RE: Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet
June 15, 2015 at 11:27 am
(This post was last modified: June 15, 2015 at 11:28 am by Ace.)
Robvalue : But I've never heard any rational objections. Just saying "the law can't do it, sorry" isn't a rational objection but an admission that the legal system needs fixing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what do you defined as a rational objection? Because it seems that your view is: “it is a rational objection because I agree with it.” But an objection, rational or un-rational, is not agreement or in other words rational objective statements do not have to be agreed upon to constitute a rational objection.
Even a shit kicker, (no offences to shit kickers) can be said to have a rational objection argument when he states “I don’t agree with atheist because it is anti-American, which was founded on the issue of religion and the freedom of religion. Throughout human history every society, big and small, religion has always been. In fact, atheism did not truly become an issue until it was the commies that start this shit. China, the Russia, Cuba, they all did away with religion and even kill and imprison those who were religious because commies are anti-freedom and anti-American. That is why to be atheist is ant-American”
I would say that on the contrary, Anima has argued his position of rational objection very rationally, logically and in correct legal concepts of the law in regards to the topic. He/she has based the argument, not only in legal terminology, but has thought out the replay logical, conditionally, and rationally. He/she has used the cases of precedent that both sides are using and has shown the difference between what it means is a constitutional right, what is a legal right, the level of scrutiny that is need when placing restrictions.
Also, there seem to be a massive misconception that the government cannot do certain thing; like take away a person’s rights or imprison people without due process, (it is called Marshal Law, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, an Executive Dissection, Clear and Present Danger.)
For example, the serial killer Jeffery Dahmer should, (under the law) have had the evidences found in his apartment thrown out of court because it was an illegal search. The officer who did the illegal search even stated this to the court. (He had opened the refrigerator and found a head within it. The officers were called to the residents because of a complaint of a possible assault had occurred; one victim had escaped and went to the cops) The court will not say to Dahmer “Well shit Jeffery, you got us. Well, we did an illegal search so you can go on your merry way. Now don’t you go doing something bad now.
No Way! A human head in the refrigerator over rides anybody’s due process of law. I do not care if the cops kicked in the door just for fun and slapped you for good luck.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But what do you defined as a rational objection? Because it seems that your view is: “it is a rational objection because I agree with it.” But an objection, rational or un-rational, is not agreement or in other words rational objective statements do not have to be agreed upon to constitute a rational objection.
Even a shit kicker, (no offences to shit kickers) can be said to have a rational objection argument when he states “I don’t agree with atheist because it is anti-American, which was founded on the issue of religion and the freedom of religion. Throughout human history every society, big and small, religion has always been. In fact, atheism did not truly become an issue until it was the commies that start this shit. China, the Russia, Cuba, they all did away with religion and even kill and imprison those who were religious because commies are anti-freedom and anti-American. That is why to be atheist is ant-American”
I would say that on the contrary, Anima has argued his position of rational objection very rationally, logically and in correct legal concepts of the law in regards to the topic. He/she has based the argument, not only in legal terminology, but has thought out the replay logical, conditionally, and rationally. He/she has used the cases of precedent that both sides are using and has shown the difference between what it means is a constitutional right, what is a legal right, the level of scrutiny that is need when placing restrictions.
Also, there seem to be a massive misconception that the government cannot do certain thing; like take away a person’s rights or imprison people without due process, (it is called Marshal Law, the suspension of Habeas Corpus, an Executive Dissection, Clear and Present Danger.)
For example, the serial killer Jeffery Dahmer should, (under the law) have had the evidences found in his apartment thrown out of court because it was an illegal search. The officer who did the illegal search even stated this to the court. (He had opened the refrigerator and found a head within it. The officers were called to the residents because of a complaint of a possible assault had occurred; one victim had escaped and went to the cops) The court will not say to Dahmer “Well shit Jeffery, you got us. Well, we did an illegal search so you can go on your merry way. Now don’t you go doing something bad now.
No Way! A human head in the refrigerator over rides anybody’s due process of law. I do not care if the cops kicked in the door just for fun and slapped you for good luck.
