 11:38 AM


For me it's not about people, or WHO has a right to an opinion, it's about the worthiness of the opinion ...
Where the worthiness of opinions is, of course, determined by you, rather than, for example, me, or those awful gay people.
So, what makes you so fucking special?
but of course as I was saying in that post, for your side it's about people
It is not, I hope, discreditable in me to love my neighbor. There are precedents for so doing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 11:38 AM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 36 of 103 (790454)
08-30-2016 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Faith
08-30-2016 11:28 AM


The Supreme Court also acted against laws passed by the people in many states, which to my mind is a horrific violation of democratic principles.
That's what they're for, Faith. If the Supreme Court can't decide that a law is constitutional, then who can, and who will defend us from unconstitutional laws? If they couldn't "act against laws passed by the people" then the Constitution wouldn't be a Constitution, it would be a set of obsolete guidelines that everyone ignores.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 11:28 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 6:42 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 43 of 103 (790480)
08-30-2016 6:57 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Faith
08-30-2016 6:42 PM


The Supreme Court is always redefining the Constitution. They certainly can't be trusted to interpret it.
And yet that is in fact the job with which the Constitution entrusts them in Article III Section 2.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 6:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(4)
Message 44 of 103 (790481)
08-30-2016 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Faith
08-30-2016 6:40 PM


Read the Constitution. Majority rules.
No. Read the Constitution. There are things the government cannot do, even if it has the mandate of the majority.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 6:40 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 47 of 103 (790489)
08-30-2016 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Faith
08-30-2016 8:00 PM


The checks and balancers are intended to control the GOVERNING INSTITUTIONS that tend to usurp power over each other and over the people, not the people themselves.
And yet when the Supreme Court made gay people a little more free, some people complained! Can you imagine?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 8:00 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 08-30-2016 8:16 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 8:20 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 8:33 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 55 of 103 (790501)
08-30-2016 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
08-30-2016 8:20 PM


When they make an extreme minority "a little more free" against the will of the majority they are indeed usurping power over the people.
In the first place, the opponents of gay marriage are not in the majority.
Which apparently means that the rest of us are entitled to do what the fuck we like to you. You think it's unfair that gay people are happy, see how you like being thrown to the lions. Apparently in Faithworld that's constitutional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 8:20 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 103 (790502)
08-30-2016 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Faith
08-30-2016 8:33 PM


"...a little more free" is a gross misrepresentation of extending marriage to couples who have no qualifications for marriage whatever.
That's one of the things they are now free to decide for themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Faith, posted 08-30-2016 8:33 PM Faith has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 62 of 103 (790528)
08-31-2016 10:16 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Faith
08-31-2016 5:30 AM


Re: It was her job, then it wasn't
So changing the law that required her to sign off on gay marriage licenses seems like a fair enough compromise under the circumstances ...
She had six deputy clerks. A fair compromise would have been that they issued the licences. She ordered them not to. And all the American religious right rose up as one and said that the deputies should be free to choose according to the dictates of their own consciences, haha, just kidding, of course not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Faith, posted 08-31-2016 5:30 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by Faith, posted 08-31-2016 10:31 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024