Law School Discussion

I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #600 on: February 08, 2008, 10:27:37 AM »
Roe vs. Wade was ... unconstitutional.

explain why.

Embryonic stem cell "research" is basically paving the way for human cloning

and the problem with that is?

Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because judges MADE law.  That is the job of the legislature.

embryonic stem cell research is unethical because it paves the way for human cloning.
Ever watch star wars?
Do you think it is ethical to breed soldiers?

Interestingly enough, embryonic stem cell research is no more effective or necessary that adult stem cell research.
It is an obfuscation by the left that there can be no advances in medicine without using the stem cells of aborted fetuses.
The conservative viewpoint on this centers around the idea that it encourages abortion and places a positive sensibility on it.
I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying.
Besides, like most innovations, all the government is saying is that they won't fund it.  That doesn't prevent private investors from funding the research in any way.
Far too many politically inept folks think that Bush somehow made it illegal - he did no such thing.

Under Bush... embryos left over from fertility procedures can be and are THROWN IN THE TRASH but cannot be used for research. That's ridiculous. And for those who oppose it -  you should hope no one in your family ever gets diabetes, MS, or Parkinsons.

Bouzie

  • ****
  • 233
  • yummy
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #601 on: February 08, 2008, 10:35:08 AM »
Roe vs. Wade was ... unconstitutional.

explain why.

Embryonic stem cell "research" is basically paving the way for human cloning

and the problem with that is?

Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because judges MADE law.  That is the job of the legislature.

embryonic stem cell research is unethical because it paves the way for human cloning.
Ever watch star wars?
Do you think it is ethical to breed soldiers?

Interestingly enough, embryonic stem cell research is no more effective or necessary that adult stem cell research.
It is an obfuscation by the left that there can be no advances in medicine without using the stem cells of aborted fetuses.
The conservative viewpoint on this centers around the idea that it encourages abortion and places a positive sensibility on it.
I'm not saying that's right, I'm just saying.
Besides, like most innovations, all the government is saying is that they won't fund it.  That doesn't prevent private investors from funding the research in any way.
Far too many politically inept folks think that Bush somehow made it illegal - he did no such thing.

Explain please.

etmerian

  • ****
  • 506
  • UM '11
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #602 on: February 08, 2008, 10:37:51 AM »
On a completely unrelated note:

$600 rebate checks = very sweet, but I'm 99% sure it's not actually going to accomplish what it was intended to accomplish.

Anyone else care to comment?  Perhaps someone who is more knowledgeable about economics than I?

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #603 on: February 08, 2008, 10:42:55 AM »

Oh, I fully understand it is about civil marriage. What i'm trying to point out is, that by calling it marriage, it indirectly brings religious feelings and views into the discussion, a discussion that they do not need to be in. By agreeing to not call it marriage, we can eliminate religious feelngs, and therefore have a more rational discussion about the issue. There is no denying that America is still by and large a religious country, and by calling this institution marriage, indirectly brings up these sentiments, and is much more trouble than it is worth.

Also, for the religious that do these ceremonies, they are still the minority in the religious world. I don't know of any catholic or muslim sects that do this. I believe that the religions that do practice this are a sect of the Anglican church ( that is causing the church to splinter), The United Church of Christ ( ~1,000,000 members) and more liberal jewish sects.

If you are going to take that argument then you need to say that heterosexual couples, who do not have a religious ceremony/religious affiliation, can't call their commitment marriage either - because marriage is a "religious" word. We're talking about the government issuing licenses to couples. The government calls those licenses "marriage" licenses. There is nothing religious about that - maybe to you because you closely associate marriage with a religious ceremony - but not the the government.  They issue "marriage' licenses to people who do not have any religious affiliation or religious ceremony all of the time.

And you're incorrect. There are Catholic Priests who perform same sex marriage unions. Diginity USA (A Catholic Group) helps to perform them.

I don't remember anything in the US Constitution about Freedom of Religion for everyone except for minority religions  There are Churches that recognize same sex marriage. Just because they may be "smaller" or a "minority" compared to other churches does not mean they lose the protections of the US Constitution. With that said, the Anglican Church recognizes same-sex marriages. Do you know how big the Anglican Church is?  77 million members. That's the third largest communion in the world.

 I realize the federal government issues "marriage" licenses to people that are not religiously affliated. But, that does not upset the religious communities (seeing as they probably don't even think twice about it). I'm just saying, throughout history, marriage has been seen as a primarily religious institution. Jews viewed it that way 4000 years ago, Christians did 2000 years ago, even pagans and those who followed Greek and Roman religions did as well. most of these ceremonies invoked the blessing of some type of diety or being.

Also, i had never heard about that Catholic group. Also, although it is recognized by the Anglican Church, it is causing a split. Many sects of Anglicanism do not support it. The Church of England ( the orginal Anglicans) holds the view that marriage is between a man and a woman. So obviously, 77 million Anglicans are not all in favor of gay marriage. The number is probably about half, or maybe even less. I'm not trying to say that because the religions that support homosxual marriage should not have their opinions ignored. What I am trying to point out is, that by addition of the word marriage, it brings up a debate not necessary. By including marriage in this argument, the religious right ( by right i mean those that do not support homosexual marriage) can bring their religious views on this subject into the discussion, which would hamper anything getting done. the majority of the religious right will not change their views, and with such a large body of opposition, it hampers even a form of civil union being accomplished.  I'd be willing to bet that if the word marriage is removed from this concept, the process would be a lot smoother. the homosexuals would get their legal protection and benefits that the law provides married couples, while the religious right gets to keep their "sanctity" of the term marriage. It's a win-win for both sides. It's an effective middle ground.

BTW, glad there's some civility back in this discussion

etmerian

  • ****
  • 506
  • UM '11
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #604 on: February 08, 2008, 10:46:15 AM »
If someone has a state marriage license, but hasn't been married by the church (let's use the Catholic church as an example), then they are married before the law but the church regards them as unmarried.  If that couple were to try to baptize a child, they would be turned away (or at least have a hard time) because they are considered unmarried.  So why couldn't a gay couple be married before the law, but still be considered unmarried by the church?  The government can't dictate church law, and the church shouldn't dictate civil law.

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #605 on: February 08, 2008, 10:51:42 AM »
They certainly could. But what i'm saying the word "marriage" will cause such a controversy as to get nothing accomplished at all. there are people that will view marriage is primarily religious, and with such a large resistance, nothing will get accomplished. My whole argument is just that calling it a civil union renders it impossible for religious conservatives to make any type of religious based argument, and then things accomplished. So what if it's not called marriage?

etmerian

  • ****
  • 506
  • UM '11
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #606 on: February 08, 2008, 10:58:05 AM »
Well I agree, but maybe that's because I'm not gay so my marriage WILL be called a marriage.  I don't know how it would be received (or for that matter how it would be viewed under equal protection) to separate them into the entity of "civil union" when the rest of us have "marriages".  It's a little like segregation.

A: "Are you married?"
B:  "No, actually I'm in a civil union"

??????????????????????????????

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #607 on: February 08, 2008, 11:01:04 AM »
Sure they can? But that's like saying "you don't think it's possible for someone to simply hold the value being left-handed is wrong"   I mean, sure people could believe it. But how do you justify it? Wrong according to who/what? It's just wrong to be left-handed? Ok....

okay well let's see if you can justify one of your own axioms.  killing other people is wrong.  how do you justify that?

I posed this to J way back when.

I suggested there is no intrinsic value to life, or something to that effect. I can't remember what else we argued about.

He didn't believe I held on to a belief that cornering.

I remember this stalemate.

I don't understand your last sentence though.

Astro

  • *****
  • 9930
  • Happy birthday goalie!!!
    • View Profile
Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #608 on: February 08, 2008, 11:03:54 AM »
As many times as you've called my posts ironic, I think your new one just took the cake. 

Outlaw:  I'd be interested in seeing that medical research saying same gender parental households cause no differences.  I've always wondered whether the one-parent household problems stemmed from there being a simple numerical shortage of parents, or whether it might have had something to do with a male/female imbalance. 


Any valid suppositions as to why it would be the latter?

Re: I can't honestly be the only conservative on here...
« Reply #609 on: February 08, 2008, 11:04:41 AM »
Well I agree, but maybe that's because I'm not gay so my marriage WILL be called a marriage.  I don't know how it would be received (or for that matter how it would be viewed under equal protection) to separate them into the entity of "civil union" when the rest of us have "marriages".  It's a little like segregation.

A: "Are you married?"
B:  "No, actually I'm in a civil union"

??????????????????????????????

I'm assuming that the gay couples would rather have a civil union than nothing at all. If they can't eliminate or at least contain the opposition of the religious right, I'm assuming nothing is what they will get, at least for a long time.