USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
- Thread starter joecct
- Start date
- Status
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I don't know what your basic opinion is on the issue from a personal standpoint. You may have stated it, but though I like this thread I haven't been reading it much in recent weeks, though I usually post when I do. Besides, what would you have to worry about regarding a simple personal opinion--it's not even a policy question. People often surprise by having a personal opinion that is at odds with the policy they support.
I will say, though, that it is not always sound to assume that others cannot or do not understand nuance, whatever its source.
If it will make you feel less like you are being baited, I'll give you my personal opinion and the reason.
I think "gay" couples should be allowed to marry. I just don't see a rational basis to deny them that right. I am not a Christian, so that may play into my views.
So I've trolled myself. Hack away--I'm completely good with that.
I don't know what your basic opinion is on the issue from a personal standpoint. You may have stated it, but though I like this thread I haven't been reading it much in recent weeks, though I usually post when I do. Besides, what would you have to worry about regarding a simple personal opinion--it's not even a policy question. People often surprise by having a personal opinion that is at odds with the policy they support.
I will say, though, that it is not always sound to assume that others cannot or do not understand nuance, whatever its source.
If it will make you feel less like you are being baited, I'll give you my personal opinion and the reason.
I think "gay" couples should be allowed to marry. I just don't see a rational basis to deny them that right. I am not a Christian, so that may play into my views.
So I've trolled myself. Hack away--I'm completely good with that.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
My guess is you would not oppose civil unions, as they are about strictly political rights, but oppose gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is prior to and on a different plane from political entities which have no power to redefine it from its traditional and common sense meaning. Miscegenation is not analogous to gay marriage, or perhaps is even a perfect counter-example, since miscegenation laws were if anything a post hoc superimposition of politics over a long pre-existent social and religious institution.
My guess is you would not oppose civil unions, as they are about strictly political rights, but oppose gay marriage on the grounds that marriage is prior to and on a different plane from political entities which have no power to redefine it from its traditional and common sense meaning. Miscegenation is not analogous to gay marriage, or perhaps is even a perfect counter-example, since miscegenation laws were if anything a post hoc superimposition of politics over a long pre-existent social and religious institution.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Oh, and I'd find it odd to support a given policy, but have a personal opinion opposing it. I'm sure there's some convoluted situations where that could arise, but generally I'd find that a puzzling place to be.
Fair enough, though I'm sure posting any sort of statement of opposition will draw a bunch of whinging from others, as it typically does. I'm opposed to gay marriage, but I believe accommodation should be made to address issues like letting someone else make medical decisions for you and other things like that (I'm not thinking of a lot of good examples at the moment, but believe they are out there). I've always thought such a discussion is academic and nothing more though. I think that making those sorts of accommodations or even civil unions would never be a long term solution, as once you start taking those steps, the gay rights folks, logically, would want to take all the rest of the steps to having the same status as traditionally married folks. You grant civil unions ten years ago (or whatever the timeline would have been) and we still have the fight we do now. Sometimes one just has to recognize there are fundamentally different visions and understandings and both can't be accommodated at the same time. I could drill down on the layers underneath what I've said here, but I choose not to have such discussions on a message board where the yammering is often deafening. Trust me, there's a lot more layers in my thinking on this, some of which I am sure would surprise you.
Oh, and I'd find it odd to support a given policy, but have a personal opinion opposing it. I'm sure there's some convoluted situations where that could arise, but generally I'd find that a puzzling place to be.
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I feel that if atheists can marry with no one running to the legislature to pass a ban on atheists marrying law then anyone who opposes gay marriage is a hypocrite.
But that's just me.
Especially when the basis for the opposition is a book that lauds polygamy more than any other union.
I feel that if atheists can marry with no one running to the legislature to pass a ban on atheists marrying law then anyone who opposes gay marriage is a hypocrite.
But that's just me.
Especially when the basis for the opposition is a book that lauds polygamy more than any other union.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
You understand this is true of us all, right?
You understand this is true of us all, right?
See any Catholic politician who supports abortion. We can thank Hugh Carey, Ted Kennedy and Fr. Robert Drinan for that bit of convoluted logic.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
FlagDUDE08
Banned
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
As I always say: Romans took Christianity and screwed it up. Hence why a slow execution is called "purification".
As I always say: Romans took Christianity and screwed it up. Hence why a slow execution is called "purification".
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Saul of Tarsus took Christianity and screwed it up. Fool screaming about the new messiah when all Jesus said was "yo, heaven's in your own heart, brah."
Saul of Tarsus took Christianity and screwed it up. Fool screaming about the new messiah when all Jesus said was "yo, heaven's in your own heart, brah."
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I vehemently disagree.
This country is based on a political system that is detached from one religious viewpoint. If you can't be a politician who represents his constituents instead of a politician that only votes his value system then you do not belong in public office.
I vehemently disagree.
This country is based on a political system that is detached from one religious viewpoint. If you can't be a politician who represents his constituents instead of a politician that only votes his value system then you do not belong in public office.
It's known as hypocrisy. Say one thing in public and believe another in private.
Except Canon Law allows the death penalty. Not as broad brush as Texas, but in very limited cases.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I think Catholic doctrine is very clear on opposing the death penalty as it is practiced in the United States.
I merely wished to point out that the practice of saying you have a personal belief that opposes a law but you support the law is quite non-partisan, whether you regard it as hypocritical or a laudable prioritization of your duties as an elected official. Your original post and Bob's fervent agreement seemed to suggest you were playing pin the tail on the donkey.
The elephant is just as full of whatever it is.
I think Catholic doctrine is very clear on opposing the death penalty as it is practiced in the United States.
I merely wished to point out that the practice of saying you have a personal belief that opposes a law but you support the law is quite non-partisan, whether you regard it as hypocritical or a laudable prioritization of your duties as an elected official. Your original post and Bob's fervent agreement seemed to suggest you were playing pin the tail on the donkey.
The elephant is just as full of whatever it is.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
Most of what a public official does in their offices are not tied into the relative handful of moral issues that come up regularly in the political discourse of this country. That said, it's an interesting question of representing your constituents if you think they have a different view on a moral issue than you do. For me, I'd have to stick with my view and if my constituents don't want me representing them if I vary with them on an issue here and there, so be it. Probably not how that many politicians approach things these days.
What, now there's something wrong with pin the tail on the donkey? I suppose PETA is pushing to outlaw it, as it would seem to encourage sticking things into a donkey or some such nonsense.
Most of what a public official does in their offices are not tied into the relative handful of moral issues that come up regularly in the political discourse of this country. That said, it's an interesting question of representing your constituents if you think they have a different view on a moral issue than you do. For me, I'd have to stick with my view and if my constituents don't want me representing them if I vary with them on an issue here and there, so be it. Probably not how that many politicians approach things these days.
What, now there's something wrong with pin the tail on the donkey? I suppose PETA is pushing to outlaw it, as it would seem to encourage sticking things into a donkey or some such nonsense.
Last edited:
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
This is the time immemorial rivalry of two schools of thought whose poli sci names I have forgotten. One school says a representative should use his best judgment just as in your example. The other says the representative should determine what the majority of his constituents want and vote that way. There are pros and cons for both. There may be a Federalist number concerning it, because I seem to recall that Publius came down on the side of the representative using his own judgment. Essentially, the theory is that in voting for a representative, you are choosing someone to actively think for the group and not merely to passively relay the group's vote.
Personally I think Publius' position has merit, since it is the representative who is placed in a position to monitor all the hearings on an issue and weigh the debate. However, we've pretty nearly achieved the tech where a representative taking the other position could quite literally call for his constituents to referendum every vote and cast his vote based solely on the result, and it would be interesting if at least one member of the House chose to do that as an experiment (or a statement).
This is the time immemorial rivalry of two schools of thought whose poli sci names I have forgotten. One school says a representative should use his best judgment just as in your example. The other says the representative should determine what the majority of his constituents want and vote that way. There are pros and cons for both. There may be a Federalist number concerning it, because I seem to recall that Publius came down on the side of the representative using his own judgment. Essentially, the theory is that in voting for a representative, you are choosing someone to actively think for the group and not merely to passively relay the group's vote.
Personally I think Publius' position has merit, since it is the representative who is placed in a position to monitor all the hearings on an issue and weigh the debate. However, we've pretty nearly achieved the tech where a representative taking the other position could quite literally call for his constituents to referendum every vote and cast his vote based solely on the result, and it would be interesting if at least one member of the House chose to do that as an experiment (or a statement).
Last edited:
unofan
Well-known member
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
...in my entire Catholic upbringing, I never heard a single priest say that.
There are a few justifications for killing (self defense, being a soldier in a war, etc.), but I've never heard one justify the death penalty. Ever.
...in my entire Catholic upbringing, I never heard a single priest say that.
There are a few justifications for killing (self defense, being a soldier in a war, etc.), but I've never heard one justify the death penalty. Ever.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS Part VI - Roberts rules disorder
I don't think it is illogical for a person to support a policy that is inconsistent with his or her own personal belief. I guess it depends on your concept of infallibility. I think it is possible to have strong personal beliefs yet also understand that most (all, I'd say) of us base our faith on imperfect knowledge and are therefore extremely fallible. So I don't think it's a matter of a lack of conviction or an exercise in moral relativism to support a policy that is inconsistent with your own personal belief.
I don't think it is illogical for a person to support a policy that is inconsistent with his or her own personal belief. I guess it depends on your concept of infallibility. I think it is possible to have strong personal beliefs yet also understand that most (all, I'd say) of us base our faith on imperfect knowledge and are therefore extremely fallible. So I don't think it's a matter of a lack of conviction or an exercise in moral relativism to support a policy that is inconsistent with your own personal belief.
- Status