Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Crossless2.0]

It's sort of like what Kant's Categorical Imperative might have been if Kant had been a complete fuckwit.

Very nice!  It is indeed based on Kant's Categorical Imperative and is logically sound.  Needless to say we see the argument if valid for the murderer, but just do not seem to want to see it for homosexuality.  Bias?  However, I am more than happy to hear your logical rebuttal as well as you argument in their favor.  I wait with baited breath.

I'm not disposed toward deontological ethics, so I don't really care to play sophist with you on this point. For me, freedom for flesh and blood consenting adults trumps pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals, regardless of how logically rigorous they may be, any time.

And, um, it's "bated" breath. "Baited breath" might mean a lot of things but not what you seem to intend. For example, it could be taken as a sly way of you saying that you like to eat pussy, which would be in keeping with your transparent efforts to intellectualize an issue that is clearly visceral for you (bias?). But then I might suspect the lady doth protest too much.

[Anima]

They should have fired the stupid bitch as soon as she started denying licenses.  Fucking Kentucky.

Interesting. In accordance to the Nuremburg trials:

Even if the ethical law renders conduct legal or a soldier recieves an order to engage in certain conduct a person is to refrain from acting according to that law or order if they may not do so in good conscience.

Furthermore the First Amendment (Non-Religious part but freedom of speech part) as stipulated by the Supreme Court:

Freedom of speech includes the freedom to withhold speech. It is for this reason that a person may not be compelled to sign any legally binding document against their own conscience.

According to Oath of Office. "I do solemnly swear to exercise the office of _________ in good faith and to the best of my abilities..."

Good faith is to act in good conscience in the fulfillment of the law or contract. Should one exercise their office not in good faith they are guilty of abusing their position and may be guilty of perjury should they lie under oath to the fact.

So she, by international and national law should refrain from signing the document if she may not do so in good conscience. It was also determined in accordance with the Nuremburg trials that a person opting to resign their position rather than to fulfill that position in good conscience is guilty of the acts which follow. So by international law she should not resign her position.

[Anima]

Very nice!  It is indeed based on Kant's Categorical Imperative and is logically sound.  Needless to say we see the argument if valid for the murderer, but just do not seem to want to see it for homosexuality.  Bias?  However, I am more than happy to hear your logical rebuttal as well as you argument in their favor.  I wait with baited breath.

I'm not disposed toward deontological ethics, so I don't really care to play sophist with you on this point. For me, freedom for flesh and blood consenting adults trumps pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals, regardless of how logically rigorous they may be, any time.

And, um, it's "bated" breath. "Baited breath" might mean a lot of things but not what you seem to intend. For example, it could be taken as a sly way of you saying that you like to eat pussy, which would be in keeping with your transparent efforts to intellectualize an issue that is clearly visceral for you (bias?). But then I might suspect the lady doth protest too much.

My apologies for the typo. Thankfully you were here to point it out lest all come to ruin!

Now I doubt that. You see you will curtail the freedome of flesh and blood consenting adults should they consent to acts you deem to deontologically unethical. For example I am sure you would agree the law should prohibit people from ritualistic sacrifice even if the sacrificed consent to the act and the sacrificer consent as well. So now that we have establishy my theory is sound in principle we are just haggling over price or if you would the deontological ethics of the matter.

I am more than happy to intellectualize an issue as my desire is not to be viceral, but rather to be reasonable, rational, and logical. After all i would not want to be some kind of fervent nut who keeps affirming a position without any justification and in the face of facts and reason to the contrary.

[Divinity]

I'll do us both a favor, and just assume you're a troll, and not that fucking stupid.

For anyone who actually thinks the Nuremburg Trials are a good defense though... that's really fucking stupid. The Nuremburg Trials don't allow you to shirk your duties. It only held that you cannot be acquitted just because you are following orders. Kim Davis would not be going to trial for signing certificates for same sex couples, or allowing her clerks to sign certificates for them. Thinking she would, would be fucking stupid. I know the bitch is stupid, but she's not that fucking stupid.

[Crossless2.0]

I'm not disposed toward deontological ethics, so I don't really care to play sophist with you on this point. For me, freedom for flesh and blood consenting adults trumps pie-in-the-sky hypotheticals, regardless of how logically rigorous they may be, any time.

And, um, it's "bated" breath. "Baited breath" might mean a lot of things but not what you seem to intend. For example, it could be taken as a sly way of you saying that you like to eat pussy, which would be in keeping with your transparent efforts to intellectualize an issue that is clearly visceral for you (bias?). But then I might suspect the lady doth protest too much.

My apologies for the typo.  Thankfully you were here to point it out lest all come to ruin!

Now I doubt that.  You see you will curtail the freedome of flesh and blood consenting adults should they consent to acts you deem to deontologically unethical.  For example I am sure you would agree the law should prohibit people from ritualistic sacrifice even if the sacrificed consent to the act and the sacrificer consent as well.  So now that we have establishy my theory is sound in principle we are just haggling over price or if you would the deontological ethics of the matter.

I am more than happy to intellectualize an issue as my desire is not to be viceral, but rather to be reasonable, rational, and logical.  After all i would not want to be some kind of fervent nut who keeps affirming a position without any justification and in the face of facts and reason to the contrary.  

Typo my ass.  But what the hell . . . I'll give you an 8.0 for the recovery.

Ritual sacrifice if both parties consent? Assuming they are competent to consent to such a thing (not insane, no coercion), and their decision does not cause pain/suffering to others, why not? Fuck 'em. If the religious nuts want to weed themselves out . . .

It's funny you think I'm a fervent nut on the issue of marriage equality. My position is -- and has been for years -- that it needs to be granted because I value equality under the law (yeah, yeah -- I know that wasn't the legal basis of the SC decision but I'm not arguing a legal position so much as a meta-legal position). 

Anyway, I'm not really concerned to justify my views to you. And that sound you hear? That's history leaving you in its wake. Have fun with your lost cause.

[Anima]

I'll do us both a favor, and just assume you're a troll, and not that fucking stupid.

Indeed. Well I will do us both a favor and assume you are a troll as well such that the expressions and lack of eloquence are befitting the occupation.

Ah... Things are nice here in the land of baseless assumptions.

[Crossless2.0]

I'll do us both a favor, and just assume you're a troll, and not that fucking stupid.

Indeed.  Well I will do us both a favor and assume you are a troll as well such that the expressions and lack of eloquence are befitting the occupation.  

Ah...  Things are nice here in the land of baseless assumptions.

. . . says the guy who believes in the magical resurrected Jew because a book says so.

[Ace]

I'll do us both a favor, and just assume you're a troll, and not that fucking stupid.

For anyone who actually thinks the Nuremburg Trials are a good defense though... that's really fucking stupid.  The Nuremburg Trials don't allow you to shirk your duties.  It only held that you cannot be acquitted just because you are following orders.  Kim Davis would not be going to trial for signing certificates for same sex couples, or allowing her clerks to sign certificates for them.  Thinking she would, would be fucking stupid.  I know the bitch is stupid, but she's not that fucking stupid.

Question, what law did she break or what is her actual duty that she fails to do? And I mean actual duty, not what we assume she should do, or what a persional in "office" should do, or what has been said on tv of what she needs to do.

What is the actual duty, that can lead to criminal charges, that she has failed to do? Citation please of what the law is on what she has to do as a county clerk

[Anima]

My apologies for the typo.  Thankfully you were here to point it out lest all come to ruin!

Now I doubt that.  You see you will curtail the freedome of flesh and blood consenting adults should they consent to acts you deem to deontologically unethical.  For example I am sure you would agree the law should prohibit people from ritualistic sacrifice even if the sacrificed consent to the act and the sacrificer consent as well.  So now that we have establishy my theory is sound in principle we are just haggling over price or if you would the deontological ethics of the matter.

I am more than happy to intellectualize an issue as my desire is not to be viceral, but rather to be reasonable, rational, and logical.  After all i would not want to be some kind of fervent nut who keeps affirming a position without any justification and in the face of facts and reason to the contrary.  

Typo my ass.  But what the hell . . . I'll give you an 8.0 for the recovery.

Ritual sacrifice if both parties consent? Assuming they are competent to consent to such a thing (not insane, no coercion), and their decision does not cause pain/suffering to others, why not? Fuck 'em. If the religious nuts want to weed themselves out . . .

It's funny you think I'm a fervent nut on the issue of marriage equality. My position is -- and has been for years -- that it needs to be granted because I value equality under the law (yeah, yeah -- I know that wasn't the legal basis of the SC decision but I'm not arguing a legal position so much as a meta-legal position). 

Anyway, I'm not really concerned to justify my views to you. And that sound you hear? That's history leaving you in its wake. Have fun with your lost cause.

Who said they were religious nuts? Turns out the are into extreme S&M.

Ah but the very belief that there needs to be equality under the law needs to be justified. You cannot simply assert it. Furthermore there was no violation of equality under the law. You see you cannot just throw out a platitude and accept someone to believe it because you have said it.

You say equality under the law but then when someone talks about a child consenting to marry an adult you disagree. Thus you are saying parties under the law are to be treated unequally (to which I agree). Now you may want to limit it to equality of consenting adults (without giving any argument or justification for this limitation) by saying adult consent. This ignores that the age of consent is arbitrary and that the law recognizes children may consent to enter into contracts with adults (marriage is still a contract). Saying informed consent does not aid your position anymore as has already been discussed in this thread. Furthermore we have laws intended and constructed to affect some adults and not other (American with Disabilities Act... Guess who that is for... Everyone?). Everyone is treated equally who fall into the category of those laws but not everyone is granted to the benefits conveyed by those laws.

I am sorry but the equality argument is nothing more than the fallacy of false equivalency until you make argument of how they are equal and should be treated equally by the state. Something you guys seem terrified to do as I have asked for it many times and have not received it once (even now you are not concerned to justify your views). At what point may we say it is a baseless belief devoid of reason and is simply a pathos desire?

[Anima]

I'll do us both a favor, and just assume you're a troll, and not that fucking stupid.

For anyone who actually thinks the Nuremburg Trials are a good defense though... that's really fucking stupid.  The Nuremburg Trials don't allow you to shirk your duties.  It only held that you cannot be acquitted just because you are following orders.  Kim Davis would not be going to trial for signing certificates for same sex couples, or allowing her clerks to sign certificates for them.  Thinking she would, would be fucking stupid.  I know the bitch is stupid, but she's not that fucking stupid.

You are correct. She did not shirk her duties. You see the Nuremburg trials require a person not to merely obey the law or an order because they are in political office. Because the Nazi's at the trials defended themselves by saying they were only obeying the law and fulfilling the duties of their office.

After that we made it so the duties of office require the person duly charged to act in accordance with good conscience and to not exercise their political or military commission simply because they law states they should or they were ordered too.

She could be dragged in to court if the validity of the certificates are questioned. You see when the validity of the certificates are questioned they will bring up every technicality they can. From font size, to clerks signature. She is not supposed to sign the certificate if she cannot do so in good conscience. If she signs the certificate and did not do so in good conscience than she acted in bad faith to the commission of her office. If they can prove she signed this certificate in bad faith they may render ever certificate she has signed as invalid (since they will not be able to discern which were in good faith and which were in bad). This is the same reason why the cop or prosecutor of cases if found guilty of corruption will have all of their testimony and cases overturned.