Posted on 08/13/2020 11:26:11 AM PDT by BenLurkin
Sure it is. I do get the impulse, from a conservative perspective, to try and prop up what scraps of tradition we have left. And, if we were in a functional society with both sexes holding up their end of the social contract, then these arguments might hold some water.
We’re not living in that society anymore though.
friend we havent been living in a cpuntry like that for almost 200 years
“But I dont want to accuse you of being naive enough to believe that a law passed today obviates or is more relevant than a previous law, just because its in conflict. Thats a living constitution argument.”
That is when you talking about something that is defined in the Constitution. We’re talking here about laws passed by the legislature, so it’s not really a “living Constitution” argument. When the legislature passes a law that contradicts an earlier law, the default assumption is that if there is a conflict, the more recent law reflects the current intent of the legislature (which is what the courts are attempting to determine when they rule on this stuff). Yes, there may need to be a court case to settle a conflict, but often there never is and superceded laws just stay on the books forever without ever being challenged. That’s why we have stupid laws from 100 years ago still on the books saying you can’t eat ice cream cones on Sundays and whatnot.
“No, the conflict is eventually resolved by court. In this case it seems it has been, twice.”
Well, the court has made decisions, but they haven’t resolved the inherent conflict that exists between the two laws. They’ve simply punted it down the road for someone else to worry about, probably because if they resolved the conflict, then a lot of people would get upset, no matter which way they decide to resolve it.
Well everyone in Israel serves, and even the women in uniform, are bad ass. But you have been at a state of war for 70 years. Meanwhile our society has gotten spoiled by having the conflict offshore. That could change if we don’t get control of our borders.
Well, if chivalry got warped, it got warped a looong time ago. Go look up “courtly love”, that set of ideas was incorporated into chivalry by the medieval era.
you need some red pills - bad!!!
its before that
they got warped in the medieval ages when the whole romantic love bs got started
What about “equal rights”..
You're describing a deal that has responsibilities for both women and men:
1. The woman give birth to the man's babies
2. The man fights as needed to keep the woman safe
However, that deal doesn't exist in law when the woman can legally murder the babies of the man between conception and birth.
Consider the archetypal story of Romantic Love:
Cinderella.
In the story, Cinderella wants to be loved for who she is as a person, despite her poverty.
However, she doesn’t pursue the village man who wants to be loved for who he is as a person, despite his poverty.
She pursues the richest young man she can find, the heir to all of the wealth in the kingdom, the prince.
Should a man risk his life to protect Hillary Clinton?
If not, why?
Name one reason why any man should risk his life to protect a pro-abortion woman.
Women want entitlements without obligations.
When we no longer protect our women and use them as combatants cites become fair game. So sorry for the children. The fact that the can serve to actually fight means they are not a protected class.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.