• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the Republican Party in danger of dying out?

Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

The Mark said:
That is what the founders believed.

What I'm wondering is whether a higher power needs to be involved at all - if you found out tomorrow that no higher powers existed or had ever existed, would you decide you no longer had a right to live, be free, and pursue happiness?
Click to expand...

no, because i am equal on par with other human beings, and they have no authority to decide my life liberty or ......pursuit of happiness..which translates into [property].

notice the founders stated laws of nature "nature's god"........this is subjective to.... to mean, we are part of nature itself.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Zyphlin said:
They did no such thing. They determined what limitations on our natural rights would be allowable under our social contract and what limitations on those rights the government would be forbidden from placing.

The founders and the constitution did not CREATE Freedom of Speech. To suggest they did would mean that if this country was disolved and anarchy ruled that a person could not say whatever they wish...which is patentedly untrue.

Rather, the 1st amendment establishes a limit to how much the government can infringe upon said right by stating the Government can create no law prohibiting the free exercise of it.

Whether you want to believe a "Natural" right is one granted by "God" or is simply a symptom of existing within nature is entirely your choice...but rights as you're speaking in this case are not created by man, but are naturally innate to man.

It is through a social contract that we LIMIT our rights in exchange for societal benefits or through which we create societal rights/privledges related to that social contract.

But one does not need a society or a social contract to speak, to believe, to defend themselves, to live....those are innately the ability of man in nature. They are natural rights.
Click to expand...


I have no idea what you mean by "natural rights". Without a organized community, the concept of "rights" is meaningless. If our society dissolved and nothing replaced it, we could murder, steal, speak, walk around naked, and there would be no penalties. But nature doesn't give anyone or any animal "rights". Nature just is. It's only under the aegis of an organized society that we have "rights".
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Henrin said:
Can you prove the existence of this social contract? Unlike natural rights that can easily be support by reason, there is no such thing possible with the idea of a social contract.
Click to expand...

You have it backwards. Reason led to the Constitution which is the social contract we run our nation by.

There are no rights that nature "grants". You can do what you will without any social contract (unless someone objects and kills you) but that doesn't make that a "right" granted by "nature"
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

the founders actually took out religion reference from the declaration of independence.


we hold these truths to be "sacred and undeniable" was the first wording, ....however it was change because it was thought to be religious.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

ernst barkmann said:
incorrect, and you even got a like from haymarket, and he professes to know law.

the constitution 19th states you cannot be denied the vote on account of sex.....it does not give a right.
Click to expand...


ooops sorry typed the wrong number.

I did not have the right to vote in this country until the amendment passed. It passed, I have the right to vote.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

paddymcdougall said:
You have it backwards. Reason led to the Constitution which is the social contract we run our nation by.

There are no rights that nature "grants". You can do what you will without any social contract (unless someone objects and kills you) but that doesn't make that a "right" granted by "nature"
Click to expand...

what social contract would that be, since the constitution does not pertain the the people.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

ernst barkmann said:
what social contract would that be, since the constitution does not pertain the the people.
Click to expand...

Ernst, I give up. Talking to you is less productive than talking to a barn door. No point in doing it anymore.

I hope you enjoy your day.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

paddymcdougall said:
ooops sorry typed the wrong number.

I did not have the right to vote in this country until the amendment passed. It passed, I have the right to vote.
Click to expand...

if you read the wording, it states you cannot be denied the vote.......because of sex.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

paddymcdougall said:
Ernst, I give up. Talking to you is less productive than talking to a barn door. No point in doing it anymore.

I hope you enjoy your day.
Click to expand...

please ....show me where the constitution pertains to the people.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Henrin said:
If this social contract existed than evidence of this contract would need to be presented to a court of law in order for them to enforce it legally. There is no evidence such a contract exists, nor a reason to suggest that such a contract is reasonable to assume is established on our birth or creation.
Click to expand...

All that is needed is that you are here and you broke the law. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme not to mention engaging in the worst sort of intellectual fraud and denial of simply reality.

I really do not care what you call it be it the social contract, the law, the rules of the game or a gazelle.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

Henrin said:
That is a rather unimportant matter to where this conversion is headed. You will need to tell me why it is reasonable to assume the state establishes the rights of man. I believe I have said more than enough to explain myself, but you have yet to explain how it is logical to argue that rights come from an organization of force.
Click to expand...

Before I can even consider that I have to know what these "rights of man" are and where are they found?
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

paddymcdougall said:
You have it backwards. Reason led to the Constitution which is the social contract we run our nation by.
Click to expand...

The Constitution is a treaty. It has nothing to do with the concept of a social contract.

There are no rights that nature "grants". You can do what you will without any social contract (unless someone objects and kills you) but that doesn't make that a "right" granted by "nature"
Click to expand...

Being able to act aggressively towards someone is simply a matter of fact that happens with or without government. Protection of rights is simply a matter of men coming together and recognizing their capabilities.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

haymarket said:
All that is needed is that you are here and you broke the law. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous in the extreme not to mention engaging in the worst sort of intellectual fraud and denial of simply reality.

I really do not care what you call it be it the social contract, the law, the rules of the game or a gazelle.
Click to expand...

Law needs justification and it is entirely erroneous to claim that this justification for the law is found in the law itself, which is essentially what your argument is mounted on. The government declares a right, and regardless of this right being declared aggressive or non-aggressive in nature your argument would declare that the right is true and just and all objections to it are forfeit. Civil disobedience in your world could not possibly have justification as the source of the laws justification is not the people, but the law itself. Your argument is really no different than saying the king is our rightful ruler and us his rightful servants and slaves because he ruled it as such.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

ernst barkmann said:
a right, meaning one recognized for all citizens as a whole, cannot be restricted.

however a right of a single individual can be redistricted based if a violation of the law took place by that individual.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The constitution, through the process of amendment, can restrict the rights of all citizens as a whole. Therefore it is not incorrect to state that the rights come from the persons who write the constitution.

ernst barkmann said:
you have many many rights, you have liberty to do as you please.......AS LONG AS......that liberty does not violate the rights of other people, or threaten the health and saftey of the public.
Click to expand...

Your ability to do as you please is restricted by two things:

(1) The resources you have at your disposal

(2) Others with the ability to restrict you and who desire to exercise that capability

Those persons with the power to write laws that are enforceable from a practical point of view have the ability to not only restrict your rights individually, but the rights of the citizens taken as a whole. For example, when the constitution was written, the citizens of the United States had the right to own slaves. As a matter of fact, men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson freely exercised that right. However, because the constitution provided for a government that cold restrict that right, at a certain point, persons with the power to write the constitution, through amendment, revoked that right. Therefore no one can successfully argue in a court of law that the constitution gives them the right to own slaves because the constitution explicitly forbids US citizens from doing so, at least in the United States. Because the government has enforced this law through the threat of coercion, the law is obeyed by US citizens. Therefore, it can be correctly said that the rights come from those with the power to write the constitution.
 
Last edited:
Mr.Nick said:
RINO's are dying out - as can be seen by Rand Paul's victory at the cpac.

Real conservatism is alive and well.

These RINO's are NOT - and never were - republicans or conservatives.
Click to expand...

To be honest with you I really don't have a problem so much with conservatism as an ideology. It's the application that gets me.

Just saying.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

ernst barkmann said:
no, because i am equal on par with other human beings, and they have no authority to decide my life liberty or ......pursuit of happiness..which translates into [property].

notice the founders stated laws of nature "nature's god"........this is subjective to.... to mean, we are part of nature itself.
Click to expand...
Is a higher power really involved then? Or are things they way they are naturally. Or is there no difference?

Probably doesn't matter really.

What we have to work with is:
Belief that some rights are inherent and inalienable.
Laws which were written to protect those rights.
 
ChezC3 said:
This seems indicative of the current trend. Millenials feeling themselves entitled to the work of others, raised to think everyone deserves a gold star for effort, that hard work comes second to personal enjoyment, that there are no right answers only personal opinions, that punitive measures consist of the mighty wrath of the "Time Out" -- this being the Democratic Platform, the choice is obvious.

Gay Rights is a misnomer and marijuana legalization isn't the exclusive providence of the Democrats.

Getting high and buggery is what matters most? Is what is driving a stake through the heart of the GOP?

Nah, it's what is driving a stake through the heart of this country.

Voting on the federal lever for exclusive issues, specifically social issues has shown itself to be, is, and will continue to be catastrophic.

This goes for the right side of the aisle too. The religious Right is no better in this regard.

Only until a decentralization takes place allowing States rights to take precedence, to allow people to live the way the want to live, surrounded by people who want to live in the same fashion -- this country will always be divided and will continue its downward spiral.
Click to expand...

Interesting. A couple of questions

1. Why do you say gay rights is a misnomer?
2. What exactly is buggery?

I think you have some valid points here. However, I think your assertion that somehow giving states rights precedence will somehow decrease the divisions in this country is wrong.

But overall, not bad.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

MildSteel said:
I disagree. The constitution, through the process of amendment, can restrict the rights of all citizens as a whole. Therefore it is not incorrect to state that the rights come from the persons who write the constitution.
Click to expand...

the constitution grants no rights, it only recognizes them, the bill of rights are a restriction on government that it cannot make any laws which violate the rights of the people, [this from reading the preamble to the bill of rights]....the government has never created a right.



MildSteel said:
Your ability to do as you please is restricted by two things:

(1) The resources you have at your disposal

(2) Others with the ability to restrict you and who desire to exercise that capability

Those persons with the power to write laws that are enforceable from a practical point of view have the ability to not only restrict your rights individually, but the rights of the citizens taken as a whole. For example, when the constitution was written, the citizens of the United States had the right to own slaves. As a matter of fact, men like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson freely exercised that right. However, because the constitution provided for a government that cold restrict that right, at a certain point, persons with the power to write the constitution, through amendment, revoked that right. Therefore no one can successfully argue in a court of law that the constitution gives them the right to own slaves because the constitution explicitly forbids US citizens from doing so, at least in the United States. Because the government has enforced this law through the threat of coercion, the law is obeyed by US citizens. Therefore, it can be correctly said that the rights come from those with the power to write the constitution.
Click to expand...


resources of coarse limit your ability to do things, .. but that is not a restriction, place on you by government....that is your own affair.

if other people restrict your rights..... that is a crime......if government restricts your rights, and you have not preformed an unlawful action....that is a rights violation.

government has no authority to act on you, using force or coercion, if you have not violated the rights of another, or cause a heath or saftey concern......why, because who is the victim?

government cannot act without a victim.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

AGENT J said:
1.) still got nothing huh? let us know when you do
Click to expand...

For some reason you keep responding to nothing. That tells me there must be something there.

AGENT J said:
2.) nope never even hinted at anything thats the part you made up in your head
Click to expand...

Yes you did, you tried to brush aside Karl Rove as a nutcase.

AGENT J said:
3.) i agree it wasnt hard to understand that what you were posting had nothing to do with what i said, im glad you figured that mistake out.
Click to expand...

You are wrong. What I posted had everything to do with what you said.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

The Mark said:
Is a higher power really involved then? Or are things they way they are naturally. Or is there no difference?

Probably doesn't matter really.

What we have to work with is:
Belief that some rights are inherent and inalienable.
Laws which were written to protect those rights.
Click to expand...

its subjective to the reader.

rights are unalienable.

government is instituted to secure the rights of the people......."if men were angels, no government would be necessary"
 
danarhea said:
The GOP is not dying. They are too extreme right now, and will eventually moderate. Same thing happened to the Democrats before Clinton. They went extreme left and became irrelevant, until Clinton brought them somewhat back towards the Center. Republicans will also moderate eventually, and we will have a left of center party and a right of center party, with neither of the 2 having extremists running it. At that time, having a Republican president will be a reality once more.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but they better get moving.

BTW, your boy Ted Cruz isn't helping.
 
MildSteel said:
Perhaps, but they better get moving.

BTW, your boy Ted Cruz isn't helping.
Click to expand...

I don't support Cruz. He is an extremist. Funny how people can just make assumptions of others for no reason at all.
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

MildSteel said:
1.)For some reason you keep responding to nothing. That tells me there must be something there.
2.)Yes you did, you tried to brush aside Karl Rove as a nutcase.
3.)You are wrong. What I posted had everything to do with what you said.
Click to expand...

1.) another failed deflection let me know when you have something that goes againt my statement
2.) nice back pedal but now you are just posting lies, yes i did say Rove is a nut case i NEVER claimed that he did do the activities you said lol, your post fails again

should we go back and look at this lie you just tried to sell?

this is what you ACTUALLY said
MildSteel said:
The point is that you appear to want to brush aside the fact that Republicans have used gay baiting to get votes.
Click to expand...

and i NEVER did that now you are trying and failing to spin that and move the goal post but nobody is falling for it

3.) facts prove otherwise, let us know when you have some.

I wil repost what i originally said AGAIN and i will ask you the question you kee dodging again lol

my statement:
"millions of conservatives support equal rights for gays and weed"
and then i asked you if you disagree with that fact?

so yes or no?

who wants to take bets this question is dodged again?
 
Re: The Reason Democrats Are Backing Gay Rights and Marijuana Legalization

ernst barkmann said:
the constitution grants no rights, it only recognizes them, the bill of rights are a restriction on government that it cannot make any laws which violate the rights of the people, [this from reading the preamble to the bill of rights]....the government has never created a right.
Click to expand...

The Constitution doesn't do anything. The Constitution is merely a written statement by persons with the power to restrict rights that tells citizens how people welding the power of government can restrict their behavior. It is the people who write the laws and enforce them that restrict rights.

ernst barkmann said:
resources of coarse limit your ability to do things, .. but that is not a restriction, place on you by government....that is your own affair.
Click to expand...

Actually it is not strictly your own affair. The government takes thousands of dollars from me in the form of taxes every year. Although I don't like it, there is nothing, practically speaking, that I can do to stop them.

ernst barkmann said:
if other people restrict your rights..... that is a crime......if government restricts your rights, and you have not preformed an unlawful action....that is a rights violation.
Click to expand...

If someone restricts your rights, it is not a crime unless the government says it's a crime.

ernst barkmann said:
government has no authority to act on you, using force or coercion, if you have not violated the rights of another, or cause a heath or saftey concern......why, because who is the victim?
Click to expand...

And because government, through the enactment of laws, the process of interpretation of those laws, and the enforcement of those laws determine when the rights of others have been violated or cause a health or safety concern, government determines what you have a right to do.

ernst barkmann said:
government cannot act without a victim.
Click to expand...

Because the government determines who or what is a victim, government determines what you have a right to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom