Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "" video.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knavishknight "you can LIE to pro-choicers that you that you disagree with the state banning abortion while to anti-choicers you can still say the quiet part out loud that you disagree with abortion."
Actually, I am honest about my stances on abortion. They are
1. One, it is a state issue
2. I feel it is a very difficult decision for most women to make. So I hate it when people, on both sides, act out of line. For the left I hate it how they want to celebrate an abortion, or how the right want to degrade women to get abortions. Both sides are wrong in that case.
3. I support rare, safe and legal if I were given the task of creating a state law on it. However, as with point 1, I support no federal law on abortion, whether it be a ban or keeping it legal.
But again, you support the overturn of Roe v Wade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knavishknight another example, say the state of MS were to completely ban abortion. Well, if that is what the people of MS want, that is what they will get. If not they can vote in different members of the government. I do not live in MS, I do not work there, I do not pay taxes there. So who am I to say how those people want their state to be? I don't. I am an outsider so I respect that. I worry about my own state and local community.
You want to be a dictator and tell other people want to do as you are racist, homophobic, sexist, and a bigot. You can't imagine a state like MS, who had more women than men voting in 2022, wanting to ban abortion. So you feel those women are just too dumb and you have to change their ways. Why? Because you are sexist and feel women are dumb, period.
Why are you sexist?
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knavishknight "it lies about wanting government out of marriages while supporting states' governments getting involved in marriages "
Ok, watch the bouncing ball here
1. My stance on marriage is that government should be out of it
2. Nothing in the Constitution mentions marriage, thus it becomes a state issue
3. I support the Constitution above all, so if a state wants to get involved in marriage I would disagree with that decision, but I would 100% support their rights to do so
Ok, to examples on my stance, first, abortion
1. My stance is rare, safe and legal
2. Nothing in the Constitution mentions abortion, thus it becomes a state issue
3. If a state decides to ban abortions I would disagree, but I would 100% support their rights to do so
Ok, now free speech
1. I dislike racist speech
2. Free speech is protected by the Constitution via the 1st amendment
3. If someone makes a racist comment I would disagree with it, but I would 100% support their rights to make such comments
Ok, now why do I support the Constitution standard over my stances on these issues?
1. On state rights: we do not want an overpowering, centralized force dictating these complex issue. While I bet you would love to have the federal government make a sweeping decision to keep abortion legal, and have government recognize all marriages, I bet you would hate it if it swung the other way around where the federal government banned all abortions. My stance is that I rather have some states decide to ban abortion where others keep it legal, for whatever reasons based on what their citizens want. Same with government involvement in marriage.
2. With free speech, I rather have racists make comments as opposed to government censoring them. Because if you start giving government that power to censor they will censor what they consider to be "misinformation".
So again, my stance on marriage is to get government out of it. But above that I support the Constitution and state rights to decide how they want to dictate marriage. I rather have that than an overpowering, centralized government made up of people who do not represent me making decisions.
1
-
@PeacefulPariah "is how do you get the government out of marriage? It has to be recognized somehow who's going to recognize it? "
It can be via the church or it can be based on individuals. If you love someone do you really need to get married? You can just live with them and share a life. Why do you need some special piece of people saying that? Why do you need government invading in your love life?
"The church? No thank you I'm not in a church so that's not going to work for me. "
And if two people get married through the church, and the government does nothing in the end, what difference does it make? So you have a man and woman who get married via the church based on their religious belief, and government does nothing. Meanwhile, you have two men who love each other and share a life and government does nothing. In both cases you reach the same results. It is just that the man and woman did something based on their religious beliefs just like some people, based on their religious beliefs go through confirmation, or baptize their kids.
"Well yeah it does sorry but there's several situations that would arise that you need to know that that person is married to the other person. "
And there are ways we can work around that legally.
As for Sam "uh, um, uh" Seder, he contradicts himself a lot. Stephen Michael Davis had made some videos on it. One is entitled "Sam Seder Makes the Case for Citizens United". Another is entitled "Sam Seder vs. Yaron Brook: Regulation". And when people call into his show Sam just basically calls the caller stupid and his co-workers chuckle in the background. On a neutral ground he has failed many times.
And no, I am not a libertarian, I am a moderate.
1
-
@patchwurk6652 "Immediate contradiction, you apparently support State government involvement."
Not a contradiction. I rather have it so no government gets involved in marriage, including the state. However, to some states there is a reason for them to get involved. I will disagree, but in many cases I see the logic behind it. Same with abortion, I disagree with a state banning it, but I do see the logic.
"So you aren't actually against governmental interference in marriage on the Fed or State level at all as long as it's legal to do."
The federal government cannot get involved in marriage as there is nothing in the Constitution that states they can. Thus, via the 10th amendment it becomes a state issue. I support that over my stance that government should not be involved in marriage. Why? Because, overall, I support state rights. I do not support an overpowering, centralized government.
Consider this, say you had the federal government ban gay marriage, would you support that? To me I would not support it on the basis that the federal government should not get involved with marriage to begin with. I rather have states make the decision as opposed to one centralized entity doing it.
"So you support abortion, unless the local government doesn't, in which you support the rights of local government."
Again, I support abortion, but above that I support state rights. Again, consider this, say the federal government were to flat out ban abortion. I would oppose that on the basis that the federal government should not have that power. I rather have some individual states, for whatever reasons, ban abortion than have one entity do an all out ban on it federally.
"Holy shit, this is the first non-contradiction you've stated so far.... And it's in defense of racist speech."
I don't support racist speech. Let me ask you this, should government ban speech?
"So just to recap: You will support and stand by the "state's right" to criminalize women's reproductive rights"
Now this is where you contradict yourself. You oppose state rights and rights to free speech, rights listed in the Constitution, but you make up reproductive rights that are not listed in the Constitution.
1
-
@patchwurk6652 ok, question, do you support the federal government having the power to either ban abortion or make it legal? Do you support the federal government to have the power to ban gay marriage or make it legal? I bet you do on the basis it will end up doing what you support .But say the federal government were to ban abortion and gay marriage? Would you agree? I doubt it, but you gave them that power.
My stance is this, abortion and marriage are not in the Constitution, so it becomes a state issue. I support the states having the rights to make those decision. While I would prefer they decide to make abortion rare, safe and legal, and they not get involved in marriage, if they don't, I would defend their rights to do so. If a state government were to ban abortion I would no agree with their decision, nor would I support it, but I will defend their rights to makes such decision. If a state were to get involved in marriage I would not agree with that decision, nor would I support it, but I will defend their rights to do so.
To me, I rather have states making these decisions and not some centralized government. If a state bans abortion I will disagree with that decision, but I would support their rights to do so. I won't support what the Biden administration is doing by suing those states with the DOJ. I will simply say I disagree with their decision and move on. People like you will try to use force to get others to act like you think the should. That is fascism bud.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zarastro54 "So it’s okay if a government takes away people’s rights"
Marriage is not a right, if you want to make it a right, add it to the Constitution.
"This stance is incongruent with the values of freedom because it is still supporting a government’s “right” to infringe on the rights of individuals. "
Nope, again, marriage is not listed in the Constitution, it is not a right. Thus it falls on the states. Freedom of speech is a right, thus no government can take it away without due process.
"No, using a central government to ensure the rights of individuals is not “fascism” bud. "
That falls on the Constitution, not the federal government. If you want marriage to be a right, add it to the Constitution, there is a process for that.
"Just like it wasn’t when federal government stepped in to ban slavery and segregation."
That was done by adding amendments to the Constitution. Not some federal law.
"I bet it’s easy for you to say you “disagree and move on” when it’s not your freedoms being on the line. "
I do have freedom. I have the freedom to move to another state that aligns with me more. I have the freedom to vote and express my opinion. The more local government is the more control you have over it. That is a big advantage for state rights, the people have more control, more freedom. Me disagreeing and moving on is when a state like MS pushing for an abortion ban. I don't live there, I don't vote there, I don't pay taxes there. So I do not have a state in how the people of MS want to run their state. I disagree with their decision, but it is not mine to make.
" I bet you’re not a woman who’s ever needed an abortion or a gay person wanting to tie the knot, so you can easily just sit back and lazily oppose and wash your hands of state decisions that you “disagree” with that actually have tangible effects on people’s lives."
And those people have options, move to another state or speak at a local town hall. Don't cry and ask for big daddy federal government to march in and make changes. I bet you would hate it if the federal government did an all out ban on abortion. But that is the power you want to give it.
"Also, you do realize that amending the constitution is still a federal government action, right? "
Actually it is not as the Constitution has been used to limit the federal government.
"even though constitutionally federal law DOES trump state law"
That is not true. That is why the vaccine mandate OSHA tried to push was shot down in the courts. And why the courts shot down Roe v Wade.
1
-
@patchwurk6652 "SO... Just for clarification, regardless of what you believe, regardless of your positions, unless the Constitution explicitly forbids the State to do something, you defend the right of the State above all else."
Yes, because that is the standard we need to go by. We need limitations on all governments, the Constitution sets that. For the federal government their responsibilities are basically deal with foreign affairs and deal with commerce between states. Everything else is left up to the states.
All governments have to work within the confines of the Constitution. So the states cannot take away any rights. Beyond that, it is fair game. This is a great route to take because almost every issue has an objective and subjective side to it. The subjective side is where you see the greatest debates and disagreements, so let the local communities and states decide, meaning the people. If a state like TX wants to be really conservative, well that is what the people want. Same on if the people of CA want to be really liberal, so be it.
"Even if it violates individual liberties, even if you're actively allowing your countrymen to suffer for no reason, even if it wasn't even voted on by the people and put in place by State fiat, even if it violates every sensibility you have and every shred of basic human decency you have, if the State has that power you defend it "as their right"."
Here is the thing, what is liberty? If you disagree with your state you can vote or you can move to another state that aligns more with your ideas and still remain a US citizen. If you disagree with a conservative state's values then don't move there.
What is suffering? This is a big problem with the left. They will be on the outside looking in to a conservative state and feel the people are suffering when they aren't. When DeSantis removed covid restrictions people on the outside thought others were suffering, they weren't as we have seen with DeSantis winning big time in the election.
The issues are voted on. Your vote has way more power at the local level. And what is human decency? All that you listed are highly subjective.
"Is that more or less an accurate summary of what your stated politics ultimately is, yea or nay?"
Nope, as you clearly are one of those people who feel you know what is best for others. You are a person who will look at a state like Oklahoma and say "geez, those people are oppressed, the federal government needs to step in and change that" when really how things are going there is what they want. For me I feel the people in CA are going in the wrong direction. However, I don't live there, I don't vote there, I don't pay taxes there. So I will make no attempts with the federal government to change that.
1
-
@Zarastro54 "No, segregation was ended by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "
No, the 14th amendment did that. For example, the Brown v Board decision was based on the 14th amendment. What year was that court ruling?
"The 13th Amendment only because the states that had the power to block it were in open rebellion defending their “states’ rights” to own slaves"
Because nothing in the Constitution existed at the time banning slavery. So to ban it a Constitutional amendment was created.
You want to know what else is not in the Constitution that states handle?
Murder laws
Education
Traffic laws
Laws on owning property
And many others that occur in your daily lives.
"Not everyone has the luxury to just up and move whenever the state infringes on their liberties"
And that is a personal problem. The onus is on your to put yourself in the best situation you can. Ultimately, you can't rely on others. You can ask others for help, but the onus is on you. And you especially can't force others to help. Just because you hate your living situation does not give you the right to force me to live in a different way.
"A function of the federal branch limiting itself does not magically mean it is not part of the federal branch. A mandate by a federal agency does not have the same sticking power as an actual law passed through congress. Likewise, it is precisely because Roe wasn't codified that it was struck down. The Supreme Court has always been downwind of social changes and has a very bad track record on it."
The federal government role is two things: Deal with foreign affairs and deal with commerce between states. Everything else is left up to the states. The federal government is made up of the states, not the people. That is why nothing at the federal level is decided by the majority of the people but by representatives sent by the state. It is a balance. You want to destroy that balance because you disagree with a few actions some states do, states you do not live in, you do not pay taxes in, you do not vote in, etc.
You see, to me I feel CA is going in the wrong direction as a state. However, I do not live there, vote there, pay taxes, etc. So I am not going to support sending federal agents there to change things or use the federal government to change things. However, someone like you will see a state like Oklahoma and say "gee, those people are oppressed, we need to create a federal law to help them" when in reality they are doing fine.
"No matter how much you doll it us YOU are the one in favor of allowing the state to restrict freedoms"
Which freedoms? The freedom to kill a baby? Many feel abortion is killing of a baby. And thus they push restrictions on it at the state level. People in the state of CA feel it is not, so they have relaxed abortion laws.
" I on the other had support using the state to ensure the maximum amount of personal freedom possible. "
And which freedom is that? The freedom to force me to change my lifestyle to make you happy? That is what I am reading here from what you are writing. You want people you disagree with to be forced to live a certain way to make you happy. My way is that you have the choice to move or get involved in your local community.
"As someone already stated earlier, and has been borne out by history, there are some instances where individual state governments are insufficient in ensuring rights and freedoms to citizens, and THAT is where the federal government needs to step in."
They were incorrect in what they stated. What happened was a change in the Constitution.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zarastro54 "Ah, so all the segregation up until the 1960's was just an illusion. "
It could have been very easily. The civil rights act, to me, is an asinine law as
1. It was pointless, just use the 14th amendment
2. It stopped private businesses from discriminating. I support allowing private businesses from discriminating. In fact, that is the best route so we, the people, can see which businesses are ran by racists so we can discriminate against them. If I knew a business is discriminating I will stop going there.
" Do you oppose Lawrence v Texas since homosexuality isn't explicitly enumerated in the Constitution?"
I do, what is your point? I follow a standard, you apparently don't. You want a free for all across this massive nation. You want chaos. I want standards, a guideline to follow.
" Segregation, sodomy laws, miscegenation, marriage inequality, and anti-abortion laws are tangible things that negatively affect people's lives "
Do they? With segregation that was handled via the 14th amendment. Done. there is a way to change the Constitution. On the other issues you mentioned, they are highly subjective. On every issue you an objective and subjective side. The subjective side is what is debated the most. You bring up anti-abortion laws and say they will "negatively affect people's lives". The reality is that is not the case. Many local communities feel abortion is murder. You may disagree for whatever reasons, but others feel it is murder. Due you feel making murder illegal negatively affect people's lives? Or on sodomy, aids is passed mainly through gay people. So passing aids from one person to another negatively affect people's lives?
"States have failed multiple times to ensure these freedoms"
Freedom of what? Freedom to murder a baby? Freedom to pass aids to others? And I am not saying I agree with those laws. I am shooting down your argument of "freedom" as it is highly flawed. Murder laws restrict my freedom, I guess do away with them.
"Your stance ignores the material reality that affects peoples' lives "'
How so? My stance allows people to make their own decisions. If a local community wants to ban abortion, then fine. Your stance would be of an outsider saying "that is wrong, I am going to use the federal government to change that". My stance is actually align with freedom.
"How exactly does other people getting abortions, gay people getting married, people of different races being married, and black people being able to enter whatever establishment they want affect your lifestyle?"
In many ways. Many feel murder in wrong and feel abortions are murdering babies. There is a problem of people getting abortions and not caring about it. Just like many have committed mass murders and not care. With people getting married, why should married people get special benefits over single people?
Also, it comes to having standards. Standards of checks and balances, of limited government. Compare it to free speech. Banning some racist from speaking their mind will not affect my life. But when you give the government that power, they can no ban all speech they do not like.
Or like banning the AR 15. Banning it will not affect my life. But if you allow it you now have given government legal pathways to ban all guns. In comparison, when the 100 round drum was banned people had the mindset of why do you need it? Well, now there are legal pathways to ban 10 round magazines in some states.
With state rights, you strip that away and give that power to the federal government you create problems. Sure, the federal government making abortion legal you may support, but now they have the power to pass things you will not like.
1
-
1
-
@loki2240 "Yet another statement of "I oppose the federal government doing X, I claim that I disagree with state governments doing X, but if state governments choose to do X - I don't really care." "
I do care. There are argument for and against government getting involved in marriage. Again, all issues have an objective and subjective side to them. How we handle the subjective side is allowing the people at the local level decide. I personally feel that government should get out of marriage. Others feel it should be involved for reasons that are legit, but I disagree with. Others feel gay marriage should be recognized for legit reasons but I disagree with. Others feel the government should not recognize gay marriage for legit reasons as well. There are arguments on all sides.
You want to completely dismiss one side of the argument for zero reasons beyond claiming you are right and others are wrong. And to make it worse, you want to use the federal government to enforce your ideas on others.
"You should read a lot more American history. A lot of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were too concerned about a central government being too powerful - even after the failure of the Articles of Confederation - and not concerned enough about state and local governments being too powerful. And ultimately, the Framers didn't protect individual rights against state and local governments,"
Uh, there was this little thing called the Bill of Rights. You know, rights to all the people that no government can remove without due process.
"nd state and local governments grossly infringed on the rights of individuals for generations until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified"
uh......yeah, the founding fathers incorporated a way to change the Constitution. What a shocker.
"I get that many people can be comfortably apathetic about undue harm to other people (especially to people they don't consider to be like themselves). And I understand that many people can be caught up in ideologies and fail to make rational assessments of actual and potential threats to even themselves. But it doesn't make them any less wrong or any less unreasonable."
You should speak for yourself. I want the people to govern themselves and I want limitations on all government. You want the federal government to have a free for all. That is wrong. Just because the people of Oklahoma have different ideas in how to function as a community than you does not mean you can force your ideas on them. I bet you would hate it if they force their ideas on you.
1
-
1
-
@Zarastro54 I will get to your long comment in a few hours. I am at work. However, you say
"Arguments based off of lies or falsehoods are not as valid as ones based in empirical reality"
What is a falsehood or lie? Again, many things are subjective, but there are also objective sides.
"There is NO valid or logical argument against same sex marriage, interracial marriage, integration or the like."
Yes there are. To start, why is government involved in marriage to begin with? That is a question we need to ask. Next, on same sex marriage, an argument for having government be involved in marriage is to promote the traditional family of a husband and wife with their own kids to raise. There is evidence of that leading to a healthier lifestyle for kids. On interracial marriage there are arguments if certain races should be intermixing, or certain cultures. Not saying I agree, just saying they exist.
"You believe in "states' rights" OVER individual liberty because you put a state's "right" to BAN a freedoms "
Again, the more local government is the more control the people have of it, and thus the more freedom. As I said, you are the type of person who will look at a state like TX or OK and feel they are treating their people poorly and want to use the federal government to change things. However, the people in those states voted for what they wanted. I disagree with many policies from the state of CA. But I don't live there, I don't vote there, I don't pay taxes there so I do not have a say in what those people want out of their state government. I am NOT going to send the federal government in to change their way.
You method is anti freedom and anti liberty. If you want marriage to be a right create a constitutional amendment for it. You know what made interracial marriage legal? The 14th amendment. If a state is going to recognize marriage, via the 14th amendment they have to recognize interracial marriage.
1
-
1
-
@Zarastro54 "Except it wasn't. You seem to dwell a lot in the hypothetical"
Again, Brown v Board ruling was based on the 14th amendment. Explain that.
"You seem to treat it as some perfectly even chess board"
Nothing is perfect and even in life. With your standard you want the federal government ot have all this power to override people's liberties.
"No, the reality is that it IS. Tons of stories are coming out now"
There aren't tons of stories, there are, at best, a handful. And in all cases they were able to go to another state to get an abortion. And since Roe abortion rates have been dropping for decades. So no one is being harmed. And in fact, a lot of people are harmed if they get an abortion. Many have regretted. So there is that side of the argument. You are treating life as some perfectly chess board. It is not. Making abortion across the entire nation also has negative consequences. Another is developing a society that lacks morals. What I find to be disturbing at times is how open the left is on abortion. How some even celebrate it. That is sick. To many women it is a very difficult decision. While women who do it should not be ridiculed, celebrating it does not good either. Imagine a woman who made the hard decision to go through an abortion and is emotional. Not saying they fully regret it, if at all, but are emotional. And they see people celebrating abortions. That is difficult. The fact that the left take abortions so lightly is sick.
"You do realize that the AIDS pandemic happened in the 1980's right, and Lawrence v Texas happened in 2002, right?"
Yeah, and?
"So MY freedom to have consensual sex how I want should be restricted because someone somewhere else might have AIDS? "
Ok, go past the AIDS part. Can a 40 year old man have sex with a 10 year old? No. Does that restrict their freedom? BTW, age of consent laws are.......wait for it........state laws. Do you oppose age of consent laws? They are anti freedom by definition.
"My stance allows people to truly make their own decisions within reason"
Uh, and here is the subjective part of the issue. What is "within reason"? Who determines that? Going back to age of consent laws, what should it be, and why? Or how about K-12 education standards. They vary by states. What is "within reason" on education standards? Or DUI laws, what is "within reason" on that? In Iowa first time is a felony. In MO 3rd time is a felony. Which one is "within reason"? Do you oppose DUI laws?
" Says "in many ways," then fails to actually innumerate any of the ways those things actually personally affect him. "
I told you how it can affect me. I find it sick that we have members of a society that lacks morals to treat abortion in such a relax way. Really, if I met someone who takes abortion that lightly I will be disturbed. What else do they take lightly, murder? DUI? Stalking? Animal cruelty? Also, treating abortion so lightly creates a society where many feel they can just hit the reset button. Life is not that easy.
"DO means that non-straight marriages should be treated equally. As long as married couples get benefits, they should be allowed to gay marriages, and if ever they lose those benefits, then so should the others."
I am all for getting government out of marriage completely.
"Except we DO have reasonable restrictions on speech. Defamation is illegal, as are incitements to violence. "
Again, define reasonable. Defamation is really hard to prove, and I feel it should be legal. On inciting violence, that is a call to action. And again, that is hard to prove.
"That is why murder"
Fun fact for you, murder laws are mainly state laws. Why? Because murder is not listed in the Constitution, so it becomes a state issue. Federal murder laws are mainly if you killed a federal official.
"Expect the federal government already DOES have that power and always DID. Machine guns and military equipment are already banned to the general public"
They are not banned. And even that is questionable if the restrictions should exist. So no, the federal government does not have that power.
"and I don't know of a time in the 1800's when private citizens could own cannons or Gatling guns without licensing"
They could, and they still can now. Jefferson wanted people to own warshps.
"Again, your position speaks from a place of impersonal privilege. All the things that you "disagree" with are either minor inconveniences to you, or don't affect you at all"
Not true. You know nothing of my life. But take covid, for example. Covid protocols were left to the states. My state I lived in at the time had major restrictions. My life was taken from me a I am very active. As a result it led me down a path of drinking, a lot. I had to go to detox, twice. Cost me a lot of money, almost my career and my life. But people told me to just "shut up and stay home". Not a minor inconvenience to me. I moved out of that crazy state.
"Thus it is easy for you to sit back and treat the freedoms of other people as trivially"
Actually I don't. And again, people treated my freedoms trivially when it came to covid. And again, I have since left that state. Did you agree with the covid lockdowns? Did you agree with the wearing a masks, having kids do remote learning? I bet you did. Did you support fall sports not beign played in 2021 in high school? I bet you did. I did not as I am active in high school sports. So again, I went down a path of drinking. And the second time I went to detox I had to go to ER. The EMTs there told me what is really filling up hospitals are people overdosing on alcohol and drugs.
But nope, just a minor inconvenience sitting in ER, with my hands shaking so bad the nurse had to hold the cup of water for me to drink with the medication and I could not write my name.
"You have thus far failed to explain how the things I listed, such as gay marriage, sodomy, miscegenation, integration etc. personally, tangibly affect the lives of the people who oppose it"
And it does not matter. Again, you have subjective sides of issues. Back to covid, I know many who had no problem working at home. I did. Many simply said "wear a mask" when I saw it as symbolism of us, as a society, willing to give up our freedoms. And how covid lockdowns led me to almost drinking to death and no on cared. All subjected, but it plays a role.
"You balk at the federal government ensuring freedoms to people that don't actually effect you "
It does not matter if effects me, unlike you I can look beyond myself.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zarastro54 "Explain why it took until Brown v Board for the amendment to actually be interpreted that way? "
Because that is usually how it goes. The courts intervene after a law is passed. Compare it to the covid vaccine mandate. It was put in place by Biden, many became vaccinated, and then the SC shot it down. But because of it many, including me, became vaccinated.
"Nope. Your standards has state governments overriding people's liberties,"
You keep bringing up liberties. Ever thought that people at the local level are voting for what they want? You can't get everything that you want. But at the local level you can work together much easier. You end up with a give and take relationship. Kind of like.....a marriage.
"Which one is it? It seems that you are imposing a hypothetical epidemic of loose women getting tons of abortions "like mass murderers" without a care onto the REALITY that, by your own admission, abortion rates decreased during a time when they were broadly accessible. "
Have you seen Michelle Wolf's "Salute to Abortions" video? That is sick. And many women who are supporting abortions are women who are not going to get abortions to begin with either because they are ugly or they just won't get one. But they support abortions because of "women's rights". How many abortions have Michelle Wolf had? Most likely none.
"I KNEW you would make this disingenuous argument, which is precisely why I specified "consensual" and later specified that ALL freedoms have limits. But that didn't stop you of course. Children cannot give informed consent because their brains literally aren't developed enough to do so"
Ok, so what about someone who had a stroke like Fetterman? Can they run for congress? And at what age is someone's brain developed? A 14 year old girl can still get pregnant. So biologically you have that. You cry about freedoms but then say we have limits. Well, who creates those limits and why?
" Let me spell it out for you again: When a state is insufficient at protecting the basic rights and freedoms of its citizens, or actively restricts them, then the federal government aught to have the power to step in."
And what are these freedoms and rights? To me the rights are listed in the Constitution. If it is not listed in the Constitution it becomes a state issue. So back to marriage. Marriage is not listed in the Constitution, so it becomes a state issue.
"I'm sorry for your lockdown experience. If only there existed a robust national healthcare system (like every other developed country in the world) that would have kept you from paying such exorbitant medical bills"
Actually, covid showed how a national healthcare system would fail in the US. You clearly do not understand what I went through. It is not just the medical bills. It was that my life was literally stripped from me. I was told to stay home, that working a high school football game was not essential, but the liquor store down the street was. So how would have a national healthcare system helped?
"So in other words, these things don't actually negatively, tangibly affect you at all and there is no good reason to restrict them besides personal bias?"
In many cases that is how it goes. I bet there are a lot of things you support that don't effect you in a negative way. Do you support an AR 15 ban? I have 4 guns, none are registered. Do you support that? Or do you feel I should register them? I bet you will go your entire life without being shot at. So how do relaxed gun laws, or the fact that none of my guns are registered hurt you?
"This (again) is a contradictory statement at odds with your stated philosophy. You cannot have a stance that basically says "not my state, not my problem" in terms of human rights and chastise leftists who seek to ensure rights on a national level, then pretend it's other people who can't look beyond themselves. You should charge admission for projecting this hard."
Because it is not my state, not my problem. I don't live there, I don't pay taxes there, I don't vote there. I do no interact with the people there. So I do not know what they want.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Zarastro54 "It usually takes 100 years for a constitutional amendment to take effect?"
Yeah, things take time and for good reasons.
"Context such as the fact that the states were left to determine what constituted as "equal" treatment, and the results were disastrous. "
Based on who? At that time people did not see it as bad. Again, a lot of things are subjective.
You bring up the majority, well, how else should we dictate things? As is all governments are limited by the Constitution. Almost all issues are subjective.
"So, one woman's provocative video is an indication of an endemic moral degradation of society"
It goes beyond that. Many people are treating abortion too lightly. Look at the protests after Roe v Wade was overturn, and they were in places where abortion was going to remain legal to begin with. We have too many people that are too relaxed when it comes to abortion.
"False equivalencies all around. Limits are created by society when trying to determine what gives the most benefit while minimizing harm"
Uh, kind of like the people living in a particular state. Gotcha.
"The 9th Amendment was made specifically because it was virtually impossible to enumerate every single right a person might have in one document, AND precisely to prevent disingenuous pedants like you from using enumeration status as an argument against the existence of other natural rights."
And here is your misunderstanding of the 9th amendment. One, based on your argument having sex with a 14 year old girl should be a right. Next, what is being interpret there were things that were common at that time. For example, owning property was common at that time, so that is considered a right. What was not common at that time was gay marriage and abortions. So those are not rights.
"Public healthcare and lockdowns are two completely separate issues. Your ability to have access to free/low cost medical treatment and detox is not dependent on lockdown mandates. I'd say that you and millions of other people not going into medical debt (a concept almost entirely unique to the US) would have been a great benefit to your lives. Or are you honestly going to try to argue that not having the stress of needing to figure out a way to work back all the money you lost in medical bills wouldn't have been a positive to your experience? How governments actually handled lockdown procedures is a different debate."
Not really. I don't trust the government to manage my healthcare when they were the ones who did the lockdowns to begin with.
"Again, false equivalency. There is absolutely NO circumstance in which gay marriage, being gay, race mixing etc. can negatively impact any outside party."
I disagree. Why do married people get special benefits where I, as a single person, does not?
" Firearms on the other hand are literally made to cause harm; it's literally their only purpose, and there are countless instances where unregistered firearms were used to harm people. "
Which is why I own 4 guns. I rather be judged by 12 than being carried by 6.
"This is how laws generally work, as a give and take to maximize public safety and benefit. You not choosing to treat or prevent yourself from an infectious disease CAN and DOES affect the people around you. Unlike you, I can look beyond myself."
And this is were you are wrong. Again, the covid restrictions led to me, and others, to abuse substances. When I went to detox the talks with the worker is how the number of patients is increasing. So great, we all freaked out over a little virus and ruined millions of lives. The lockdowns did affect people in a negative way.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ashleecantu6470 it is not the same thing. Again, we have to start at square one, why does government get involved in marriage to begin with? One argument is to maintain and support the traditional household of a mother and father raising kids. You won't get that with a gay marriage. If the government decides to get involved in marriage and define it as being between a man and a woman then they can't discriminate against people based on race. However, with gay marriage they are not discriminating. Gay people can still get married, it just has to be with someone of the opposite sex.
You may make the love argument then at that point, but consider the many couples that stay together that don't love each other but stay together for the kids. That happens a lot.
" The government can't discriminate against someone based on something they can't change. I don't get what is hard to understand ab that. "
In this case it is not discrimination. If you want to argue that why do married people get special benefits over those who choose not to get married? I can find that to be discrimination. I do not want to get married, have zero desire to. So I can argue that, as a single person, I am being discriminated against.
"Also, the government getting involved in marriage to support a TRADITIONAL household is NOT a thing. You literally just made that up."
I did not make that up. The tradition was that married people start families, one parent stays home and another works. So to help them financially they get certain tax breaks.
"I didn't make that up based on feelings."
You are based on two things
1. Why is government involved in marriage to begin with?
2. What about single people? Why don't they get special benefits from the government?
You are completely ignoring those concepts. Again, back to square one, why does government get involved in marriage to being with? When you realize the answer in that then you begin to realize why not recognizing gay marriage is not discrimination. What about polygamy? Why doesn't the government recognize that?
To me the solution is very simple, get government out of marriage. You are arguing based on feelings because with gay marriage you say it is discrimination not to recognize it. Well, I feel it is discrimination to give married people special benefits but not single people.
"The Supreme Court has ruled on this"
The SC also overturned Roe v Wade, so do you support that? To me the SC ruling on gay marriage is incorrect as nothing in the Constitution mentions marriage as a right. Also, to add, there are many cases of establishing laws based on genders. For example, a high school girl can play football, but a high school boy cannot play on the girls volleyball team. That is discrimination, however, we set that up because men are physically stronger than women and allowing males to play female sports will cause major injuries.
So again, start at square one and work from there.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@knavishknight "Marriages unrecognized by homophobic state-governments are not marriages"
Yes they are, just like how someone can claim they are a woman when they are legally a man. We can go down that route if you want, how you contradict yourself.
"Again, you hypocritically want right-wing authoritarian homophobic governments to only recognize heterosexual marriages as marriages but not same-sex marriages,"
No, marriage is not listed in the Constitution, so it becomes a state issue. Just like abortion is not in the Constitution, so it becomes a state issue. I support rare, safe and legal on abortion. However, if a state wants to flat out ban it, I support that above my support of rare, safe and legal. Why? Because I support state rights as listed in the Constitution above all. Same with marriage, I feel government should get out of it. However, I support state rights above that.
You see, I have actual principles.
""Nothing in the constitution makes it a right for government to recognize it." YOU LIE . Obergefell v. Hodges is a landmark case in which on June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States held, in 5-4 decision, that state bans on same-sex marriage and on recognizing same sex marriages duly performed in other jurisdictions are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution . (source: Legal Information Institute)"
Which is an incorrect ruling. One, there was no ban on gay marriage. Next, marriage is not listed anywhere in the Constitution. Finally, the 14th amendment mainly deals with race. Also, the SC made incorrect rulings in the past as we saw in Plessy v Ferguson. I bet you support that case. I bet you also support the overturning of Roe v Wade.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1