About prop 8 and other anti gay rights props

Ah, the sillyness. The California Supreme Court earlier this year said that homosexuals had the right to get married in the state.Prop 8 clearly takes this right away.And I notice how you did not deal with the fact that the state government's website even says that it takes away the right to vote. Why would the state gov't say that if it did not take away rights? No, I found a rather decent analysis of the vote. Nate Silver isn't just simply asserting that it is not reasonable to suggest that the black vote passed Prop 8. He show's the vote breakdown and reasons out why Prop 8 passed. The conclusion? It's age, not race. That is, old black people and old white people voted for prop 8, whereas young black people and young white people voted against prop 8.Oh, and if you're going to critique FO's grammar, check your own first. Internet is not plural. How about not playing the silly grammar game? I made a slight reading error. Not all fifty states have ratified the amendment. As of 2003, all states in existence since 1868 (38) have ratified it by 2003. New Jersey and Ohio were the last to do so. Kentucky followed through by 1976. Oregon in 1973 (after having cancelled its ratification in 1868). California and MD in 1959. Delaware in 1901. And so on.Still, there is no contradiction in my post. The 14th amendment does not need everyone's ratification in order to be valid.Your opposition to the 14th amendment is equally silly to those who oppose the 16th amendment.Tell me, do you also oppose the 13th and 15th amendments? After all, VA, TN, Arkansas, Alabama, SC, NC, and GA ratified the 13th by dec 6, 1865. NC, Arkansas, SC, FL, VA, Alabama, MI, and GA ratified the 15th by feb 3, 1870.I suppose, then, that the 13th and 15th amendments, which outlaw slavery and prevents voting discrimination on basis of race, are null and void? That slavery is legal and blacks and asians and indians and other non-whites can't vote?I have no choice but to think you do given your opposition to the 14th amendment, which was passed in similar measure to the other two.

I want to touch on this again. This is a very dangerous sentiment, as it can be used as justification for restricting the rights of people.Before the revolution, people did not have the right to bare arms. They may have legally owned their guns, but it was not considered a right.So the legislatures could then, per your argument, prevent you from having that right by declaring that only soldiers have a right to bare arms.You can't take away something that wasn't there in the first place, right?And yet, the action of thos legislatures (and the executive who signed it into law), are most certainly wrong, no? They were actually taking away your right.Before the revolution, one could not speak freely. Any criticism of the king was looked down upon (I honestly can't recall the punishments). Imagine that? Just how many conservatives would be in jail for calling Bill Clinton "Slick Willy"? How many liberals would be in jail for call Bush a despot?But because this right was not laid out before, it did not exist, right? So legislatures and executives could prevent you from speaking freely, and they would be in their power. And yet, the legislatures actually did take away your rights.The better position is to assume that there is no limit to rights. That is, there may be rights we have yet to think of. What we should limit is not rights, but the government's power.Instead, we have the government limiting people's rights and aggrandizing its own. It's not just in marriage. It's in our political and civic freedoms. The Patriot Act, for example, is one of the most egregious abuses of power in the rights that it limits or takes away.

Actually, my argument is not a strawman. Your argument against the validity of the 14th amendment is that the southern states were forced to accept it, and thus the 3/4 of state legislatures required to pass it was never legally reached. So were the 13th and 15th amendments. If you have any consistency at all, I would expect you to argue that those two amendments as well don't have any validity. Oh, you did, actually.For your convenience, this is what you said in an earlier post:

quote:

---

It was a fake puppet government, created by the north. The amendments and laws passed between Presidents Lincoln and Hayes, are not representative of how the southern constituents were. If you cant see the BS then you re blind or you are not looking.

---

Notice the plural "amendments". The amendments passed by Johnson and Grant were the 13th, 14th, and 15th. Thus, the 13th, 14th, and 15th are not valid amendments to the constitution by your argument.A strawman is misrepresenting your opponents argument and then debunking it. I fail to see how pointing out that you should be opposed to the 13th and 15th amendments due to your opposition to the 14th is a strawman of your argument, especially given your plural use of "amendments". Unless that was a typo, in which case you are simply being inconsistent with your application of validity. The great thing about the internet is that you can generally find these famous historical documents. Here's the magna carta:
Internet History Sourcebooks Project
Now tell me, which clause garauntees the right to beae arms? You won't find it. You will find a clause on habeus corpus, though.However, up until the English Bill of Rights of 1689, bearing arms was actually required. Subjects had to buy weapons. This was seen as a duty, not a right. The EBoR says this:

quote:

---

That the subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law

---

So it is not a universal right, nor is it unalienable. Further, it is potentially restrictive--"as allowed by law", so parliament could very well declare that protestants could only buy swords, but not rifles. Further explanation of this right is that it is only for when society and law cannot detain oppression. And given the religious discrimination, it could be more accurate to call this a privilege of being a british citizen.It was really only with the American revolution that the right to bear arms was considered fundamental, universal, inalienable. Ah yes. You can speak freely, in parliament. This idea is connected to parliamentary privilege. That is, proceedings in the parliament cannot be questioned by any body outside of the parliament (thus excluding the courts). The american right to free speach is really quite different. It is, again, a universal freedom, something the EBoR did not recognize. There is a great differene from allowing a MP to speak freely within the legislative chamber and the tavernmaster in his tavern.Now then, the biggest difference between the EBoR and ECL, and the USBoR and constitution, is that the EBoR is granting rights to specific people (much like the magna carta, which really only applied to nobility). Further, these can be seen more properly in the light of being privileges, as the idea that all power emanated through the king was still around (the idea of the social contract was partially created as a method by which to justify deposing Charles I, and Hobbes, unlike Locke, thought that once created, the people did not have the right to depose the government, which would mean the EBoR is a gift of rights (privileges) to the people from the monarch). The US revolution and constitution turned this upside down. Power belonged to the people, and government was accorded rights and power from the people. The Bill of Rights then is further protection.Conincidentally, the Magna Carta is actually a good document to support what I was talking about. It is an affirmation of noble rights within the Kingdom of England and a restriction of the powers of the king. What this means is that prior to its adoption, the king did not exactly think that trial by jury of peers or habeus corpus were rights. True, Henry II did issue a few primitive writs and set up a primitive trail by jury system, but it is evident that the nobles who forced King John to sign the charter late into his realm considered these to be their rights. As they had not been formally tabulated, by your argument, any restriction of habeus corpus and trial by jury would not be the removal of a right, because the rights did not exist.The argument against your claim, that you cannot take away a right that never existed, still stands. It is better to assume that there are inumerable rights, not all of which have been thought of or discerned, and so any limitation on the collective power and rights of the people is dangerous and must be thought through very carefully (especially given our penchant for precedent). Further, you can take away rights that "never existed", as is clearly shown by laws of discrimination. Who would have thought that blacks and whites have a right to marry each other in the early 1800s? Hell, you would have thought that blacks had the right to vote? (yes, a few people did, but the laws generally don't show this).Edited by kuresu, : added paragraph on magna carta
edited difference between EBoR and US C & BoREdited by kuresu, : clarification of "strawman argument". added quote from earlier post. fixed some spelling errors.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

Well, it seems that I* was right. This poll report:
http://news.yahoo.com/...81204/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_pollHas some interesting numbers.

• 56% of people over 55 voted yes on prop 8
• 57% of all non-whites voted yes {30% of California}
• 85% of evangelicals
• 66% of protestants {33%}
• 60% of Roman Catholics {31%}
• 69% of those who did not attend college
• 63% of people making less than $40,000/year
• 61% of latinos {36%-some are counted in the "white" category}

Pulled from wiki on California Demographics. There was no information on percentages of people above 55, non-college attending, and <$40,000/year income.Here is a pdf from the poll's website showing the full breakdown:
http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/jtf/JTF_Prop8JTF.pdf.*I am not the one making the argument, but rather, agree with it, and am just reporting the data behind the conclusion that race was not the determining factor, but rather religion and age, and apparently income, were.

You have brought up a grand total of two sources (magna carta and EBoR) to support your claims. You have provided no links. You certainly haven't presented yourself with comport the whole time (the "history major", compspeak "to elite for you", and "quit acting like a five year old" jabs leap to mind).Isn't there something in the bible about not casting the first stone unless your slate is clean?

damn those activist judges creating new rights! How dare they overturn the established order of bigotry!Okay, so what's the bet that Florida will by the next state election try to push through a revision or amendment to the constitution banning homosexuals from adopting?Of course, two years from now we may have something else a little more important to worry about. "It's the economy, stupid". Not that this will stop them, but?

By the same logic you cannot accept the 13th and 15th amendment to the US constitution. So do you think those two other amendments are invalid? If they are valid, what about them is different from the 14th?Remember, your beef is that the federal government essentially forced the southern states to ratify the 14th. The federal government used the same methods to have the southern states ratify the 13th and 15th. If there is something special about the 14th for you to not accept it as valid but think the other two are, you have not brought forth that argument. Since you have not, I have no choice but to accept that your aversion to the 14th is rather immature and petulant.

Actually, you'll find that I'm generally serious in debate. This is a debate. Though in my case, my posts do tend to be a first draft of the debate, so they are not quite as good as they could be. Admittedly, not much. Other than your unwarranted (in my opinion) rant against FO. You accuse him of doing things he has not done, so you are casting the first stone. Ironically, you have done the very things you accused him off. See, in academia, you have to actually reference your arguments. You state that Loving v. Virginia has nothing to do with prop 8. Great. Where's your support? So far, all you've said is that it doesn't have any relation, all you've done is assert your position. Links are to substantiate arguments and allow others to follow your line of evidence. Thus, I link to the magna carta so that others can check that it says what I think it says. True, they could look it up, but since I'm making the argument, I should give them the directions. Common knowledge does not need to be referenced.In an earlier version of the post you made, I believe you mentioned that you also did not post links as you thought they were a form of argument by authority. Argument from authority is when you bring in an authoritative source (say, Gould on punctuated equilibrium), and use the source as a method to invalidate criticism. That is, the source is infallible, it is right because it is an expert. This is different from quoting the source as a support for your argument. It just might be that the source is actually right, but the truth of the source is not dependent upon its authority. Arguing that punctuated equilibrium is right because Gould said it is an argument by authority. Arguing that punctuated equilibrium is right by referencing the argument for it that Gould made is not an argument by authority. The former is closed to critique, the latter is not.We also do not argue solely by link.That you think this cite is extremely casual is perhaps part of the problem. I daresay there is much that is extremely casual. Then again, one need only look toward razd, anglagard, brian, cavediver, son goku, coyote, bluejay, roxrkool, and numerous others who are either experts in their field, working towards becoming an expert, or have filed impressive arguments reliant upon a large amount of coherent information, to see that this site also has some very non-casual threads and messages. And from the creationist side of the debate, some very hard to counter threads and posts.Further, had you taken the time to check your sources (namely the great charter and the EBoR), you would have found that they did not support your arguments in the manner you thought they did. Esp. the claim that the right to bear arms comes from the magna carta. So who exactly is the one being cavalier in their arguments and supporting evidence? Turn the other cheek? Could have sworn Jesus said that one as well. And I'm pretty sure you launched some jabs (not necessarily ad hominems, because I'm not certain you meant them like that) towards me that were unprovoked. There is a written record for all to see and judge us by.

Okay, so an amendment that prohibits discrimination based on race as regards voting is bogus? So an amendment protecting voting rights is bogus? My guess than is that the 19th is also bogus (though not because it wasn't forced upon states, but because it too protects voting rights, this time based on sex).Would this mean that things such as the poll tax and literacy tests, which were designed to prevent blacks from voting, were not unconstitutional? That jim crow laws were entirely legal and valid? The latter part of this statement is false. The EP declared that slaves in territories still in rebellion were freed. States in the south that were under union control were not in rebellion, and thus slavery persisted. Thus, slavery was not abolished in Tennessee. Further, there was a very real fear that without the amendment, the EP and the "realities on the ground" would not hold and slavery would persist. I would argue that the 13th actually had a tremendous impact, as it gave abolishment of slavery a far firmer footing than a war act. Well, it's not exactly thread jacking. I'm trying to figure out how your argument against the 14th's validity stands. Since your argument against the 14th is key to your argument against its use in cases such as Roe v. Wade and Loving v. Virginia and presumably a future gay marriage case, demonstrating how your argument against the 14ths validity is invalid is perfectly reasonable within this thread.Further, if I can show that your argument against the validity of the 14th applies to other amendments (which, by your own admission, it does), then I can show that you don't really have a valid argument, as you feel that amendments that guarantee rights are bogus. The 14th and 15th guarantee rights. They bestow the greatest protection available, along with eternal vigilance, to those rights. The Bill of Rights does the same thing. Of course, you don't think those are bogus (especially, the 2nd, right?).So my final guess is that the 15th isn't a bogus amendment either. Just the 14th. So why? Forced ratification can't be it. Is it the submission of state government to the federal?By the way, I did not say you were immature and petulant, just your aversion to the 14th. That is, I insulted your position, not you. And before you claim ad hominem, the insult is not the basis of my argument.

No, it's not. But given that we are debating on a science board (in general), it's not a bad thing to observe some of academia's rules. Even if this wasn't a science board, it would still be good to cite sources for evidence that proves or disproves a claim. It's just good debating. I figured you would miss the point. The paragraph you quote is not an argument by authority. Rather, it was to let you know that this site is casual and not casual. As to credentials, I would ask them myself. But that's my understanding from what they've previously said. Now then, that does not mean what they say is right (and I never claimed that), but that they are great sources in those topics. When you are debating the validity of radiometric dating (or specifically carbon-14, as that's what coyote does), he does have a better understanding of why it is valid and how creationist arguments against it are bunk. They still have to provide evidence to back up their argument, and I have yet to see any of them claim "I'm right because I'm an expert".I also never suggested piggybacking off of the experts. You have a gift for putting words in my mouth. Well, just trying to remind you of a certain code of conduct suggested in the bible that you seem intent on breaking. The only relevance it has is to your post to FO accusing him of things he hasn't done (and some of which you had!). Well, I read your argument. And your argument, to me, would make three amendments bogus. You think two are, because the 13th merely reflected the new situation on the ground. The rest of my post regarding that is largely just working out some of the potential consequences of thinking the 15th is bogus. One is that you think that an amendment protecting the rights of all men to vote, regardless of race, is bogus. Continuing down that line, the 19th amendment could be bogus because it protects the right of everyone over 21 to vote, regardless of sex, and that the 26th amendment, which protects the rights of anyone over 18 to vote, is bogus.Which naturally does not make sense. How could an amendment that protects rights be bogus? Which means we're back to your original argument, that the southern states wree forced to ratify and therefore the amendment is bogus. Which then means that the 13th is bogus. Because it's ratification was forced on the southern states. Regardless of confirming the situation on the ground.Introducing your explanation why the 13th is not bogus but the 15th still is leads to a disturbing point of view. So perhaps you have a reason why the 15th is not bogus? Because surely you wouldn't say that an amendment protecting the fundamental rights of a people is bogus? If you do, what would stop someone from suggesting the 2nd is bogus? What about the 5th? The 8th? Do you see the problem with claiming that the 15th (and indeed, the 14th) is bogus?There is plenty more for you to tell me. I've read your arguments. These are the conclusions I've drawn. Yes, you are making quite the fool of yourself. I highly doubt subbie is pissed off over your post (there are very few of us who are that emotionally invested in this board). As to meaningful discussion, you haven't exactly been bringing your "a-game" to the board, which may be connected with your thought that a five minute google is all you need do. Still, you never really challenged subbie's points, effectively stating "nu-uh!". You have yet to show how Loving v. VA does not apply to prop 8 in a manner that stands up to scrutiny. Subbie showed how it does. By showing how Loving v. VA states that marriage is a fundamental right. Since marriage is a fundamental right, how can you take it away from homosexuals? So far, your counter is that Loving v. VA has to deal with inter-racial, not same-sex, and therefore does not apply. This evades the issue of the fundamental right to marry. Perhaps you could argue how Loving v. VA does not guarantee the fundamental right to marry?