Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

TN hates on the gays some more.Follow

#102varusword75, Posted: Apr 28 2011 at 1:27 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) locked,
#103varusword75, Posted: Apr 28 2011 at 1:30 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Nilat,
#104 Apr 28 2011 at 1:31 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Quote:
If you consider yourself a disciple of christianity you are commanded to go forth and preach the word to everyone
Preach yes, condemn no.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#105 Apr 28 2011 at 1:33 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:

I'm curious; are you a christian? If so how do you rationalize accepting the homosexual lifestyle?


Here is my answer:

Matthew 22:36-40

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’[b] 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

There you go, the second most important thing Jesus wants us to do is love everyone.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#106 Apr 28 2011 at 1:34 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
1 John 3:15 wrote:
Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
Ha ha, varus is going to hell.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 3:36pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#107 Apr 28 2011 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,246 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Nilat,

Quote:
I don't see you rushing to make those things illegal punishable by death, which is what your bible demands.


So now you've moved onto Christians want to execute all homosexuals.
No, I said that's what your bible demands. LRN2READ
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#108varusword75, Posted: Apr 28 2011 at 1:37 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Atard,
#109 Apr 28 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Atard,

Quote:
There you go, the second most important thing Jesus wants us to do is love everyone.


Love yes; but that doesn't mean we just sit by with our mouths shut while our neighbor lives in sin. We're commanded to tell them they're living in sin and we are all going to be judged once we die. The unchristian thing to do would be to ignore the situation pretending that nothings wrong.




Ok, you've told them, now shut up.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#110 Apr 28 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Excellent
****
9,252 posts
Quote:
Love yes; but that doesn't mean we just sit by with our mouths shut while our neighbor lives in sin. We're commanded to tell them they're living in sin and we are all going to be judged once we die. The unchristian thing to do would be to ignore the situation pretending that nothings wrong.


You're commanded to tell them that they're living in sin, but not to stop them from living in sin. Once you've told them, you've done your Christian duty to attempt to save them. You're saying we need to force them to live as second class citizens because they don't want to be saved.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#111varusword75, Posted: Apr 28 2011 at 1:39 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) lolgax,
#112varusword75, Posted: Apr 28 2011 at 1:40 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Drift,
#113 Apr 28 2011 at 1:40 PM Rating: Excellent
******
41,289 posts
I couldn't read your post varus, it was covered in hellfire.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#114 Apr 28 2011 at 1:41 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Drift,

Quote:
You're saying we need to force them to live as second class citizens


So you're saying single people are already second class citizens?



Nope, single people can get married if they are straight.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#115varusword75, Posted: Apr 28 2011 at 1:43 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Atard,
#116 Apr 28 2011 at 1:45 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Atard,

So can homosexuals....just not to members of the same sex.



You bring up an interesting point:

If straight men like straight women, why don't gay men like gay women?
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#117 Apr 28 2011 at 1:47 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
varusword75 wrote:
locked,

Quote:
. You could argue the Founding Fathers did not believe in that concept but rather just that no official religion should be sponsored by the state


This is what we constitutionalists do argue.



Cough cough
Quote:
Of course, what the Founding Fathers wanted doesn't much matter. What does matter is that the legal interpretation means there's a separation of church and state. If one doesn't believe it, one doesn't believe in the Constitution or the legal system of our country.


If judicial review did not exist, the Constitution could never be interpreted... by anyone. For example, that part about "natural born citizen" as a requirement for president? Means nothing. There's no definition of natural born citizen in the Constitution, so the only way to interpret it is "Shoot, we don't know, gotta ignore it." The Constitution is interpreted through the Supreme Court for legal matters - if you don't believe in the judiciary, as said, you don't believe in almost the last 200 years of the country.

What you mean to say is "I think the Constitution should mean what I think, not what the law or the judiciary interpret it to mean." You're trying to a apply the same view you have of the Bible to the Constitution, without realizing that the second document does have a governing board for interpretation. The first one can never be "proven" one way or the other because the final arbiter is "God;" the Constitution luckily does not have this flaw.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#118 Apr 28 2011 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
******
41,289 posts
varusword75 wrote:
That doesn't mean I'm not going to tell you what the bible says.
The bible says premarital sex and birth control are sins. Feeling a little hot, sinner?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#119 Apr 28 2011 at 2:01 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,252 posts
Quote:
So you're saying single people are already second class citizens?


No. Single people aren't married because they haven't met the person they want to marry yet. I'm saying that you're denying people who have found that person the opportunity to marry the person they want to marry because of what a book some guys wrote over a thousand years ago says.

____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#120 Apr 28 2011 at 2:07 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
So you're saying single people are already second class citizens?


No. Single people aren't married because they haven't met the person they want to marry yet. I'm saying that you're denying people who have found that person the opportunity to marry the person they want to marry because of what a book some guys wrote over a thousand years ago says.



In before Alma says: "No, homosexuals have it equal because they have the same opportunity to marry someone of the opposite sex that heterosexuals have."

I love that one.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#121 Apr 28 2011 at 2:07 PM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,150 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
Just to be accurate, the meaning of the Constitution has been interpreted to be a separation of church and state. That exact wording does not appear in the document - the SCotUS has interpreted it to mean as such, however. You could argue the Founding Fathers did not believe in that concept but rather just that no official religion should be sponsored by the state. I doubt many of them would have minded teachers leading prayers and whatnot.

Of course, what the Founding Fathers wanted doesn't much matter. What does matter is that the legal interpretation means there's a separation of church and state. If one doesn't believe it, one doesn't believe in the Constitution or the legal system of our country.

The more you know!


I wasn't aware of that. I'm not very well read on the US Constitution, and I was making an assumption based on what i have read and heard. Good to know that so that I can be more accurate in the future.


The Federalist Papers are a good place to start if you want to learn more about the US Constitution or just can't sleep at night.
#122 Apr 28 2011 at 2:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
As an aside, being a "Constitutionalist" like Varus is saying is a practice in insanity for several reasons.

1. First, it goes against the last couple hundred of years of legal matters. By saying the Constitution cannot change, it overrides every major SCotUS decision, because the SCotUS's duty is to interpret the Constitution - but judicial review like that is not mentioned in the document itself.

2. Constitutionalists fall into two camps. Ones who want the literal text, and ones who want the intent of the founders. Both are impossible.

A. Literal text: Times change, and the words don't. According to the second amendment, we can now possess WMDs, because those are "arms." We also have a freedom of speech that cannot be infringed. FIRE! FIRE IN THE THEATER! Totally allowed. Also, sometimes the literal text isn't clear, but there is no way to interpret it because interpretation is not being a Constitutionalist. Natural born citizen, for example, has no definition and thus is meaningless. It is literally impossible to follow the Constitution on that point. We need a president who is a natural born citizen, but we have no idea what that is. The best situation is to ignore it entirely, but, lolirony, then we aren't following the Constitution.

B. Intent: There is no way to prove or disprove the intent of the founders. There is no way for laws to be decided in this manner. We can "guess" intent... but let me know how well guessing goes for keeping a country together. One could believe the intent of "general welfare" encompasses social security, but another might disagree - and there's no way to decide it short of amendments. The SCotUS can't do it because judicial review wasn't directly placed in the Constitution. The document in effect becomes a Bible. There's no way to prove any of it, no interpretation can be proven "correct," so you just end up dividing people.



So in the end, there is no way to make a functional government work by being a strict Constitutionalist. Instead we have the Supreme Court to decide if something is true to the Constitution, and we use their decisions as the correct interpretation.

Again, the more you know Smiley: schooled
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#123varusword75, Posted: Apr 28 2011 at 2:23 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Locked,
#124 Apr 28 2011 at 2:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Locked,

Quote:
"I think the Constitution should mean what I think, not what the law or the judiciary interpret it to mean."


No I think the constitution means what it says. It's really that simple.

Judicial review, especially since Roosevelt packed the scotus, has been nothing more than politicians legislating from the bench. Is that how it was supposed to work?


Short answer: Yes.
Long answer: See my last post Smiley: tongue
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#125 Apr 28 2011 at 2:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
varusword75 wrote:

Judicial review, especially since Roosevelt packed the scotus, has been nothing more than politicians legislating from the bench. Is that how it was supposed to work?


Another note: judicial review was around for more than 100 years before FDR. If the judiciary did not possess judicial review, then actual politicians would decide the Constitution's meaning - or the president would. One branch would, for sure, because if no one would, then the Constitution would be unusable.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#126 Apr 28 2011 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Caffeine Queen
*****
14,429 posts
varusword75 wrote:
dsd,

Quote:
But if you believe that God will judge us all at the end, why do some christians feel that they have the authority to act as God in the here and now?


Quote:
“And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people.” Matthew 9:35



Jesus went into the synagogues to tell them they were doing it wrong and he sent his disciples to do the same. If you consider yourself a disciple of christianity you are commanded to go forth and preach the word to everyone; especially to those committing the sins.


Not that your quote has any relavence to mine above but the least time I checked, teachers taught and Jesus was a teacher and he taught his beliefs where people went to learn about them. In a synagogue.

And I'm pretty sure the major issue Jesus had with religious leaders was that they were hypocrites. Ironic, huh?

mathew 23:1-4
Quote:
1Then Jesus(A) said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2(B) "The scribes and the Pharisees(C) sit on Moses’ seat, 3so practice and observe whatever they tell you—(D) but not what they do.(E) For they preach, but do not practice. 4(F) They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear,[a] and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger.


Quote:
last time I checked I havent met anyone with a direct line to God to get his final judgement on the matter.




Quote:
You need to ask yourself who is forcing their views on whom.

I dont need to ask myself when I see a small but vocal community of hypocritical religious people trying to make it government law that a portion of our community are not allowed to have equal rights that any human being deserves, based on ignorant and hypocritical views.

So are you going to continue this farce of a discussion with me and claim you are not the hypocrite that jesus loathed? Cause Im pretty sure you've got no leg to stand on ;)
____________________________
Uglysasquatch wrote:
DSD kicked Alma in the ass on another thread over the weekend. Clearly, she kicked too hard as he's obviously still feeling it.

Suburban Rebel Mom Blog
#127 Apr 28 2011 at 2:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
varusword75 wrote:

Judicial review, especially since Roosevelt packed the scotus, has been nothing more than politicians legislating from the bench. Is that how it was supposed to work?


Another note: judicial review was around for more than 100 years before FDR. If the judiciary did not possess judicial review, then actual politicians would decide the Constitution's meaning - or the president would. One branch would, for sure, because if no one would, then the Constitution would be unusable.


I think you're missing a key point though. Judicial review, as you describe it, is absolutely necessary to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. Absent that, as you say, we would not know what constitutes a "natural born citizen", or at what point someone's freedom of speech infringes on someone else's right to life, liberty, etc. But judicial review is not supposed to be used to change the meaning of the Constitution. Unfortunately, every once in awhile, it is anyway.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#128 Apr 28 2011 at 2:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Oh. And as to the whole "Christians imposing their ideas on gays" bit: Homosexuals are not required to learn Christianity in public school. In fact, we have laws forbidding *anyone* being taught religion (and especially Christianity) in public school. I think the point really is that there is a movement to mandate that homosexuality be taught positively in public school. Whether you agree or disagree with either side in this is one thing, but it should be apparent that it's the gay rights folks who are trying to use the public schools to force everyone to learn what they want, not the other way around.


While I agree that the specific law in question is an overreach and is badly written. The core concept of saying "Lots of parents don't want their kids exposed to this stuff at an early age, so let's leave it out of the curriculum until after 8th grade" is not really that unreasonable at all. Public school is the default school most kids will go to. It should strive to be a neutral in terms of controversial ideas as possible and focus just on teaching kids things they need to be productive citizens as adults. Unfortunately, due precisely to that "captive audience" aspect, public schools are also often used as a means of pushing social ideas on kids. Call it a form of propaganda if you want.

IMO, that's not what our public schools should be doing. In any direction.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#129 Apr 28 2011 at 2:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
varusword75 wrote:

Judicial review, especially since Roosevelt packed the scotus, has been nothing more than politicians legislating from the bench. Is that how it was supposed to work?


Another note: judicial review was around for more than 100 years before FDR. If the judiciary did not possess judicial review, then actual politicians would decide the Constitution's meaning - or the president would. One branch would, for sure, because if no one would, then the Constitution would be unusable.


I think you're missing a key point though. Judicial review, as you describe it, is absolutely necessary to interpret the meaning of the Constitution. Absent that, as you say, we would not know what constitutes a "natural born citizen", or at what point someone's freedom of speech infringes on someone else's right to life, liberty, etc. But judicial review is not supposed to be used to change the meaning of the Constitution. Unfortunately, every once in awhile, it is anyway.


And again - that's according to you. The authority to make that call is from the judiciary - that comes with judicial review. It would be a problem no matter which branch had control, but it's a necessary sacrifice to make if you want to have a functional government. You've fallen into the "intent" camp, and I think I already did a fairly reasonable job of explaining that figuring out intent was impossible.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#130 Apr 28 2011 at 2:52 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,614 posts
Quote:
but it should be apparent that it's the gay rights folks who are trying to use the public schools to force everyone to learn what they want
Totally.

Quote:
not the other way around.
Well, except when you specifically outlaw it.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#131varusword75, Posted: Apr 28 2011 at 2:58 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Dsd,
#132 Apr 28 2011 at 3:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Dsd,

Quote:
And I'm pretty sure the major issue Jesus had with religious leaders was that they were hypocrites.


And I'm pretty sure Jesus upon seeing how the pharisees were acting didn't just keep his opinion to himself.


You're right! He threw a hissy fit and messed up their stuff Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#133 Apr 28 2011 at 3:13 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
The core concept of saying "Lots of parents don't want their kids exposed to this stuff at an early age, so let's leave it out of the curriculum until after 8th grade" is not really that unreasonable at all.


Right. Like when "lots of parents didn't want" blacks in schools with whites. Smiley: rolleyes

What "lots parents don't want" has exactly nothing to do with how reasonable the proposition is.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 5:13pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#134 Apr 28 2011 at 3:19 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
And again - that's according to you. The authority to make that call is from the judiciary - that comes with judicial review.


By that logic the judicial branch has unbounded powers, since they're the ones who would rule on any case challenging them overstepping the whole "separation of powers" principle in the constitution. Surely you aren't arguing that the Supreme Court can just decide one day that it's in charge of the military and that as long as they rule it's ok, then it is.

Quote:
It would be a problem no matter which branch had control, but it's a necessary sacrifice to make if you want to have a functional government. You've fallen into the "intent" camp, and I think I already did a fairly reasonable job of explaining that figuring out intent was impossible.


This is not about a difficult interpretation of intent though. The founders were abundantly clear about separation of powers. The judiciary does not have the power to make or change laws. Period. They can only interpret them. Frankly, it's scary that some people seem to think that judicial review is unlimited in scope.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#135 Apr 28 2011 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The core concept of saying "Lots of parents don't want their kids exposed to this stuff at an early age, so let's leave it out of the curriculum until after 8th grade" is not really that unreasonable at all.


Right. Like when "lots of parents didn't want" blacks in schools with whites.


Get back to me when gay students are required to attend separate schools. Not having your school go out of its way to include curriculum which highlights positive examples of a group within society is not the same as infringing on the rights of that group. Somehow along the line the left keeps forgetting that the lack of a positive is not the same as a negative.


Where you'd also have a point is if the schools did include curriculum which reinforced negative views of homosexuals. If, for example, they taught that homosexuality is a sin or morally wrong. But they don't do that, and the TN law doesn't require it (although as I've said, the whole "except for heterosexuality bit crosses the line). Your analogy is pretty weak.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 2:23pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#136 Apr 28 2011 at 3:30 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
(although as I've said, the whole "except for heterosexuality bit crosses the line).


And yet you are still arguing about it.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#137 Apr 28 2011 at 3:35 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
gbaji wrote:
Your analogy is pretty weak.


You extended it too far. It was only to refute your assertion the proposition was reasonable because "lot's of parents don't want that stuff." Which it refutes just fine.

Again: an appeal to the number of parents who have a particular opinion about schooling methods has nothing to do with how reasonable that opinion is.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 5:35pm by Eske

Also:

gbaji wrote:
Not having your school go out of its way to include curriculum which highlights positive examples of a group within society is not the same as infringing on the rights of that group.


Who was talking about about requiring positive examples? Not I. I'm talking about barring discussion of homosexuality. You just keep parading out that strawman, gbaji...nobody's taking up arms against it.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 5:39pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#138 Apr 28 2011 at 4:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,916 posts
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
And again - that's according to you. The authority to make that call is from the judiciary - that comes with judicial review.


By that logic the judicial branch has unbounded powers, since they're the ones who would rule on any case challenging them overstepping the whole "separation of powers" principle in the constitution. Surely you aren't arguing that the Supreme Court can just decide one day that it's in charge of the military and that as long as they rule it's ok, then it is.


Not at all. The judiciary needs to rule on items that come to them. Unless a bill shows up that states "Is the SCotUS actually the commander-in-chief?" and you have a majority of Varuses (Varusi?) on the court, I think we're fine. Are you really trying to be this silly? Checks and balances still apply... you know, as per the Constitution.
____________________________
Volunteer News Writer for the ZAM Network.
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
#139 Apr 28 2011 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Your analogy is pretty weak.


You extended it too far. It was only to refute your assertion the proposition was reasonable because "lot's of parents don't want that stuff." Which it refutes just fine.


Except for the whole "leave it out of the curriculum" part of my statement, which you conveniently forgot when creating your analogy to racial segregation.

Quote:
Again: an appeal to the number of parents who have a particular opinion about schooling methods has nothing to do with how reasonable that opinion is.


Again: My statement was specific to the curriculum taught in the school. Not who can attend the school. Who can teach there. How school is funded. Or any of a zillion other things which could fall into the much broader "schooling methods" term you are trying to apply to my own statement.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Not having your school go out of its way to include curriculum which highlights positive examples of a group within society is not the same as infringing on the rights of that group.


Who was talking about about requiring positive examples? Not I. I'm talking about barring discussion of homosexuality.


In the curriculum. You keep leaving that word out. It's like you know that it changes the meaning of what I'm talking about, but don't want to accept that restriction when crafting effective straw man counters.

Quote:
You just keep parading out that strawman, gbaji...nobody's taking up arms against it.


Except for people like you, who take what I say, change a few words and re-interpret it to mean something different, and then argue against that instead. What is the term for that form of argument? Oh. You already know, don't you? Lol!

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 3:27pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#140 Apr 28 2011 at 4:39 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
LockeColeMA wrote:
gbaji wrote:
LockeColeMA wrote:
And again - that's according to you. The authority to make that call is from the judiciary - that comes with judicial review.


By that logic the judicial branch has unbounded powers, since they're the ones who would rule on any case challenging them overstepping the whole "separation of powers" principle in the constitution. Surely you aren't arguing that the Supreme Court can just decide one day that it's in charge of the military and that as long as they rule it's ok, then it is.


Not at all. The judiciary needs to rule on items that come to them. Unless a bill shows up that states "Is the SCotUS actually the commander-in-chief?" and you have a majority of Varuses (Varusi?) on the court, I think we're fine.


Or someone challenges an existing and long standing law or action, claiming that the President shouldn't really be in charge of the military. Then the court could rule that having a single person commanding all the military forces actually is a violation of the constitution and draft up a replacement which it would find acceptable in which the members of the Court collectively get to command the military. Then, it would require all applicable legislatures to change their laws accordingly.

You get that this is analogous to what the Roe v. Wade decision did, right? The court took a long standing law, and despite nothing in the constitution which directly addressed the issue, decided that because there was sufficient social pressure to change the law, that they would force the change themselves by not just ruling on the case before them, but actually writing law into their decision. That is what "judicial review" has become, and it's not what it's supposed to be.


Quote:
Are you really trying to be this silly? Checks and balances still apply... you know, as per the Constitution.


Except when the court includes what amounts to legislation in their rulings and says "this is what we find constitutional, so you'd all better change your laws to match", then it does violate those checks and balances within the system. But people like you will excuse it as "judicial review" because you happen to agree with the result. That's a dangerous path to walk though. Checks and balances don't mean anything unless we apply them consistently and fairly. Applying them when it benefits you and ignoring them when it doesn't means that inevitably someone else will do the same at some point, but in ways that you don't like. And when you start yelling about "legislating from the bench", who will listen to you then?


The true test of principles is when you apply them even when it doesn't benefit you. If you can't do that, then you don't really have them.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 3:40pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#141 Apr 28 2011 at 4:40 PM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
You're not getting my meaning. Let's try this a little differently:

What makes this reasonable? What were you trying to say there? Is it reasonable because it just pertains to curriculum**? That'd be arbitrary. Is it reasonable because "lot's" of parents feel that way? Nope, that's a fallacious appeal to numbers. What makes this reasonable, is if there's reason involved. Logic. Rationality. All of which are irrelevant of the scale of the proposition. It could be about what can and can't be discussed in school, or it could be about what skin color is allowed to attend.

Segregation is not reasonable because it is illogical. It's fear-based, and it's unfair. So again, what makes barring the discussion of homosexuality reasonable? It isn't. I'm asserting that you made a completely unsubstantiated statement.


In your initial post that I responded to, you conflated the issue being discussed (the morality of barring discussion of homosexuality) with one about requiring positive homosexual examples. You also suggested that "controversial" ideas should be kept out of schools. And you suggested that it was "reasonable" for parents to keep homosexuality from a curriculum*, couching it on the point that "lots of parents" feel that way. That's a fallacious appeal to numbers. My analogy was intended solely to point that fact out. You gave no evidence of reason. If you were to say, suggest that segregation was "reasonable" because lots of parents wanted it, you'd be presenting the exact same amount of support for your argument. And clearly, it would be wrong.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 6:49pm by Eske

** And don't think I don't notice that you keep trying to argue this up to being in the curriculum. It could be as simple as a student asking a question after class, in private.

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 6:51pm by Eske
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#142 Apr 28 2011 at 4:49 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
In the curriculum.

In any reference by an instructor, whether to answer a student's question, a passing reference to an important event in someone's life or whatever.

Funny how you completely overstated the CA law and now try to water down the TN law.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#143 Apr 28 2011 at 4:51 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Eske Esquire wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Your analogy is pretty weak.


You extended it too far. It was only to refute your assertion the proposition was reasonable because "lot's of parents don't want that stuff." Which it refutes just fine.


Except for the whole "leave it out of the curriculum" part of my statement, which you conveniently forgot when creating your analogy to racial segregation.

Quote:
Again: an appeal to the number of parents who have a particular opinion about schooling methods has nothing to do with how reasonable that opinion is.


Again: My statement was specific to the curriculum taught in the school. Not who can attend the school. Who can teach there. How school is funded. Or any of a zillion other things which could fall into the much broader "schooling methods" term you are trying to apply to my own statement.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
Not having your school go out of its way to include curriculum which highlights positive examples of a group within society is not the same as infringing on the rights of that group.


Who was talking about about requiring positive examples? Not I. I'm talking about barring discussion of homosexuality.


In the curriculum. You keep leaving that word out. It's like you know that it changes the meaning of what I'm talking about, but don't want to accept that restriction when crafting effective straw man counters.

Quote:
You just keep parading out that strawman, gbaji...nobody's taking up arms against it.


Except for people like you, who take what I say, change a few words and re-interpret it to mean something different, and then argue against that instead. What is the term for that form of argument? Oh. You already know, don't you? Lol!

Edited, Apr 28th 2011 3:27pm by gbaji


You're doing that thing again where you say you think something is bad but then go on for five paragraphs on why it is good.
____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#144 Apr 28 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Or someone challenges an existing and long standing law or action, claiming that the President shouldn't really be in charge of the military. Then the court could rule that having a single person commanding all the military forces actually is a violation of the constitution and draft up a replacement which it would find acceptable in which the members of the Court collectively get to command the military.

Then the other two branches shrug off the court, Andrew Jackson style. :D
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#145 Apr 28 2011 at 4:52 PM Rating: Good
***
2,069 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
In the curriculum.

In any reference by an instructor, whether to answer a student's question, a passing reference to an important event in someone's life or whatever.

Funny how you completely overstated the CA law and now try to water down the TN law.


We certainly don't want gay word problems in math.

____________________________
http://www.marriageissogay.com/

Song of the day:
May 26, 2011 -- Transplants
#146 Apr 28 2011 at 4:55 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Eske Esquire wrote:
What makes this reasonable? What were you trying to say there? It's reasonable because it just pertains to curriculum?


Maybe it'll help if I rewrite the statement I made?

Quote:
Lots of parents don't want their kids exposed to this stuff at an early age, so let's leave it out of the curriculum until after 8th grade



I think it's very very reasonable for parents to ask that material which they believe might be too mature or controversial for grade and middle school children to be left out of the public school curriculum until a later age. Why wouldn't that be the case? You're trying to test this with examples that don't fit what I'm saying. Try testing with those that do instead.

Quote:
Can't say I agree at all. What makes this reasonable, is if there's reason involved. Logic. Rationality. All of which are irrelevant of the scale of the proposition. It could be about what can and can't be discussed in school, or it could be about what skin color is allowed to attend.


But that's *not* what we're talking about. We're talking about what is included in the curriculum. That's it. Stop expanding the issue into other areas. We could similarly say that it's wrong to shoot kids in the head in school assembly, but I'm not talking about that either.

The way you test is to take a less controversial issue and test the principle I'm espousing. The principle is: If sufficient parents object to proposed curriculum in public school based on the mature or controversial nature of the subject, then the school should not include it, or should include it at a later grade level. That's what I'm saying. For this to be false, then there can't be a case where it's quite obviously true:

So. Here's a test. I'm a school administrator and I'm a big fan of live donkey sex shows. So, I'm proposing that we show live donkey sex shows to middle school kids in my school in order to educate them about the wonders of man/donkey love. Can parents reasonable object to this being included in the curriculum on the grounds that it's too mature and controversial? Absolutely, they can.


Ah you say. But that's a live demonstration. No one's talking about having gay people perform sex acts in front of the kids. That's not fair! Ok. How about including a section in the curriculum about bestiality? I think that bestiality gets a bad wrap and want kids to be exposed to the positive aspects of bestiality at an early age before society has a chance to convince them otherwise. Can parents complain about that? I hope we all agree that they can.


So. Regardless of your own opinions about homosexuality (and really sexual orientation in general, since I've stated that the exception for heterosexuality makes the TN law wrong), it's not your kids in that class. Parents absolutely should have some say about what their kids are taught or not taught. We're not talking about math, or science, or language here. We're talking purely about the inclusion of curriculum solely designed to increase acceptance of what is absolutely a mature and controversial subject. Kids don't need to be taught in school about sexual orientation that early. It can wait.

IMO, that's perfectly reasonable. The principle is reasonable, the only issue is the specifics in this case. And how we apply the specifics really ought to be up to the parents, right? It's their children and their choice. If they want to teach their kids about different sexual orientations on their own, they're free to do so. It's not like by barring said discussion from school curriculum that it bars the parents from teaching it to their children themselves. It just means that parents who don't want their kids learning about that stuff at such an early age aren't having their children forced to anyway.

Quote:
Segregation is not reasonable because it is illogical. It's fear-based, and it's unfair. So again, what makes barring the discussion of homosexuality reasonable? It isn't. I'm asserting that you made a completely unsubstantiated statement.



But we're not talking about segregation. Why do you keep bringing this up?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#147 Apr 28 2011 at 4:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
In the curriculum.

In any reference by an instructor, whether to answer a student's question, a passing reference to an important event in someone's life or whatever.

Funny how you completely overstated the CA law and now try to water down the TN law.


I'm not defending the TN law as written. I am saying that if it did not include a specific exclusion for heterosexual orientation, and/or restricted the limitation to curriculum, then it would be reasonable.

I'm countering the argument that any attempt to restrict the discussion of homosexuality in the classroom is and always will be wrong under all cases. I'm not speaking specifically about the TN law.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#148 Apr 28 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
So. Regardless of your own opinions about homosexuality (and really sexual orientation in general, since I've stated that the exception for heterosexuality makes the TN law wrong)

So you feel teachers shouldn't be allowed to talk about the president's heterosexual marriage to his wife?

Because this law prohibits mentioning someone's homosexual marriage to a same-sex spouse. Not just talking about butt-love or whatever but casually referencing Ellen Degeneres' marriage to Portia de Rossi (as an example, who cares why it'd come up).

So are you saying neither reference should be allowed or what?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#149 Apr 28 2011 at 5:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Or someone challenges an existing and long standing law or action, claiming that the President shouldn't really be in charge of the military. Then the court could rule that having a single person commanding all the military forces actually is a violation of the constitution and draft up a replacement which it would find acceptable in which the members of the Court collectively get to command the military.

Then the other two branches shrug off the court, Andrew Jackson style. :D


The perception of the role of government has changed since then though. Today, far too many people believe that the role of the government is to actively involve itself in shaping the everyday lives of its citizens.

Let me ask you a question, and try to answer honestly: If the very "silly" example I brought up had come up during say the time period right around when we first invaded Iraq (so late 2002 early 2003), and a bunch of anti-war liberals argued that Bush didn't have the authority to make war, and brought this to the Supreme Court (let's ignore how for the moment), do you believe that most liberals would not have supported a ruling by the court limiting or even eliminating the presidents power as sole commander in chief?


Based on what I've seen over the last decade, I have every confidence that a hell of a lot of liberals would not only allow such a ruling, they would cheer it. Am I wrong?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#150 Apr 28 2011 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Let me ask you a question, and try to answer honestly: If the very "silly" example I brought up had come up during say the time period right around when we first invaded Iraq (so late 2002 early 2003), and a bunch of anti-war liberals argued that Bush didn't have the authority to make war, and brought this to the Supreme Court (let's ignore how for the moment), do you believe that most liberals would not have supported a ruling by the court limiting or even eliminating the presidents power as sole commander in chief?

I don't believe so, no. Nor do I believe that most self-identified conservatives would do the same in the opposite case.

But nice job saying "answer honestly" and trying to beg the question.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#151 Apr 28 2011 at 5:10 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
30,870 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
So. Regardless of your own opinions about homosexuality (and really sexual orientation in general, since I've stated that the exception for heterosexuality makes the TN law wrong)

So you feel teachers shouldn't be allowed to talk about the president's heterosexual marriage to his wife?


Do we mention that he and his wife are heterosexual? The point it that there's no need to specifically single out sexual orientation at all, unless one has a specific agenda surrounding the issue.


Quote:
Because this law prohibits mentioning someone's homosexual marriage to a same-sex spouse.


Only if the subject of sex comes up. How often do we speak about people we don't know in the context of their sexual activity? In k-8th grade? Never, right? Like in my tongue in cheek example of an account of John Adams, no one stops and mentions the sexual orientation of historical or current day figures. Well. Except for gay rights folks who want it to be mentioned constantly. It's not necessary, and that's what the TN law was presumably aimed at doing. I think it went too far because it left an exclusion for heterosexuality, but as I've said, I'm not defending the specific law as written, just that there are valid applications for the basic concept being put forth.

Quote:
Not just talking about butt-love or whatever but casually referencing Ellen Degeneres' marriage to Portia de Rossi (as an example, who cares why it'd come up).


But "why it would come up" is precisely the point. What the TN law is attempting to do is response to a movement to make these things come up in class settings specifically so as to influence school children's opinions about various social issues. I get why, and I don't even necessarily disagree with the ultimate objective here. But the method is wrong. We should not be taking advantage of the nearly mandatory nature of public school to treat it as a selective propaganda system.


It's wrong to use it to teach kids what we want them to learn about God, and it's wrong to use it to teach then what we want them to learn about homosexuality.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 47 All times are in CDT