Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 118

Thread: WARNING! Christian rights been removed

  1. #81

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post

    2. I'm decrying the fact that laws denying the difference between the sexes also set the precedent for denying that sexual assault exists. That defense hasn't been tried yet afaik, but the precedent is there.
    I don't see how that could become a precedent. Sexual assault is still sexual assault even between members of the same sex. It's not dependent on some legal difference between the sexes. But...



    Point being absolute legal equality and fungibility is a denial of dimorphism. If the law has decided it can't recognize the difference in the most basic, fundamental function of that dimorphism, then it can't recognize it in the more trivial matters.
    This is a good, hypothetical point that addresses our current legal confusion over gender and sexuality. I agree with you here, but I don't want to get into some technical legal argument with anyone over precisely what current law can or can't recognize, as if this is a simple black and white matter. Our law makers have the responsibility of writing these complex laws and they are just as confused as we are. People on both sides of this issue only agree on one thing: it's the people on the other side who are confused.

  2. #82
    Maxx

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Traemo View Post
    Those are both expected and, in so far as nature can be, intentional
    Again, sex/gender isn't basic biology but actually quite advanced biology
    Do genetic accidents happen? Yes. Intentional? On whose part? God's? Darwin's? If recognizing sex and gender required an advanced degree, none of us would be here, nor would most of the earth's vertebrate population. Sure, the cellular level details and mechanisms are complex and wonderful, but before Quantum theory, even before Newton, we still managed to cling to the earths surface without floating away.

    You cited XO, often manifested as Turner's syndrome. A cousin had it. Like the rumpled fender in my example, not normal, Expected? Maybe in her case. Mom and Dad smoked and drank heavily, her siblings all had a variety of problems. Doesn't apply to any discussion of the difference between men and women.




    As described, this doesn't actually meet the requirements in any jurisdiction I'm aware of for Common Law Spouse. Assuming it did, then this might be an appropriate judgement.
    Appellate Judge Maxx: " Sorry counselor, in this and previous hypotheticals, your arguments for same sex marriage have removed sex, sex acts, gender and reproduction from consideration as criteria in determining "living as man and wife". You've even removed the "man and wife" part. All that remains is love. Love is an abstract concept not defined by law, and likely undefinable in legal terms. This court is loath to attempt such a definition. Fortunately, we don't have to. We can take the defendant at his word. His declaration of love contained no conditions, so we have unconditional love. Judgement in favor of the plaintiff upheld. "

  3. #83

    Default

    It's not just Love, it's also consent which is why many of those crimes would still be crimes because if someone says no and sex is forced, that is rape no matter what.

    And laws applying to would be "Husbands/Wives", or even simply unmarried partners that are seriously in love with each other, you would have to prove the commitment of one person to their partner for common law spouse lawsuits, and a text message in and of itself would never be able to prove such commitment.

  4. #84

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    You cited XO, often manifested as Turner's syndrome.
    If it occurs in humans, yes; however based on context (that you clearly didn't grasp) we weren't actually looking at human genotypes. Again, both listed genotypes are common, expected, and not considered abnormal when expressed in the corresponding individuals. That you missed this just lends more credence to my contention that you in fact don't have a strong grasp on anything past elementary school biology.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Appellate Judge Maxx: " Sorry counselor, in this and previous hypotheticals, your arguments for same sex marriage have removed sex, sex acts, gender and reproduction from consideration as criteria in determining "living as man and wife". You've even removed the "man and wife" part. All that remains is love. Love is an abstract concept not defined by law, and likely undefinable in legal terms. This court is loath to attempt such a definition. Fortunately, we don't have to. We can take the defendant at his word. His declaration of love contained no conditions, so we have unconditional love. Judgement in favor of the plaintiff upheld. "
    Even if you argue for Common Law Marriage in this case, the case still fails to meet all required criteria. Additionally, in the 10 states and District that still recognize Common Law Marriage, "man and wife" does not appear in any of the relevant statutes. On redirect, the facts of the case do not bear out meeting ANY of the requirements.
    Once again, you continue to make claims, assertions, and arguments without providing any factual or logical basis. Implicit nonsense remains nonsense; your repeated refusal to provide support for your drivel suggests you're well aware there is no support.

    tldr; Maxx appears know only basic biology; the courts regard marriage as a legal contract, Maxx doesn't understand law; Maxx can't support his ridiculous claims and is aware of this fact

  5. #85
    Maxx

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Traemo View Post
    If it occurs in humans, yes; however based on context (that you clearly didn't grasp) we weren't actually looking at human genotypes. Again, both listed genotypes are common, expected, and not considered abnormal when expressed in the corresponding individuals. That you missed this just lends more credence to my contention that you in fact don't have a strong grasp on anything past elementary school biology.
    What?!??



    Even if you argue for Common Law Marriage in this case, the case still fails to meet all required criteria. Additionally, in the 10 states and District that still recognize Common Law Marriage, "man and wife" does not appear in any of the relevant statutes. On redirect, the facts of the case do not bear out meeting ANY of the requirements.
    Once again, you continue to make claims, assertions, and arguments without providing any factual or logical basis. Implicit nonsense remains nonsense; your repeated refusal to provide support for your drivel suggests you're well aware there is no support.
    Yep. Marriage IS a contract formalizing a mating ritual. It was never necessary to specify man and woman or husband and wife because everybody on the frikkin planet knew what it meant. Human species isn't specified either....

    Edit: ICYMI, I've been taking some liberties in pointing out contradictions and paradoxes involved in removing sex and gender from the concept of marriage. I could talk legalese if I wanted to. It would be boring and would miss the point. It's not about what the law says now, but where the precedents could take us. The law isn't about kumbaya, and when you set a precedent you have no idea where it will go after that. Devious, self-serving and deceptive are at least as likely as comforting and inclusive if not more so. "gay rights! equality! inheritance! tax breaks! hospital visitation!" I remember all the arguments.

    My life would be significantly less complicated right now, and my financial situation considerably improved if I married my widowed 90 year old mother. Go ahead and try to deny that I love her.... Yeah, I'm already married, so what? Is that any weirder than two guys getting married? I don't think we're even allowed to say 'weird' any more. Incest? Clearly she's not going to get pregnant. Truth be told, consummation might've happened already if I didn't sleep with one eye open while I was down there. Her mind is far enough gone and I look enough like my late father that she made moves a couple of times. Consent? In the eyes of the law she is still competent. We're working on that.


    - - - Updated - - -



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    I don't see how that could become a precedent. Sexual assault is still sexual assault even between members of the same sex. It's not dependent on some legal difference between the sexes. But...
    One more time... If sex is meaningless in the legal context, how can there be sexual assault? We're not at that point yet, but that's the logical endpoint of LGBT doctrine.



    This is a good, hypothetical point that addresses our current legal confusion over gender and sexuality. I agree with you here, but I don't want to get into some technical legal argument with anyone over precisely what current law can or can't recognize, as if this is a simple black and white matter. Our law makers have the responsibility of writing these complex laws and they are just as confused as we are. People on both sides of this issue only agree on one thing: it's the people on the other side who are confused.
    Well, yes. To bring it back around to the original topic....

    I'm not confused. Are you?

    Any confusion about male and female is manufactured. The Church of LGBT requires you to believe that gender is some vague poorly defined thing.

    So it seems at the moment... Government is trending toward favoring one religion over another.
    Last edited by Maxx; 1 Week Ago at 12:40.

  6. #86

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx
    One more time... If sex is meaningless in the legal context, how can there be sexual assault? We're not at that point yet, but that's the logical endpoint of LGBT doctrine.
    I'm trying to agree with you on some points but you don't make it easy.

    Americans are obsessed with sex so, from a legal standpoint, it won't become meaningless in the foreseeable future. Sexual assault will always be linked to motivation, patterns of behavior, and certain body parts, regardless of the legal definitions of gender or sex. I don't see anything to worry about here.


    Well, yes. To bring it back around to the original topic....
    I'm not confused. Are you?

    Any confusion about male and female is manufactured. The Church of LGBT requires you to believe that gender is some vague poorly defined thing.

    So it seems at the moment... Government is trending toward favoring one religion over another.
    Putting that kind of religious slant on it is only adding to the confusion. I'm sure the LGBT 'community' will claim its demands are based on constitutional rights and/or science rather than religion. There is no reason to believe these people are united by any kind of religious belief. There are people who object to those demands for religious reasons, but we are a secular nation and will eventually find a solution that the majority in congress will have decided was a fair and practical compromise. If that solution has too much of a religious odor to it, it won't survive a Supreme Court challenge. Again, I don't see anything to worry about here. It's just a distraction that isn't helping the discussion.

    I share your concern over the definition of "gender". The real issue we have to decide, as I see it, is how much the legal distinction between male and female should be based on a person's anatomy and how much should be based on a person's feelings or beliefs. In the past it was 100% anatomy, but some people are now challenging that. Because of the political power behind this movement we are obligated to determine if this challenge has any merit.

    And regarding same sex marriage: we really dropped the ball on that one. Such a significant change to the commonly accepted legal purpose of marriage immediately brings up questions: Should the government remain in the marriage business? ...and, if so, for what purpose? We never adequately answered those questions.

  7. #87

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Marriage IS a contract formalizing a mating ritual.It was never necessary to specify man and woman or husband and wife because everybody on the frikkin planet knew what it meant.
    If this is true, then we should exclude all women past menopause and anyone infertile from marriage, and ban the possession of any form of birth control to married persons. After all, if marriage is solely about reproduction, then all of this is just logical extension.

    On the other hand, none of that matters if one accepts that marriage is and has been a formalization of a relationship that exists to grant explicit rights and privileges. It wasn't precisely common, but there are historical records showing the local equivalents of same sex marriage, so no "everybody" didn't treat your implicit restriction as true.


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Human species isn't specified either....
    Should have been pretty clear since humans lack any form of Z/W chromosomes - then again, recognizing this fact requires knowledge of biology, physiology, embryology beyond elementary school level. Something I've repeatedly pointed out, though you seem determined to deny this fact.


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Edit: ICYMI, I've been taking some liberties in pointing out contradictions and paradoxes involved in removing sex and gender from the concept of marriage.
    A few things here:
    1) You're consistently conflating two completely separate concepts, without showing how they're inseparable
    2) We've repeatedly requested that you make your argument for the aforementioned link


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    I could talk legalese if I wanted to. It would be boring and would miss the point.
    No, I don't think you could present legal arguments for your positions. Regardless, it wouldn't be "missing the point" unless your legal arguments are irrelevant to the current conversation.


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    It's not about what the law says now, but where the precedents could take us. The law isn't about kumbaya, and when you set a precedent you have no idea where it will go after that. Devious, self-serving and deceptive are at least as likely as comforting and inclusive if not more so. "gay rights! equality! inheritance! tax breaks! hospital visitation!" I remember all the arguments.
    As if there aren't numerous, documented instances of "traditional" marriages being used explicitly for underhanded, devious, deceptive, and/or fraudulent purposes.


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    My life would be significantly less complicated right now, and my financial situation considerably improved if I married my widowed 90 year old mother. Go ahead and try to deny that I love her.... Yeah, I'm already married, so what? Is that any weirder than two guys getting married? I don't think we're even allowed to say 'weird' any more. Incest? Clearly she's not going to get pregnant.
    Well, then by your definition, the lack of any possible offspring should preclude this "marriage".
    In the real world, existing statutes regarding bigamy and acceptable degrees of consanguinity prevent this from happening.


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Truth be told, consummation might've happened already if I didn't sleep with one eye open while I was down there. Her mind is far enough gone and I look enough like my late father that she made moves a couple of times. Consent? In the eyes of the law she is still competent. We're working on that.
    Clearly you're not consenting, so, that's de jure assault. And if you are, malum prohibitum applies, though I'd argue for malum in se.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    One more time... If sex is meaningless in the legal context, how can there be sexual assault? We're not at that point yet, but that's the logical endpoint of LGBT doctrine.
    Because once again, the legal definitions for crimes such as rape and sexual assault on consent and deprivation of agency. They do not, in fact, even mention penises or vaginas, nor require that one of each be present for the offenses to occur. The fact you're apparently incapable of separating gender from copulation, even conceptually, suggests that maybe the courts should consider your competence, as well.


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    I'm not confused. Are you?
    You're only not confused because you clearly don't understand what's being discussed.


    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Any confusion about male and female is manufactured. The Church of LGBT requires you to believe that gender is some vague poorly defined thing.
    Again, if male and female are so simple and straightforward to define, provide those definitions.
    Let's go one further, if male and female are so easy, what are the appropriate gender assignments for individuals with a genotype of ZW and XXY?



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    Sexual assault will always be linked to motivation, patterns of behavior, and certain body parts, regardless of the legal definitions of gender or sex.
    As motivation, yes, most such crimes are committed as an expression of power, not lust. That much is true; that the statutes reference penises or vaginas, not true.


    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    I'm sure the LGBT 'community' will claim its demands are based on constitutional rights and/or science rather than religion. There is no reason to believe these people are united by any kind of religious belief.
    True statement, demonstrably there are LGBT advocates from multiple different religious beliefs. And the demands are based on current science as applied to legal precedents regarding equality.

    There are people who object to those demands for religious reasons, . . . [/quote] which are prima facie invalid in American jurisprudence


    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    I share your concern over the definition of "gender". The real issue we have to decide, as I see it, is how much the legal distinction between male and female should be based on a person's anatomy and how much should be based on a person's feelings or beliefs. In the past it was 100% anatomy, but some people are now challenging that.
    This is largely because science has shown that such classifications and distinctions are frequently incorrect. Further, no one has yet spoken to how to deal with borderline cases.


    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    Because of the political power behind this movement we are obligated to determine if this challenge has any merit.
    This is how change happens - your arguments against LGBT rights are the same arguments that were forwarded in support of Jim Crow and the like.


    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    And regarding same sex marriage: we really dropped the ball on that one. Such a significant change to the commonly accepted legal purpose of marriage immediately brings up questions: Should the government remain in the marriage business? ...and, if so, for what purpose? We never adequately answered those questions.
    Legally, marriage was a contract granting explicit and inalienable rights. That definition hasn't actually changed. If the Government doesn't monitor such contracts, who would?
    Last edited by Traemo; 1 Week Ago at 16:11. Reason: respond to additional comments

  8. #88
    Maxx

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Drifter View Post
    Putting that kind of religious slant on it is only adding to the confusion. I'm sure the LGBT 'community' will claim its demands are based on constitutional rights and/or science rather than religion. There is no reason to believe these people are united by any kind of religious belief. There are people who object to those demands for religious reasons, but we are a secular nation and will eventually find a solution that the majority in congress will have decided was a fair and practical compromise. If that solution has too much of a religious odor to it, it won't survive a Supreme Court challenge. Again, I don't see anything to worry about here. It's just a distraction that isn't helping the discussion.
    It's not a religion in the traditional sense, but if you look at the noise and demands being made in the form of codified doctrine regarding gender fluidity, 'attractions', etc. it sure walks and quacks like a duck. Anyone like me suggesting that perhaps their re-definitions don't fit reality is blasted as a heretic (Ok.. racist/bigot/homophobe). Not much different than atheists vs. Christians vs. Muslims vs. devotees of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Am I a distraction, or an observer asking you to look at your own behavior and beliefs objectively?

    Edit: Something to think about - LGBT might do better to declare themselves a religion. Maybe with a re-incarnation twist to it. Something along the lines of "We are spirits put in flesh not of our choosing, and not always matching what we were the last time around, challenged to make the best of it. All trials and suffering offered to the greater glory of our Lord and Saviour Freddie Mercury". It's not gay if you were the other sex in a past life, nor is it really transgender if you go that way. First amendment, kids. Can't be challenged.




    I share your concern over the definition of "gender". The real issue we have to decide, as I see it, is how much the legal distinction between male and female should be based on a person's anatomy and how much should be based on a person's feelings or beliefs. In the past it was 100% anatomy, but some people are now challenging that. Because of the political power behind this movement we are obligated to determine if this challenge has any merit.
    I'll concede that people are challenging that.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	mckayla-maroney-not-impressed-face.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	28.3 KB 
ID:	30923

    I remain unimpressed. People believe in the power of crystals and copper threads in their support socks too.



    And regarding same sex marriage: we really dropped the ball on that one. Such a significant change to the commonly accepted legal purpose of marriage immediately brings up questions: Should the government remain in the marriage business? ...and, if so, for what purpose? We never adequately answered those questions.
    There's an understatement. A lot of the arguments I heard were more about tax breaks and inheritance and hospital visitation. Trying to latch onto things that had nothing to do with marriage or the underlying function of mating. I'd actually have a good laugh if government did get out of the marriage business. It wouldn't change anything for men and women getting together for the 500 million year old reason, and it wouldn't change anything for Christians. Government would get a small windfall from taxes, but if they didn't tax that, they'd raise taxes on something else anyway. It would screw up a lot of LGBT fantasies though.
    Last edited by Maxx; 1 Week Ago at 22:28.

  9. #89

    Default

    I love how Maxx correlates loose definition of gender in terms of modern science and Psychology to equating that Sex/Gender are no longer relevant and Gender cant be defined; even though Sexual Crime laws are based on consent and so the 2 can never be correlated.

    What I find Bizzare is how it has gotten to the point where you cant call some people He or She and they seem to think its "an act of violence", yet somehow "not a crime", if you use the wrong pronouns.

    I'm supportive of the whole spectrum until you go so far into the deep end all it does is make things hard for the people trying to show that they aren't against the LGTBQ community because they complicated things once it got past he or she.

    If a guy wants to be a girl or vice versa, I can support that and call them whatever they wanna be called, but this whole "call me they/them" or worse yet "I was meant to be a wolf" is beyond me.

  10. #90

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Edit: ICYMI, I've been taking some liberties in pointing out contradictions and paradoxes involved in removing sex and gender from the concept of marriage. I could talk legalese if I wanted to. It would be boring and would miss the point. It's not about what the law says now, but where the precedents could take us. The law isn't about kumbaya, and when you set a precedent you have no idea where it will go after that. Devious, self-serving and deceptive are at least as likely as comforting and inclusive if not more so. "gay rights! equality! inheritance! tax breaks! hospital visitation!" I remember all the arguments.
    What contradictions and paradoxes? You haven't explained anything.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    My life would be significantly less complicated right now, and my financial situation considerably improved if I married my widowed 90 year old mother. Go ahead and try to deny that I love her.... Yeah, I'm already married, so what? Is that any weirder than two guys getting married?
    Yes.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    One more time... If sex is meaningless in the legal context, how can there be sexual assault? We're not at that point yet, but that's the logical endpoint of LGBT doctrine.
    Why would sex be "meaningless in the legal context"? You're not making any sense. :-/



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    Any confusion about male and female is manufactured. The Church of LGBT requires you to believe that gender is some vague poorly defined thing.
    You're mixing up gay rights with transgender rights.

    And what is the point of you labelling other people's gender/sex to avoid "confusion"? Why do you care? Homosexuality has always existed in human societies, and has been observed countless times in all sorts of other mammals. Gay marriage isn't something new and unheard of.

    What the hell do I have to fear from gay marriage?! If anything, I think the tax relief afforded to couples, and the tendency of heterosexual couples to have children, and be a drain on the health and education services is something to worry about. Gay marriage isn't.



    Quote Originally Posted by Maxx View Post
    So it seems at the moment... Government is trending toward favoring one religion over another.
    How could natural human emotions like "love" be considered a religion?!

    You haven't explained why homosexual coupling should be treated any differently to heterosexual coupling. Where's the harm? Why use politics and outdated religious dogma to persecute homosexuality?

Similar Threads

  1. Human Rights
    By Drifter in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 18-Nov-2014, 14:42
  2. Men's Rights Activism
    By Geno in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 19-Aug-2012, 04:22
  3. The Rights of Prisoners
    By DylanK in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 26-Jun-2012, 16:48
  4. Know your rights
    By d4l in forum Mature Topics
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 24-Jun-2009, 04:38

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.