« Previous 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 104 Next »

This thread is locked

Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

#552 Aug 11 2010 at 2:37 PM Rating: Good

Timelordwho

View User Forum

Unplanned

13,240 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Timelordwho wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

As it currently stands, only spouses have the right to refuse to testify against one another. There are people fighting to extend that to children as well. "Vested interest" seems a bit subjective. If my boss is cooking the books, but he's paying my paycheck, then I have a vested interest in not testifying against him. I don't think that should be allowed.

If you have knowledge of said book cooking, and you are managing accounts, then you could be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit fraud, So you have two options, either seek immunity and testify, or plead the 5th, with the knowledge that it could come back on to you. If you weren't complicit, you should still have the capacity to not be compelled to produce evidence. The goal here is to eliminate self indictment or perjury by forcing witnesses to be willing participants, and thus produce a 'cleaner' justice system.

I can't honestly be bothered to really argue this point much, since if my husband committed a murder and I was aware of it, I would willingly testify.

But everything else stands, dammit. Smiley: tongue

Would you testify against him for a white collar crime, at risk of all the associated complications it would bring on your family, etc, etc?

Not talking murder, grand theft auto, here etc. More like backdating options a day or two or something. Still a pretty serious crime, but not as overtly so.

____________________________

Just as Planned.

#553 Aug 11 2010 at 2:41 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Timelordwho wrote:

Would you testify against him for a white collar crime, at risk of all the associated complications it would bring on your family, etc, etc?

Not talking murder, grand theft auto, here etc. More like backdating options a day or two or something. Still a pretty serious crime, but not as overtly so.

Uh, maybe? I'm not sure what that is, honestly.

#554 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 2:44 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Not at all, read above. I clearly said that I differentiated forcing someone's views on somebody vs actions.

#555 Aug 11 2010 at 2:48 PM Rating: Good

Timelordwho

View User Forum

Unplanned

13,240 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Timelordwho wrote:

Would you testify against him for a white collar crime, at risk of all the associated complications it would bring on your family, etc, etc?

Not talking murder, grand theft auto, here etc. More like backdating options a day or two or something. Still a pretty serious crime, but not as overtly so.

Uh, maybe? I'm not sure what that is, honestly.

It means writing a different date on a form than the correct date. It's used to make more money when selling stock, as well as allowing a company more in the way of write-offs. It's also technically stealing from shareholders/taxpayers.

____________________________

Just as Planned.

#556 Aug 11 2010 at 2:49 PM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Samira wrote:

Yeah, I wouldn't like to see the Fifth Amendment abridged to include "would tend to incriminate me, or to be contrary to my interests."

You didn't answer my question or I missed it one..

If all of the benefits are gone from a marriage with no children involved, what is the purpose of the marriage?

#557 Aug 11 2010 at 2:54 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

The "purpose" of the marriage is the same as it was for centuries before there were any church/government benefits and sanctions: to declare two lives joined. It's a social entity. Granted, at times this has been as much about property and legitimacy as romance; but that fails to explain why poor people married, for example, or why people marry in communist societies. It fills an emotional need and a social niche.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#558 Aug 11 2010 at 3:04 PM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

samira wrote:

The "purpose" of the marriage is the same as it was for centuries before there were any church/government benefits and sanctions: to declare two lives joined. It's a social entity. Granted, at times this has been as much about property and legitimacy as romance; but that fails to explain why poor people married, for example, or why people marry in communist societies. It fills an emotional need and a social niche.

I understand your point, but I just don't see the point of marriages if there aren't any changes involved in the relationship. If it's really about love, I would argue that would be the ultimate testimony of love, staying together where the government isn't involved. Think about how many people stayed together just because they were married and didn't want to go through the whole divorce thing, but the romance was gone.

#559 Aug 11 2010 at 3:10 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Belkira wrote:

You're going to have to explain that one a little better, then.

I mean exactly what you mean. By the government sending that message out, I see that as the government pushing their views on the public, because those laws are from their views and it effects everyone. At the same time, they are not forcing anyone to change their belief, just abide by the rule. That's how people can still have a same sex relationship, but not get married. That's how people can make up their own religion, but not be recognized by the government.

The "government" doesn't have views. It's not a person able to form ideas on what is moral or immoral. By making something legal, they are not pushing anything on anyone. Those laws do not affect anyone. The government made abortion legal. That doesn't stop people from believing it's wrong. It also doesn't force anyone to have an abortion that doesn't want one.

This is one of the more idiotic arguments I believe I have ever heard you make.

Almalieque wrote:

Belkira wrote:

Hey, you're the one who seemed to be suggesting that, if the government condones same-sex marriage then that in some way forces people to change their views on the subject.

Not at all, read above. I clearly said that I differentiated forcing someone's views on somebody vs actions.

In any case, was my inference correct or are you withdrawing that statement?

I don't see how the government making same-sex marriage legal pushes anything on anyone. You can not show me how that affects any individual who does not think that same-sex marriage is moral.

You can infer whatever you want from what I said, but you apparently missed the point. No, I am not withdrawing the statement. Religion will still be an authoritative voice that condemns homosexuality, and it will not go away. I am, of course, speaking mostly of Christians, since that is the largest religious voice in the United States.

#560 Aug 11 2010 at 3:14 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Timelordwho wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Timelordwho wrote:

Would you testify against him for a white collar crime, at risk of all the associated complications it would bring on your family, etc, etc?

Not talking murder, grand theft auto, here etc. More like backdating options a day or two or something. Still a pretty serious crime, but not as overtly so.

Uh, maybe? I'm not sure what that is, honestly.

It means writing a different date on a form than the correct date. It's used to make more money when selling stock, as well as allowing a company more in the way of write-offs. It's also technically stealing from shareholders/taxpayers.

I might. It would require that I live in a different world where my husband is involved in things like that and I am knowledgeable in it. I honestly can't answer that question.

I feel pretty strongly about not stealing from other people, though, and if I knew my husband was doing something like that, I would probably divorce him and notify the authorities. It might break my heart because I loved him, but in all honestly, the biggest hurt would be that he wasn't who I thought he was.

#561 Aug 11 2010 at 3:15 PM Rating: Good

Official Shrubbery Waterer

14,659 posts

Almalieque wrote:

samira wrote:

The "purpose" of the marriage is the same as it was for centuries before there were any church/government benefits and sanctions: to declare two lives joined. It's a social entity. Granted, at times this has been as much about property and legitimacy as romance; but that fails to explain why poor people married, for example, or why people marry in communist societies. It fills an emotional need and a social niche.

I understand your point, but I just don't see the point of marriages if there aren't any changes involved in the relationship. If it's really about love, I would argue that would be the ultimate testimony of love, staying together where the government isn't involved. Think about how many people stayed together just because they were married and didn't want to go through the whole divorce thing, but the romance was gone.

Forbidden fruit is the sweetest? Smiley: rolleyes

Smiley: rolleyes

____________________________

Jophiel wrote:

I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#562 Aug 11 2010 at 3:26 PM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Belkira wrote:

The "government" doesn't have views. It's not a person able to form ideas on what is moral or immoral. By making something legal, they are not pushing anything on anyone. Those laws do not affect anyone. The government made abortion legal. That doesn't stop people from believing it's wrong. It also doesn't force anyone to have an abortion that doesn't want one.

This is one of the more idiotic arguments I believe I have ever heard you make.

This isn't going anywhere...

I fail to see how either I'm explaining myself wrong or you failing to understand me...

In either case, this should end it.. I AM AGREEING WITH YOU.. leave out the details, because for one reason or another, its derailing the point that we agree.

What I'm trying to say, is exactly how I interpreted your post.

Belkira wrote:

I don't see how the government making same-sex marriage legal pushes anything on anyone. You can not show me how that affects any individual who does not think that same-sex marriage is moral.

Read above

Belkira wrote:

You can infer whatever you want from what I said, but you apparently missed the point

That's not my intention, I want to know exactly what you're thinking, hence why I use the word "infer" as opposed to claiming that you believe in something that I'm not sure about.

Quote:

No, I am not withdrawing the statement.Religion will still be an authoritative voice that condemns homosexuality, and it will not go away. I am, of course, speaking mostly of Christians, since that is the largest religious voice in the United States.

Ok, since you're not withdrawing your statement, does that mean you're either going to validate or rebut the inferences? Or will you just say "think as you please"?

#563 Aug 11 2010 at 3:28 PM Rating: Good

Timelordwho

View User Forum

Unplanned

13,240 posts

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Timelordwho wrote:

Belkira the Tulip wrote:

Timelordwho wrote:

Would you testify against him for a white collar crime, at risk of all the associated complications it would bring on your family, etc, etc?

Not talking murder, grand theft auto, here etc. More like backdating options a day or two or something. Still a pretty serious crime, but not as overtly so.

Uh, maybe? I'm not sure what that is, honestly.

It means writing a different date on a form than the correct date. It's used to make more money when selling stock, as well as allowing a company more in the way of write-offs. It's also technically stealing from shareholders/taxpayers.

I might. It would require that I live in a different world where my husband is involved in things like that and I am knowledgeable in it. I honestly can't answer that question.

I feel pretty strongly about not stealing from other people, though, and if I knew my husband was doing something like that, I would probably divorce him and notify the authorities. It might break my heart because I loved him, but in all honestly, the biggest hurt would be that he wasn't who I thought he was.

Fair enough. I'm only asking as a thought exercise, since based on my stats it's illegal, but also performed by roughly 20-30% of the time it's on the table, even before factoring out the people who don't know how.

____________________________

Just as Planned.

#564 Aug 11 2010 at 3:39 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Almalieque wrote:

This isn't going anywhere...

I fail to see how either I'm explaining myself wrong or you failing to understand me...

In either case, this should end it.. I AM AGREEING WITH YOU.. leave out the details, because for one reason or another, its derailing the point that we agree.

What I'm trying to say, is exactly how I interpreted your post.

I apologize. By reading "by sending that message the government is pushing their view," I didn't think we were in agreement.

Almalieque wrote:

Quote:

No, I am not withdrawing the statement.Religion will still be an authoritative voice that condemns homosexuality, and it will not go away. I am, of course, speaking mostly of Christians, since that is the largest religious voice in the United States.

Ok, since you're not withdrawing your statement, does that mean you're either going to validate or rebut the inferences? Or will you just say "think as you please"?

I suppose I'm going to explain my point. Since I thought you were saying that the government was going to "push their views" on people if they made same-sex legal ("the view" being that same-sex marriage is ok) I was simply offering another way that the "homosexuality is bad" view was still out there, so the people who felt that way will still be able to validate it to themselves and wouldn't be forced to change their minds. I was in no way saying that this is the only voice out there denouncing homosexuals, nor was I saying that everyone that hears this message from those religions accepts it.

#565 Aug 11 2010 at 3:41 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1649636418093

View User Forum

Sage

30,646 posts

Timelordwho wrote:

Fair enough. I'm only asking as a thought exercise, since based on my stats it's illegal, but also performed by roughly 20-30% of the time it's on the table, even before factoring out the people who don't know how.

That's incredibly sad, scary, and infuriating to me. Smiley: frown

#566 Aug 11 2010 at 4:04 PM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Belkira wrote:

I apologize. By reading "by sending that message the government is pushing their view," I didn't think we were in agreement.

I apolgize. By reading "Sure it does. Just because the government sends the new message that it's "ok," that doesn't mean that any individual is being forced to change their views.", I was sure that we were in agreement. I mean exactly what you just said. Either I used the wrong terminology afterward or you misunderstood me, either way, this statement is my exact point. So unless you disagree with that statement, then we agree..

Belkira wrote:

I suppose I'm going to explain my point. Since I thought you were saying that the government was going to "push their views" on people if they made same-sex legal ("the view" being that same-sex marriage is ok) I was simply offering another way that the "homosexuality is bad" view was still out there, so the people who felt that way will still be able to validate it to themselves and wouldn't be forced to change their minds. I was in no way saying that this is the only voice out there denouncing homosexuals, nor was I saying that everyone that hears this message from those religions accepts it.

ok, thank you..

#567 Aug 11 2010 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Belkira wrote:

You're going to have to explain that one a little better, then.

I mean exactly what you mean. By the government sending that message out, I see that as the government pushing their views on the public, because those laws are from their views and it effects everyone.

You see it wrong.

Quote:

At the same time, they are not forcing anyone to change their belief, just abide by the rule. That's how people can still have a same sex relationship, but not get married.

So what is your problem with two guys or two chicks getting married? I forget which inane position you take.

Quote:

That's how people can make up their own religion, but not be recognized by the government.

I wasn't aware the government recognized any religion.

#568 Aug 11 2010 at 4:18 PM Rating: Default

The All Knowing

10,265 posts

Bard wrote:

You see it wrong.

Expound

Quote:

So what is your problem with two guys or two chicks getting married? I forget which inane position you take.

Look on page 3

Bard wrote:

I wasn't aware the government recognized any religion.

Well, now you know...

#569 gbaji, Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 5:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) So marriage exists outside of and regardless of the existence of any state funded benefits, right?

#570 Aug 11 2010 at 5:43 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1649636385462

Sage

15,512 posts

gbaji wrote:

Sadly, it's like trying to break down a brick wall with a nerf hammer.

Nelson wrote:

Stop hitting yourself! Stop hitting yourself!

#571 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 6:09 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) That's because they are only looking at conclusions, disregarding all logical statements prior that should support their conclusion. So as a result, most of their statements contradict each other.

#572 Aug 11 2010 at 6:17 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Liberal Conspiracy

TILT

gbaji wrote:

What always amazes me about this topic is how many people will continually proclaim how marriage is about love, and commitment, and a private thing between two people, and shouldn't be regulated, controlled, etc, but then insist in the next breath that if the state doesn't give a couple benefits in return for getting married that they are being denied the "right to marry".

When you're so easily amazed by things everyone else was able to noodle through ages ago, every day must be an adventure of wonder and excitement. I have to admit that I'm a little envious.

Edited, Aug 11th 2010 7:18pm by Jophiel

____________________________

Belkira wrote:

Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.

#573 Aug 11 2010 at 6:34 PM Rating: Excellent

View User Forum

Will swallow your soul

29,360 posts

gbaji wrote:

Samira wrote:

The "purpose" of the marriage is the same as it was for centuries before there were any church/government benefits and sanctions: to declare two lives joined. It's a social entity. Granted, at times this has been as much about property and legitimacy as romance; but that fails to explain why poor people married, for example, or why people marry in communist societies. It fills an emotional need and a social niche.

So marriage exists outside of and regardless of the existence of any state funded benefits, right?

Are gay couples marriages today, absent state benefits, any less real or purposeful by that definition than marriages from centuries before church/government benefits and sanctions?

What always amazes me about this topic is how many people will continually proclaim how marriage is about love, and commitment, and a private thing between two people, and shouldn't be regulated, controlled, etc, but then insist in the next breath that if the state doesn't give a couple benefits in return for getting married that they are being denied the "right to marry". You're conflating two very different things: Marriage, as a relationship between two people, and "marriage benefits" granted by the state.

I've been trying to get people to understand that these are different things for years on this forum. Sadly, it's like trying to break down a brick wall with a nerf hammer.

Hey, I've said many times that I just want it to be equal. Benefits for all, or none, either way. I'm not planning on marrying either sex any time soon, so I got no dog in this fight.

And I'm not conflating ****, aSSwipe. I've been very, very clear on this from the jump.

____________________________

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#574 Aug 11 2010 at 6:35 PM Rating: Excellent

__DEL__1618186764728

Sage

5,684 posts

what amazes me is that people still think that separate but equal will work.

#575 Almalieque, Posted: Aug 11 2010 at 6:39 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) What amazes me is how people fail to realize that the only reason why "Separate but Equal" didn't work was because it was NOT EQUAL..

#576 Aug 11 2010 at 6:40 PM Rating: Good

Edited by bsphil

21,739 posts

Almalieque wrote:

Furthermore, it amazes me how people don't realize that the current law is EQUAL, just not fair for everyone. There is a huge difference...

It's cute that you think that.

____________________________

His Excellency Aethien wrote:

Almalieque wrote:

If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.

Take the hint guys, please take the hint.

gbaji wrote:

I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.

« Previous 1 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 104 Next »

This thread is locked

You cannot post in a locked topic!

Recent Visitors: 136 All times are in CST

Anonymous Guests (136)

© 2024 Fanbyte LLC