Hodad

Sure, if you just "report" what someone else has said or add a question mark at the end, then you're magically relieved of any and all personal responsibility for spreading dangerous misinformation. Classic! Is Bat Boy is alive and well? Or is he psychologically damaged by--what some describe as--Mako's unwanted touching of his Batcave? We simply can't know that Mako wasn't trying to harvest his Batdrenochrome!

Oh, you want to go on record claiming that, in your view, robbery does no harm? No, because that would be a stupid claim? Okay, so then it obviously doesn't fall under the description of freedom that I, or the founding fathers, describe. So why don't you try again with something that better resembles a reasoned critique.

Look, it's pretty clear that you don't have any knowledge or understanding of political philosophy. That's probably something worth exploring before you try to define freedom. Freedom does, in fact, mean that you get to do whatever you want. And within the context of a formal society in which liberty is negotiated and traded for other benefits, freedom means doing whatever you like as long as it's not harming others. The prevention of harm is the function of the laws. Laws are passed to prevent one person's freedom from impinging upon another person's freedom. Colloquially, my right to swing my arms around ends where doing so would impact your body. Your freedom not to be struck supercedes my right to do whatever I want. The fact that you think red ties are ugly is not grounds to limit my freedom to wear a red tie by passing laws to prohibit it. It doesn't harm you, or anyone else. There is no justification. You may think that gay marriage is "yucky" but, like heterosexual marriage, there is no harm or risk to anyone outside of the consenting couple. Therefore there is no justification to make it illegal This is a pretty simple proposition. If you can't demonstrate harm (you can't) then you are taking away or limiting someone else's rights simply because of your arbitrary preferences. That's inherently antagonistic toward freedom. You favor religious oppression and forced conformity over liberty. That's just the facts as they stand, and it couldn't be more plain.

Living with "freedom loving Christians" would be fine. That's just not who you are. You do not love freedom. You would prefer to oppress non-harm liberties and force people to live according to your interpretation of some ancient texts.

?

Actually, that's exactly parallel to what Sharia is: laws based on the religious interpretations of those in power rather than upon a foundation of reasoned freedom. Of course, that's insanity. Depending who is in power at any given moment it may or may not be against the law to eat bacon. You want a county, it's just not America as it was founded and exists today.

Ah, theocracy. There we have it. You want laws based on your own religious interpretations. So you can stop pretending you're into freedom and the constitution and stuff.

Ah, yes, the "just asking" hedge for spreading false claims and conspiracy thinking. How novel. "We don't know if Mako is a pedophile..."

If the government is recognizing the contract between Pat and Chris, what does it matter to you if Pat and Chris are two men, two women, or one man and one woman-- or two non-binary people, for that matter? No matter the composition, it has no ability to harm you, and indeed, no effect on you whatsoever. So when you argue to legally recognize one contract but not the others, you are doing so because of your personal biases rather than any logic or principle. You're not preventing any harm. And that's not how laws are made in a free country. Just because you don't like, say, red ties-or left-handed writing, doesn't mean you have any standing or cause to outlaw them. You want to take freedoms away from others for no cause whatsoever.

You said that I think homosexual marriage is good. Whether state sanctioned marriage is a good idea at all is the real question. But within the current structure, homosexual marriage is identical to heterosexual marriage. No better or worse--no different. In both cases it's a shortcut legal process that allows consenting adults to merge certain interests, assets and obligations. That's the sum total of what state marriage is, and the sex of the two consenting adults doesn't matter one way or another.

You asked a question with an illogical premise based on assumptions about me. I gave you the correct information so that you could reformulate your question--and thinking--in the context of a free society. Remember, our entire constitution is a charter of negative rights. Law in this country isn't composed of specific activity permitted by an all powerful government. Quite the opposite. Our system of law is founded in what the government may not do. It presumes individual liberty, and prescribes the circumstances under which individual liberty may be compromised: harm to others. And I don't need to cite the color commentary. It's accurate, but quite beside the point. If you have idle curiosity about the various states of marriage in human history you're welcome to go learn.

It's really rather extraordinary that Schwarzenegger made that film. It does take some stubborn courage to speak TO the deplorables. Certainly the most heartfelt and meaningful thing he's ever recorded.

It doesn't really matter if gay marriage is a "good thing." That's not the way free societies make law. Whether you or I think something is good or bad is wholly irrelevant. The only relevant question is whether some thing or activity is demonstrably harmful to others, at which point society erects laws to protect citizens from harm. But for the record, yes, there are many societies that historically permitted gay marriage. And heterosexual marriage as we know it today is also somewhat novel. The idea of people marrying voluntarily out of love is fairly radical, when our recent traditions were far more transactional and used as a means of gaining or consolidating wealth and power, with children traded as tokens of good will. And, of course, that's still the case in some societies. Indeed, marriage has taken many forms in different societies over the years. Plural marriages were and still are quite popular. So maybe you're the deviant with your 1 man, 1 woman preference. Anyway, the historical precedent is interesting in the it highlights the myopia of the man+woman crowd but, as before, it's ultimately irrelevant. Even if other versions of marriage were entirely novel, it shouldn't have any bearing on the law. If it's not hurting you--or anyone else--those consenting adults should be free to marry.

A. Q said to B. Internet memes are always definitive and authoritative. Why would someone paste text into an image if it weren't infallible?

And somehow in your mind this is related to a conversation about gay marriage, non-harm liberties and the nature of free society? Fascinating.

The point, which seems to have sailed right over you, is that throughout history there have been people raising absurd objections about non-harm variations from an arbitrary "normal" status. And yes, indeed, people in medieval times (and more recently!) have raised the exact same poorly formed arguments about left handedness that you are making about homosexuality: it's different, therefore it is harmful, therefore it must be illegal.

Probably trying to knock out the children to harvest their adrenochrome! We live in very strange times.

This isn't a direct enough answer? "I have zero interest in watching Kennedy debate anyone. He's lied for decades and continues to do so. He doesn't deserve a platform for his misinformation."

A miniature horse with the last name "Kennedy" should be able to break 20% in early polls, but I don't think RFK Jr. is even polling that high. His last name is, as it has been his whole life, his greatest asset. The more he speaks publicly and people actually get to know him the more support he'll lose. No one who knows who he is is taking him seriously, and even discussing how we shouldn't take him seriously is taking him too seriously.

Lol. Yes, I've been "duped" by the entirety of the medical and scientific communities, who have thoroughly denounced Kennedy's conspiracy nonsense. You, on the other hand. have apparently been duped by a privilege dilettante attorney playacting at science. I have zero interest in watching Kennedy debate anyone. He's lied for decades and continues to do so. He doesn't deserve a platform for his misinformation. He's squandered any goodwill his father and uncle created and wasted his privilege and celebrity chasing cheap fame with the conspiracy crowd. His candidacy is not being taken seriously by anyone who matters. He's a bad joke.

That is some crazy revisionism. He has lied for years about about crucial vaccines causing autism, when there is no link. A scientist like Wakefield who makes those fake claims in a bid for fame end up disgraced and destroyed, because science has mechanisms for self correction. But there's no consequence for a dilettante lawyer peddling medical misinformation. But for some people are dumb enough to follow the medical advice of a dilettante lawyer and kids die sad a result. They bear the consequence. That's what happens when someone is debunked as a total conspiracy nut crackpot: reputable media chooses not to participate if propagating misinformation.

Where did it come from? A place called reality. You should visit. He's been neck-deep in this nonsense for almost 20 years. There are American children today dying from diseases that were once relegated to classic literature, because of Kennedy and his cohort. Fark him and his deadly misinformation.

Medieval Deluge way probably thumping on about unnatural, deviant left handed people and whacking their knuckles with oddly sized rulers until they conformed to right-handed writing. The thing is that gay people and left-handed people have just as much influence on your actual life: none. The "agenda" is to live and function in society. To be treated with the basic dignity and respect afforded every American. You don't have to like them or approve of them, but let them be. Their existence is a fact and what they do in their bedrooms or churches or courthouses has no more effect on your life than anyone else. In a free society, rights are restricted to prevent harm to others. Gay people and gay marriage do no harm to anyone. There is no cause to legislate against them, and to do so us inherently anti-freedom.

You have to be farking kidding. Ignorant asshats like Kennedy, McCarthy and the now disgraced Wakefield have have set back American infectious disease prevention by a generation, almost single-handedly leading the resurgence of terrible diseases once effectively eradicated. And that's the tip of the iceberg for his misinformation and conspiracy factory. Let's not even get into the "COVID and the Jews" nonsense from the past week. He's a bad, bad joke, an embarrassment to his family and legacy and an ill-timed distraction during an important political cycle.

Not anymore. Covalent bonds are the gayest of all chemical arrangements and teaching kids about them is just grooming.