I'm surprised that no one has created a topic on this:

Natoma said:
epicstruggle said:
3- I was not born in the US, but will become a citizen in 2 years. Later in life I had hoped to become President. :) However I cant since I wasnt born in the country. :(, So how does the equal protection work for me? Does that make it unconstitutional since its not provide me equality to me natoma?

later,
epic

Already in the works.

http://www.s-t.com/daily/03-00/03-15-00/a03lo019.htm
So you agree that the equal rights amemdment is unconstitutional, since it disagrees with parts of the constitution that have been there since the beginning.

later,
 
No, because the Equal Protection Clause is referring to states abridging the privileges and immunities of citizens of the USA.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

And no state does this wrt Presidential elections. However, states most certainly impinge upon my right to receive the rights and privileges bestowed upon the married with my partner. And some of the leaders of those states are also seeking to create further laws that would effectively shut out our rights as citizens of this country to enter into the legal construct of marriage.
 
http://www.s-t.com/daily/03-00/03-15-00/a03lo019.htm
The proposed amendment reads: "A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for twenty years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States."

Why 20 years? That is that not equal treatment - a citizen must be 35 years old or older to be President. If epicstruggle is 25 years old when he becomes a citizen he'd have to wait untill he's a least 45 to become Prez. How is that equal treatment?
 
Silent_One said:
http://www.s-t.com/daily/03-00/03-15-00/a03lo019.htm
The proposed amendment reads: "A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for twenty years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President, is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States."

Why 20 years? That is that not equal treatment - a citizen must be 35 years old or older to be President. If epicstruggle is 25 years old when he becomes a citizen he'd have to wait untill he's a least 45 to become Prez. How is that equal treatment?

It's equal treatment because everyone has to wait twenty years if they're a non citizen. If you're born here, you have to wait until you're 35. If you come to this country at 15, you can run for president at 35.

Every person born in this country has to wait 35 years to run for president. So if anything, having to wait 20 years as an immigrant is actually better. ;)

Obviously.
 
Bringing this from the other thread so as to keep the discussion in here.

Joe DeFuria said:
Natoma said:
Imagine how maddening it must have been to argue with you about the definition of natural. ;)

I can imagine...you were on the other end of it... ;)

:LOL: whatever.

Joe DeFuria said:
Oh and btw, definition of unconstitutional:

"Not in accord with the principles set forth in the constitution of a nation or state"

Unfortunately for you, an amendment DEFINES the principles set forth in the constitution, and therefore can't be unconstitutional.

Even before it reaches the constitution? It most certainly can be unconstitutional. And even when it gets into the constitution, it can still violate the principles of that constitution, despite being part of it. Anti-miscegenation for example was anti-"everything the US stands for," and yet it was US law and defined as such. Jim Crow and Slavery both violated the spirit and the principles of what America is, yet they both were lawful at one time in this country and fully codified in our legal system.
 
Natoma said:
Even before it reaches the constitution? It most certainly can be unconstitutional.

Who said anything about "before reaching" the constitution?

Once an amendment is ratified, it is by definition constitutional.

And even when it gets into the constitution, it can still violate the principles of that constitution, despite being part of it.

Wrong. At worst, it can "violate the principles" of the "pre-amended constitution." Once it is ratified it BECOMES part of the core principles of the constitution.

Anti-miscegenation for example was anti-"everything the US stands for,"

Was there an anti-miscegnation amendment? No. So what's the relevance?
 
Jim Crow and Slavery violated American principles of Freedom and Equal Representation before the law. Yet they were very much American Law. So by definition, Jim Crow and Slavery were American principles, even though they are diametric to Freedom and Equal Representation right?

They must not have been unamerican institutions/laws/principles at all, despite being codified as american institutions/laws/principles.
 
Natoma said:
Jim Crow and Slavery violated American principles of Freedom and Equal Representation before the law.

What do you mean "American" principles?

"American" Principles are defined as the Constitution sets them forth.

Yet they were very much American Law.

And who said that laws can't be unconstitutional? Constitutional Amendments can't be unconstitutional.

So by definition, Jim Crow and Slavery were American principles,
even though they are diametric to Freedom and Equal Representation right?

No, they were NOT American principles. They may have been laws, but American principles are Constitutionally based. When laws are found not to be upholding of the principles of the Constitution, they are rejected as unconstitutional.. As was the case with Jim Crow

You keep on dragging LAWS into this discussion, Natoma. The topic at hand is Constitutional Amendments.
 
First, I wasn't aware that the constitution (and also the declaration of independence) were the only harbors of american principles.

Second, the constitution gives Equal Protection to homosexuals as to heterosexuals. If an amendment is passed to deny aspects of that protection and rights to homosexuals, it is in direct violation with the principles set by the constitution.

And boys and girls, what is the definition of unconstitutional again?

Not in accord with the principles set forth in the constitution of a nation or state.

If the principles of the constitution include equal protection, then an amendment to violate that equal protection is most certainly unconstitutional by very nature.
 
Natoma said:
First, I wasn't aware that the constitution (and also the declaration of independence) were the only harbors of american principles.

You should be aware of it. If something is Csontitutional, it is American. If it's not constitutional, then it's unamerican. Simple as that, really. The Constitution is the final say on whether or not something is "American" or not.

Second, the constitution gives Equal Protection to homosexuals as to heterosexuals. If an amendment is passed to deny aspects of that protection and rights to homosexuals, it is in direct violation with the principles set by the constitution.

No matter how many times you say it, it's not true. Again, we can argue about the definition of a relationship being a violation or not. But that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

If an amendment is passed that denys certain aspects of one broad reaching protection...then guess what. It's constitutional, and by definition American, to deny a certain aspect of a particular broad reaching protection.

It may NOT have been constitutional and American the day before the amendment was ratified.

And boys and girls, what is the definition of unconstitutional again?

Not in accord with the principles set forth in the constitution of a nation or state.

And boys and girls, what defines the principles set forth in the constitution? The, um, Constitution itself.

If the principles of the constitution include equal protection, then an amendment to violate that equal protection is most certainly unconstitutional by very nature.

Read above.
 
Joe DeFuria said:
Natoma said:
First, I wasn't aware that the constitution (and also the declaration of independence) were the only harbors of american principles.

You should be aware of it. If something is Csontitutional, it is American. If it's not constitutional, then it's unamerican. Simple as that, really. The Constitution is the final say on whether or not something is "American" or not.

The Constitution is merely a guide. American principles are based on freedom and equality, not to mention others. The constitution was written to embody those principles in our laws. Those principles did not suddenly come forth because of the constitution. Amendments to the constitution can most certainly be in violation of the very principles of which the constitution is based.

Joe DeFuria said:
Second, the constitution gives Equal Protection to homosexuals as to heterosexuals. If an amendment is passed to deny aspects of that protection and rights to homosexuals, it is in direct violation with the principles set by the constitution.

No matter how many times you say it, it's not true. Again, we can argue about the definition of a relationship being a violation or not. But that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

If an amendment is passed that denys certain aspects of one broad reaching protection...then guess what. It's constitutional, and by definition American, to deny a certain aspect of a particular broad reaching protection.

It may NOT have been constitutional and American the day before the amendment was ratified.

Again, the principles embodied in the constitution are not immutable, as you've stated. They are reflections of the principles that we hold in this society, which are at their very core freedom of speech, religion, etc, and equality, as well as others.

To deny a certain sect of people the right to enter legally recognized relationships and receive the benefits therein as espoused by Equal Protection, which is an outgrowth of the principle of equality, would most certainly be a fundamental denigration of the principles the constitution embodies and is supposed to uphold.
 
Zurich, I am sorry for such a belated response to your post in that other thread, I will place it here as it seems these different threads have an underlying theme. If the truth be known I did not really have the time to compile my arguments. At any rate here is my explanation.

zurich said:
Really? I thought they just enjoyed soaking the sheets all night long.

??

zurich said:
Care to explain how couplings of men whom love each other can destroy the American economy, culture, political freedoms, and civil liberties? In detail?

Well, I explained allot of this in a previous post in an entirely different thread already before. I can not seem to find look what us crazy Americans did thread any longer. Must have been entirely deleted.

zurich said:
I'm interested to see how (your) "less than 1% of the population" can eradicate a nation as we know it.

edit:


So that said, loving couples such as Natoma (and this Eddie fellow) are the absolute minority of minorities.

Let's just amend the above, and find out how (in your eyes), 1% of 1% of the population can destroy the American economy, culture, political freedoms, and civil liberties? In detail?

Because really, if it was that easy, someone with greater aspirations and, well, who actually *cares* more, would have done it by now.

Looks like I will have to write the entire theory over again. (Only in better detail this time.) I am just a little pissed about having to say it again as Natoma knows dammed well that radical feminism is the reason that the homosexual agenda is being advanced into the realm of the natural family. The history of the anti family institution goes all the way back to Plato. Here is the heritage explained yet again. Marx was prejudiced by Hegel, who was in turn influenced by Plato, and Marx theories were extended by his friend Engels. The theory essentially stated that mans ancient past was tranquil, that civilization evolves according to particular chronological law, from tribal communalism , to feudalism, to capitalism, to socialism and the end will arrive at communalism yet again with the withering away of all class. Marx contemplated this fantastic utopian outlook would come to be with a revolution of the workers in opposition to their industrialist tormenters. One of the most thriving methods Marxist/socialist use to impose the totalitarianism is the devastation of the natural family, which they collectively portray as a oppressive tradition based on private property and correctly the main foundation of individualism. In their 1848 Manifesto, Marx and Engels wrote that
the bourgeois family will vanish as a matter of course when its complement ( private property.) vanishes, and both will vanish with the vanishing of capitalism.

In Engles book ‘The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the state’ Engles demonstrates his loathing of the family. Feminist love this material and as a result of Sociological academics these ideas are still very popular in our institutions of ‘higher learning’. Engels based his analysis on a belief that human societies evolved from an ancient stage, in which they were controlled by women to the present, where they are controlled by men. (Patriarchy) Engels logic was that as civilization passed from a hunter gatherer phase to an agricultural one where men progressively took over the production of the livestock wealth. Women could pick berries with the finest but bulls scared them, heh they scare me too. Private property was the principal iniquity he debated and so the means to stamp out the cruel foundation of the family was to ban private property, get women into the labor market and to turn the offspring over to the state. This sounds familiar indeed his answer to this is not too far from Plato, in fact it is borderline plagiarism when he writes
the first condition of or the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back in to the public industry, an that this in turn demands that the characteristic of the monogamous family as the economic unit of society be abolished.

His resolution is that instead of being a slave to you own partner and children you get to be a slave of the government just like for a large quantity in Sweden and for all in totalitarian nations. Simone de Beauvoir writer of ‘The second sex’ sold as the standard manifesto of the enlightened woman and one of the books that commenced the contemporary feminist anti-male lobby group says
No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if these is such a choice, too many women will make that one
.
It is not rocket science to make the equation of the Platonic utopian republic is the template of the social welfare state and socialism.

Our men and women…should be forbidden by law to live together in separate households, and all the women should be common to all the men, similarly, children should be held in common, and no parent should know his child or child its parent
Plato, The republic. 375 B.C.

In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them
Dr. Mary Jo Bane, Assistant Professor of Education, Wellesley College (1990)

Utopians, nearly all of them mind you, require as an absolute for social harmony the absolute moral doctrine of equality of biblical proportions, so much for separation of the church and state then. Undeniably their zeal is of fundamentalist proportions and they even extend equal treatment beyond what it was initially intended to be to one of an equal outcome. This basically undermines the capitalist bonus system where if you work hard and do well you will be rewarded. Instead the logic is retarded in favor of a reversal of the work ethic where one does not have to worry how well they do with regards to their work or achievement the state will make reparations of said inequities. Egalitarians are want to be utopians. It is not difficult to see that such a drastic slide to egalitarianism will inevitably make economic disparities more and more of a focus, particularly in hard times, making possible a declining into communalism. Clearly the similarities between the welfare state and socialism are difficult to refute. While the state does not own the means of production it clearly controls and taxes it so that the benefit of ownership is substantially reduced.

Jean-Jacques Rousseaus writings sparked the entire Romantic movement by arguing that because of the natural goodness of man is constantly tainted by society, emotion and sentiment are the most vital reality. This was a movement that flew in the face of moral hierarchy and in truth of any recognized ethics religious or otherwise on the basis that man is naturally good and if left alone would be moral. This philosophy reemerged in the 60’s with the hippy movement. Rousseaus had such disdain for family, property, the affluent and all natural forces of influence in a natural society was so strong that he sought to replace them with an compulsory egalitarianism, after which additional radical anarchy would not be tolerable. Take note here that those who fight for the elimination of all forms of conventional power and then constitute themselves and their hypothesis as the single authority and tradition. Further you can already see the modern utopians (the social engineering sociologist.) working hard to implement hate crimes as a means of social control. Interestingly enough Rousseau himself required his wife to give up their newborn offspring to an orphanage at birth, where it is estimated that they all died. He persuaded himself of the appropriateness of this disgraceful act by saying
I thought I was performing the act of a citizen and a father and I looked on myself as a member of Platos Republic
Never mind the man must have been delusional to envision such a thing. The liberal idea that human nature is intrinsically good is not a new idea to us in 2003 but in reality is such a notion good for individuals to hold true. Well first off there are all sorts of human nature that we do not view as good inherited genetic disorders and mutations that simply have no advantage what so ever. Canada’s own Pierre Trudeau was influenced by Rousseau and it is no small coincidence that Mr. Trudeau is responsible for the human rights charter in Canada. Amusingly few Canadians even today realize that Trudeau was an out and out socialist. Pierre Trudeau's socialist dream was to have a state that is no longer the servant of the public. He felt that the prevalence of elected legislative body would by no means put into practice his social policy so his aim was to give appointed judges the authority to come to a decision how we would exist. That's why the Charter of Rights was so crucial to his cause. He knew that, rather than securing the rights that had been ours under common law the charter would be transformed into the contradictory of a liberty enhancing article. What was once common wisdom now often infringes on some ones rights under the charter. Thus the Supreme Court is now in control. I make the correlation here between Platoes Philosopher Kings and the Supreme Court Judges. Trudeau had the philosophy like Plato and Rousseau that the way to make us free was to give us more and enhanced government. Under his rule, Canada experienced a massive increase of central agencies, that brought Canada twice the per capita figure of consultants used in the US and five times the amount in the United Kingdom. In 1984 Trudeaus federal deficit was 54% of federal proceeds all for more state agendas. Shortly after he was voted out of office the Tories were elected and forced to implement the hated GST tax for which the Tories and Brian Mulroney were hated for even though they were not the government that created the need for extra revenues to bring the deficit in order, never mind the actual debt incurred by Trudeau.

Does Rousseau mean to say that whatever human acts come from human nature are good regardless of what they might be, I think this is what he meant. However it does not jive and here is why. If we are empowered with free will and freedom of choice then we are locked in with right and wrong acts, let there be no two ways about it. If I should decide one day to murder my neighbor there is no destiny in such a decision. If there maybe some genetic trait or socialization that predisposes me to that action then that ought to be considered a moot point. Certainly not all humans are subject to such an act without a choice in the matter. If there is no human nature then simply socializations must be to blame but again we cannot excuse the behavior based on that. Socialization theory is a fairly weak notion and devoid of any human nature it basically suggests that humans are not capable of behaving outside of what they have been socialized or taught to behave there is no choice in that destiny ether. Choice in matters of human behavior therefore ought to be the primary reason or motivation behind human acts and while human nature is there humans have shown that it is possible for them to override that instinct substantially. For example innate learning of language is a benign but fundamental part of human nature, laziness however is not so benign but with Individual moral agency humans supersede it cleanly as a matter of choice and ethics. What of moral relativism? It is fairly useless knowledge, I believe, even if it were true.

Consider the consequences of such a philosophy if it is decided it must be the way in which people should determine their morals. Well first off there can be no authority on any matters and anarchy would be the order of the day. Secondly you would not be able to have any sort of social laws that apply and therefore you make Justice an irrelevant waste of time. If people are duped into this way of thinking it surely does undermine any current social arrangement they currently live under. But the irony is as I have suggested before preponderates of moral relativism do not really believe in it as a method in which to govern society or create laws. Rather it is a tool for the persons wanting to mold society should it not be to their approval to convince the weak minded to behave poorly and act out of order. For instance I see the legalization of all forms of human sexuality including pedophilia based on moral relativism. Interestingly enough to legalize acts like this it suggests that it is right and good which runs contrary to the cannons of moral relativism. To keep it illegal as it is would be the proper course of action would it not sense there is no right or wrong it does not matter if it is illegal or not. This tells you that indeed rather then taking indifference to heart the moral relativist does not really believe in moral relativism at all. Of course the same logic could be applied to murder, sense there is no right or wrong we should legalize murder within society. Not that they would actually propose that sort of idea. (Unless you oppose them I suppose.) Anyone whom professes to be such a person I have doubts about their motives. Consider them to be untrustworthy as they do not believe in right or wrong and even will tell you that to your face! I think that this would be a good rule of thumb for anyone, do not trust someone whom tells you should not trust them, makes perfect sense to me.

But moral relativism is soo egalitarian in terms of human sexuality? Most definitely. There is a reason why welfare states have legalized homosexual marriage. You will take note that the only states that have legalized it are indeed welfare state material. Canada while on the decline was entirely a welfare state at one point during the rule of Mr. Trudeau. Extensive welfare programs and unemployment. The government even bought and paid for houses in support of people on welfare at one point! The idea behind the breakdown of the natural family is to facilitate equality for all and rid society of patriarchy. In a natural society where sex means reproduction patriarchy becomes the natural inclination as males prefer that they are not paying for the rearing of another mans child. Females become mothers nearly the instant they become sexually active. The genders fall into their roles naturally and in an asymmetric manner. Naturally the social equality required for utopian mentalities is undermined and this would explain their failures to date in so many ways. I contend that the handicapped system (egalitarianism.) would not ever work in a situation where people were responsible for their own children and interests as it does not pay more to put more effort into your work whatever the matter. In reality homosexual marriages are simply a moral slap in the face for the church, an insult to the idea that heterosexuality is special and deserving of elevated status and most importantly says who is in charge of societies laws and who has the ability to effect social mores.

Ending philosophical debates on nature vs nurture, individual vs collective by declaring one way or the other in absolute terms creates an environment where a certain line of thinking is right. After this assumption is made then collectivist and individualist go on to make their political thought and models. What is articulated in the above description is the fundamental flaw of science. The Achilles heal of it to be more accurate. Consider that extreme left wing egalitarian thinkers assume that there is no human nature and it is a blank slate. Immediately the logic follows that there is no human nature and individuals are an absolute product of their environment or social conditions. Once that assumption is made then clearly this problem of individualism can be resolved by a wide range of socialization theories that they can find the devil in men and clear the complexion of society up merely by changing socializations that result in inequalities. This results, in the end, in complete collectivist theory all based off the assumption that individuals have no human nature and socialization is the blame for all inequalities. Some have begrudgingly admitted that there is indeed human nature and as a result this disqualifies their theories for the most part that socializations are the foundations of inequality. So now they have reorganized their collectivist theories to include human nature but with the absolute condition that all human nature is acceptable and should be established as such. This is a horribly ill conceived mentality. Consider that a wide variety of human nature is not accepted as being good or right. In reality they do not say that human nature is good rather that it is of no consequence and use the postmodern theories of moral relativism despite outcry from physicist. Ironically the first motive is to legalize all human behavior as sense people can not control their nature they are therefore a victim of it, despite mans ability to override our nature. But they are being hypocritical by asserting that human nature is neither good nor bad without consequences by forcing a morality on society using this tenant. They are most interested in the legalization of all human sexuality. But if they are doing such they are declaring that indeed it is acceptable and good for society. How do you on one hand say that there is no right or wrong and then on the other declare that because there is no right or wrong make a moral judgment that indeed all human sexuality should be legalized. The answer is that their original bias for an egalitarian society is to level the playing field absolutely there should be no inequalities. I would contest that this is the most futile effort they could ever attempt to manage, in reality they know it as well but to force change you need a cause. Equality in all things human is also a Christian ethic ironically but thanks to protestant augmentations of Catholicism the value is left open to interpretation. Not so in an egalitarian collectivist mind. The matter here that eludes many thinkers is that as I pointed out earlier utopians despise the natural family as it is an engine of inequality where (using outdated socialization theories paradoxically) children see that model as the right familial unit and normal. With the introduction of unnatural homosexual families and the continuing breakdown of social morals with regards to marriage that has divorce rates skyrocketing the natural family is becoming less and less of an individual prerogative. The state has moved in as a surrogate parent often with the father being removed from care giving of the child. (I would argue that this is most proper despite it being an inequity.) So we have yet a new inequality that goes fairly unaddressed in favor of finding other inequalities found in incomes, sexuality, access to education, labor on and on. So the charge is most a matter of in the direction of the critical minds preference. What happens after you remove certain social programs such as affirmative action from the states political agenda? Why everything falls back into a state of inequality of course. So once you accept that equality is an acceptable reason for political agenda you are forever indebted to the cause. Snuffing out one fire then running off to put out another only to realize when you let the original work go off to be on its own without intervention it comes back. This notion that inequality is a source of despondency was originally an idea of Socrates (Plato) that he articulated in the republic. In that he argued that the state should abolish private property and the family, both of which, Plato argued, breed envy and differences between citizens. All women must be forced to lead the same life as men including mandatory battle duty. Plato wanted to forbid marriage, childrearing by parents and allow the men to share all women in common. Finally he wanted to police this whole design with a special category of citizens called guardians to be selected by the philosopher kings of the state and to require a discriminating breeding process on the people allowing only the finer citizens to breed in extraordinary mating events. All the offspring were to be raised in the state daycares and trained to respect the leaders of the state. Plato thought that this eugenic agenda would get rid of the disturbing allegiance, fondness and interests of the natural family arrangement and employ everyone for social service.
it would be a sin either for mating or for anything else in a truly happy society to take place without regulation
The question begs to be asked, what would society do with the young from less favorable couples.
officers will take the children of the better guardians to a nursery and put them in charge of nurses living in a separate part of the city the children of the inferior guardians and any defective offspring of others, will be quietly and secretly disposed of
euthanasia?

Oh the idea that a minority of minorities could ever damage an entire society does seem a bit preposterous on its face. I would argue that it is not simply a paltry less then one percent effecting society and this is why I assert that indeed homosexual marriage is not the whole part of the egalitarian puzzle. Clearly what it amounts too is a political bitch slap in the face of Christians and Christianity whom have always held that homosexuality is wrong. It is a devaluation of the heterosexual familial unit, of which we are all members of, to an equal with homosexual unions. It may in the long run force people, to some degree, to regard homosexual relations as equals with heterosexual relations with the help of hate crimes. (Hate crimes are the new morality the left is attempting to force on society. What they amount to is control of what can be said making freedom of speech something that is subordinate if it may insight disgust or hate with others whom do not share the same moral convictions. In short hate crimes are simply a turning of the emotion of hate into a crime regardless of the thinking that drives it, right or wrong.) The thing that this pro homosexual judicial ruling says (and it is most important part of the ruling) is who is in power, who is making the laws and the precedent it sets with regards to future rulings. While laws do force society to accept a degree of morality they certainly do not create an absolute reality where people cannot make their own judgments. There is a whole political philosophy founded in egalitarian principles that drive this ruling and without the support of that mentality homosexuals would never have managed any sort of ruling allowing them too, of all things, marry in a Christian church. One has to have a very skewed perspective of reality to view a homosexual relationship as the same or equal to a heterosexual relationship or have a greater political agenda where they realize that homosexuals are not the same it is for the greater political cause of state egalitarianism that they should be granted by the state equality in every aspect. So in effect it is not simply a few homosexuals that want to be married that are effecting the institution it is a whole political philosophy supported by all of its zealots that are doing it. By doing so they are not simply affecting themselves but what potential moral values my children might hold in regards to right and wrong and the social well being of society as we know it. To suggest that this is a trivial judgment is to deny that it does not make an attempt to make a moral judgment with regards to the moral values of Christians, Muslims or anyone whom simply thinks that homosexuality is wrong and not good for society in general, as a great many do. It is a forced morality. This is basically the crux of my point here. The fact that it is legalized and is forced on me and my family even if we do not think it is good or right is an infringement on my freedom. Should I speak up and say I think that homosexual relationships are not equal and should not be granted the same privileges as heterosexual marriages then I become (unfairly so) labeled bigoted or a hate monger and perhaps (most daunting of all) guilty of instigating hate on the grounds of it being a punishable crime. I could not be the sole person in the world whom thinks that homosexual unions are the same as heterosexual marriage. I dare you to ask people if they think homosexuals are the same as heterosexuals and see what your answers are. A quick note here, using the word same will force people to make literal equivalence which is what is being litigated.

The question of the relative importance of the individual and the collective in society may be the oldest in political thought. While philosophies emphasizing the collective over the individual have been articulated and challenged in every era by every human civilization I existence, cohesive theories and systems promoting individualism over collectivism have emerged only over the past 300 years. These individualist theories were a product of the Enlightenment, a period during which a new idea of human nature was slowly taking shape. In contrast to the tradition collectivist view of man as a mere cog in the machine of the state, the individualist liberals saw man as an independent rational being, capable of making his own decisions and being responsible for them. Condemning societies based around order, discipline and servitude to supra-personal goals the hallmarks of collectivism the individualist went on to establish free societies emphasizing liberty with particular emphasis to monetary liberty, toleration and self government or self rule. Individualist theories rapidly evolved and diversified, spreading from Europe to the rest of the world. Wherever they went they met with opposition from some form of collectivist theory initiation a worldwide ideological debate that continues to this day. The values of modern collectivists differ very little from those of their predecessors the ancient despots who demanded that their subjects spend their lives erecting pyramids or cathedrals.

Although most modern theories hold some collectivist fundamentals as a means of achieving a necessary degree of order, the differences between truly collectivist and individualist modern philosophies can be traced to their conflicting conceptions of the role played by the society in the defining the individual . Collectivists say that the individual is defined by his or her relations with the community, whereas individualist stress that a community is a voluntary association, one that lacks genuine clout to disperse roles based on some sort of common good.

In collectivist thinking individuals must submit to the collective to realize a secure egalitarian utopia. Marxism, more then any other philosophy has prejudiced modern collectivist philosophy by adding equality to the traditional collectivist values. As a consequence of this combination Marx broadened the appeal of collectivism in a more complicated and individualist 19 th century world. Marxist have debated that the principles of capitalist society will certainly bring about its own ruin through a calamity of overproduction and that the progress of class envy between the workers will cause them to rise up in rebellion against their bourgeois tormenters and launch a new culture without private ownership of the means of production. The materialist they are, Marxist believe that mens ethics are fashioned by their experiences in the world so citizens living in capitalist society will see each other as an thing to be used for gain not as individuals and will treat them as such consequently. When capitalism is dismantled individualist capitalist morals will slowly be replaced by altruistic egalitarian communal ones. Because values ought to be conferred by the state an individualist society cannot endure. At this point I will digress a bit to the idea that libertarians can be leftist. Because of the inherent self governing nature of libertarianism there is no way that one can possibly be a libertarian and left wing and here is why. Libertarians are similar to anarchist in that they hate government and governmental intervention in free markets and as a result they cannot be in favor of government policy that controls the economic activity that we all engage in on a daily bases. If you are a libertarian you are a classical liberal and a conservative. The libertarian movement is becoming more and more influential in politics in the US. Their motto is live and let live this is a fairly compatible political character with a right of center self governor that believes in moral agency. While they do not have the same moral perspective they most definitely believe that government intervention, big spending etc is not acceptable. So while a libertarian may hold that homosexuals are fine and dandy they do not necessarily agree to the use of force through litigations on society by the government and courts. If they support this notion of government coercion then they are not really in line with free moral agency and self governance. They would be more a kin to a left wing social activist and ignorant to the fact that they are unknowingly creating a positive or compatible environment for socialistic policies to be implemented.

Up until the 1990s when its socialist government failed Sweden was the only remaining case of socialism anyone dared to cite. Strictly speaking though Sweden is not a socialist state in the sense that it owns everything but in reality the distinction was quite minor. Collectivists, whatever their stripe do not have to own anything to collectivize a nation. They simply have to control and regulate heavily, this is exactly what happened in Sweden and by no small coincidence is exactly the method used by the National Socialist of Germany under Hitler did. Ironically even the name of Social democrat is an old euphemism of socialism. But, and you may ask them, Swedens model is not doing so great so why is there so many jumping onto this failed form of socialism. Well that is more difficult to articulate. But the idea of egalitarian social policy is quite popular, particularly in universities. One might conclude that social morals have dropped to an all time low and the envy experts (a favorite label of mine for socialist.) are simply getting more and more attention. Well it is more then that and to make such an oversimplified statement is grossly negligent. At its core though is the notion that individuals are entirely victims of their environment and thus not actually responsible for their own actions or their own well being. Ahh the wonders of the nanny state from cradle to grave the promise is that you will be taken care of. But lets look at this idea with a little more critical thinking. Consider that if individuals are not freely responsible for their own well being then who is. Ironically individual responsibility is the key to living free sense if you are not responsible then someone will make you responsible.

By the 1990s the Swedish test had been the envy of the worlds social engineers. It had up till that end effectively mixed both a strong capitalist base with dominant egalitarian/socialist policy. The model became recognized in the west as the welfare state and by no means was it supported by all the people of Sweden, rather it was forced on them. The alteration was brought about essentially by two Swedes Gunnar and Alva Myrdal, he was an economist and she was a radical feminist sociologist. Initially their aim was to safeguard the natural family within the Egalitarian mold. However by the early 1970s Alva became a great deal more openly socialist. She campaigned for the design of equality, but not as the right to compete on equal conditions but rather of an equality of outcomes. Abruptly the traditional natural family was not to be supported Sweden swiftly became the first Social Democratic state to militate frankly in opposition to the traditional family in its political monetary and social policies. In Alva Myrdals words
All Adults, were to be treated in the same manner by society, whether they lived alone or in some sort of common living arrangement

The Myrdals report Crisis in the population question the call for the economic independence of married partners as a basic condition of equality by which they meant the focus of future social policy would discourage tradition familial interdependence of the state. In a rather startling statement published in 1968 by the Swedish Institute, considered a promoter of quasi-official Swedish views under the heading The family is Not Sacred Myrdal expressed her growing bias against the natural family unit by saying
I should like to abolish the family as a means of earning a livelihood, let adults be economically independent of each other and give society a large share of responsibility for its children… in such a society we could very well do without marriage as a legal entity.

You can see that now using Myrdals logic that it is the community and not the parents that are responsible for the children. In truth though what happens is no communal affair but rather a state contrived daycare scheme is put in place. This was a recipe for the atomization of the family as a social unit and with it the transformation of Sweden into a true welfare dare I say it … totalitarian democracy with an overwhelming number of parallels with Platos Republic. In Sweden traditional moral values in particular with regards to things like human sexuality by almost completely overturned by a vanguard of radical thinkers making the 1960s a left wing decade or as the Swedes put it vanstervriden (twisted to the left.) We can see the same trend in North America today. In Europe the move left has already occurred. Left wing social agenda only will make way for the larger left wing egalitarians and socialist to advance their agenda. I see egalitarian social policy as a back door for the resurgence of left wing utopian socialism regardless of how many detract from that idea and here is why. Even if they do not believe in socialist economic polices the social measures are literal advancements for state enforced equality by guaranteeing outcomes. In the case of homosexuality being literally the equivalent of heterosexuality it is simply an example and a forced morality on the church by the state. This sets an extremely important president for left wing politics. The issue of homosexuality is not really that important to the greater cause of utopia but rather a necessary political chess move. There are not millions of homosexuals wanting to get married in of all places the church, that is a ridiculous suggestion. How can less then one percent influence the moral convictions of an entire country is the question and as an answer I will say that they do so by setting a precedent in court rooms. This forces the question to politicians and puts into question something that was always a preposterous notion as something that ought to be challenged or forced onto society and religions.

In the end though the left has taken up the cause of homosexuals because it helps them redefine marriage. In the process it devalues the natural family and marriage as something that the state ought to encourage as well as support and in doing so creates a situation where there is nothing held over individuals and the state. I have heard a number say now that marriage is no longer a special arrangement the state ought to pull out of the matter entirely, but I would suggest that this is exactly the intent. What will be the logical consequences of the idea that marriage and the natural family not being a special matter for government to be concerned with preserving is most profound. With this arrangement society will be completely atomized in the governments eyes. That is nothing will stand before the state and individuals entirely. Now lets step up childrens rights to the plate. Sense family is no longer an obstacle the state may differ the rights of the parents in favor of childrens rights. Soon their will be rights for children to divorce their parents (using state lawyers of course.), collect monies from the state for their well being, have sex with whomever they choose including adults on and on their list of rights and privileges will be equal to that of an adult. In exchange for this though they become property of the state. Fathers and mothers will be excused of the responsibility of child rearing. (Unless they work for the state in daycares of course.) All that is required of them is that they follow the state legislated morality and pay taxes. (allot of taxes) But the major problem with the redistributive model is that the state has to overspend creating massive debts and deficits. When this happens on a regular bases (it may take some time but it is inevitable.) it creates a situation where the state one day finds itself not being able to spend more without raising taxes further in an already over taxed system this is not an appropriate thing, unless you endeavor to change the rules, massively. What will happen in such an instance I hypothesize is that some elected social democrat will try to make a leap to a communal socialist state where money is eliminated and so the requirement of spending borrowed monies and taxing individuals is resolved. Further it will end the social inequality of incomes by this point in time just about every other aspect of society will be engineered (or at least muddled with) so that people will have less objections to the move. Hopefully though the people will not accept it but for their own good. Once society becomes addicted to state services (like health care and other welfare programs that reduce individual responsibility.) though people are more easily predisposed to except what is in store. Basically this is the entire thrust of my argument once the family is broken and society is absolutely atomized so that the state and individuals are primary then the egalitarian welfare state will come to be. After a period of time these mid way states will break down and the remnants of capitalism with them (relatively quickly depending on the spending habits of the elected reps.) and capitalism will no longer be a prerogative and the slide into socialism a logical slip. However in a state where the family is primary and encouraged as well as held over individual rights the state can only break things down so far then they run into parents. In this situation the parents are responsible for their offspring, financially as well as mentally. I am not going to make reference to all the inequalities that the natural family creates between the state and individuals all that needs be said is that there are allot and naturally so. There is such a bias in the social sciences against the family unit it is sickening but all you have to do is go sit in on some university classes that discuss the family as an absolute evil that must be abolished and the picture becomes clearer.

Now I will divert back to the homosexual cause and again you can see how easily their social political agenda fits snuggly in with an egalitarian state. There are a great many other sexual perversions riding on the hopes of gays being literally (in the eyes of the state) the equivalent of heterosexual marriages. Let me make reference to the 1972 National Gay Rights Platform (yet again.) In it they basically articulated some rather shocking revelations about just what their intensions really are.

Federal encouragement and support for sex education courses, prepared and taught by gay women and men, presenting homosexuality as a valid, healthy preference and lifestyle as a viable alternative to heterosexuality.

Repeal of all state laws prohibiting private sexual acts involving consenting persons; equalization for homosexuals and heterosexuals for the enforcement of all laws.

Repeal all state laws prohibiting solicitation for private voluntary sexual liaisons; and laws prohibiting prostitution, both male and female.

Enactment of legislation so that child custody, adoption, visitation rights, foster parenting, and the like shall not be denied because of sexual orientation or marital status.

Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and the extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.

In the same article amongst all of their other social political demands a call to end laws against pedophilia.

Repeal of all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

http://www.rslevinson.com/gaylesissues/features/collect/onetime/bl_platform1972.htm

The above proclamations undermine the family unit entirely as something that the state or for that matter pedophiles would have to deal with. Rights extended to children as they would be to adults even clear indications that homosexuals are in favor of child prostitution. This would seem to fall in line with their moral relativistic (no morals) philosophies.

Should also mention, that if you knew anything about gays, you'd know that the vast majority of them are apathetic playboys only interested in the next hot fuck and where the next circuit party is. To say that we're a politically motivated group hell bent on the destruction of life and culture is just.. well, funny :LOL: Because really, I can't think of a group as insular and uncaring as scene-faring homosexuals.

While I am sure there are all sorts of apathetic playboys as you have indicated there are a great number of them who are tied in with left wing political aspirations. These I would hardly characterize as apathetic, they are more a kin to militants. These in combination with welfare state proponents (radical feminists) are doing some real damage in court rooms and legislative bodies.

I should state here however that homosexuals ought to have the similar legal protections but never the same privileges. I know there are all sorts of kind hearted homosexuals but that is not the point here at all. The matter is that homosexuals have broken the unspoken pact of conventional society, which has always been to bear aberrant private actions but never endorse it, nor allow it any public credence and unquestionably on no account to force the acceptance of it upon society at large. But by using concepts of individual rights in opposition to the larger society in the name of legitimizing abnormal activities homosexuals are deliberately attacking this accord and the model of the natural family it was fashioned to shelter. Weary of the shame of the unnatural, homosexuals currently dispute that protection is not sufficient. The want confirmation of their values and conduct, they want the equivalent social and permissible privileges that accumulate to those who pursue societies ethics and are resolute to get them by altering public morality itself even by way of destroying traditional society if need be. This is not about people minding their own business it is about the appallingly hazardous consequences of the homosexual lobby on our societal and admirable institutions. How they have managed to get as far as they have is based on intimidation of individuals by using labels of homophobia and the use of the constitution in a way that it was never intended to be used. In effect they managed to get thus far by using intimidation and force. Homophobia is bullshit science meant to intimidate men (even women) into confusing their disgust with homosexual acts as something they might be scared of. In reality it is a stupid label that plays on men in particular in that they are not scared of anything including dieing, hights, fighting, other men and homosexuals. The political force behind judicial rulings that interpret constitutional amendments that were never in reality meant to cover the actions of homosexuals under the sheets. Should homosexuals set a precedent then there will be other challenges the next and most important one is to extend adult like rights and privileges to children. As I said before these rulings are nothing in the big picture but important peaces of a much larger puzzle. There are a great many homosexuals who do not even realize fully the consequences but many others do realize, particularly the politically inclined.

The feminist are unlikely allies in reality but the old saying goes the enemy of my enemy is my frend holds well with them.

The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist
The US National Organization for Woman times

The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands
From theDeclaraton of Feminism Nov1971

It does not take a brilliant person to see that feminist and homosexuals are in bed. Both have egalitarian political ends. Modern feminist have given up on the idea that being a feminist meant that you were proud of being a woman. Now it is nearly the opposite the idea is to prove that gender roles and human sexuality are socialized and it is simply a matter of changing the socialization patterns. This is too a large degree why there are libertine sexualities spilling out of our institutions of supposed higher learning. Professors (a rather nice word to describe them.) in particular the feminist varieties are encouraging young females to be promiscuous and indulge in perverted sexual behavior. But this is to indoctrinate young woman into the lifestyle philosophy and to stay away from having a family and getting married. Never mind the millions that will suffer with at least one or multiple categories of venereal diseases they will only further the cause of atomizing society as it would be extremely unlikely that these people would ever become married after becoming infected with genital herpes for example. AIDS is a real threat to their sexual utopia though. With this philosophy they have managed to turn males into sperm spewing morons and instead of men thinking it is immoral to sleep with a whore they are considering it more and more acceptable. Males on that same note have been turned into underachievers and I blame preoccupation on how they are going to lay the next one nighter. To say that things have completely broken down is an exaggeration. Indeed after kids leave university they come into contact with the real world and unless they are constantly motivating themselves to behave poorly for the sake of a utopian political model they backslide some of them even get married. (the horror.) But in the mean time millions of lives are being ruined and in many cases lost.(AIDS) When will activist acknowledge the damage that they are doing and have done to the robust yet somehow fragile natural family unite. How many millions more will die of AIDS before the realization that promiscuity increases your chances of catching AIDS. No morality in sexuality is their charge and it is all for the equalization of perverse sexuality to the literal equivalent of normal heterosexual intercourse that is founded on human kinds reproductive nature.

The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next
Abraham Lincoln

If the above quote is true then certainly with an over abundance of teachers in the US teaching moral relativism it does not take a rocket scientist to imagine what the consequences of that will be.

The natural family just wont die and this is inextricably tied to human nature and reproduction. The political aspirations of social activist, homosexuals, lesbians, welfare state professors, socialist, feminist, judges, politicians, uninformed people… etc will never be able to kill the natural family despite all their efforts. No matter how many communes social engineers build the natural family will always be. Sense this is the case and indeed it is not simply a matter of socializations or the wording of the meaning of marriage or some constitutional technicality, the natural family is a constant so instead of discouraging the institution we ought to be encouraging it. As you can see Zuric it is not simply a tiny minority but rather the bias for an entirely different political and social organization.

This triangle of truisms, of father, mother and child cannot be destroyed, it can only destroy civilizations which disregard it.
G.K. Chesterton

Knowledge of the constant is known as discernment. Woe to him who willfully innovates while ignorant of the constant.
LAO TSU

Bah, that is enough I hope, I am tired.
 
:oops: :?

First, I have to say that you're completely and utterly nuts Sabastian. And I mean that in the absolute worst way possible. Boggles the mind. Really. Boggles the mind. :oops:

Second, I have to say that I'm almost as nuts for reading that entire thing. I'm still in shock that I made it all the way through. Jeebus.

In short, for those who don't feel like reading it all, you feel that homosexuals seek the destruction of heterosexuality, the heterosexual family unit (1 husband, 1 wife, 2.5 kids and a dog), and society in general. That we're in cahoots with feminists and marxists to enable this, and we won't be satisfied until it's completed.

My my. We're not paranoid delusional at all. :rolleyes:
 
Natoma said:
:oops: :?

First, I have to say that you're completely and utterly nuts Sabastian. And I mean that in the absolute worst way possible. Boggles the mind. Really. Boggles the mind. :oops:

Second, I have to say that I'm almost as nuts for reading that entire thing. I'm still in shock that I made it all the way through. Jeebus.

In short, for those who don't feel like reading it all, you feel that homosexuals seek the destruction of heterosexuality, the heterosexual family unit (1 husband, 1 wife, 2.5 kids and a dog), and society in general. That we're in cahoots with feminists and marxists to enable this, and we won't be satisfied until it's completed.

My my. We're not paranoid delusional at all. :rolleyes:

No I am sane as sane can be Natoma. Thats the model that they are perusing it does not matter to me if you don't realize that your homosexual marriage cause is merely a small portion of a larger political model. A left wing social cause. :rolleyes:
 
Natoma,

Basically Sebastian is at odds with a powerful legal precedent being forced upon him that could POTENTIALLY, if harnessed maliciously, destroy the world.

Unfortunately, you wipe all the politics away, and it still falls into two groups of thought: homosexuality = ok, homosexuality = not ok. There is a possibility that gay marriages could _strengthen_ the family unit, but unfortunately the homosexuality = not ok crowd won't aknowledge this.

Black/racial minority rights were a different issue because science was on their side to prove that segregation and such was, heh, only skin deep. Since homosexuality is still up in the air and awash in a sea of morals, the issue of gay rights is still an ethical battle, and will be forever until a genetic cause (or something similar) is found. But at that same time, "gay science" is still disregarded for whatever reason.

Anyhow, was an interesting read, but if you ever decide to publish it, I strongly suggest you cut out the "I should state here however that homosexuals ought to have the similar legal protections..." paragraph, because right there the piece went from "point/proof/significance" to "pure opinion".
 
zurich said:
Natoma,

Basically Sebastian is at odds with a powerful legal precedent being forced upon him that could POTENTIALLY, if harnessed maliciously, destroy the world.

As I said before. Paranoid delusional, crazy, nuts, insane, off his rocker, etc etc etc. ;)

I have 1 BILL-ion dollars and I'm going to take over the world with my homosexual wiles, then I'm going to destroy all heterosexuals and proclaim myself ruler of all buttocks. Bend over and service me!

* Natoma puts pinky to lips, and laughs eternally, or at least until the sequel
 
Natoma said:
I have 1 BILL-ion dollars and I'm going to take over the world with my homosexual wiles, then I'm going to destroy all heterosexuals.

I never said such a thing, or anything remotely close to that. All I did was point out the fact that these pro homosexual rulings are pieces of a larger political puzzle. The precedent they set is important to an egalitarian model and the ideal is a left wing aspiration which is primarily why I oppose the whole idea.
 
Natoma said:
The Constitution is merely a guide.

Spoken like a true liberal.

American principles are based on freedom and equality, not to mention others. The constitution was written to embody those principles in our laws. Those principles did not suddenly come forth because of the constitution. Amendments to the constitution can most certainly be in violation of the very principles of which the constitution is based.

A constitutional Amendment cannot be unconstitutional!.

I see you are now trying to change the debate. You are now trying to make this sort of "well, an amendment can be 'Unmerican'". Or an Amendment can violate a "principle", etc.

Again, the principles embodied in the constitution are not immutable, as you've stated. They are reflections of the principles that we hold in this society, which are at their very core freedom of speech, religion, etc, and equality, as well as others.

And every day there are circumstances where such freedoms are legally discarded. Can't yell "Fire" in a movie theater. Freedom of religion doesn't give me the "right" to kill people if that's what my religion says I should do, etc.

So people who wish to do this are "denied" certain things.

To deny a certain sect of people the right to enter legally recognized relationships and receive the benefits therein as espoused by Equal Protection, which is an outgrowth of the principle of equality, would most certainly be a fundamental denigration of the principles the constitution embodies and is supposed to uphold.

I'll just repeat what I said earlier, with some emphasis:

"No matter how many times you say it, it's not true. Again, we can argue about the definition of a relationship being a violation or not. But that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

If an amendment is passed that denys certain aspects of one broad reaching protection...then guess what. It's constitutional, and by definition American, to deny a certain aspect of a particular broad reaching protection. [/b].
 
Althornin said:
Well, i guess you are offended.
I find it impossible not to associate intelligence with moral beliefs - i tend to think that an intelligent person would be able to use logic rather than a blind faith to determine what is right and wrong.

Does God exist? Where is the logic the proves or disproves this?

What is so "logical" about killing someone else that makes it "wrong?"

It's just as logical to me to say the natural order of things is survival of the fittest. Isn't it?

Note: I dont think it makes you evil, or stupid - it just boggles my mind that you actually think that way.

And it boggles my mind that you think there is some logical reasoning behind any moral belief. (And presumably, which does not have just another logical argument for the counter belief.)
 
This is just a continuation of what the church has always done: trying to force supposedly "right" morals based on belief in God and the bible being the source of absolute wisdom. I have no problem with people believing in God or holy cows or whatever they like. What I resent is the way church tries to force their judgement and universal morals on everyone. Why should a person's private life be the business of anyone but himself?

Feel free to ingore me since I'm a european communist-materialist-ultra-leftist-hippie-pagan. From your point of view at least.
 
Back
Top