Posted on 11/20/2003 1:05:23 PM PST by freedom44
That is a very important point of reason.
In the testing of hypotheses, one grants the existing theory the status of "null" or "default" hypothesis, and in order to adopt a competing hypothesis, you must demonstrate some strong proof against the null.
The arguer with the novel idea, or the big change in things, is the one with the burden of proof. It is not necessary for the holder of the status quo to show that every assertion against it is false, one by one. It is for the new assertion to strongly refute the default hypthesis in order to acquire acceptance.
Like in a trial, the default hypothesis is that the defendant is not guilty. It is not necessary that he prove he is innocent(though it helps), it is only necessary that the prosecution fails to prove his guilt for the defendant to retain his status as not guilty.
Society is right until proven wrong. And the gay jihadis haven't proven anything.
Elswhere, many policies have been soundly refuted, yet they remain in place, and are even strengthened. Upside-down world. Our rulers have decided that we should be fed to the gays, to go along with the rest of the insanity and oppression with which they have vexed us.
Amendment IX:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others (rights) retained by the people."
The 9th Amendment thus states that the "federal matter" is prohibited from denying or disparaging the right to marry the person of your choice because that right is "...retained by the people."
The 9th amendment has jurisdiction within the boundaries of a state because of the 14th amendment.
And finally, those individuals "married" in states that have a broad definition of marriage, have another part of the U.S. Constitution on their side:
ARTICLE IV, Section 1.
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state.
Same question came up in Sodom, I bet.
The government always recognized the importance of family, which is why tax laws were written to give families a tax incentive to get married and stay married. I remember when being single really sucked from a tax standpoint.
The problem is that society has never "left them alone" at all.
We have passed countless laws specifically designed to condemn their lifestyle, and they are starting to blow up in our face.
Example the change in Texas law that led to the now infamous Lawrence case.
Sodomy was illegal in Texas, then it became legal with the exception of male homosexuals.
The old law stood up to challenges because it applied equally across the board to every one, the new law was clearly designed to impact a specific segment of the population.
It served to overthrow ALL sodomy laws across the nation.
Maybe. I'm not a libertarian. But it seems to me that generally libertarians oppose government discrimination based on sexual orientation. And it seems to me that although libertarians would oppose government blessings of ANY marriages, they (a) view marriages as private contracts, (b) would place just as much value on a gay couple's "marriage contract" as a straight couple's, and thus (c) would see no reason for the government to favor one over the other. My view of the libertarian position obviously differs from yours.
And with all due respect, a gay's right to marry a person of the opposite sex is as meaningless as would be according me the right to marry another man.
It is not the duty of society to pretend we don't know true things that we know. Gayness is not some dualist equivalent of heterosexuality, anymore than hitting myself on the head is equivalent to masturbating. And the convenient assertion that somebody's cousin is quiet and lives with another man is irrelevant.
And that statement is impenetrable. Dualist equivalent? True things that we don't know? quiet cousins?? Maybe you could try that again in plain English.
Staving off further obsurdities from the libertarian bashers.... NO. You cannot marry someone/something that CANNOT give consent. Ergo, you perverts cannot marry your pet gila monster and you cannot marry a child as their Rights are still held in trust by their parent/gaurdian. Considering the nature of the contract being discussed, the gaurdian/parent does not have the "Right" to make such a decision for their ward. That must be left to when the child in question gains their full advocacy of their Rights upon reaching full maturity.
What rational basis could there be? If my wife and I want to marry another woman, what business of it is yours? How are you harmed by us having one extra person living in our house? Convenience? You haven't been keeping up with divorce stats, have you? Platonic? Sick asshats like that more than likely are Darwin Award candidates anyway. Do no business with them. Shame used to be a powerful social guidance tool until nosy feel-gooders got laws put in place that removed voluntary association from our business climate.
If your religion does not change its definition of "marriage", then you would have nothing to worry about.
Of course, you are all in a panic because someone, somewhere, may be having some un-authorized fun. Piss off you crude little troll. What goes on in the bedrooms of America is none of your business.
Then you can discriminate against anyone you want and won't have to worry about the government coming down on you for it.
LOL, aholes abound in the world, you will never be lonely.
Where in the world did you dig up this crap? I could care less what you or anybody else does in your bedroom, when you bring your bedroom into the public policy arena then it becomes my business.
You and your marxist friends do not get to change the meaning of words or rule by judicial fiat no matter how you have or don't have sex.
It always amuses me when self described libertarians cheer on the the consolidation of power into judicial oligarchies when it accords with their ideology. You have provided todays amusement. Thanks.
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.