Massachusetts court: Ban on gay marriage unconstitutional

[CosmoKramer]

This thread is a sad testimony of the state of the world...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Then I suppose you should start with yourself and your family. Clean your own house first before telling others to clean theirs. Isn't that the christian way?

Um, we are. That's why we're a Christian household. Because it's a continuous cleaning process. We are never totally clean (sinless), and in fact always far from it. I'm not telling anyone else to "clean up", nor am I claiming to be "clean". I'm giving my opinion on what constitututes "clean."

Understand?

Again, you seem to display a lack of understanding of Christians / Christian values.

Btw, It's not illegal in Massachusetts for gays and lesbians to get married now.

I believe it is, at least for another 6 months. I'll have to check, but the current law is that marriage is only between one man and one woman. And I don't think the current law is actually negated for another 6 months.

It's not illegal in NY for us to cohabitate with one another. It's not illegal for anyone in the US to engage in any sex that is not vaginal.

And?

Hmm. Does that mean my bf and I are not sinners then since we haven't broken the law anywhere? I suppose we were sinners before the Supreme Court issued it's ruling on Sodomy Laws in this country. But now, definitely not.

Eh? Christian Sin is not the same thing as legal law...I thought that was obvious?

 

[Natoma]

Then I suppose you should start with yourself and your family. Clean your own house first before telling others to clean theirs. Isn't that the christian way?

Um, we are. That's why we're a Christian household. Because it's a continuous cleaning process. We are never totally clean (sinless), and in fact always far from it. I'm not telling anyone else to "clean up", nor am I claiming to be "clean". I'm giving my opinion on what constitututes "clean."

Understand?

Again, you seem to display a lack of understanding of Christians / Christian values.

I understand christian values completely. I grew up deeply christian, in a deeply christian household, family, and environment. Hell I went to catholic school!

It's called sarcasm. Yes, I probably do spend more time making fun of the foibles of christianity than necessary, but gosh darnit its so damn fun.

Btw, It's not illegal in Massachusetts for gays and lesbians to get married now.

I believe it is, at least for another 6 months. I'll have to check, but the current law is that marriage is only between one man and one woman. And I don't think the current law is actually negated for another 6 months.

The Mass. Supreme Court nullified that law when they said that it was unconstitutional did it not? If I read the ruling correctly, they stated that the legislature has 6 months to create a law or change the current laws to take gays and lesbians into account.

So it's not illegal anymore by definition of breaking a law because that law was deemed unconstitutional. It's just not, err, "legal" yet.

It's not illegal in NY for us to cohabitate with one another. It's not illegal for anyone in the US to engage in any sex that is not vaginal.

And?

You said replace sin with "Devoid of those who break the law". Now as far as this country is concerned, the only law that matters is secular.

Hmm. Does that mean my bf and I are not sinners then since we haven't broken the law anywhere? I suppose we were sinners before the Supreme Court issued it's ruling on Sodomy Laws in this country. But now, definitely not.

Eh? Christian Sin is not the same thing as legal law...I thought that was obvious?

Again, you said replace sin with "Devoid of those who break the law". Now as far as this country is concerned, the only law that matters is secular.

Now if you meant to say, "Devoid of those who break the christian law", well then I'd agree that you have a point there.

 

[Silent_One]

Where's Russ....Russ...you got the popcorn?

 

[Joe DeFuria]

By biological design, senior citizens cannot reproduce as a couple. Put two penises together, and there will not be reproduction, EVER. Put two vaginas together, and there will not be reproduction, EVER. Put a senior male and a senior female together, and there will not be reproduction, EVER.

Sigh...

At some time in the senior's life the senior was capable of reproduction, and in a heterosexual relationship, was capable of conceiving a child.

At some time in the homosexual's life, the homosexual was capable of reproduction, but incapable of conceving a child in a homosexual relatoinship.

So yea, how was that defense again?

Do we really, REALLY, have to go back and forth again for about the 5th time on this? (Next comes the "but what if someone is sterile"...to which I respond about being HEALTHY, etc...)

I really do not understand how you just won't accept the factual, biological difference in general between homosexual, and heterosexual relatoinships. This is not a mystery.

Yes. You believe that gay people marrying would "lessen" society. They believe interracial people marrying would "lessen" society. They're both short sighted and close minded ways of thinking.

I also believe that easy, "no fault" divorces would lessen society. Is that short sighted and closed minded too?

You act as if there are so many problems today and there weren't any back then.

Um, No. I'm simply saying that it's DEBATABLE that societal "structure" has improved or worsened over time.

And dual income homes are a bad thing?

Um, it could certainly be argued, yes. Are you saying that having one stay-at-home parent is definitely worse than having none?

How would you explain the fact that our economy has been able to grow by leaps and bounds over the past few decades?

Ah, so here you are mixing "the economy" with "better societal structure." (That's a big liberal no-no, btw....you should know better.) On what do you base a "growing economy" with "better societal structure?"

If we all worked 200 hours a week per dual household, gave up our kids to "professional care givers" while we all did so, and made lots of money with a booming economy....is that better than a household that works 40 hours a week, has less money (and contributes less economically to society), but spends more direct time raising their kids?

In large part because nearly 100% of the population has been engaged in the work force, as opposed to 50%

And SHOCK, that very fact is often cited as a PROBLEM for the social structure, not a benefit.

I'm beginning to realize that that is probably the key difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives think that any change in the status quo will destroy society...

Wrong.

Or should I say that liberals believe that change is required for the sake of change and nothing else?

They didn't think their cause was wrong. In fact they felt just as strongly as you do that society would end, or be "lessened", if marriage was tampered with.

Natoma. YOU have said that marriage is "key" to society. WHAT DO YOU THINK is a "threat" to that sanctity?

So if I now say that interracial marriages are bad....then hey, you should support that as "heck, who cares if we "tamper" with marriage?"

You have no proof whatsoever that society is any better or worse today than it was 50 years ago.

Nor do you, hence, my point that you haben't shown anything.

I've shown that society is certainly no worse today than it was 50 years ago.

No, you have not. You have made a "case" that economically we are better of. Not that society or societal "structure" is better off. (And further, you have not proven that we are better of econoimcally either.)

Conservative thought process? Damn it all to hell and deal with the problems later. See Iraq as prime example #1.

As opposed to the "damn it all to hell and deal with Iraq later"? How come the liberals were all arguing to just leave the Iraq situation "all status quo"? I thought that was a "conservative thing?"

Come on, Natoma...let's not now bring IRAQ into this too....

 

[Humus]

 

[Joe DeFuria]

I understand christian values completely. I grew up deeply christian, in a deeply christian household, family, and environment. Hell I went to catholic school!

Um, none of that means you understand anything.

The Mass. Supreme Court nullified that law when they said that it was unconstitutional did it not? If I read the ruling correctly, they stated that the legislature has 6 months to create a law or change the current laws to take gays and lesbians into account.

Again, not sure. I presume if you are correct, then there are gays and lesbians lining up at court houses in MA as we speak. Where are they?

Again, you said replace sin with "Devoid of those who break the law". Now as far as this country is concerned, the only law that matters is secular.

Did you even understand the whole premise of that argument? I said replace sin "if you are uncomfortable with sin." The law that matters is what society deems as "right and wrong."

 

[Natoma]

Just saw this:

Btw Joe, I noticed you didn't respond to this question I asked you earlier. I don't know if you're responding to my last post, so instead of editing it, I'll just repost it.

Ok let's simplify this then. Do you agree, yes or no, that equally-committed-as-their-heterosexual-counterpart gay and lesbian couples should be able to enjoy the same legal benefits in the eyes of the law?

Actually, I can't answer a simple "yes or no", because, personally, I think they should be entitled to some of the same benefits married couples receive, but not necessarily all.

For example, adopting children is one such area, and admitedly, a very difficult one to come to grips with. All things being equal, I don't think homosexual couples should have the same rights / access as heterosexual couples. IMO, Hetersoexual couples should be given preferential treatment. To be clear, I don't think homosexual couples should be barred from adopting, but I do think for example (again, all else being equal), legal adoption preferences should be

1) Heterosexual married couple
2) Homosexual "union" couple
3) Any single parent.

I can't say that I agree with that, but I think that's far more understandable than other opinions I've heard on the matter where people have said they'd rather leave the child in an orphanage than let a gay couple adopt him/her, even if no one else wants that child.

It should be known that not even married couples have the same rights wrt adoption. If the child is asian, adoption agencies are more likely to give that child to an asian married couple than they are to a white married couple, if both are up for the same child at the same time. If the married couple is economically more sound than another couple, adoption agencies generally go with the economically more sound couple, again if both are up for the same child at the same time. So I while I don't necessarily agree with that reasoning, I do understand it exists and why.

But anyways, that's not denying rights to gay couples per se. It's a fudge to be sure, but what I'd like to know is, are there any rights that you would flat out deny to gay couples?

I believe you stated yes to this question in a prior thread, but I'd like you to say it once more for the record.

I don't think I stated yes to everything, but I could be wrong. If I did, then I changed my mind.

However, what I'm sure I did say, is that I have no problem with states deciding for themselves what rights they wish to grant or not grant to same sex couples. And I'm sure I said that such legal rights should be granted through civil unions, not "marriages." That is, marriage is one type of civil union, but all civil unions are not marriages.

So as I said before, it's a matter of semantics, not the rights. If you want the word, you can have it. Just give us the same rights and privileges.

 

[Natoma]

So true so true.

 

[Vince]

<img src=http://esprit.campus.luth.se/~humus/temp/Bizarro4.gif height=120 width=150>


I could have sworn Mr. DeFuria just commented about change and the social desire for it.

Paradigm shifts in our understanding of the world are allways welcome by most every intelligent person, be that person convervative or liberal. What we don't allways agree with are people telling us our opinions on a "closed" area of knowledge (eg. transmission genetics in humans) are fallicious or old-fashioned.

Natoma can hide and mask this as much as his heart desires, but a biologist will just laugh at him when he brings up these fallicious arguments which Joe keeps discrediting concerning Homosexuality in nature. He can keep pointing to the rare examples in the natural world, and we can keep pointing to transmission genetics. He [Natoma] can perpetually invoke this line of argument that humans are different - but that holds as much water as a Cartesian Dualist does in todays world.

Yet, Society is an odd construct in what it's willing to accept when people are in groups. As Nietzche once stated, "in groups, parties, nations, and epochs it [insanity] is the rule."

 

[Natoma]

Oh god, it's the guy who first said there was no difference (not even your "on different levels" bit joe) between beastiality and homosexuality.

Vince, you were discredited a long time ago. Move along.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

But anyways, that's not denying rights to gay couples per se.

Do other homosexuals feel the same way about adopting children? This is preferential treatment for hetersexual couples.

It's a fudge to be sure, but what I'd like to know is, are there any rights that you would flat out deny to gay couples?

When it comes to financial and logistical things like tax treatment, visitation rights, death (beneficiary) benefits, etc., I don't have a problem. When it comes more "directly" to family oriented issues (like adoption), I would favor hetero.

So as I said before, it's a matter of semantics, not the rights.

I don't see it that way.

I would favor a law that said "All else being equal, heterosexual married couples get preferneital treatment as opposed to all other "unions" when it comes to adoption."

That is certainly a difference in rights.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Oh god, it's the guy who first said there was no difference (not even your "on different levels" bit joe) between beastiality and homosexuality.

Vince, you were discredited a long time ago. Move along.

Oh God, Natoma is bringing up Beastiality again! I was wondering how long it would take.

Stay a while Vince....oh, and have some of my pop-corn.

 

[Vince]

Oh god, it's the guy who first said there was no difference (not even your "on different levels" bit joe) between beastiality and homosexuality.

Actually, this view has been expressed in several circles. You just fail to allow yourself to comprehend it. Rep. Rick Santorum recently questioned what is the bound on what constitutes marriage and how it related to sex.

Infact, I still ask, "If you remove the concept of procreation or genetic information reproduction from Sex - what differentiates Sex with another member of the same species from, say, an animal or entity?"

Any serious discussion of this topic will need to differentiate, on a fundimantal level, life from other entities/constructs. And although this is an evolving area of knowledge, it's safe to say that the ability to replicate (as Dawkins termed it) is a fundimental tenet of life. Fast forward 2Billion years and the same can be said in the natural world. To deny that the ability to reproduce and the system that nature has evolved to enable us to reproduce (eg. Seperate sex's with distinct [genetic] transmission material and seperate physiological features to facilitate this) is a fundimantal constant in our lifecycle... is insane.

It's on the same scale as denying Darwinian Evolution.

Vince, you were discredited a long time ago. Move along.

Ahh yes. Discredited by someone as knowledgable and openminded as you - the horror! HA!

 

[arjan de lumens]

Infact, I still ask, "If you remove the concept of procreation or genetic information reproduction from Sex - what differentiates Sex with another member of the same species from, say, an animal or entity?"

Consent? Social bonding?

And would this mean that heterosexual sex with a condom or other contraception is morally equivalent with beastiality?

 

[London Geezer]

Oh god, it's the guy who first said there was no difference (not even your "on different levels" bit joe) between beastiality and homosexuality.

Vince, you were discredited a long time ago. Move along.

Oh God, Natoma is bringing up Beastiality again! I was wondering how long it would take.

Stay a while Vince....oh, and have some of my pop-corn.

what is this, secondary school or something??
oh let me see the questions i'm supposed to answer...
*browse browse browse*

right...
Legion,

1. And where by chance did you acquire this notion americans live in fear of racism other than your euro media?

2. why deal you feel that Joe is somehow bigotted against gays?

1. I don't have that notion. But if i did, i would have got it from the place everyone else thinks americans are just a bit silly when it comes to some aspects of society. And this is without getting into the international relations issue which does not belong to this thread in particular.
2. Errrrmmmmm I "feel" that joe is "somehow" bigotted against gays? Dear dear thats an understatement! The fact he follows Christianity's view on homosexuals alone is worth the top prize...


then....

errrrmmmm....


oh look!!! didn't have to go very far!!!

To be fairly precise, I think homosexul relationships are sinful.

little quote to make little joe happy.

anyway,

do you think the world would be a better place everonye on this planet obeyed the law?

If so, does that mean you think all law-breakers should have no rights, should be killed, executed, exiled...etc?

Errrrmmmm i fail to see the correlation here, but anyway...
OF COURSE this planet would be a better place if everyone followed the law. OF COURSE that would imply that the law takes into account everyone the same way without religious luggage that made it possible up until not too long ago to discriminate against some people and not against some others. The Law is not perfect, but if it was, this place would be a better place if everyone followed its rules.
For one, i don't think there should be any kind of law telling people what to and what not to do in their bedroom as long as they are consentual individuals. But that's been sorted now.
And i don't need people who follow a book written by bigots 2000 years ago to tell me how i should live my life as long as i don't harm anyone, or as long as my freedom (of expression etc) gets in the way of someone else.
Sadly, some people think i have "chosen this way of life". Sorry hun, it doesnt work that way. You don't choose to be gay. GOD made me this way so unless i'm some kind of demon that wasnt created by God, i should very well have all the rights you have being straight.

on a sidenote, just to clear things up, since i got the impression Joe thinks i'm some kind of lunatic, yes, i think this marriage thing IS garbage but that is MY OWN personal view on MARRIAGE as a whole. Personally i don't support marriage either straight or gay. That was not what i was discussing at the beginning of the thread. I think 2 persons should live their lives together, either straight or gay, in an "Union" and enjoy their lives with the rights everyone has. Married or not, gay or not.
That is MY view and has nothing to do with the fact that i was criticising Joe's views.
Clear now?

 

[Vince]

Consent? Social bonding?

Unacceptable. Both are human manifestations that are outside the realm of significant biological cause because neither have an inherient reproductive bonus in the non-[male --> female] relationships we're discussing which can provide the replication that is fundimental to life.

As happy as they maybe, there is no biological advantage to having Natoma and his significant other locked deep in a meaningful social bond. Sorry bud.

And would this mean that heterosexual sex with a condom or other contraception is morally equivalent with beastiality?

I believed in abstinence. Yet, I can see how there are advantages to artificially delaying the creation of a child in todays world that maximize the survivability and utility of it (especially in the first world) - which is acceptable. Hell, it could be the start of an evolutionary shifting, which would have significant evidence when looking at the social status and surrounding enviroment of the entities with this shift. This is utterly impossible in the other said relationships, for biological reasons.

Have to look into that, interesting. I know I heard of it before - it's almost game theoric in nature, with a strategy shifting when a given "wealth" or "security" level is crossed. There are mountains of work on this in strictly macro-evolutionary terms - not sure about strictly in humans though. If not, here's a thesis for ya.

 

[Natoma]

By biological design, senior citizens cannot reproduce as a couple. Put two penises together, and there will not be reproduction, EVER. Put two vaginas together, and there will not be reproduction, EVER. Put a senior male and a senior female together, and there will not be reproduction, EVER.

Sigh...

At some time in the senior's life the senior was capable of reproduction, and in a heterosexual relationship, was capable of conceiving a child.

At some time in the homosexual's life, the homosexual was capable of reproduction, but incapable of conceving a child in a homosexual relatoinship.

So basically if someone engages in a heterosexual relationship when they're capable of reproducing, but then engage in homosexual relationships once they can no longer produce, it's fine by you?

And by this fact, if I go out, have a child in a heterosexual relationship, then go back to my relationship with my bf, I'm all fine and dandy? Or do I have to procreate in a heterosexual relationship for as long as I can to be ok in your book?

If someone is in a heterosexual relationship, is it their duty to procreate every single year possible in order to fulfill their biological responsibilities to the species?

this is fun.

So yea, how was that defense again?

Do we really, REALLY, have to go back and forth again for about the 5th time on this? (Next comes the "but what if someone is sterile"...to which I respond about being HEALTHY, etc...)

Not at all.

I really do not understand how you just won't accept the factual, biological difference in general between homosexual, and heterosexual relatoinships. This is not a mystery.

There is a biological difference. I've never disagreed that there isn't one. But there is also a biological difference between you and a couple that is post menopausal. There is a difference between your relationship and a sterile couple. That is the factual, biological difference in general between reproductive heterosexuals and non-reproductive heterosexuals and homosexuals. Lemme guess, next comes "Well if it only applies to healthy heterosexuals." Jeez how many qualifiers do you need to try and plug all the holes in this anti-gay theory of yours?

Yes. You believe that gay people marrying would "lessen" society. They believe interracial people marrying would "lessen" society. They're both short sighted and close minded ways of thinking.

I also believe that easy, "no fault" divorces would lessen society. Is that short sighted and closed minded too?

Yes. That is a personal decision between the two parties and is none of your business. What happened to that republican "each person for themselves" mantra I always hear?

You act as if there are so many problems today and there weren't any back then.

Um, No. I'm simply saying that it's DEBATABLE that societal "structure" has improved or worsened over time.

Indeed it is debatable. But as I've shown, there have been severe societal problems in every age. Some have more than others. The only trend that I see is that as time progresses, we as a species, overall, improve. We evolve ourselves socially, biologically, and technologically. Progress cannot be denied.

And dual income homes are a bad thing?

Um, it could certainly be argued, yes. Are you saying that having one stay-at-home parent is definitely worse than having none?

It is when the society forces half of the population to do so. If a man decides to be the stay at home parent (hetero or homo), hey so be it. If the woman decides to be the stay at home parent (hetero or homo), hey so be it.

Dual Income homes have as many pros and cons as single income homes. That's the point.

How would you explain the fact that our economy has been able to grow by leaps and bounds over the past few decades?

Ah, so here you are mixing "the economy" with "better societal structure." (That's a big liberal no-no, btw....you should know better.) On what do you base a "growing economy" with "better societal structure?"

Whoever said mixing economy and social structure was a no no? This is news to my liberal ears. You sure that isn't one of your opinions or assumptions?

If we all worked 200 hours a week per dual household, gave up our kids to "professional care givers" while we all did so, and made lots of money with a booming economy....is that better than a household that works 40 hours a week, has less money (and contributes less economically to society), but spends more direct time raising their kids?

Of course there is a limit to what can be done. Whoever said there wasn't? You made a blanket statement that dual income homes are one of the "problems" today when that is just wrong.

In large part because nearly 100% of the population has been engaged in the work force, as opposed to 50%

And SHOCK, that very fact is often cited as a PROBLEM for the social structure, not a benefit.

Hmmm. Many families are able to get along just fine in dual income structures. Many are not. Many families are able to get along just fine in single income structures. Many are not. Hell there are many single parent homes that are better than dual parent homes.

There are problems with ANY kind of family structure, and there are benefits as well.

Does your wife work or do you work? If you work and she doesn't, would it be a problem with you if she wanted to enter the workforce for herself?

I'm beginning to realize that that is probably the key difference between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives think that any change in the status quo will destroy society...

Wrong.

Or should I say that liberals believe that change is required for the sake of change and nothing else?

Maybe you should read everything I wrote again.

They didn't think their cause was wrong. In fact they felt just as strongly as you do that society would end, or be "lessened", if marriage was tampered with.

Natoma. YOU have said that marriage is "key" to society. WHAT DO YOU THINK is a "threat" to that sanctity?

So if I now say that interracial marriages are bad....then hey, you should support that as "heck, who cares if we "tamper" with marriage?"

Marriage is a key to society in that it helps keep our societal bonds together. Whether that bond is shared by heterosexuals or homosexuals or interracial couples is of no difference to me.

You have no proof whatsoever that society is any better or worse today than it was 50 years ago.

Nor do you, hence, my point that you haben't shown anything.

Yes I have.

I've shown that society is certainly no worse today than it was 50 years ago.

No, you have not. You have made a "case" that economically we are better of. Not that society or societal "structure" is better off. (And further, you have not proven that we are better of econoimcally either.)

Economically was dual income. Socially was the ability to marry the person you please, and if you're not happy with it, divorce.

Conservative thought process? Damn it all to hell and deal with the problems later. See Iraq as prime example #1.

As opposed to the "damn it all to hell and deal with Iraq later"? How come the liberals were all arguing to just leave the Iraq situation "all status quo"? I thought that was a "conservative thing?"

Everyone knew Iraq was a problem. However, I thought that many people said "Let the inspectors do their work, and if anything comes up, then we'll raze that country to the ground."

That was my opinion on the matter. Avoid war if at all possible, but if not, hit em hard.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

what is this, secondary school or something??

Lol...this is coming from you?

To be fairly precise, I think homosexul relationships are sinful.

little quote to make little joe happy.

Good boy. Like I said, better than making sh*t up. Not sure what purpose is served by you posting that quote, but at least it's what I said.

OF COURSE this planet would be a better place if everyone followed the law.

OF COURSE I believe that the planet would be a better place if everyone was without sin.

The Law is not perfect, but if it was, this place would be a better place if everyone followed its rules.

Right.

Now, you didn't answer my question (again.) Does this mean that if we had such a "perfect law", that you think anyone who broke it should be killed, wiped out, exiled, stripped of all rights, etc.?

For one, i don't think there should be any kind of law telling people what to and what not to do in their bedroom as long as they are consentual individuals.

Neither do I.

This of course, has little to so with marriage.

And i don't need people who follow a book written by bigots 2000 years ago....

on a sidenote, just to clear things up, since i got the impression Joe thinks i'm some kind of lunatic,

To be precise, I'd say you're over emotional and therefore not thinking in a logical manner. Whether or not that defines a lunatic is up to you.

yes, i think this marriage thing IS garbage but that is MY OWN personal view on MARRIAGE as a whole. Personally i don't support marriage either straight or gay. That was not what i was discussing at the beginning of the thread. I think 2 persons should live their lives together...

Clarification needed....is this limited to only 2?

 

[Natoma]

Oh god, it's the guy who first said there was no difference (not even your "on different levels" bit joe) between beastiality and homosexuality.

Actually, this view has been expressed in several circles. You just fail to allow yourself to comprehend it. Rep. Rick Santorum recently questioned what is the bound on what constitutes marriage and how it related to sex.

Infact, I still ask, "If you remove the concept of procreation or genetic information reproduction from Sex - what differentiates Sex with another member of the same species from, say, an animal or entity?"

Any serious discussion of this topic will need to differentiate, on a fundimantal level, life from other entities/constructs. And although this is an evolving area of knowledge, it's safe to say that the ability to replicate (as Dawkins termed it) is a fundimental tenet of life. Fast forward 2Billion years and the same can be said in the natural world. To deny that the ability to reproduce and the system that nature has evolved to enable us to reproduce (eg. Seperate sex's with distinct [genetic] transmission material and seperate physiological features to facilitate this) is a fundimantal constant in our lifecycle... is insane.

It's on the same scale as denying Darwinian Evolution.

Well I meant first on this board. But anyways, in some circles there are people that say that black people are genetically inferior to whites and the laws should reflect that, and that women should be at home making babies and cooking and should not be allowed to work or vote, backed up by biological darwinian evolutionary logic.

We call those people backwards.