Violation of Civil Rights: Calling Someone Never Formally Charged A Thief

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Getting the state out of marriage is fine, but then of course you have sticky issues of certain benefits that are available to married couples. I don't believe you should just let religion define who gets to get married and have those benefits. You KNOW some jackasses would be marrying their cars and shit.

MY personal feeling is let state's decide, if your state wants to allow gay marriages , go for it, and personally I say let em marry. Who cares?

Marriage is a religious institution, there's no reason to have government involvement at any level. How many religions would acknowledge a marriage between a person and a car? And even if someone tried marriage implies a contract, and you can't have a contract between a person and an inanimate object. But if somebody wants to be married to their car, it does no harm to me or you so why should we care? It won't affect your personal idea of what marriage constitutes so it's irrelevant.

I assumed you were against gay marriage, but I guess not.

No, I'm not against it. Hell if they want to be unhappy and risk losing half their shit like the rest of us, more power to them.

The problem with just allowing anyone to marry whatever they want comes when situations arise where the government does have to be involved.

For instance, some jackass finds a loopy church that lets him marry his car, he dies and there's a will leaving all his money to his wife err car, the kids get pissed and sue. Now what? Just as an example.

There has to be SOME standard from the government's point of view, just for logistical reasons.

The government's role is in enforcing contracts. Marriage is a contract. You can't enter into a contract with a car, and you can't leave your possessions to a car.

 

[ConHog]

Marriage is a religious institution, there's no reason to have government involvement at any level. How many religions would acknowledge a marriage between a person and a car? And even if someone tried marriage implies a contract, and you can't have a contract between a person and an inanimate object. But if somebody wants to be married to their car, it does no harm to me or you so why should we care? It won't affect your personal idea of what marriage constitutes so it's irrelevant.

I assumed you were against gay marriage, but I guess not.

No, I'm not against it. Hell if they want to be unhappy and risk losing half their shit like the rest of us, more power to them.

The problem with just allowing anyone to marry whatever they want comes when situations arise where the government does have to be involved.

For instance, some jackass finds a loopy church that lets him marry his car, he dies and there's a will leaving all his money to his wife err car, the kids get pissed and sue. Now what? Just as an example.

There has to be SOME standard from the government's point of view, just for logistical reasons.

The government's role is in enforcing contracts. Marriage is a contract. You can't enter into a contract with a car, and you can't leave your possessions to a car.

Ok, let's change car to dog............

Helmsley leaves her dog $12 million in trust - Animal weirdness- msnbc.com

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

No, I'm not against it. Hell if they want to be unhappy and risk losing half their shit like the rest of us, more power to them.

The problem with just allowing anyone to marry whatever they want comes when situations arise where the government does have to be involved.

For instance, some jackass finds a loopy church that lets him marry his car, he dies and there's a will leaving all his money to his wife err car, the kids get pissed and sue. Now what? Just as an example.

There has to be SOME standard from the government's point of view, just for logistical reasons.

The government's role is in enforcing contracts. Marriage is a contract. You can't enter into a contract with a car, and you can't leave your possessions to a car.

Ok, let's change car to dog............

Helmsley leaves her dog $12 million in trust - Animal weirdness- msnbc.com

I don't see how you can legally leave money to an animal, might need a lawyer to explain that one.

 

[ConHog]

The government's role is in enforcing contracts. Marriage is a contract. You can't enter into a contract with a car, and you can't leave your possessions to a car.

Ok, let's change car to dog............

Helmsley leaves her dog $12 million in trust - Animal weirdness- msnbc.com

I don't see how you can legally leave money to an animal, might need a lawyer to explain that one.

You can set up a trust for anything. And you better believe I could set up a trust to take care of my prized 1966 mustang convertible if I so chose. I could leave ALL my money to it screwing my wife and kids out of any inheritance, and who's left figuring that out? The government, so they DO have a say .

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Ok, let's change car to dog............

Helmsley leaves her dog $12 million in trust - Animal weirdness- msnbc.com

I don't see how you can legally leave money to an animal, might need a lawyer to explain that one.

You can set up a trust for anything. And you better believe I could set up a trust to take care of my prized 1966 mustang convertible if I so chose. I could leave ALL my money to it screwing my wife and kids out of any inheritance, and who's left figuring that out? The government, so they DO have a say .

I see. So it's just a fund to make sure that something is taken care of after a person passes on, that explains it. Why is that a problem? If it's my money, and I want to make sure my car or pet is taken care of properly after I die why shouldn't I be allowed to make sure that happens? My kids have no right to that money if I decide that they don't, so what's the government needed for? Now a wife would be a different story, since the marriage contract would likely imply that she has a right to that money. And as I said, it's the proper role of the state to enforce a contract.

 

[George Costanza]

Since a person's sexual preference does not violate the rights of somebody else then I am of the opinion that sexual preference is a right. You have the right to like men or women, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman.

I agree.

Marriage is not mentioned in the document, (the Constitution) therefore the government may not regulate it one way or the other and the religions should decide for themselves what constitutes marriage. If they want to allow gay marriage that should be fine, if they don't want to allow gay marriage that should also be fine. You can throw polygamy in there too.

??????????

Seems to me, the government "not allowing" gay marriage would be inconsistent with the notion that sexual preference is a right.

 

[George Costanza]

The government's role is in enforcing contracts. Marriage is a contract. You can't enter into a contract with a car, and you can't leave your possessions to a car.

Ok, let's change car to dog............

Helmsley leaves her dog $12 million in trust - Animal weirdness- msnbc.com

I don't see how you can legally leave money to an animal, might need a lawyer to explain that one.

You leave the money to a trust that is set up to take care of the animal. You do not leave money to the animal. (The animal would just blow it on trips to Vegas, yachts, private jets, etc. )

 

[George Costanza]

You have no right to your reputation because your reputation is made up of what other people think of you, and their thoughts are their property.

I don't know where you came up with the tortured logic through which you arrive at your point here, but you could not be more wrong. Let' s use an example. You don't like either of your neighbors, Bill and Marge Gunderson (fictitious names). So you put a big sign up in your front yard that says: "Bill Gunderson is a child molestor and Marge Gunderson is a whore." None of this is true.

If you think Bill and Marge don't have any right to their reputation, just sit back and see what happens next.

Hint: It will involve lots of lawyers, lots of litigation and LOTS of money, almost all of it yours.

I'm aware of what the law is, but it is my opinion that the law is wrong. And my above post explains why.

Gotcha.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Slap on the wrist by the courts? Stop sounding like a nut. What would you ahve the courts do to a petty thief? Cut off their hand?

I bet we'd eradicate about 90% of shoplifting if we did.

 

[George Costanza]

Slap on the wrist by the courts? Stop sounding like a nut. What would you ahve the courts do to a petty thief? Cut off their hand?

I bet we'd eradicate about 90% of shoplifting if we did.

Would you really want something like that done in this country?

 

[ConHog]

Since a person's sexual preference does not violate the rights of somebody else then I am of the opinion that sexual preference is a right. You have the right to like men or women, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman.

I agree.

Marriage is not mentioned in the document, (the Constitution) therefore the government may not regulate it one way or the other and the religions should decide for themselves what constitutes marriage. If they want to allow gay marriage that should be fine, if they don't want to allow gay marriage that should also be fine. You can throw polygamy in there too.

??????????

Seems to me, the government "not allowing" gay marriage would be inconsistent with the notion that sexual preference is a right.[/QUOTE]


It would, IF gay marriage were indeed a right, it is NOT.

 

[Modbert]

Not at all. If you accept that we have self-ownership, then what we think would have to be an extension of that, and what we think of others would be an extension of that. You have no right to your reputation because your reputation is made up of what other people think of you, and their thoughts are their property.

Seriously? I've seen you say some pretty stupid things, but if not for people being able to own nuclear weapons comment, this would take the cake.

Go ahead and do exactly what George said to your neighbors, see how fast that defense holds up in court.

 

[Modbert]

I bet we'd eradicate about 90% of shoplifting if we did.

I have a feeling it wouldn't last too long after all those lawsuits when people who are wrongly accused or what have you have one less hand.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Since a person's sexual preference does not violate the rights of somebody else then I am of the opinion that sexual preference is a right. You have the right to like men or women, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman.

I agree.

Marriage is not mentioned in the document, (the Constitution) therefore the government may not regulate it one way or the other and the religions should decide for themselves what constitutes marriage. If they want to allow gay marriage that should be fine, if they don't want to allow gay marriage that should also be fine. You can throw polygamy in there too.

??????????

Seems to me, the government "not allowing" gay marriage would be inconsistent with the notion that sexual preference is a right.

I wasn't referring to the government, however. Your sexual preference is your sexual preference. No one should have the right to tell you who you're attracted to. Marriage, however, is a religious ceremony, and it should be left to private religions, who are voluntarily joined, to define marriage for themselves. I don't want the state legalizing gay marriage or making gay marriage illegal.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not at all. If you accept that we have self-ownership, then what we think would have to be an extension of that, and what we think of others would be an extension of that. You have no right to your reputation because your reputation is made up of what other people think of you, and their thoughts are their property.

Seriously? I've seen you say some pretty stupid things, but if not for people being able to own nuclear weapons comment, this would take the cake.

Go ahead and do exactly what George said to your neighbors, see how fast that defense holds up in court.

Thanks for your concern, but you're making the same mistake George did.

 

[xotoxi]

It might be cause for slander, but I don't see it as a civil rights violation.

In order for something to be slander, doesn't the bad publicity have to be an untruth about the person? If you made something up about someone, that would be slander.

In the situation of a bounced check, there is evidence that the check bounced, thus displaying it would just be displaying a truth.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Slap on the wrist by the courts? Stop sounding like a nut. What would you ahve the courts do to a petty thief? Cut off their hand?

I bet we'd eradicate about 90% of shoplifting if we did.

Would you really want something like that done in this country?

It's probably a bit extreme, but it would work.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Since a person's sexual preference does not violate the rights of somebody else then I am of the opinion that sexual preference is a right. You have the right to like men or women, regardless of whether you're a man or a woman.

I agree.

Marriage is not mentioned in the document, (the Constitution) therefore the government may not regulate it one way or the other and the religions should decide for themselves what constitutes marriage. If they want to allow gay marriage that should be fine, if they don't want to allow gay marriage that should also be fine. You can throw polygamy in there too.

??????????

Seems to me, the government "not allowing" gay marriage would be inconsistent with the notion that sexual preference is a right.

I have the right to believe whatever religion I want, but I do not necessarily have a right to practice whatever religion I want.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It might be cause for slander, but I don't see it as a civil rights violation.

In order for something to be slander, doesn't the bad publicity have to be an untruth about the person? If you made something up about someone, that would be slander.

In the situation of a bounced check, there is evidence that the check bounced, thus displaying it would just be displaying a truth.

Exactly, which is why I phrased my response the way I did.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Slap on the wrist by the courts? Stop sounding like a nut. What would you ahve the courts do to a petty thief? Cut off their hand?

I bet we'd eradicate about 90% of shoplifting if we did.

Cruel and unusual punishment. I think it's in the Us Constitution. It's what I have always liked reminding people of when they start talking stupid or wanting to gather up a lynch mob.