frankenstein Posted February 9, 2011 Author Posted February 9, 2011 God did not ordain "death till you part" marriage. God ordained - eternal no-divorce marriage. my how the definition, meaning and value of marriage has changed.marriage used to mean eternal, but it was devalued by man to however long one pleases. and as much as one wants to argue "yah but, divorce marriage still is man and woman" divorce marriage "was not so from the beginning."
Jaybear Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 You are supposed to be a lawyer right? I will let you tell me whats wrong with your statement.I don't see anything wrong with my statement. My statement contains three facts:1. Brown allowed the Prop 8 advocates to defend prop 8.2. Prop 8 proponents were well funded. 3. You didn't complain at the time. Please tell me, what did I get wrong?
Jeff K. Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 SighThe law is not supposed to judge between wealth and poverty but apply all things equally. Business law in a community college would teach you that one. The wealth or poverty of a client does not eliminate your responsibilities as Atty general. Any lawyers will tell you that. And finally, there should have been no need for anyone to fund the defense of Prop 8 because the Atty General swears to uphold the Constitution of the state of California without mental reservation.It seems you are ignorant of some basic concepts in law as I have had to explain them to you. And I don't even claim to be a lawyer.Yeah, you got it wrong alright.
Jeff K. Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 You already accused me of lying, without backing up your accusation. I haven't accused you of lying, I have merely stated your claim to authority is open to question, indeed given what you don't know, you have reinforced that question.
Jaybear Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 SighThe law is not supposed to judge between wealth and poverty but apply all things equally. I didn't say otherwise. The wealth or poverty of a client does not eliminate your responsibilities as Atty general. I didn't say otherwise. And finally, there should have been no need for anyone to fund the defense of Prop 8 because the Atty General swears to uphold the Constitution of the state of California without mental reservation.I didn't say otherwise. Nor as a matter of fact, do I recall you complaining about this, before the court ruling issued. Please enlighten me if I am wrong. It seems you are ignorant of some basic concepts in law as I have had to explain them to you. More accurately, you are obviously incapable of distinguishing between an expression of legal opinion and a factual observation. You have yet to identify any factual statement I made which is not grounded in fact. You have yet to identify any legal opinion that I expressed which is not well grounded in law. You also seem quite willing to level insults without backing them up.
Jeff K. Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Let me know when you make a factual observation Jaybear, so far your opinions have shown a dearth of legal understanding. But hey, you are the one claiming lawyer status. I make no such claims even as you flail about.
Jaybear Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Let me know when you make a factual observation Jaybear, so far your opinions have shown a dearth of legal understanding. But hey, you are the one claiming lawyer status. I make no such claims even as you flail about.CFR. Put up or shut up Jeff. You know how to cut and paste. Please copy and paste a single legal opinion I have expressed in this thread, that you believe shows a dearth of legal understanding. I am not thin skinned. I really don't care if you insult me, I don't care if you think I am lying, so long as you have the integrity to back up your insults. I am waiting.
Jeff K. Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Why should I cut and paste your posts to show their lack of understanding, it is redundant. Just post some more.
Jaybear Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Why should I cut and paste your posts to show their lack of understanding, it is redundant. Just post some more.Yeah, that is what thought. You have nothing to back up your insults, and you lack the integrity to admit you were wrong.
Jason Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Well, it looks like this thread is just about done.
frankenstein Posted February 9, 2011 Author Posted February 9, 2011 well a thread isn't done till everyone gets their insults and backhanded comments out....so I would say its pointless to continue also.
Mordecai Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 I am puzzled....Yeah, I know. (Note: This is taken completely out of context... just havin' some fun here). The issue before the court is whether by denying gays the right to marry, the state violated their 14th amendment rights to due process and equal protection.That's not an issue, because the 14th amendment never mentions equal treatment. It discusses equal protection. It's no wonder you're puzzled, seeing as you don't understand what all native English speakers can understand with little or no explanation: Treatment is not the same as protection, as you imagine. Do you think there is any relevant differences between a marriage of atheists conducted by a justice of the peace, and a marriage sealed in an LDS temple for all time and eternity?Not a relevant difference that is currently viably objectively measurable by the gov't. However, the gov't can measure gender, and its relation to reproduction, which is why the law can deal differently with a gay union and a real marriage and not have the slightest shadow or indication of injustice.Do you think despite the difference, the state should treat such marriages equally?If they find an objective measure of the two and find the state has an interest in supporting one over the other, they could be treated differently, which would be perfectly just. It seems you don't care what is just or not. You just care that the gov't adopts your ridiculously obviously false dogma, that a gay union is the same as a marriage. I know you don't believe they are the same, but you talk as if and advocate for a law that suggests they are. Insanity.
Jaybear Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Jaybear: "The issue before the court is whether by denying gays the right to marry, the state violated their 14th amendment rights to due process and equal protection."That's not an issue, because the 14th amendment never mentions equal treatment. It discusses equal protection. Huh? The issue before the court is not equal protection, the issue is equal protection? Not a relevant difference that is currently viably objectively measurable by the gov't. Please clarify. Are you saying that its irrelevant if a marriage is ordained by God, or are you saying that having God ordain a marriage is relevant, but it just can't be "viably objectively measurable by the gov't." More specifically, do you actually believe that a marriage ordained by God in a Mormon temple is not in any meaningful objective way "better" than a marriages that that took place between atheists before an Elvis impersonator in Vegas. If so, color me impressed. I would have tabbed you as being more judgmental than that. It seems you don't care what is just or not. I am not sure why you think "justice" is served by denying a couple the joy and benefits that come with being married. Who are you trying to protect? I don't see any victims, except for those whose delicate sensibilities are offended. I don't care much for those people, as I don't care for those people who were offended at the prospect of interracial marriages, or marriages before an Elvis impersonator. They can protect themselves simply by not attending the wedding.
frankenstein Posted February 10, 2011 Author Posted February 10, 2011 They can protect themselves simply by not attending the wedding.and by stop proclaiming how meaningless marriage will be. For the outsider looking in, one is lead to conclude that those who state "marriage will be meaningless" also include the marriage of the person making the statement.The marriage God did not ordain i.e. the current governmental licensed practice of marriage, is either meaningless at this very moment and always will be or it is not meaningless. SSM is already legal in several places throughout the world, which means, either the entire married population of the earth are in meaningless marriages or they are not. Domestic Partnerships are given equal treatment to marriage in California, but for name only, this would mean then that effectivelly all marriages in California are meaningless, because homosexuals or straight people who understand the tax consequences are in Domestic Partnerships.
Mordecai Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 Huh? The issue before the court is not equal protection, the issue is equal protection?You used the word protection as if it synonymous with equal treatment, i.e. you acknowledge that homosexual behavior is different but expect it to be treated the same. That only makes the slightest bit of sense, if you actually believe treatment and protection are the same. What you are demanding is equal treatment, not equal protection. You say equal protection, but you apparently don't understand its meaning. Its real meaning, again, is obvious to native speakers of English.Please clarify. Are you saying that its irrelevant if a marriage is ordained by God, or are you saying that having God ordain a marriage is relevant, but it just can't be "viably objectively measurable by the gov't."The latter. More specifically, do you actually believe that a marriage ordained by God in a Mormon temple is not in any meaningful objective way "better" than a marriages that that took place between atheists before an Elvis impersonator in Vegas.I just don't think that measuring something like that makes a lot of practical sense. It's absurd, yes, but it's not practical to deal with every nuance of each marriage from a legal standpoint. I'm more of a small gov't kind of guy. My standard is cut and dry. It's based on Nature, on common sense, on biology, linguistics, sociology, anthropology, history and every reasonable measure imaginable clearly indicating that biological parenthood is more important to the well being of the state than non-biological, on so many levels. Furthermore, as we both know, real marriage (the abstract concept, or the ideal) is inextricably connected to biological parenthood. I am not sure why you think "justice" is served by denying a couple the joy and benefits that come with being married.I am doing no such thing. They are denied the joy and benefits of marriage by their own biological urges. I have nothing to do with them being gay.Who are you trying to protect? I don't see any victims, except for those whose delicate sensibilities are offended.So the "joy" of gay people is high on your priority list, while the delicate feelings of the offended are irrelevant. Yeah, that's fair. Why the favoritism? Are you judge of mankind, deciding whose feelings are important and whose aren't? This isn't about people's feelings anyway. It's about the law being rational and just, meaning the law makes sense. If it doesn't make sense, it is based on whims and not reason, meaning it is, by definition, unjust. An unjust justice system is no justice system at all.You, sir, are the judgmental one, putting the feelings of gay people above the feelings of the majority in the United States. Our feelings, those of us who want to protect real marriage, however, are rational, as we are merely trying to protect our value system for all of society, but more so, our own children and descendants. The victim, by the way, is society as a whole, at least as far as its long term well-being is concerned. If the gov't officially recognizes lead as if its gold, how much will you be paying for gold, not being sure what you're getting? Will lead become as valuable as gold or will gold be devalued? Definitely the latter, because people will be legally selling gold plated lead as if it's 100% gold. That label "100% gold" can be dangerous, despite it making people who have a lot of lead to sell happy. With "gay marriage" you're devaluing biological parenthood, distorting the language to ultimately damage the most basic values that keep society stable and children well adjusted and productive. The label of "marriage" on something that is certainly not a marriage will result in the loss of its value, regardless of how happy it will supposedly make gay people in the short run. If you destroy the connection between marriage and biological offspring, you undermine what makes a family work best, i.e. commitment and love between a husband and wife raising their own children. By the way, do you have any proof that gay people are happier from the gov't adopting a gay dogma? I think that, if anything, they feel happier when they simply believe they are normal and/or that their gay unions are the same in all relevant ways. But they aren't really normal and their unions are sociologically irrelevant, at least if you want to be rational.
frankenstein Posted February 10, 2011 Author Posted February 10, 2011 mordecai do you think less of your marriage, because ssm is legal in parts of the United States and world? (if you are married)Do you think less of marriage in general, because ssm is legal in parts of the United States and world?
thesometimesaint Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 frankenstein:Have you heard of the concept that bad money drives out good money?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law
frankenstein Posted February 10, 2011 Author Posted February 10, 2011 frankenstein:Have you heard of the concept that bad money drives out good money?http://en.wikipedia....Gresham%27s_lawi do not see how economics *greed* have much to do with the situation. someone who claims "marriage is devalued if" must then think their own marriage is of less meaning than before. OR that person must think less of marriage now, because of that "thing". have LDS marriages declined in any state that permits ssm; said decline being directly caused by ssm being allowed? have LDS temple marriages declined in California because a domestic partnership has ALL the same meaning and rights as a Sealing, but for the religious aspect and name? ssm is legal in places, thus, by reasoning of the rhetoric, marriage has less value, which means ever LDS sealing is of less worth than what it was before ssm was legal.
Jeff K. Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 It has nothing to do with "greed", though it was a nice attempt at downplaying a very real question of choices and how bad money does drive out good money. The idea is correct that as marriage is debased, and loses its value to lesser couplings, it drives the good of marriage out and undermines its value. I think the analogy very appropriate and very realistic.Tell me, if believe tainted water, even if the original source were pure, would still be drinkable.
Jeff K. Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 As to the other questions, we have only recently seen the change in laws so to evaluate the effects immediately would be impossible. However consider a similar paradigm shift in a closer but not quite congruent area. As society leaders (popular media) have changed the idea that a person must get married if a pregnancy is involved, people have become less careful and men have begun to more frequently and freely abandon the woman to the siblings. Out of wedlock births hit a record high in 2009.CNNApparently Gresham's law does indeed play a strong part in the process.
frankenstein Posted February 10, 2011 Author Posted February 10, 2011 do any of you think less of your marriages since ssm became legal?and no one has provided good evidence for causation. that two event happens at once do not mean the two event are related.---------------------------Tell me, if believe tainted water, even if the original source were pure, would still be drinkable.marriage isn't pure as it is, even without ssm. marriage became corrupted or rather not pure with Moses, Christ even states as much "from the beginning it was not so".
Jaybear Posted February 10, 2011 Posted February 10, 2011 The label of "marriage" on something that is certainly not a marriage will result in the loss of its value, regardless of how happy it will supposedly make gay people in the short run.Marriage is not a commodity, that can be bought, sold, traded or valued. The assertion that marriage would lose its value is an assertion that has zero substance. At best, your argument is based an irrational supposition that is gays are allowed to marry, then some people may choose not to marry. I say irrational, because no one has offered a rational explanation as to why a heterosexual couple would choose not to marry, just because gays are permitted to marry. Its a frivolous, meaningless, contrived argument. If you destroy the connection between marriage and biological offspring, you undermine what makes a family work best, i.e. commitment and love between a husband and wife raising their own children.Another specious argument. Heterosexuals will still marry, and have children.
thesometimesaint Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 frankenstein:How much base metal is needed to devalue a purer metal, a little, or a lot. How many counterfeit ss marriages does it take to devalue the overall institution? A little or a lot. Not even counting what my religion says about marriage. Marriage is society's way of giving its approve to sex.Morality aside I don't care if someone "does it" with a tree, but if they come to me in my professional capacity asking if they and the tree should get married. We're going to a nice long talk.
Jeff K. Posted February 11, 2011 Posted February 11, 2011 do any of you think less of your marriages since ssm became legal?and no one has provided good evidence for causation. that two event happens at once do not mean the two event are related.---------------------------marriage isn't pure as it is, even without ssm. marriage became corrupted or rather not pure with Moses, Christ even states as much "from the beginning it was not so".Those are good points, but if anything it points to the need to stop devaluing it, not to allow it to devalue further.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.