What Constitutes a "Right?"

[bodecea]

Marriage and sexual activity are mutually exclusive...

That's possible the dumbest statement in this thread

It is a true statement. One can have sex without marriage and one can have marriage without sex.

 

[JBeukema]

Marriage and sexual activity are mutually exclusive...

That's possible the dumbest statement in this thread

It is a true statement. One can have sex without marriage and one can have marriage without sex.

You're ******* retarded. Being mutually exclusive means one cannot have both. The statements says that you cannot be married and have sex. Kinda like how voting for Obama and having an honest president are (by all appearances) mutually exclusive.


Definitions of mutually exclusive on the Web:

• contradictory: unable to be both true at the same time
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• In simple terms, two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time (i.e. they have no outcomes in common).
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_exclusive
• Describing multiple events or states of being such that the occurrence of any one implies the non-occurrence of all the others
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutually_exclusive
• Is a set of events in which if one happens the other does not. An example is the tossing of a "normal" coin. ...
  www.oasismanagement.com/frames/TECHNOLOGY/GLOSSARY/m.html
• Describing two events, conditions, or variables which cannot occur at once. For example, subjects in a study cannot be both female and male, HIV positive and HIV negative, pregnant and not pregnant, for those are mutually exclusive categories. ...
  www.etr.org/recapp/research/researchglossary.htm
• Each option is distinct from all other options.
  www.glencoe.com/sec/busadmin/marketing/dp/mktg_resrch/gloss.shtml
• if two sets have no elements in common (interjection is empty) - 5 misses
  quizlet.com/42788/math-definitions-flash-cards/
• Mutually exclusive procedures are two or more procedures usually not performed during the same patient encounter on the same date of service.
  www.healthlink.com/provider/sh_defs/Definitions%206.19.06.htm

Dumbass.

 

[JBeukema]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to bodecea again.

Damned. I was going to neg you for being an illiterate retard

 

[bodecea]

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?

The right to property comes from the fact that you work and you earn property. No one can rightfully take from you that which you have worked hard for and earned.

circular argument

yes, they can

and they do

it's called taxation

And that's part of the social contract. We mutually give up some of our rights in order to gain the safety of having a government.

 

[nodoginnafight]

It's a joke - Geeeeez

 

[JBeukema]

The right to property comes from the fact that you work and you earn property. No one can rightfully take from you that which you have worked hard for and earned.

circular argument

yes, they can

and they do

it's called taxation

And that's part of the social contract. We mutually give up some of our rights in order to gain the safety of having a government.

Not if that person does not wish to be a party to the contract. Then he is robbed by the mob and threatened with imprisonment if he resists. You have a child's comprehension of social contract. It's not all lollipops and ******* rainbows.

 

[JBeukema]

ROFLMNAO...

Well I don't know of any legal statute... but there's two relevant points here... First, my ignorance of such doesn't mean that there's not... and your standing on such is a flagrant ad ignorantum farce... Secondly, it's hilarious that you want to assert that what is legal equates to what is true and right.

...I'LL STOP RIGHT THERE AND NOT READ ANY FURTHER...

WAIT A MINUTE, BUSTER!

You are calling me out for "asserting what is legal..." when you yourself stated:


YOU said that sexual intercourse is required to make a marriage legally complete.

I merely quoted Webster's Collegiate 2009... And this in repsonse to your query regarding marriage and sex as a requirement of such.



Yeah... and this based upon the principle of JOINING in Holy Matrimony... where two people join as one... for the purposes of procreation; family and the raising of children in the likeness of their progenitors... It's not a complex issue Sis...



False... but it does demonstrate the tedious nature of debating those who are incapable of comprehending sound principle. Debate is a function which serves to deduce what is true and right.



ROFLMNAO... Color me shocked...



And Potatos are on sale at Publix for 2.25 a bag; marked down from 2.99.



Well to be perfectly honest, I've noticed that you don't like to think at all. It seems to go against your very nature; so perhaps the effort is uncomfortable for you.

But Marriage is specifically, a license to JOIN... A license to engage in sexual intercourse for the purposes of procreation; where the progeny are nurtured and raised in a secure and stable household; where the JOINED progenitors are held accountable AS ONE, for their UNION and all that comes from it.

Marriage (from the perspective of the state) is a contractual joining of two individuals for legal purposes.

Yes... and those purposes noted above...

What's ironic here is that you've made it absolutely CRYSTAL clear that you oppose the principle of Marriage, except for the absolute LEAST notable functions of the license.

This thread is a clinic in the study of why Marriage as a concept has decayed to its present state; the reasoning which undermined it being paraded out in all it's debaucherous majesty...

The principles of Marriage are completely foreign to this individual... and here she is advocating for the JOINING OF TWO WHO CANNOT BE JOINED; two who cannot procreate... two who cannot nurture a family through the traits common to the respective genders...

To this Humanist Marriage is basically a short-form incorporation...

Now follow me here friends...

Recognize that as it is being presented... this member beleives that Marriage is nothing but a legal arrangement. She overtly rejects the fundamental aspects of marriage; the sanctity, the physical and metaphorical joining of two people to form one united entity...

To her, there is NO OTHER ASPECT OF MARRIAGE WHICH IS RELEVANT BUT A CIVIL LICENSE; Marriage is PURELY, wholly, solely, a legal recognition of the respective parties being legally bound and recognized by the state as one legal entity; so as to provide for the entitlement to the privileges enjoyed by such an institution.

Everyone up to speed?

Now where it has been noted, in thread after thread; on forum after forum... that such which is being described is readily available to anyone... having no standard regarding gender... as is the case in Marriage... that any two or more individuals can file application with the prerequisite fees and be united through Incorporation as one legal entity; to enjoy the benefits and privileges thereof in a matter of HOURS...

Such is rejected out of hand...

There's no sexual component, no gender component... its PURELY A LEGAL ARRANGEMENT...

EVERYTHING that has been erroneously projected as Marriage; and which they demand be recognized as the defining attributes of Marriage... RIGHT?

Except one teeny tiny little problem...

INCORPORATION DOES NOT PROVIDE THE CULTURAL VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE; AND IT DOES NOT BECAUSE INCORPORATION DOES NOT REST UPON THE SACRED PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH MARRIAGE RESTS; PRINCIPLES THAT THEY REJECT OUT OF HAND; PRINCIPLES WHICH THEY DEMAND BE STRIPPED FROM THE VERY CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE... AND PRINCIPLES, IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH... THERE CAN BE NO POTENTIAL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH VALIDITY; AND AS DELUDED AS IT IS, IT IS SOLELY THAT VALIDITY WHICH THEY COVET.

Lets remind ourselves of their position... Let's take another peek at the sterile interpretation of Marriage which they want to project... and recall as we do, that this projection is an ILLUSION... it is a LIE; and it is designed to delude the culture into tearing down the last fragment of cultural viability...

Sexual intercourse (from the perspective of the state) is none of their business and will not be regulated or promoted by the Government.

As position which seeks to provide for the marriage of homo-SEXUALS ...

Now is everyone up to speed?

Marriage was the purchase of a sex partner, the bonding of a contract, and a source of income for the father.

Marriage as it is in the West today is a relatively recent development that came into being with the rising status of women above that of a dog.

 

[JBeukema]

Total cop-out, since there is nowhere in America that runs their local gubmint services by any kind of free market models.

Taxes are the price we pay for gubmint that is too big, spends too much, and imposes itself into far too many lives of completely nonviolent people.

Then leave America, or run for office and fix it yourself.

You make a decision to live in your community, which means you make a decision to abide by the laws therein. Among those are taxation laws, which provide for the goods and services the community as a whole provides.

Again, if you do not like your community, leave and find another.

There are limits to that ability. There are no true wildlands nearby

 

[xotoxi]

Marriage and sexual activity are mutually exclusive...

That's possible the dumbest statement in this thread

My bad...

I guess I should have said mutually independent.

Essentially, I mean to say that both events can occur together or separately. What would you call that?

 

[JBeukema]

Marriage and sexual activity are mutually exclusive...

That's possible the dumbest statement in this thread

My bad...

I guess I should have said mutually independent.

Essentially, I mean to say that both events can occur together or separately. What would you call that?

'Two different matters'?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually I don't. I believe there's an expatriation tax.

So pay it and leave. Look at it just like paying the tolls on a toll road, which is what all roads would be if you turned the responsibility for roads and bridges over to the private sector.

If I was truly free to leave I wouldn't have to pay a tax to do so. Regardless, I'm not interested in leaving and your response seems to simply be "My way or the highway" rather than actually addressing the issues. I'm free to criticize as I see fit and telling me to leave if I don't like the way something is is a ridiculous sentiment.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I'm going to play devil's advocate a little here...

Where does this right to property come from?

The right to property comes from the fact that you work and you earn property. No one can rightfully take from you that which you have worked hard for and earned.

circular argument

yes, they can

and they do

it's called taxation

Which I have defined as theft. They can't rightfully take my property from me so they steal it instead.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

If I was truly free to leave I wouldn't have to pay a tax to do so. Regardless, I'm not interested in leaving and your response seems to simply be "My way or the highway" rather than actually addressing the issues. I'm free to criticize as I see fit and telling me to leave if I don't like the way something is is a ridiculous sentiment.

My issue is your stance on taxation. Again, even Christ when asked about the isse said "Render unto Cesear..." It is impossible to have a nation that can survive without taxation, and by agreeing to live in your community, you agree to do your part.

Running a nation isn't free. Pay your part. If you don't like how the nation is run, you do have options. Among them is leaving. You also have the option to vote, protest, make your voice heard, run for office, try to organize a Constitutional Convention, etc.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

If I was truly free to leave I wouldn't have to pay a tax to do so. Regardless, I'm not interested in leaving and your response seems to simply be "My way or the highway" rather than actually addressing the issues. I'm free to criticize as I see fit and telling me to leave if I don't like the way something is is a ridiculous sentiment.

My issue is your stance on taxation. Again, even Christ when asked about the isse said "Render unto Cesear..." It is impossible to have a nation that can survive without taxation, and by agreeing to live in your community, you agree to do your part.

Running a nation isn't free. Pay your part. If you don't like how the nation is run, you do have options. Among them is leaving. You also have the option to vote, protest, make your voice heard, run for office, try to organize a Constitutional Convention, etc.

Yet "Caesar" does not own me and certainly does not own my labor, therefore "Caesar" must steal from me what I have rightfully earned to do things that I don't agree "Caesar" has the right to do.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Yet "Caesar" does not own me and certainly does not own my labor, therefore "Caesar" must steal from me what I have rightfully earned to do things that I don't agree "Caesar" has the right to do.

Honest question: How would you fund national defense?

If you have a better way to guarantee the security of the nation besides taxes, I would love to hear it because "Caesar" has folks out there every day working to make sure you stay free and secure, and those folks deserve payment.

 

[bodecea]

That's possible the dumbest statement in this thread

It is a true statement. One can have sex without marriage and one can have marriage without sex.

You're ******* retarded. Being mutually exclusive means one cannot have both. The statements says that you cannot be married and have sex. Kinda like how voting for Obama and having an honest president are (by all appearances) mutually exclusive.


Definitions of mutually exclusive on the Web:

• contradictory: unable to be both true at the same time
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• In simple terms, two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time (i.e. they have no outcomes in common).
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_exclusive
• Describing multiple events or states of being such that the occurrence of any one implies the non-occurrence of all the others
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutually_exclusive
• Is a set of events in which if one happens the other does not. An example is the tossing of a "normal" coin. ...
  www.oasismanagement.com/frames/TECHNOLOGY/GLOSSARY/m.html
• Describing two events, conditions, or variables which cannot occur at once. For example, subjects in a study cannot be both female and male, HIV positive and HIV negative, pregnant and not pregnant, for those are mutually exclusive categories. ...
  www.etr.org/recapp/research/researchglossary.htm
• Each option is distinct from all other options.
  www.glencoe.com/sec/busadmin/marketing/dp/mktg_resrch/gloss.shtml
• if two sets have no elements in common (interjection is empty) - 5 misses
  quizlet.com/42788/math-definitions-flash-cards/
• Mutually exclusive procedures are two or more procedures usually not performed during the same patient encounter on the same date of service.
  www.healthlink.com/provider/sh_defs/Definitions%206.19.06.htm

Dumbass.

Mutually exclusive means that there does NOT have to be a connection between the two at all times....One does not automatically lead to the other.

But, you can call names all by yourself. I will not stoop to that level.

 

[Intense]

If I was truly free to leave I wouldn't have to pay a tax to do so. Regardless, I'm not interested in leaving and your response seems to simply be "My way or the highway" rather than actually addressing the issues. I'm free to criticize as I see fit and telling me to leave if I don't like the way something is is a ridiculous sentiment.

My issue is your stance on taxation. Again, even Christ when asked about the isse said "Render unto Cesear..." It is impossible to have a nation that can survive without taxation, and by agreeing to live in your community, you agree to do your part.

Running a nation isn't free. Pay your part. If you don't like how the nation is run, you do have options. Among them is leaving. You also have the option to vote, protest, make your voice heard, run for office, try to organize a Constitutional Convention, etc.

This is where Government by the consent of the Governed comes into play. Where we stand firm and united, Government must comply. Taxation is a given. How much, what type, where and how it is spent are what we vote on. There is a balance.

 

[bodecea]

If I was truly free to leave I wouldn't have to pay a tax to do so. Regardless, I'm not interested in leaving and your response seems to simply be "My way or the highway" rather than actually addressing the issues. I'm free to criticize as I see fit and telling me to leave if I don't like the way something is is a ridiculous sentiment.

My issue is your stance on taxation. Again, even Christ when asked about the isse said "Render unto Cesear..." It is impossible to have a nation that can survive without taxation, and by agreeing to live in your community, you agree to do your part.

Running a nation isn't free. Pay your part. If you don't like how the nation is run, you do have options. Among them is leaving. You also have the option to vote, protest, make your voice heard, run for office, try to organize a Constitutional Convention, etc.

This is where Government by the consent of the Governed comes into play. Where we stand firm and united, Government must comply. Taxation is a given. How much, what type, where and how it is spent are what we vote on. There is a balance.

An interesting nuance to our federal government is that all tax legislation must start in the House. That is the part of government that is most easily controlled by the smallest group of citizens (districts)...and the most frequently (2 year terms). We ultimately have no one to blame but ourselves.

 

[Intense]

It is a true statement. One can have sex without marriage and one can have marriage without sex.

You're ******* retarded. Being mutually exclusive means one cannot have both. The statements says that you cannot be married and have sex. Kinda like how voting for Obama and having an honest president are (by all appearances) mutually exclusive.


Definitions of mutually exclusive on the Web:

• contradictory: unable to be both true at the same time
  wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
• In simple terms, two events are mutually exclusive if they cannot occur at the same time (i.e. they have no outcomes in common).
  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutually_exclusive
• Describing multiple events or states of being such that the occurrence of any one implies the non-occurrence of all the others
  en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mutually_exclusive
• Is a set of events in which if one happens the other does not. An example is the tossing of a "normal" coin. ...
  www.oasismanagement.com/frames/TECHNOLOGY/GLOSSARY/m.html
• Describing two events, conditions, or variables which cannot occur at once. For example, subjects in a study cannot be both female and male, HIV positive and HIV negative, pregnant and not pregnant, for those are mutually exclusive categories. ...
  www.etr.org/recapp/research/researchglossary.htm
• Each option is distinct from all other options.
  www.glencoe.com/sec/busadmin/marketing/dp/mktg_resrch/gloss.shtml
• if two sets have no elements in common (interjection is empty) - 5 misses
  quizlet.com/42788/math-definitions-flash-cards/
• Mutually exclusive procedures are two or more procedures usually not performed during the same patient encounter on the same date of service.
  www.healthlink.com/provider/sh_defs/Definitions%206.19.06.htm

Dumbass.

Mutually exclusive means that there does NOT have to be a connection between the two at all times....One does not automatically lead to the other.

But, you can call names all by yourself. I will not stoop to that level.

You might say that they can be Independent of each other, in a relationship, or interdependant.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

WAIT A MINUTE, BUSTER!

You are calling me out for "asserting what is legal..." when you yourself stated:


YOU said that sexual intercourse is required to make a marriage legally complete.

I merely quoted Webster's Collegiate 2009... And this in repsonse to your query regarding marriage and sex as a requirement of such.



Yeah... and this based upon the principle of JOINING in Holy Matrimony... where two people join as one... for the purposes of procreation; family and the raising of children in the likeness of their progenitors... It's not a complex issue Sis...



False... but it does demonstrate the tedious nature of debating those who are incapable of comprehending sound principle. Debate is a function which serves to deduce what is true and right.



ROFLMNAO... Color me shocked...



And Potatos are on sale at Publix for 2.25 a bag; marked down from 2.99.



Well to be perfectly honest, I've noticed that you don't like to think at all. It seems to go against your very nature; so perhaps the effort is uncomfortable for you.

But Marriage is specifically, a license to JOIN... A license to engage in sexual intercourse for the purposes of procreation; where the progeny are nurtured and raised in a secure and stable household; where the JOINED progenitors are held accountable AS ONE, for their UNION and all that comes from it.



Yes... and those purposes noted above...

What's ironic here is that you've made it absolutely CRYSTAL clear that you oppose the principle of Marriage, except for the absolute LEAST notable functions of the license.

This thread is a clinic in the study of why Marriage as a concept has decayed to its present state; the reasoning which undermined it being paraded out in all it's debaucherous majesty...

The principles of Marriage are completely foreign to this individual... and here she is advocating for the JOINING OF TWO WHO CANNOT BE JOINED; two who cannot procreate... two who cannot nurture a family through the traits common to the respective genders...

To this Humanist Marriage is basically a short-form incorporation...

Now follow me here friends...

Recognize that as it is being presented... this member beleives that Marriage is nothing but a legal arrangement. She overtly rejects the fundamental aspects of marriage; the sanctity, the physical and metaphorical joining of two people to form one united entity...

To her, there is NO OTHER ASPECT OF MARRIAGE WHICH IS RELEVANT BUT A CIVIL LICENSE; Marriage is PURELY, wholly, solely, a legal recognition of the respective parties being legally bound and recognized by the state as one legal entity; so as to provide for the entitlement to the privileges enjoyed by such an institution.

Everyone up to speed?

Now where it has been noted, in thread after thread; on forum after forum... that such which is being described is readily available to anyone... having no standard regarding gender... as is the case in Marriage... that any two or more individuals can file application with the prerequisite fees and be united through Incorporation as one legal entity; to enjoy the benefits and privileges thereof in a matter of HOURS...

Such is rejected out of hand...

There's no sexual component, no gender component... its PURELY A LEGAL ARRANGEMENT...

EVERYTHING that has been erroneously projected as Marriage; and which they demand be recognized as the defining attributes of Marriage... RIGHT?

Except one teeny tiny little problem...

INCORPORATION DOES NOT PROVIDE THE CULTURAL VALIDITY OF MARRIAGE; AND IT DOES NOT BECAUSE INCORPORATION DOES NOT REST UPON THE SACRED PRINCIPLES UPON WHICH MARRIAGE RESTS; PRINCIPLES THAT THEY REJECT OUT OF HAND; PRINCIPLES WHICH THEY DEMAND BE STRIPPED FROM THE VERY CONCEPT OF MARRIAGE... AND PRINCIPLES, IN THE ABSENCE OF WHICH... THERE CAN BE NO POTENTIAL FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH VALIDITY; AND AS DELUDED AS IT IS, IT IS SOLELY THAT VALIDITY WHICH THEY COVET.

Lets remind ourselves of their position... Let's take another peek at the sterile interpretation of Marriage which they want to project... and recall as we do, that this projection is an ILLUSION... it is a LIE; and it is designed to delude the culture into tearing down the last fragment of cultural viability...

Sexual intercourse (from the perspective of the state) is none of their business and will not be regulated or promoted by the Government.

As position which seeks to provide for the marriage of homo-SEXUALS ...

Now is everyone up to speed?

I'm sorry, SIS...but once you start confabulating. it is pointless, and actually impossible, to discuss anything with you.

Enjoy your incoherent babbling.

Well Xo... as concessions go... that's a beauty; and it is duly noted and summarily accepted.

It's been real... man.