View Single Post
  #25  
Old 27th May 2009, 01:17 PM
WednesdayAddams's Avatar
WednesdayAddams WednesdayAddams is offline
Mod of Whoa
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Dallas. ish.
Posts: 12,528
Blog Entries: 24
Send a message via Yahoo to WednesdayAddams
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morgenstern View Post
Oh, it was your observation. I confused that with reality. My bad.
Yes, the actual definition of a word as it is used by the courts in this country has nothing to do with reality. Now that we have a baseline, I agree with Uthrecht.

Quote:
Yes laws change. But what happens 100 years from now isn't really relevant to today's discussion is it?
100 years? It's changing now, state by state. That California didn't change this year doesn't meant it will take another 100 years to do so.

Quote:
Not really so.
For instance, an intoxicated adult may be deemed incapable of giving consent. Or the case of a mentally retarded individual with such a mental defect that regardless of age, they may be found incapable of giving consent.
My word. I hope all the people who get married while plastered are aware their marriages aren't valid....

Quote:
But getting back to the case of why young children can't marry, it's simply because the LAW forbids it, not because of their capacity to consent as you claimed.
Right. And the law forbids it becauuuuuse.....? Anyone? That's right. The law forbids it because minors are not capable of giving legal consent. Glad we're on the same page.

Quote:
So, if I read your response correctly, you are agreeing that marriage is NOT a fundamental right. Or is it just not a fundamental right to certain classes of people. Do you see the fault in your position here?
You're totally not reading my response correctly. Nothing is a "fundamental" right. Not a single solitary thing.

Quote:
Honestly, equating prohibitions against multiple spouses to the Tax Code is unfounded in logic. It's pretty weak sauce you're serving there.
Really? You tell that to the IRS. In addition, many governments don't consider it "weak sauce," at least not in Great Britain and Canada. It's a very real consideration, along with child support, community property and inheritance rights. Poo poo all you want, but really, there's nothing whatever to do with "moral right" in keeping polygamy illegal.

Quote:
Commenting on another's moral position really doesn't need to be part of the discussion re: whether or not marriage is a fundamental right.
Of course it does. It has everything to do with one's moral position. There certainly aren't any practical objections.

Quote:
There you go again Cupcake. You just can't avoid throwing rocks.
Not if you're going to make it that easy, no.

Quote:
The world is wrong isn't it?
Is it? Depends on where you stand. In lots of places, being a stupid bigot is perfectly acceptable. It can even get you elected to higher office. Look at my state. Our governor refused to waive the death penalty for retarded people. Pretty ironic, considering plenty of them voted for him.

Quote:
Hum, I saw an event last Nov. 4th that pretty much demonstrated bigotry isn't as alive and well as you may think. At least not so in the real world.
You keep alluding to the "real" world. While there are still women who get stoned to death for being raped without three male witnesses to watch it happen and kids dragged behind a pickup and then wired to a barbed wire fence for being gay without any "real world" consequences, then yes, the "real world" is still full of stupid bigots. Incidentally, the rest of the "real world" thinks it's criminally bigoted that it's taken us this long to elect a minority or a woman to our highest office. Hell, even India beat us. That's pretty piss poor. We shouldn't be proud of being the last on the boat.

Quote:
So, they don't exist except if they do? Is that what you are saying?
Again with the comprehension thing. No. I'm saying no such things as "fundamental" rights exist. There are rights we fight for and keep, and rights the government gives us. Those rights are fungible.

Quote:
More rocks from you Cupcake? Unnecessary. We're having a discussion here, let's not make it personal. Fair enough?
The second you quit calling me cupcake, I'll quit pointing out what a sanctimonious bag of wind you are. Even then, realize I do say it with some admiration. There aren't many people who take such pride in being that much of a puffed up douche bag.

Last edited by WednesdayAddams; 27th May 2009 at 01:21 PM.
Reply With Quote