Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (112217)	5/29/2009 5:17:10 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541931

Tim, I deal with contradictions and legality all the time. Sometimes what the law asks for is difficult to accomplish. It is rarely impossible but it is often a matter of risk assessment and consideration and yes, resourcing, to determine if that will actually be done. I believe it was Regan's Assistant Attorney General who said presently everyone is violating the law at all times. That is probably true. Are you disposing of your batteries in special containers? If not you are a criminal. I had to go all the way back to the start of this line of reasoning which you seem to be defending. I simply joined in when you said comic routines can be used to discuss the relevant topic. I didn't think so. So here it is: >Any consenting adult male can marry a consenting adult female.< This was defended as equal protection. The logical problem with this is the insertion of gender and orientation as a requirement. As I said in another post when we declared independence with "All men are created equal...", the interpretation at the time was consistent with slavery. A logical parsing of the statement could have multiple interpretations because "men" in that sentence would have not applied to gays, handicapped, women or people of color. That target has moved, producing the 13th, 14th, and 19th Amendments (and other law). I advocate a color, sexual orientation and gender blind society. The legal trajectory of the past 100 years shows this is inevitable. Some people are slow to the dinner table. So, with the same analysis that I have done in the previous paragraph, J's statement should read "Any adult can partner with any consenting adult". Deltas from this statement to the current law represent a moral and logical inconsistency to the current interpretation of founding declaration as "All people are created equal". This is the modern interpretation of what people meant at the time but weren't socially evolved enough to recognize. Sure, you can say that isn't what they meant, but logically you are now arguing that "All people aren't created equal" should have been the motto. I disagree.