Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: What is Vince's legal justification... « previous next »
Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11

TheAman

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 2492
Offline
#60 : May 10, 2013, 03:01:29 PM

You cannot have a legally binding contract with a child because they do not have fully developed cognition, therefor their ability to understand and agree to contracts is deemed below what is required to make the contract enforceable.


Course you can. How do you think they get Saturday jobs?

By having the parents sign consent forms, and usually having to apply for a permit through their schools?

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19533
Offline
#61 : May 10, 2013, 03:25:52 PM


By the way , CBW , you are arguing this from the wrong point of view with all this contract jargon and haggling over legal technicalities.

The winning argument is much more simple : ANY pair/group of consenting adults getting married of thier own free will does not effect you in any way . It doesn't harm you , it doesn't infringe on you .....SO LET THEM GET MARRIED . WHO CARES . Period.

I notice that supporters adhere to the principle that marriage is between TWO persons. This demonstrates that they are willing to discriminate (i.e. against bigamists which, like gay marriage, would harm no-one) but only against the people they disapprove of.

Oh boy


spartan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 7036
Online
#62 : May 10, 2013, 04:11:11 PM

My point Vin is that people seem to accept there are limitations that can be imposed on marriage, they simply have differing opinions on what those limitations are.

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19533
Offline
#63 : May 10, 2013, 09:21:07 PM

My point Vin is that people seem to accept there are limitations that can be imposed on marriage, they simply have differing opinions on what those limitations are.

I said oh boy because you keep equating homosexuality with lifestyle choices and because you have things reversed.  A discussion of gay marriage is not about limitations on marriage its about denial of benefits associated with marriage. In our society marriage provides several benefits (tax deduction, assets passing etc) because the government has a reason to encourage marriage (social support networks etc).  The same reasons one would encourage heterosexual marriage exist in homosexual marriage except for procreation (but even then gay couples often want to adopt).  Those reasons do not really exist with lifestyle choices like bigamy because often times bigamy results in the exploitation of woman and it doesn't offer the same social support because, quite simply its not one women and some children being supported by one male, its MANY


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17079
Online
#64 : May 10, 2013, 10:01:06 PM

My point Vin is that people seem to accept there are limitations that can be imposed on marriage, they simply have differing opinions on what those limitations are.

I said oh boy because you keep equating homosexuality with lifestyle choices and because you have things reversed.  A discussion of gay marriage is not about limitations on marriage its about denial of benefits associated with marriage. In our society marriage provides several benefits (tax deduction, assets passing etc) because the government has a reason to encourage marriage (social support networks etc).  The same reasons one would encourage heterosexual marriage exist in homosexual marriage except for procreation (but even then gay couples often want to adopt).  Those reasons do not really exist with lifestyle choices like bigamy because often times bigamy results in the exploitation of woman and it doesn't offer the same social support because, quite simply its not one women and some children being supported by one male, its MANY

I've read this and re-read this like 3 times and still have no clue of the point you are trying to make. Seems you are simply trying very hard to rationalize certain discriminations you favor.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19533
Offline
#65 : May 10, 2013, 10:18:38 PM

My point Vin is that people seem to accept there are limitations that can be imposed on marriage, they simply have differing opinions on what those limitations are.

I said oh boy because you keep equating homosexuality with lifestyle choices and because you have things reversed.  A discussion of gay marriage is not about limitations on marriage its about denial of benefits associated with marriage. In our society marriage provides several benefits (tax deduction, assets passing etc) because the government has a reason to encourage marriage (social support networks etc).  The same reasons one would encourage heterosexual marriage exist in homosexual marriage except for procreation (but even then gay couples often want to adopt).  Those reasons do not really exist with lifestyle choices like bigamy because often times bigamy results in the exploitation of woman and it doesn't offer the same social support because, quite simply its not one women and some children being supported by one male, its MANY

I've read this and re-read this like 3 times and still have no clue of the point you are trying to make. Seems you are simply trying very hard to rationalize certain discrimination you favor.

the reason marriage includes with it a number of government benefits is because it marriage help creates a social safety net (even more so historically when women were more dependent on men)
gay people should be entitled to those same benefits for the same reason (i.e they have the same need for social security)
bigamy creates less of a social safety net because it typically puts multiple people dependent on one AND one could argue it often involves the exploitation of women

in other words, I dont think the government has the same motivation to promote bigamy as it would marriage.  what's the reason?
: May 10, 2013, 10:23:58 PM VinBucFan


Dolorous Jason

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 17079
Online
#66 : May 11, 2013, 07:48:27 AM

My point Vin is that people seem to accept there are limitations that can be imposed on marriage, they simply have differing opinions on what those limitations are.

I said oh boy because you keep equating homosexuality with lifestyle choices and because you have things reversed.  A discussion of gay marriage is not about limitations on marriage its about denial of benefits associated with marriage. In our society marriage provides several benefits (tax deduction, assets passing etc) because the government has a reason to encourage marriage (social support networks etc).  The same reasons one would encourage heterosexual marriage exist in homosexual marriage except for procreation (but even then gay couples often want to adopt).  Those reasons do not really exist with lifestyle choices like bigamy because often times bigamy results in the exploitation of woman and it doesn't offer the same social support because, quite simply its not one women and some children being supported by one male, its MANY

I've read this and re-read this like 3 times and still have no clue of the point you are trying to make. Seems you are simply trying very hard to rationalize certain discrimination you favor.

the reason marriage includes with it a number of government benefits is because it marriage help creates a social safety net (even more so historically when women were more dependent on men)
gay people should be entitled to those same benefits for the same reason (i.e they have the same need for social security)
bigamy creates less of a social safety net because it typically puts multiple people dependent on one AND one could argue it often involves the exploitation of women

in other words, I dont think the government has the same motivation to promote bigamy as it would marriage.  what's the reason?

Well that's the root of the problem right there isn't it ? This suggestion that the government has the right to promote certain lifestyles while banning others.


I don't buy that a group of 4 is less of a social safety net than a group of 2. This isn't the 1920's when only the man brings in an income while the women stay at home knitting sweaters and baking brownies. I also don't buy that women are being exploited in a situation where all are consenting adults. I think it simply comes down to what Spartan said : we like imposing our morals on other people.

What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.

           

VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19533
Offline
#67 : May 11, 2013, 02:28:55 PM

My point Vin is that people seem to accept there are limitations that can be imposed on marriage, they simply have differing opinions on what those limitations are.

I said oh boy because you keep equating homosexuality with lifestyle choices and because you have things reversed.  A discussion of gay marriage is not about limitations on marriage its about denial of benefits associated with marriage. In our society marriage provides several benefits (tax deduction, assets passing etc) because the government has a reason to encourage marriage (social support networks etc).  The same reasons one would encourage heterosexual marriage exist in homosexual marriage except for procreation (but even then gay couples often want to adopt).  Those reasons do not really exist with lifestyle choices like bigamy because often times bigamy results in the exploitation of woman and it doesn't offer the same social support because, quite simply its not one women and some children being supported by one male, its MANY

I've read this and re-read this like 3 times and still have no clue of the point you are trying to make. Seems you are simply trying very hard to rationalize certain discrimination you favor.

the reason marriage includes with it a number of government benefits is because it marriage help creates a social safety net (even more so historically when women were more dependent on men)
gay people should be entitled to those same benefits for the same reason (i.e they have the same need for social security)
bigamy creates less of a social safety net because it typically puts multiple people dependent on one AND one could argue it often involves the exploitation of women

in other words, I dont think the government has the same motivation to promote bigamy as it would marriage.  what's the reason?

Well that's the root of the problem right there isn't it ? This suggestion that the government has the right to promote certain lifestyles while banning others.


I don't buy that a group of 4 is less of a social safety net than a group of 2. This isn't the 1920's when only the man brings in an income while the women stay at home knitting sweaters and baking brownies. I also don't buy that women are being exploited in a situation where all are consenting adults. I think it simply comes down to what Spartan said : we like imposing our morals on other people.

Bigamy = lifestyle
Homosexuality = NOT lifestyle

Constitutionally, the government has the legitimate power to infringe upon your rights. That power varies depending on the purpose. That makes sense and is the law. Similarly, the government has the legitimate power to reward behavior or actions, subject to the same check that exist with infringing right

I am no expert on bigamy. If you think it benefits society talk to your Congressman. I am just offering why there is a different treatment in the law

Btw, I am all for limited government and freedom but people in a society do not love in bubbles. One person's freedom is another person's infringement. As long as we pay taxes and taxes are used for social services many people will be for the government rewarding behavior that reduces the load on government benefits


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#68 : May 11, 2013, 07:21:27 PM

Laws cannot be enacted that deny liberties to individuals arbitrarily. There must be a reason for it that gives it legitimacy.


Sure the can.

Ever been drafted?? An arbitrary number is used (like DoB or Last 4 of SS#) and if your arbitrary number is called you are in the military which involves all kinds of lost liberties.

How about alcohol and tobacco laws? If you were born before this arbitrary date, you can buy it, if not you can't.

If you want to open a bar, you need to get a liquor license, and those licenses are limited to a certain number per year and recipients are drawn by lottery. Whether you can sell booze is therefore strictly arbitrary.

If you want to stage a protest in the city park, you get a permit and that permit states the maximum number of people that can attend which is usually first come, first served- which is arbitrary. IOW your right to free assembly can be denied because you arbitrarily weren't one of the first 500 to arrive.

In Cape Coral you can't paint your house bright purple, isn't that arbitrarily removing my right of expression?

And I'd say the vast majority of the IRS codes are arbitrary.

These are not arbitrary laws. The random method of implementation doesn't make the law itself arbitrary, or better stated, it doesn't mean that the law serves no purpose other than to satisfy a personal whim. The draft has a specific and legitimate purpose, as does placing a quota on annual liquor licenses. Another example that fits the same mold would be jury duty. The randomness in which people are selected to be potential jurors doesn't mean that jury duty serves no purpose.

As far as the legal drinking age and age of consent, the same rationale applies. You may think that the ages selected might be arbitrary (although I'd argue that from a biological and physiological standpoint, they are not), but that doesn't mean that having an age of consent or legal drinking age serves no purpose. I don't think anyone thinks it's a good idea to have 9 year olds able to legally vote, sign contracts, or purchase alcohol or tobacco. So the question isn't whether or not there ought to be a legal age of consent, just what age should it be.

Placing restrictions on public protests also serves a public safety purpose. And the IRS certainly serves a purpose.

As far as the house painting goes, I'm not familiar enough with the laws in Cape Coral to comment on it specifically. The only two circumstances that I'm aware of that painting your house a specific color might be illegal is if you signed some sort of agreement with a neighborhood association upon purchase of the home or if the home has been deemed a historic venue. In the case of the former, it wouldn't be a specific law, but rather a binding contract that made it illegal, and in the case of the latter, you could argue that preserving our heritage for future generations also serves a purpose.


CBWx2

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 5931
Offline
#69 : May 11, 2013, 07:37:41 PM

My point Vin is that people seem to accept there are limitations that can be imposed on marriage, they simply have differing opinions on what those limitations are.

I haven't really seen anyone here arguing against plural marriage for the purposes of morality, except Vince maybe. Myself and DJ have both said that we do not agree with that limitation being imposed, and JG? argued against it from a legal prospective, i.e. contract law, not from a moral one.


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19533
Offline
#70 : May 11, 2013, 08:09:26 PM

My point Vin is that people seem to accept there are limitations that can be imposed on marriage, they simply have differing opinions on what those limitations are.

I haven't really seen anyone here arguing against plural marriage for the purposes of morality, except Vince maybe. Myself and DJ have both said that we do not agree with that limitation being imposed, and JG? argued against it from a legal prospective, i.e. contract law, not from a moral one.

I addressed from the legal perspective not the morality perspective, but Spartans comment is backwards its not about limitations on marriage it's about limitations on extending benefits associated with marriage really


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31581
Online
#71 : May 11, 2013, 09:30:38 PM

Bigamy = lifestyle
Homosexuality = NOT lifestyle

lolz


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19533
Offline
#72 : May 11, 2013, 09:36:05 PM

Bigamy = lifestyle
Homosexuality = NOT lifestyle

lolz

lolz

simple question (even for you-lol): why would someone CHOOSE to be gay? 


Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31581
Online
#73 : May 11, 2013, 09:59:23 PM

Bigamy = lifestyle
Homosexuality = NOT lifestyle

lolz

lolz

simple question (even for you-lol): why would someone CHOOSE to be gay?

I have no idea.  Why would someone choose to have more than one wife?  Why would someone choose be a be a pedophile?  Why would someone choose to be a serial killer?  Why would someone choose to engage in bestiality?  Why would someone hire you as a lawyer?


VinBucFan

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 19533
Offline
#74 : May 11, 2013, 10:13:21 PM

Bigamy = lifestyle
Homosexuality = NOT lifestyle

lolz

lolz

simple question (even for you-lol): why would someone CHOOSE to be gay?

I have no idea.  Why would someone choose to have more than one wife?  Why would someone choose be a be a pedophile?  Why would someone choose to be a serial killer?  Why would someone choose to engage in bestiality?  Why would someone hire you as a lawyer?

I should've known it wasn't simple enough. How about this - what's a rock?

Good thing there's no prejudice against homosexuals. Homosexual = pedophile = serial killer    ???

LMAO

: May 11, 2013, 10:15:22 PM VinBucFan

Page: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 ... 11
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: What is Vince's legal justification... « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools