Forget Plan A, Let's Go With Plan B

Yes or no for Plan B?

  • Yes! Make Plan B readily available OTC.

    Votes: 23 88.5%
  • No! Let nature take it's course.

    Votes: 3 11.5%

  • Total voters
    26

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,152
1,507
573
<3
Marklar
₥3,530
Flamer McDickchugger said:
Now that I can bring myself to consider your statement again I'm going to try another reply, albeit a lot shorter of one than yesterday's which got lost in the database crash.
No worries

Freedom as it is defined in the dictionary is not the same as freedom as it is defined by the U.S. Code. However, in America we have an obligation to preserve the rights of the minority. It's not a majority rule, or at least it shouldn't and wasn't intended to be.
Yes, Hamiltonian republic and all that. I again assert that you are not being witheld any essential right (except the one that allows you to own machine guns without paying taxes).

Under no circumstances should legislators or people in positions of power make decisions based on their own spiritual beliefs. And yet virtually no one is capable of that separation. And that is what I meant by making decisions "as they should be made". There IS a right and a wrong in America concerning decision making and the enacting of policies. We are NOT free to do as we please and let those who have problems with it attempt to change things by becoming active in the process. That isn't how it works in this country. No amount of contemporary fact checking or case law research will reveal that subtle but vital discrepancy. There should never be majority rule in America. It is our responsibility and obligation to do exactly the opposite of what you describe, but we fail to do so on a daily basis.
Federal Legislators ARE FREE to do what they please so long as it doesnt:

a) Overreach any power accorded them in the constitution.
b) Obstruct any right specifically given the people in the constitution.
c) Go against their oath of office.

Any [federal] rule of law is reviewable by the [federal] Judiciary. Redress of crimes on your person by the federal government is available through:

a) The courts
b) Mass protest, i.e. swaying public opinion
c) Force of arms

That's not to say that I don't understand why, though. It is the majority which elects a political candidate to office, and it is the majority which must be appeased in order for them to stay in office, and indeed that is the goal of every politician and their supporting party. And yet those candidates are moved by discourse and philosophy to uphold the minority. It's the great catch 22 of American Society. And I can't say that it has ever worked in the history of our nation.

I assume we're still talking about federal legislators; the majority of that elected person's LOCAL DISTRICT is what got them into power. That is the check on mob rule. Represetative representation. No matter how you split it the only absolute check on their power is the constitution.

As far as our nation being one of intertwined politics and religion, it is very true. I will again attempt to quote Tocqueville as an illustration of what I'm talking about.

Another man whose opinions on this and other matters I greatly respect is Jeffrey Rosen, a brilliant law professor at George Washington University. He has wrote extensively on the matter, and tends to treat it as another result of identity politics.
I never said it wasnt a nation of some religion in government. I wasnt arguing that people in government do not make descisions based on God/Jesus/Flying Spaghetti Monster. They always will. While I may not like the means by which they work many [some] [a few] are perfectly fine individuals who make fine decisions. Forcing everyone to be atheist is just as bad as forcing everyone to be Christian.

You never really answered my first question, what liberty, or protected right are you being denied simple because someone in office makes decisions with a Christian spirituality? WHICH?

[NOTE ALL THE ABOVE APPLIES ONLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT]
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
45
Austin
Marklar
₥663
FlamingGlory said:
No worries


Yes, Hamiltonian republic and all that. I again assert that you are not being witheld any essential right (except the one that allows you to own machine guns without paying taxes).


Federal Legislators ARE FREE to do what they please so long as it doesnt:

a) Overreach any power accorded them in the constitution.
b) Obstruct any right specifically given the people in the constitution.
c) Go against their oath of office.

Any [federal] rule of law is reviewable by the [federal] Judiciary. Redress of crimes on your person by the federal government is available through:

a) The courts
b) Mass protest, i.e. swaying public opinion
c) Force of arms



I assume we're still talking about federal legislators; the majority of that elected person's LOCAL DISTRICT is what got them into power. That is the check on mob rule. Represetative representation. No matter how you split it the only absolute check on their power is the constitution.


I never said it wasnt a nation of some religion in government. I wasnt arguing that people in government do not make descisions based on God/Jesus/Flying Spaghetti Monster. They always will. While I may not like the means by which they work many [some] [a few] are perfectly fine individuals who make fine decisions. Forcing everyone to be atheist is just as bad as forcing everyone to be Christian.

You never really answered my first question, what liberty, or protected right are you being denied simple because someone in office makes decisions with a Christian spirituality? WHICH?

[NOTE ALL THE ABOVE APPLIES ONLY TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT]

How about pursuit of happiness? Do you think gay marriage falls under that? I'm not gay and it doesn't apply to me, but that doesn't make it irrelevant since close to 6 million Americans are, if the stats are accurate. Oh my bad, we're talking about strictly federal things, and gay marriage doesn't qualify. I guess I'm precluded then, on the basis that the federal government has far less of a hold on me than my state, from making comments about the president's open embrace of religion, or the fact that he actually tried to pass a Constitutional ban on something that falls outside the scope of federal powers, which in my opinion illustrates a complete disregard for the separations and checks and balances (and thus fairness of our system) you keep bringing up. Did it fail? Yes, thank God. Will it be brought up again? Absolutely.

At any rate, it isn't about only being concerned once a freedom is stripped away, it's about keeping your head up and your eyes open and questioning things before they cement themselves in law or society. And having leaders who openly profess their religion in what SHOULD be a secular-by-practice office is a massive concern to me.

And again, I understand what the letter of the law is, believe me. But politics, morality, and even law are about far more than that. They're about ethics. I don't care about legislators' job descriptions, or what the law entitles and prohibits them from doing. It's black and white and is really only useful in a judge's chambers when bantering about the semantics of a motion. You have to learn to step outside those boundaries and objectively contemplate the ethics behind those positions. You have to read between the lines. If you ever find yourself in law school your professor is going to have a field day with such a restricted outlook, much to your embarrassment. I'm just saying.
 
Last edited:

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,152
1,507
573
<3
Marklar
₥3,530
Flamer McDickchugger said:
How about pursuit of happiness? Do you think gay marriage falls under that? I'm not gay and it doesn't apply to me, but that doesn't make it irrelevant since close to 6 million Americans are, if the stats are accurate. Oh my bad, we're talking about strictly federal things, and gay marriage doesn't qualify. I guess I'm precluded then, on the basis that the federal government has far less of a hold on me than my state, from making comments about the president's open embrace of religion.
Pursuit of happiness is not a right. Life and liberty are the essential rights you are guranteed. I didnt limit this to a federal conversation, it is simply the easiest thing to do because for every law of every state I can find another which contrdicts it. Finally, marriage is a civil contract, and at this time 49 states limit it specifically to two people of a different sex. It is not a right, it is a privilege.

At any rate, it isn't about only being concerned once a freedom is stripped away, it's about keeping your head up and your eyes open and questioning things before they cement themselves in law or society. And having leaders who openly profess their religion in what SHOULD be a secular-by-practice office is a massive concern to me.
Again I point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with any one person professing their religion. It is actually a right. There is nothing wrong for a person in the place of power to freely exercise their religion. They just cannot tamper with the free exercise of it, by any other person. What you are suggesting, to me anyway, is that there be a seperate rule to which people in power are held and that is the antithesis of equality.

And again, I understand what the letter of the law is, believe me. But politics, morality, and even law are about far more than that. They're about ethics. I don't care about legislators' job descriptions, or what the law entitles and prohibits them from doing. It's black and white and is really only useful in a judge's chambers when bantering about the semantics of a motion. You have to learn to step outside those boundaries and objectively contemplate the ethics behind those positions. You have to read between the lines. If you ever find yourself in law school your professor is going to have a field day with such a restricted outlook, much to your embarrassment. I'm just saying.
I'm doing it for your benefit because and let me get this quote right:

06-29-2006, 03:47 PM
Sarcasmo said:
For the sake of clarity, let's refrain from gratuitous philosophizing. Philosophy is really nothing more than a tool to spin any conversation at all into obscure and completely irrelevent tangents, which instead of lending any kind of 'enlightened truth' to anything simply clouds even the most well thought out argument until you're left with a group of people sitting in silence thinking "What?"

I'm banned apparently from exercising any philosophical reasoning or sources other than some set down in concrete; and what may I ask is concrete well? Theology and the law.
 

wanko80

Erect Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,492
0
41
42
McKinney,TX
Marklar
₥5
FlamingGlory said:
Pursuit of happiness is not a right. Life and liberty are the essential rights you are guranteed.
I thought this covered that:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

FlamingGlory said:
Again I point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with any one person professing their religion. It is actually a right. There is nothing wrong for a person in the place of power to freely exercise their religion. They just cannot tamper with the free exercise of it, by any other person.
But by professing his religion as a main reason he wanted gay marriage banned at a national level, he just pushed his religion onto my life whether I agreed with it or not.

FlamingGlory said:
What you are suggesting, to me anyway, is that there be a seperate rule to which people in power are held and that is the antithesis of equality.
So the people in power currently only inact laws that promote equality? Because otherwise they are then the antithesis of equality.
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
45
Austin
Marklar
₥663
FlamingGlory said:
Pursuit of happiness is not a right. Life and liberty are the essential rights you are guranteed.

Pursuit of happiness is very much a guaranteed right. The trick is that happiness itself is not. Come on man, I know you know how to look up case law. Marriage as a right even has case law associated with it.


FlamingGlory said:
Again I point out that there is absolutely nothing wrong with any one person professing their religion. It is actually a right. There is nothing wrong for a person in the place of power to freely exercise their religion. They just cannot tamper with the free exercise of it, by any other person. What you are suggesting, to me anyway, is that there be a seperate rule to which people in power are held and that is the antithesis of equality.

How would you feel about having a vocally Muslim or Hindu president? There is a point to this question.

FlamingGlory said:
I'm doing it for your benefit because and let me get this quote right:

I'm banned apparently from exercising any philosophical reasoning or sources other than some set down in concrete; and what may I ask is concrete well? Theology and the law.

Not banned. It's just that if you want to get anywhere in debate or argument it's best to leave the gratuitous use of philosophy on the sidelines. It's too subjective to be of any real use. Every person has their own philosophies and every person has their own interpretations.

But ethics is just as logical as it is philosophical, and in truth without ethics or philosophy law and order would probably not exist. So I don't mind using them in this context. Just as a general rule I steer clear when attempting to prove a point.
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,152
1,507
573
<3
Marklar
₥3,530
wonko80 said:
I thought this covered that:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
Since you seem to think that you are Sarcasmo...

The DoI is not a force of law. Until 1868 the BoR of the Federal Constitution was not even a force of law. Then there is the 14th Amendement:

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

But by professing his religion as a main reason he wanted gay marriage banned at a national level, he just pushed his religion onto my life whether I agreed with it or not.
I think you give GW far too much credit. It is my opinion that his 'team' was attempting to appease what they think are their core voters. Either way, just because it was a tenet of his religion/or that was the reason he used does not mean that the actual application of such an Amendment would be illegal. I could easily reason out that the state has a valid interest in endorsing and or preserving procreative relationships etc.

So the people in power currently only inact laws that promote equality? Because otherwise they are then the antithesis of equality.
You compelety failed to understand what I said in this part. Read, comprehend, get back to me.
 

wanko80

Erect Member
Jul 31, 2006
2,492
0
41
42
McKinney,TX
Marklar
₥5
FlamingGlory said:
The DoI is not a force of law. Until 1868 the BoR of the Federal Constitution was not even a force of law. Then there is the 14th Amendement:
How about the 9th

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Perhaps we, "the people," retain the pursuit of happiness as a right.

FlamingGlory said:
I think you give GW far too much credit. It is my opinion that his 'team' was attempting to appease what they think are their core voters. Either way, just because it was a tenet of his religion/or that was the reason he used does not mean that the actual application of such an Amendment would be illegal. I could easily reason out that the state has a valid interest in endorsing and or preserving procreative relationships etc.
And I can easily reason that the interest is purely religious. If he chose to let his "team" talk him into doing it, then he's responsible for it.

FlamingGlory said:
You compelety failed to understand what I said in this part. Read, comprehend, get back to me.
I :heart: you too. You said it was unequal to hold the leaders to a different standard. I asked if their behavior always treated the people they represent equally. How does that not apply?
 

Sarcasmo

A Taste Of Honey Fluff Boy
Mar 28, 2005
34,396
464
648
45
Austin
Marklar
₥663
FlamingGlory said:
I think you give GW far too much credit. It is my opinion that his 'team' was attempting to appease what they think are their core voters. Either way, just because it was a tenet of his religion/or that was the reason he used does not mean that the actual application of such an Amendment would be illegal. I could easily reason out that the state has a valid interest in endorsing and or preserving procreative relationships etc.

Procreative relationships exist with or without marriage. People fuck and have kids all the time. That wouldn't deminish if gay people were allowed to marry. The only thing to be gained by gay people marrying is more peace and happiness. So what's the problem? Religion, that's what. God hates fags.
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,152
1,507
573
<3
Marklar
₥3,530
Flamer McDickchugger said:
Pursuit of happiness is very much a guaranteed right. The trick is that happiness itself is not. Come on man, I know you know how to look up case law. Marriage as a right even has case law associated with it.
I'm well aware of [gay] marriage case law. Most recently that of the Appelate Court of NY holding up the ban on gay marriage. (too long to type out name) http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/jul06/86-89opn06.pdf

I am aware of one mention of the pursuit of happiness in marriage case law: Loving v Virginia "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Though the decision was not made on the pursuit of happiness, it was made on the equal application of law.

The only thing I see left is the 9th Amendment:

"[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Then there is Roe v Wade, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."

So obviously, whether or not I agree, natural rights are not proctected.

How would you feel about having a vocally Muslim or Hindu president? There is a point to this question.
I believe I outlined this in response to wonko80:

In general, replacing one morality with another could end you up in far worse circumstances than you know. Right now, we have some people in the south who vote with their bible, not a huge problem, they are a minority. If some other religion/morality/flavour of the week were to replace them you face an unknown enemy, of unknown strength, with some greater level of willpower. The situation, as it is, is far more desirable to myself through what I know than a danger I'm ignorant of.

Not banned. It's just that if you want to get anywhere in debate or argument it's best to leave the gratuitous use of philosophy on the sidelines. It's too subjective to be of any real use. Every person has their own philosophies and every person has their own interpretations.

But ethics is just as logical as it is philosophical, and in truth without ethics or philosophy law and order would probably not exist. So I don't mind using them in this context. Just as a general rule I steer clear when attempting to prove a point.
Ethics is an exercise of philosophy. Law is a philosophy laid down with strict rules. It's why I find jumping between them is rather easy, though I admit I have no formal training in arguing law, only philosophy. It is rather strict for my tastes but I dont think I apply it in a way that is inconsistent with it's use. Ethics means nothing in any case except for a catch all term for the various ethics which exist. Would you like an argument based on:

a) Subjectivist ethics
b) Intuitive ethics
c) Natural ethics
d) Individual situational ethics
e) Divine Command ethics
f) Ideal observer (this would probably follow a strict legal stance though)
g) Prescriptivist ethics
h) Error theory/Nihilst ethics

For about half of those I can still argue the same point, but the number of inferences needed to make that point, and the substantial amount of specialised knowledge needed to understand it increases to the point where few find it persuasive. US Law is rather unarguable as an ethic, and simple to understand.
 

Krazed

Flaccid Member
Apr 29, 2006
283
0
0
Marklar
₥0
I'm glad it's finally cleared some of the final hurdles, after being under discussion for so many years Personally, I go to school in an area of TN that is known for I believe (this might be an old statistic) the highest infant mortality rate in the country. I volunteer as an 'escort' at a woman's clinic and I see girls as young as 14 or 15 in there to get abortions.
I think that it's wise to put the accessibility OTC only okay at age 18+, but a part of me wants it to be accessible to 16+ with parental consent, but that might be asking too much.
Pretty much every thing else has been said in this thread already lol
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,152
1,507
573
<3
Marklar
₥3,530
wonko80 said:
How about the 9th

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Perhaps we, "the people," retain the pursuit of happiness as a right.
In response to sarcasmo:

"[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Roe v Wade, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights."


And I can easily reason that the interest is purely religious. If he chose to let his "team" talk him into doing it, then he's responsible for it.
Well then, now all you have to do is convince everyone else. In any case I dont think marriage has ever made anyone happy.

I :heart: you too. You said it was unequal to hold the leaders to a different standard. I asked if their behavior always treated the people they represent equally. How does that not apply?
Ah. The law, and the freedoms associated with it, holds everyone to the same equality. The simple ability to make law, does not mean you are treating people unequally, because they are subject to the same law they make. I know where you are going with this and it wont work. There are some lines they cannot cross, those lines are the unalienable freedoms, everything else is up for grabs.
 

ZRH

(retired?) Google-F.U.
Mar 5, 2005
24,152
1,507
573
<3
Marklar
₥3,530
Flamer McDickchugger said:
Procreative relationships exist with or without marriage. People fuck and have kids all the time. That wouldn't deminish if gay people were allowed to marry. The only thing to be gained by gay people marrying is more peace and happiness. So what's the problem? Religion, that's what. God hates fags.
Just because there are no demonstrable advantages to straight marriage does not conversely mean that there are any to gay marriage. All I said was that existing laws; preclude gay marriage and constitutional law does not guarantee it, not that it is an impossibility. If they want to get married, they can vote, petition, etc., for a recognization of their marriages.
 

Krazed

Flaccid Member
Apr 29, 2006
283
0
0
Marklar
₥0
ceiling fly said:
Uhhh...

That you escort chicks at a womens clinic. Thats pretty cool in my book. Is it for community service for a prostitution bust or what?
hahaha BOTH

I'm in a program at school that combines a scholarship with like 3 different community service programs, and it's a 4 year thing. I have to pick one site to do a certain amount of work with, and I wanted to have an experience like working with a women's clinic. SO (lol words) it fulfills the requirement but has also been quite an education for me.

I also do a little 'crack ho' busting on the side...