"Smaller government" advocates

[Skylar]

... One man. Or Man and One Woman. Or One Woman and One Woman ...

No... Marriage is the Joining of One Man ....

....and One Man. Exactly! Or one woman and one woman. Or one woman and one man.

Marriage is what we say it is as we invented it. Thus, we define it.

This as a consequence of the natural law known as the Biological Imperative; wherein Nature designed the human species with two distinct, but complementing Genders, each specifically designed to "JOIN WITH" the other.

You're describing fucking. Not marriage. You may not be able to tell the difference. A rational person could.

And there are no 'laws of nature' regarding marriage. Marriage is whatever we say it is. Its our invention. Its exists only within human societies....and never outside them.

And your argument collapses yet again. Sigh.....predictably.

 

[Skylar]

There are all manner of families that manifest other than a man, woman, and biological child.

So what?

A divorced father and his two sons are a family.

So what?

A man and woman with their adopted daughter are a family.

So what?

And a same-sex couple with a biological child of one of the parents are also a family.

False... That is a Father or Mother, criminally flaunting a degenerate lifestyle to a minor child.

Save that they've violated no crime by raising their own children.

Remember, your subjective imagination doesn't define the law. Subjective isn't objective.

The US Constitution does not confer a single right to ANYONE!

The Constitution merely sets specific, enumerated limits upon the power of government, as a specific means to preclude any legitimate means for the Government to usurp or otherwise infringe upon those specific, God-given rights.

There is NO POTENTIAL FOR A RIGHT for a degenerate cult to set aside the laws of nature in an attempt to induce their perversion in undermining of the central nucleus of the culture, in promoting their own subjective needs.

There are no laws of nature regarding marriage....as marriage doesn't exist anywhere but human societies.

You're citing yourself pretending you are 'nature'. And you're not. You're merely offering your personal, subjective opinion. And then awkwardly trying to apply the Appeal to Authority fallacy to pretend that your opinion is objective fact.

Sigh.....like you always do. You're a one trick pony. You can't sustain your claims using logic or reason. So you're left with fallacies.

 

[Skylar]

Needless to say, it comes as no surprise that 'advocates' of 'small government' are the same who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law, by denying same-sex couples their right to access marriage law, and by interfering with citizens' right to vote with more laws, more regulation, and more government.

Oh, obviously. What many of the 'small government' folks want is to strip people of Federal protections and then turn rights into crimes at the State level.

This they call 'freedom'.

 

[Dan Daly]

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

Here's the thing, once we allowed government to get involved in marriage, we pretty much have to bow to government's definitions of it (for their purposes)....that whole "You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters." comes back to bite us in the ass.

IMO...government has no business in the religious rite of marriage. If they want a civilian equivalent for legal purposes, fine, we could avoid this entire debate if they'd call it something else. Come to think of it...they did dooded that..they're called "civil unions", so rather than futzing around with marriage, why not just give civil unions the same legal rights as those who are married?

But nooooooo, it's better to have yet another social issue to keep us all divided and fighting among ourselves.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You do realize that your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself, right?

You citing yourself is merely your personal opinion.

So you're claiming that a personal opinion is merely the opinion of only one person... thus does not represent a majority opinion? Appealing to popularity?

ROFLMNAO!

That's an interesting position to take, given than every time its been polled, the vast majority of the legislators, who were elected by the vast majority of the people, voted to reject homosexuals for marriage and to defend the sanctity of the natural standard of marriage... with only a tiny minority taking your position.

But hey... setting that refutation of your fallacious appeal aside, let's remain loyal to the laws of reason and merely stand on the certainty that fallacious appeals represent unsound reasoning, thus are unworthy of consideration by reasonable people ... and stand upon the refutation of that irrepressible fact.

 

[Dan Daly]

Needless to say, it comes as no surprise that 'advocates' of 'small government' are the same who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law, by denying same-sex couples their right to access marriage law, and by interfering with citizens' right to vote with more laws, more regulation, and more government.

Oh, obviously. What many of the 'small government' folks want is to strip people of Federal protections and then turn rights into crimes at the State level.

This they call 'freedom'.

If you need to be protected by government, I call it "dependent".

 

[Skylar]

What do I want to dish out? I don't want to dish out anything. I just happen to believe that marriage is the institution of one man and one woman. That's not dishing anything out. It's just like calling my chair a chair. Sure, I could call my chair a fire hydrant, but that doesn't make it a fire hydrant. It's still a chair.

You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters. Marriage is not a right, it's a religious rite that was adopted by the government in order to provide benefits to the normal family. And no, Don, Sam and their adopted son is not a normal family.

Here's the thing, once we allowed government to get involved in marriage, we pretty much have to bow to government's definitions of it (for their purposes)....that whole "You don't have a "right" to force your desires against the will of the voters." comes back to bite us in the ass. Moral of the story...government has no business in the religious rite of marriage.

Nor does it have a thing to do with the 'religious rite'. But the socially recognized legal contract of marriage? That's a different story. That's not religious. That's civil. Any church can still deny the validity of any marriage they don't agree with. Catholics can refuse to accept that same sex marriages are marriages under Catholic law for example.

But under civil law they're as valid as a marriage of a man and a woman. And civil law is not subordinate to religion. But autonomous of it.

And you don't seem to understand the difference between rights and powers. Rights are freedoms from government action. Powers are actions the government can take. You're insisting that rights can never override powers. And that's obviously horseshit. They can and in most cases, should.

If they want a civilian equivalent for legal purposes, fine, we could avoid this entire debate if they'd call it something else. Come to think of it...they did dooded that..they're called "civil unions", so rather than futzing around with marriage, why not just give civil unions the same legal rights as those who are married?

There is the civil equivalent: marriage.

 

[Skylar]

You do realize that your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself, right?

You citing yourself is merely your personal opinion.

So you're claiming that a personal opinion is merely the opinion of only one person... thus does not represent a majority opinion? Appealing to popularity?

I didn't say a thing about 'majority opinion'. I said that your personal opinion doesn't define anything you're discussing.

Your entire argument is hopelessly dependant on YOU defining what marriage is, what rights are, what 'nature's laws' are, what God means, what any word you pretend to define means.

But you don't define any of those things. Its just your opinion. Your subjective opinion isn't objective fact. And you have nothing but pretending that your subjective opinion is objective fact.

Its the only strategy you've got. Which is why you always, always lose.

 

[Skylar]

Needless to say, it comes as no surprise that 'advocates' of 'small government' are the same who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law, by denying same-sex couples their right to access marriage law, and by interfering with citizens' right to vote with more laws, more regulation, and more government.

Oh, obviously. What many of the 'small government' folks want is to strip people of Federal protections and then turn rights into crimes at the State level.

This they call 'freedom'.

If you need to be protected by government, I call it "dependent".

I call it protecting the rights of citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Needless to say, it comes as no surprise that 'advocates' of 'small government' are the same who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by compelling women to give birth...

Of course, no one has demanded that women should be forced to give birth.

What has been said is that women who choose to engage in sexual intercourse, then murder their pre-born baby, should be charged with murder, prosecuted and tried on the evidence and where the facts asserted in the charges are found to be accurate and true, to be summarily punished.

Just like everyone else that takes the life of an innocent.

We already have plenty of government to handle that... vastly more than we would need, if it were not for a cult of unprincipled Ideologues promoting every form of debauchery and perversion... growing tens of millions of malcontent degenerates who could not tell you the difference between right and wrong, let alone the importance of knowing such.

 

[Skylar]

Needless to say, it comes as no surprise that 'advocates' of 'small government' are the same who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by compelling women to give birth...

Of course, no one has demanded that women should be forced to give birth.

That's exactly what you're calling for. Watch:

What has been said is that women who choose to engage in sexual intercourse, then murder their pre-born baby, should be charged with murder, prosecuted and tried on the evidence and where the facts asserted in the charges are found to be accurate and true, to be summarily punished.

Summarily executed is what I think you've said before. Execution or giving birth isn't much of a choice. But then she has far more choices than those two. As your murder fantasies aren't our laws. Nor do you define what rights exist and which don't.

So in reality she chooses how her body will be used. And she can make that choice not just once. But over and over.

And you have no say in any of it. You never get to tell a woman what she has to do with her body as it relates to pregnancy. You're nobody.

But you do elegantly demonstrate *exactly* what I'm talking about: conservatives desperately trying to strip citizens of federal protections so they can turn rights into crimes.

 

[Dan Daly]

Needless to say, it comes as no surprise that 'advocates' of 'small government' are the same who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law, by denying same-sex couples their right to access marriage law, and by interfering with citizens' right to vote with more laws, more regulation, and more government.

Oh, obviously. What many of the 'small government' folks want is to strip people of Federal protections and then turn rights into crimes at the State level.

This they call 'freedom'.

If you need to be protected by government, I call it "dependent".

I call it protecting the rights of citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

and only the federal government...can do that...gotcha. That is where we fundamentally disagree. Government is better at oppression than they are at protection. Hell look at the poor black folks...government freed them and started protecting them over a century ago and they are less free now than when they were freakin slaves. Look at the Native Americans...government "protected" them by conquering them, stealing their land by force and destroying their way of life and trying to rob them of their culture by force. Good job, government...I'll stay independent of their protection, thank you.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You do realize that your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself, right?

You citing yourself is merely your personal opinion.

So you're claiming that a personal opinion is merely the opinion of only one person... thus does not represent a majority opinion? Appealing to popularity?

I didn't say a thing about 'majority opinion'.

No you didn't. You said:

You citing yourself is merely your personal opinion.

Now a person is what? One individual... and an opinion of a person is one opinion.

Now there is only one reason to point out the singular as a discrediting factor... and that is the implication that the singular fails against the majority.

It's fallacious... thus unsound and an axiomatic FAIL!

But here you deny that you made any such reference to the Majority, thus stripping your argument of even that feckless point. Therefore FAILING.. AGAIN!

You then want to deny that the opinion failed to define anything... when in fact, the opinion was an observation, wherein the elements of the observation were laid out in detail, repeatedly.. therein proving you to be either starkly delusional... OR a liar.

Now which of the two you are, is irrelevant... as what you've just established is that the readers of this board cannot trust a dam' thing you say on this board.

Which is you... failing to sustain your assertion(s) AGAIN. So you can run back over to the thread wherein you demanded that the Gunny quote you failing to sustain your argument... and add this to the growing list.

Now with that said... with the weekly spanking having been delivered... Skylar goes back to ignore.

And THAT Reader, is how THAT ... is done.

Remember... the Keys to defeating the Left in debate, rests in two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to Speak.

 

[Skylar]

Needless to say, it comes as no surprise that 'advocates' of 'small government' are the same who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law, by denying same-sex couples their right to access marriage law, and by interfering with citizens' right to vote with more laws, more regulation, and more government.

Oh, obviously. What many of the 'small government' folks want is to strip people of Federal protections and then turn rights into crimes at the State level.

This they call 'freedom'.

If you need to be protected by government, I call it "dependent".

I call it protecting the rights of citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

and only the federal government...can do that...gotcha.

Check the 14th amendment. They can absolutely check the States when the States create laws that abrogate the rights of Federal citizens.

Its why the Supreme Court could overturn Chicago gun laws forbidding the ownership of handguns. Because of the federally recognized 'right to self defense with a fire arm' that the States could not violate.

Its why the Supreme Court could overrule State marriage laws forbidding same sex marriages. Because of the federally recognized 'right to marry', 'Due process' and 'equal protection'.

Your argument pretends that the 14th amendment doesn't exist. Which is problematic.....as it does exist.

That is where we fundamentally disagree. Government is better at oppression than they are at protection. Hell look at the poor black folks...government freed them and started protecting them over a century ago and they are less free now than when they were freakin slaves.

That's obvious horeshit. You're going to argue that say, former Attorney General Holder has less freedom than a black slave is delusional nonsense. Not in terms of freedom. Not in terms of the horrors of slavery.

Slavery is not freedom. No matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise.

 

[Skylar]

You do realize that your 'reader' is just you talking to yourself, right?

You citing yourself is merely your personal opinion.

So you're claiming that a personal opinion is merely the opinion of only one person... thus does not represent a majority opinion? Appealing to popularity?

I didn't say a thing about 'majority opinion'.

No you didn't. You said:

Then any of your claims of 'Argument by Popularity' collapse. As your basis of this argument, 'majority opinion' isn't an argument I made.

You're attacking arguments that I didn't make. That's the strawman fallacy. If your claims had actual merit, you wouldn't need it.

Now a person is what? One individual... and an opinion of a person is one opinion.

And your opinion doesn't define objective reality. This is where your argument always breaks. As your entire basis of argument is insisting that we accept your personal opinion on.....well, anything....as objective fact.

Nature, god, morality, law, the constitution, even the English language....your argument is dependent on our acceptance that you define all of these things. And your personal opinion defines none of them.

Subjective is not objective. As all the same sex marriages in our country so elegantly demonstrate. You insist that none of it is happening.

Reality says otherwise.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Needless to say, it comes as no surprise that 'advocates' of 'small government' are the same who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by compelling women to give birth...

Of course, no one has demanded that women should be forced to give birth.

That's exactly what you're calling for.

LOL!

NOooo Sis.

What I am calling for is the cultural rejection of the premise that a woman has a right to CHOOSE to engage in the behavior specifically designed for procreation, then strip the innocent life conceived through that willful CHOICE and wanton behavior.

And where a woman fails to CHOOSE WISELY, having made the CHOICE to engage in the behavior which she fully knows is designed specifically to conceive a child... and so conceives, and to avoid the responsibility for her actions, she murders that child... for her to be held accountable for her CHOICE!

Now... you're a CHOICE gal, aren't ya?

Where's the problem?

 

[Dan Daly]

Needless to say, it comes as no surprise that 'advocates' of 'small government' are the same who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by compelling women to give birth against their will through force of law, by denying same-sex couples their right to access marriage law, and by interfering with citizens' right to vote with more laws, more regulation, and more government.

Oh, obviously. What many of the 'small government' folks want is to strip people of Federal protections and then turn rights into crimes at the State level.

This they call 'freedom'.

If you need to be protected by government, I call it "dependent".

I call it protecting the rights of citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

and only the federal government...can do that...gotcha.

Check the 14th amendment. They can absolutely check the States when the States create laws that abrogate the rights of Federal citizens.

Its why the Supreme Court could overturn Chicago gun laws forbidding the ownership of handguns. Because of the federally recognized 'right to self defense with a fire arm' that the States could not violate.

Its why the Supreme Court could overrule State marriage laws forbidding same sex marriages. Because of the federally recognized 'right to marry', 'Due process' and 'equal protection'.

Your argument pretends that the 14th amendment doesn't exist. Which is problematic.....as it does exist.

That is where we fundamentally disagree. Government is better at oppression than they are at protection. Hell look at the poor black folks...government freed them and started protecting them over a century ago and they are less free now than when they were freakin slaves.

That's obvious horeshit. You're going to argue that say, former Attorney General Holder has less freedom than a black slave is delusional nonsense. Not in terms of freedom. Not in terms of the horrors of slavery.

Slavery is not freedom. No matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise.

I'm not denying the 14th Amendment and I am not against equal protection under the law...I am against the federal government's wacky notion of what protection is. How well has the government done in protecting our rights under some of the other Amendments...like the 1st...or maybe the 2nd, or the 4th?

A piece of paper cannot protect your rights. Government is about protecting their rights, not yours. You are the only person who can protect your rights...becoming dependent on others...especially government...to do it for you is a fool's game that never has a happy ending.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And your opinion doesn't define objective reality.

True... but I didn't state an opinion, I stated an observation of undeniable facts of nature. Not a single one of which have you so much attempted to contest.

But the reason you have not contested a single point is that there's nothing for you TO contest, as the points are... as noted above: IRREFUTABLE.

But hey... you feel free to pick one.

Here's a List:

Nature designed the human species.

With two distinct but complementing genders.

Each, respectively and specifically designed to JOIN WITH, the other.

Thus defining Marriage.

Again Reader, THAT is how THAT ... is done.

Remember... the Keys to defeating the Left in debate, rests in two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist

2- Get them to Speak.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, obviously. What many of the 'small government' folks want is to strip people of Federal protections and then turn rights into crimes at the State level.

This they call 'freedom'.

If you need to be protected by government, I call it "dependent".

I call it protecting the rights of citizens from the tyranny of the majority.

and only the federal government...can do that...gotcha.

Check the 14th amendment. They can absolutely check the States when the States create laws that abrogate the rights of Federal citizens.

Its why the Supreme Court could overturn Chicago gun laws forbidding the ownership of handguns. Because of the federally recognized 'right to self defense with a fire arm' that the States could not violate.

Its why the Supreme Court could overrule State marriage laws forbidding same sex marriages. Because of the federally recognized 'right to marry', 'Due process' and 'equal protection'.

Your argument pretends that the 14th amendment doesn't exist. Which is problematic.....as it does exist.

That is where we fundamentally disagree. Government is better at oppression than they are at protection. Hell look at the poor black folks...government freed them and started protecting them over a century ago and they are less free now than when they were freakin slaves.

That's obvious horeshit. You're going to argue that say, former Attorney General Holder has less freedom than a black slave is delusional nonsense. Not in terms of freedom. Not in terms of the horrors of slavery.

Slavery is not freedom. No matter how hard you try to convince yourself otherwise.

I'm not denying the 14th Amendment and I am not against equal protection under the law...I am against the federal government's wacky notion of what protection is.

What's 'wacky' about it?

A piece of paper cannot protect your rights. Government is about protecting their rights, not yours.

Governments don't have rights. They have powers. People have rights. And those rights protect them from government abrogation. The constitution doesn't define what rights we have. The constitution defines what powers the government has.

And the 14th amendment gave the federal government the power to prevent the abrogation of rights by the States. By design. Read Howard and Bingham on the intent of the amendment. And take a look at Barron V. Baltimore, a case they cite as the basis for the need for the amendment.

Its the case where the Supreme Court affirmed that the States were NOT bound to the bill of rights. And that the States could violate those rights with impunity as the BOR only restricted federal action.

The history of the violation of rights by the States is what prompted this amendment. And the rulings that followed about a generation after its passage that began to restrict state actions against its own citizens.

Which I have no problem with.

You are the only person who can protect your rights...becoming dependent on others...especially government...to do it for you is a fool's game that never has a happy ending.

Actually *we* can protect my rights. And yours. And all of ours. Through a variety of means. One of which is our government, our legislature and our judiciary. Rights of the majority are fairly easy to protect. Its rights of the minority that are subject to the tyranny of the majority. And more often need protection.

Your assertion that the government protecting rights never works out well is a fantastically broad overgeneralization. You didn't even use the qualifies or 'usually' or 'most often'. But 'never'. An absolute. Where every instance of the government protecting rights has a bad outcome.

I disagree. As would pretty much anyone who valued individual rights over government power.

 

[Skylar]

Needless to say, it comes as no surprise that 'advocates' of 'small government' are the same who seek to increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty by compelling women to give birth...

Of course, no one has demanded that women should be forced to give birth.

That's exactly what you're calling for.

LOL!

NOooo Sis.

What I am calling for is the cultural rejection of the premise that a woman has a right to CHOOSE to engage in the behavior specifically designed for procreation, then strip the innocent life conceived through that willful CHOICE and wanton behavior.

What you're calling for is the criminalization of rights. Where people are stripped of federal protections, their rights made into crimes at the State level, and those who exercise those rights summarily executed.

Um, no. We're not doing that.

And where a woman fails to CHOOSE WISELY, having made the CHOICE to engage in the behavior which she fully knows is designed specifically to conceive a child... and so conceives, and to avoid the responsibility for her actions, she murders that child... for her to be held accountable for her CHOICE!

Your assumptions are dependent on the fallacy that a woman only getting one choice. But in reality she has many choices. None of which you define or have the slightest say in. And she can decide that she doesn't want to continue a pregnancy.

That you don't recognize her as having this choice is gloriously irrelevant. As you define nothing nor have any say in the matter. She has the only say in the matter. And can choose as she decides.

Not as you decide for her.