| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Krazy K" |
| Date: |
01 Apr 2004 08:26:05 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Homophobia kills |
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<b1gm60pagftubg02fupjma0djitoeoivau@4ax.com>...
On 31 Mar 2004 11:23:19 -0800, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<3apk60hc3g20rkqdi908asgek4hgodd27a@4ax.com>...
On 30 Mar 2004 13:23:09 -0800, (Krazy K)
wrote:
snip
That's irrelevant, even though I agree. Heterosexual parents simply
don't want their children even *trying* it, and yes, it's a proven
fact that the more homosexuality is pushed on tv, media..etc, the
greater the urge for kids to try it.
No it is not a proven fact. Furthermore homosexuality is not pushed.
Let me reiterate: the more we *see* homosexuality being in the
*spotlight* (gay marriages, politics, tv shows..etc), the more
*likely* people will either accept it, or not. By that very standard,
more people will try it, *and* more people will condemn it,
simultaneously, as with *anything* in the limelight.
That is your claim. It is not, however, "a proven fact".
We'll just say it's "common sense", then.
Presenting homosexuals as human beings not deserving of oppression or
segregation from society does not equal encouraging people to be
homosexuals, which would be a foolish and pointless thing to do.
I never said it did. It's really not about *recruiting* new gays, it's
about the 'social influences' homosexuality has on teens (or anyone),
due to the mass exposure currently, and the fact that an unmatured
teen, who normally wouldn't partake of anal sex, may just be inclined
to try it. How could you doubt this?
How can I doubt that young people will experiment with sex? I don't
Nope: How can you doubt that "more" young people will experiment with
gay sex, due to the current popularity of homosexuality.
doubt it at all. It is a natural part of growing up. Children have
always done it, and I would worry about a child who never did. I
Most hetero parents don't want their kid to grow up and marry a person
of the same sex. It would be unnatural for hetero parents to even want
their children to find solice in the arms of a same-sex relationship.
have not seen any evidence, however, that otherwise heterosexual
teenagers are experimenting with homosexual sex to a greater degree
than in the past.
The odds for them to do so have risen since the inception of tv, but I
suppose you'll disagree with that too.
Furthermore, if parents are going to worry about
the dangers of experimentation, I see no rational reason to worry more
about homosexual experimentation than about heterosexual
experimentation.
Aside from the social stigma's, religious faith, and AIDS I see no
problem either. You need to understand that it's no fault of the
parents for wanting their children to grow up heterosexual. People
make mistakes, and for a hetero child, gay sex *could* be devastating
in their adult life. Would you agree?
Heterosexuals are not recruited into being heterosexual, and
homosexuals are not recruited into being homosexuals.
I agree. Still, what is wrong with a parent not wanting their child to
try homosexuality?
It has no relevance to what is being discussed.
Really now? Sounds like you aren't being fair-minded.
I don't understand why you think so. In any event the more accurate
information people receive about homosexuality and about sexuality in
general the better for everyone. If some parents are worried that an
I believe everything I've stated is *very* logical, including the
premise that hetero parents usually don't encourage homosexuality. We
can't ignore things, just because we don't like to talk about them.
open discussion of the topic or a condemnation of negative treatment
of homosexuals or a positive presentation of people who are
homosexuals is going to make it more likely that their children will
experiment with homosexuality,
Just as I said earlier, the more exposure, the more the odds for gay
sex from hetero kids.
that fact only indicates how deeply
embedded fear of homosexuality is and the need for even more
information and discussion.
Thomas P.
Discussion always helps.
KK
.
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Homophobia kills |
01 Apr 2004 01:41:34 PM |
|
|
On 1 Apr 2004 06:26:05 -0800, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<b1gm60pagftubg02fupjma0djitoeoivau@4ax.com>...
On 31 Mar 2004 11:23:19 -0800, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<3apk60hc3g20rkqdi908asgek4hgodd27a@4ax.com>...
On 30 Mar 2004 13:23:09 -0800, (Krazy K)
wrote:
snip
That's irrelevant, even though I agree. Heterosexual parents simply
don't want their children even *trying* it, and yes, it's a proven
fact that the more homosexuality is pushed on tv, media..etc, the
greater the urge for kids to try it.
No it is not a proven fact. Furthermore homosexuality is not pushed.
Let me reiterate: the more we *see* homosexuality being in the
*spotlight* (gay marriages, politics, tv shows..etc), the more
*likely* people will either accept it, or not. By that very standard,
more people will try it, *and* more people will condemn it,
simultaneously, as with *anything* in the limelight.
That is your claim. It is not, however, "a proven fact".
We'll just say it's "common sense", then.
You may say it if you like. I see no reason to believe it is true.
Presenting homosexuals as human beings not deserving of oppression or
segregation from society does not equal encouraging people to be
homosexuals, which would be a foolish and pointless thing to do.
I never said it did. It's really not about *recruiting* new gays, it's
about the 'social influences' homosexuality has on teens (or anyone),
due to the mass exposure currently, and the fact that an unmatured
teen, who normally wouldn't partake of anal sex, may just be inclined
to try it. How could you doubt this?
How can I doubt that young people will experiment with sex? I don't
Nope: How can you doubt that "more" young people will experiment with
gay sex, due to the current popularity of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not popular; homosexuals are becoming more and more
accepted as people. That is two different things.
doubt it at all. It is a natural part of growing up. Children have
always done it, and I would worry about a child who never did. I
Most hetero parents don't want their kid to grow up and marry a person
of the same sex. It would be unnatural for hetero parents to even want
their children to find solice in the arms of a same-sex relationship.
What does that have to do with children experimenting with sex?
have not seen any evidence, however, that otherwise heterosexual
teenagers are experimenting with homosexual sex to a greater degree
than in the past.
The odds for them to do so have risen since the inception of tv, but I
suppose you'll disagree with that too.
Both "proof" and "odds" implies the existence of supporting data.
There isn't any.
Furthermore, if parents are going to worry about
the dangers of experimentation, I see no rational reason to worry more
about homosexual experimentation than about heterosexual
experimentation.
Aside from the social stigma's, religious faith, and AIDS I see no
problem either. You need to understand that it's no fault of the
parents for wanting their children to grow up heterosexual.
It would be better if they wanted their children to grow up happy.
People
make mistakes, and for a hetero child, gay sex *could* be devastating
in their adult life. Would you agree?
It would be devastating if they thought there was something shameful
about it or if our society continues to deny reality. There is every
sign that at least Western society is becoming more accepting of
homosexuality and people are becoming more honest about their own
sexual history.
Heterosexuals are not recruited into being heterosexual, and
homosexuals are not recruited into being homosexuals.
I agree. Still, what is wrong with a parent not wanting their child to
try homosexuality?
It has no relevance to what is being discussed.
Really now? Sounds like you aren't being fair-minded.
I don't understand why you think so. In any event the more accurate
information people receive about homosexuality and about sexuality in
general the better for everyone. If some parents are worried that an
I believe everything I've stated is *very* logical, including the
premise that hetero parents usually don't encourage homosexuality. We
can't ignore things, just because we don't like to talk about them.
That has been the problem for a long time. People are talking about
homosexuality now. Many of the myths are being exposed for what they
are. Some people, including some parents, may be unhappy that the
subject is no longer suppressed or that homosexuals are gaining
acceptance, but, as you say, we can't ignore things just because we
don't like to talk about them.
open discussion of the topic or a condemnation of negative treatment
of homosexuals or a positive presentation of people who are
homosexuals is going to make it more likely that their children will
experiment with homosexuality,
Just as I said earlier, the more exposure, the more the odds for gay
sex from hetero kids.
That is what you say.
that fact only indicates how deeply
embedded fear of homosexuality is and the need for even more
information and discussion.
Thomas P.
Discussion always helps.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krazy K" |
|
| Title: Re: Homophobia kills |
05 Apr 2004 11:46:14 AM |
|
|
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<2rro6019gjm9c75dil1rjr9ugqr8dbp15u@4ax.com>...
On 1 Apr 2004 06:26:05 -0800, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<b1gm60pagftubg02fupjma0djitoeoivau@4ax.com>...
On 31 Mar 2004 11:23:19 -0800, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<3apk60hc3g20rkqdi908asgek4hgodd27a@4ax.com>...
On 30 Mar 2004 13:23:09 -0800, (Krazy K)
wrote:
snip
That's irrelevant, even though I agree. Heterosexual parents simply
don't want their children even *trying* it, and yes, it's a proven
fact that the more homosexuality is pushed on tv, media..etc, the
greater the urge for kids to try it.
No it is not a proven fact. Furthermore homosexuality is not pushed.
Let me reiterate: the more we *see* homosexuality being in the
*spotlight* (gay marriages, politics, tv shows..etc), the more
*likely* people will either accept it, or not. By that very standard,
more people will try it, *and* more people will condemn it,
simultaneously, as with *anything* in the limelight.
That is your claim. It is not, however, "a proven fact".
We'll just say it's "common sense", then.
You may say it if you like. I see no reason to believe it is true.
Since my presentation is completely unbiased, and based on the natural
laws of
physics, from which society flourishes, I'd venture to say you should
refute it properly, with evidence and not opinion.
Presenting homosexuals as human beings not deserving of oppression or
segregation from society does not equal encouraging people to be
homosexuals, which would be a foolish and pointless thing to do.
I never said it did. It's really not about *recruiting* new gays, it's
about the 'social influences' homosexuality has on teens (or anyone),
due to the mass exposure currently, and the fact that an unmatured
teen, who normally wouldn't partake of anal sex, may just be inclined
to try it. How could you doubt this?
How can I doubt that young people will experiment with sex? I don't
Nope: How can you doubt that "more" young people will experiment with
gay sex, due to the current popularity of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not popular; homosexuals are becoming more and more
accepted as people. That is two different things.
There's a fine line between "acceptance" and "popularity". Definitely
the media
is doing everything they can to portray homosexuals in a positive
light. At this moment, homosexuality is a very popular, acceptable
commodity that *will* result in experimentation.
doubt it at all. It is a natural part of growing up. Children have
always done it, and I would worry about a child who never did. I
Most hetero parents don't want their kid to grow up and marry a person
of the same sex. It would be unnatural for hetero parents to even want
their children to find solice in the arms of a same-sex relationship.
What does that have to do with children experimenting with sex?
Plenty. AIDS from gay sex would be embarrassing, and *many* teens will
be ashamed, when they grow up, and haunted from that poor decision.
have not seen any evidence, however, that otherwise heterosexual
teenagers are experimenting with homosexual sex to a greater degree
than in the past.
The odds for them to do so have risen since the inception of tv, but I
suppose you'll disagree with that too.
Both "proof" and "odds" implies the existence of supporting data.
There isn't any.
Almost right. Odds are 'very relevant' mathematical equations based on
the composition of human nature within the laws of physics. All forms
of media use these odds to reach *more* people. It's simple.
Furthermore, if parents are going to worry about
the dangers of experimentation, I see no rational reason to worry more
about homosexual experimentation than about heterosexual
experimentation.
People
make mistakes, and for a hetero child, gay sex *could* be devastating
in their adult life. Would you agree?
It would be devastating if they thought there was something shameful
about it or if our society continues to deny reality.
Exactly, and plenty of people are ashamed of many decisions, including
homosexuality.
There is every
sign that at least Western society is becoming more accepting of
homosexuality and people are becoming more honest about their own
sexual history.
True.
Heterosexuals are not recruited into being heterosexual, and
homosexuals are not recruited into being homosexuals.
I agree. Still, what is wrong with a parent not wanting their child to
try homosexuality?
It has no relevance to what is being discussed.
Really now? Sounds like you aren't being fair-minded.
I don't understand why you think so. In any event the more accurate
information people receive about homosexuality and about sexuality in
general the better for everyone. If some parents are worried that an
I believe everything I've stated is *very* logical, including the
premise that hetero parents usually don't encourage homosexuality. We
can't ignore things, just because we don't like to talk about them.
That has been the problem for a long time. People are talking about
homosexuality now. Many of the myths are being exposed for what they
are. Some people, including some parents, may be unhappy that the
subject is no longer suppressed or that homosexuals are gaining
acceptance, but, as you say, we can't ignore things just because we
don't like to talk about them.
Definitely.
that fact only indicates how deeply
embedded fear of homosexuality is and the need for even more
information and discussion.
Thomas P.
Discussion always helps.
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
KK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas P." |
|
| Title: Re: Homophobia kills |
05 Apr 2004 03:15:26 PM |
|
|
On 5 Apr 2004 09:46:14 -0700, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<2rro6019gjm9c75dil1rjr9ugqr8dbp15u@4ax.com>...
snip
Let me reiterate: the more we *see* homosexuality being in the
*spotlight* (gay marriages, politics, tv shows..etc), the more
*likely* people will either accept it, or not. By that very standard,
more people will try it, *and* more people will condemn it,
simultaneously, as with *anything* in the limelight.
That is your claim. It is not, however, "a proven fact".
We'll just say it's "common sense", then.
You may say it if you like. I see no reason to believe it is true.
Since my presentation is completely unbiased, and based on the natural
laws of
physics, from which society flourishes, I'd venture to say you should
refute it properly, with evidence and not opinion.
I am surprised. I would be very interested in hearing how your
opinion is based on the laws of physics. Which particular law did you
have in mind?
snip
How can I doubt that young people will experiment with sex? I don't
Nope: How can you doubt that "more" young people will experiment with
gay sex, due to the current popularity of homosexuality.
Homosexuality is not popular; homosexuals are becoming more and more
accepted as people. That is two different things.
There's a fine line between "acceptance" and "popularity". Definitely
the media
is doing everything they can to portray homosexuals in a positive
light.
The word "media" is plural. There are found in the media more and
more presentations of the idea that a person should not be judged good
or bad on the basis of his sexual orientation. The "media"
is hardly doing all it can to push this idea and is very, very far
from pushing the idea that there is something uniquely positive about
being homosexual as opposed to being heterosexual.
At this moment, homosexuality is a very popular, acceptable
commodity that *will* result in experimentation.
Once again you repeat your opinion.
doubt it at all. It is a natural part of growing up. Children have
always done it, and I would worry about a child who never did. I
Most hetero parents don't want their kid to grow up and marry a person
of the same sex. It would be unnatural for hetero parents to even want
their children to find solice in the arms of a same-sex relationship.
What does that have to do with children experimenting with sex?
Plenty. AIDS from gay sex would be embarrassing, and *many* teens will
be ashamed, when they grow up, and haunted from that poor decision.
Experimenting with sex is not a "poor decision". It is a natural part
of growing up. It is really unfortunate that some parents are worried
that their children will find solace, but it is fortunate that that
kind of ignorance and, therefore, the reasons for being embarrassed,
are on the decline. What if, for example, their child is homosexual?
Would they want their child to stay alone and miserable all of his
life?
have not seen any evidence, however, that otherwise heterosexual
teenagers are experimenting with homosexual sex to a greater degree
than in the past.
The odds for them to do so have risen since the inception of tv, but I
suppose you'll disagree with that too.
Both "proof" and "odds" implies the existence of supporting data.
There isn't any.
Almost right. Odds are 'very relevant' mathematical equations based on
the composition of human nature within the laws of physics. All forms
of media use these odds to reach *more* people. It's simple.
I wonder what law of physics you are talking about. If you flip a
coin, there are odds for figuring out how many times it will come up
"heads", but there is no law of physics that will make it so.
snip
Thomas P.
None of the Emperor's clothes had been so successful before.
"But he has got nothing on," said a little child.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Homophobia kills |
05 Apr 2004 03:21:52 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:15:26 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On 5 Apr 2004 09:46:14 -0700, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<2rro6019gjm9c75dil1rjr9ugqr8dbp15u@4ax.com>...
snip
Let me reiterate: the more we *see* homosexuality being in the
*spotlight* (gay marriages, politics, tv shows..etc), the more
*likely* people will either accept it, or not. By that very standard,
more people will try it, *and* more people will condemn it,
simultaneously, as with *anything* in the limelight.
That is your claim. It is not, however, "a proven fact".
We'll just say it's "common sense", then.
You may say it if you like. I see no reason to believe it is true.
Since my presentation is completely unbiased, and based on the natural
laws of
physics, from which society flourishes, I'd venture to say you should
refute it properly, with evidence and not opinion.
I am surprised. I would be very interested in hearing how your
opinion is based on the laws of physics. Which particular law did you
have in mind?
I believe he's speaking from his expertise in 'commonality'.
Don't bother asking what THAT is. You won't get an intelligible
answer.
[snip]
---
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence.
- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Homophobia kills |
05 Apr 2004 05:42:54 PM |
|
|
"Adam H." <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:ttf370ht1aug8eg47gaqh18mvq05jvno5f@4ax.com...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:15:26 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On 5 Apr 2004 09:46:14 -0700, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<2rro6019gjm9c75dil1rjr9ugqr8dbp15u@4ax.com>...
snip
Let me reiterate: the more we *see* homosexuality being in the
*spotlight* (gay marriages, politics, tv shows..etc), the more
*likely* people will either accept it, or not. By that very
standard,
more people will try it, *and* more people will condemn it,
simultaneously, as with *anything* in the limelight.
That is your claim. It is not, however, "a proven fact".
We'll just say it's "common sense", then.
You may say it if you like. I see no reason to believe it is true.
Since my presentation is completely unbiased, and based on the natural
laws of
physics, from which society flourishes, I'd venture to say you should
refute it properly, with evidence and not opinion.
I am surprised. I would be very interested in hearing how your
opinion is based on the laws of physics. Which particular law did you
have in mind?
I believe he's speaking from his expertise in 'commonality'.
Don't bother asking what THAT is. You won't get an intelligible
answer.
Adam, king of the snippers. The one and only who knows all and is never
wrong.
Please tell us, what would qualify as an intelligible answer.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Krazy K" |
|
| Title: Re: Homophobia kills |
06 Apr 2004 07:32:52 AM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<ttf370ht1aug8eg47gaqh18mvq05jvno5f@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:15:26 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On 5 Apr 2004 09:46:14 -0700, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<2rro6019gjm9c75dil1rjr9ugqr8dbp15u@4ax.com>...
snip
Let me reiterate: the more we *see* homosexuality being in the
*spotlight* (gay marriages, politics, tv shows..etc), the more
*likely* people will either accept it, or not. By that very standard,
more people will try it, *and* more people will condemn it,
simultaneously, as with *anything* in the limelight.
That is your claim. It is not, however, "a proven fact".
We'll just say it's "common sense", then.
You may say it if you like. I see no reason to believe it is true.
Since my presentation is completely unbiased, and based on the natural
laws of
physics, from which society flourishes, I'd venture to say you should
refute it properly, with evidence and not opinion.
I am surprised. I would be very interested in hearing how your
opinion is based on the laws of physics. Which particular law did you
have in mind?
I believe he's speaking from his expertise in 'commonality'.
"Commonology", Spunky. It makes your little world go 'round and
'round.
Don't bother asking what THAT is. You won't get an intelligible
answer.
[snip]
Not unless you ask an intelligible question, anyway. Sorry your
experiences with me have been so dour, Mr. Snippit. Maybe you should,
firstly, form a solid thought, and back it with common sense when
applicable. Then you'll be in a better position to understand your
errors. Next.
KK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Homophobia kills |
06 Apr 2004 12:09:27 PM |
|
|
On 6 Apr 2004 05:32:52 -0700, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<ttf370ht1aug8eg47gaqh18mvq05jvno5f@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:15:26 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On 5 Apr 2004 09:46:14 -0700, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<2rro6019gjm9c75dil1rjr9ugqr8dbp15u@4ax.com>...
snip
Let me reiterate: the more we *see* homosexuality being in the
*spotlight* (gay marriages, politics, tv shows..etc), the more
*likely* people will either accept it, or not. By that very standard,
more people will try it, *and* more people will condemn it,
simultaneously, as with *anything* in the limelight.
That is your claim. It is not, however, "a proven fact".
We'll just say it's "common sense", then.
You may say it if you like. I see no reason to believe it is true.
Since my presentation is completely unbiased, and based on the natural
laws of
physics, from which society flourishes, I'd venture to say you should
refute it properly, with evidence and not opinion.
I am surprised. I would be very interested in hearing how your
opinion is based on the laws of physics. Which particular law did you
have in mind?
I believe he's speaking from his expertise in 'commonality'.
"Commonology", Spunky. It makes your little world go 'round and
'round.
Don't bother asking what THAT is. You won't get an intelligible
answer.
Ah. 'Commonology'. Well, whatever. It's not like you gave a coherent
explanation of it at any time.
And it's not like that's a word to be found in a dictionary.
Or anywhere online except in lists of made up words and an archived
post where you proclaim yourself the 'king of commonology'. Well,
pretty much anybody can be the king of a made-up word.
[snip]
Not unless you ask an intelligible question, anyway. Sorry your
experiences with me have been so dour, Mr. Snippit. Maybe you should,
firstly, form a solid thought, and back it with common sense when
applicable. Then you'll be in a better position to understand your
errors. Next.
Riiiight. Still no explanation, I see.
---
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence.
- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Krazy K" |
|
| Title: Re: Homophobia kills |
07 Apr 2004 10:17:42 AM |
|
|
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<7ro570t6iiqsgbvdujg76rs3osvbes55k5@4ax.com>...
On 6 Apr 2004 05:32:52 -0700, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<ttf370ht1aug8eg47gaqh18mvq05jvno5f@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:15:26 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On 5 Apr 2004 09:46:14 -0700, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<2rro6019gjm9c75dil1rjr9ugqr8dbp15u@4ax.com>...
snip
Let me reiterate: the more we *see* homosexuality being in the
*spotlight* (gay marriages, politics, tv shows..etc), the more
*likely* people will either accept it, or not. By that very standard,
more people will try it, *and* more people will condemn it,
simultaneously, as with *anything* in the limelight.
That is your claim. It is not, however, "a proven fact".
We'll just say it's "common sense", then.
You may say it if you like. I see no reason to believe it is true.
Since my presentation is completely unbiased, and based on the natural
laws of
physics, from which society flourishes, I'd venture to say you should
refute it properly, with evidence and not opinion.
I am surprised. I would be very interested in hearing how your
opinion is based on the laws of physics. Which particular law did you
have in mind?
I believe he's speaking from his expertise in 'commonality'.
"Commonology", Spunky. It makes your little world go 'round and
'round.
Don't bother asking what THAT is. You won't get an intelligible
answer.
Ah. 'Commonology'. Well, whatever. It's not like you gave a coherent
explanation of it at any time.
LOL. It's the common man's science, if you will. Commonology basically
shows the right way to live, using the laws of nature, provided us by
the one true God of creation.
And it's not like that's a word to be found in a dictionary.
Of course not, yet.
Or anywhere online except in lists of made up words and an archived
post where you proclaim yourself the 'king of commonology'. Well,
pretty much anybody can be the king of a made-up word.
What made-up word are you the king of?
[snip]
Not unless you ask an intelligible question, anyway. Sorry your
experiences with me have been so dour, Mr. Snippit. Maybe you should,
firstly, form a solid thought, and back it with common sense when
applicable. Then you'll be in a better position to understand your
errors. Next.
Riiiight. Still no explanation, I see.
Come back when ya wanna debate.
Next.
KK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Adam H." |
|
| Title: Re: Homophobia kills |
07 Apr 2004 10:58:53 AM |
|
|
On 7 Apr 2004 08:17:42 -0700, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<7ro570t6iiqsgbvdujg76rs3osvbes55k5@4ax.com>...
On 6 Apr 2004 05:32:52 -0700, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:<ttf370ht1aug8eg47gaqh18mvq05jvno5f@4ax.com>...
On Mon, 05 Apr 2004 22:15:26 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On 5 Apr 2004 09:46:14 -0700, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<2rro6019gjm9c75dil1rjr9ugqr8dbp15u@4ax.com>...
snip
Let me reiterate: the more we *see* homosexuality being in the
*spotlight* (gay marriages, politics, tv shows..etc), the more
*likely* people will either accept it, or not. By that very standard,
more people will try it, *and* more people will condemn it,
simultaneously, as with *anything* in the limelight.
That is your claim. It is not, however, "a proven fact".
We'll just say it's "common sense", then.
You may say it if you like. I see no reason to believe it is true.
Since my presentation is completely unbiased, and based on the natural
laws of
physics, from which society flourishes, I'd venture to say you should
refute it properly, with evidence and not opinion.
I am surprised. I would be very interested in hearing how your
opinion is based on the laws of physics. Which particular law did you
have in mind?
I believe he's speaking from his expertise in 'commonality'.
"Commonology", Spunky. It makes your little world go 'round and
'round.
Don't bother asking what THAT is. You won't get an intelligible
answer.
Ah. 'Commonology'. Well, whatever. It's not like you gave a coherent
explanation of it at any time.
LOL. It's the common man's science, if you will. Commonology basically
shows the right way to live, using the laws of nature, provided us by
the one true God of creation.
And there's a pile of crap, right there.
Is this more of your twaddle about moral codes deriving from laws of
physics?
And it's not like that's a word to be found in a dictionary.
Of course not, yet.
Or anywhere online except in lists of made up words and an archived
post where you proclaim yourself the 'king of commonology'. Well,
pretty much anybody can be the king of a made-up word.
What made-up word are you the king of?
[snip]
Not unless you ask an intelligible question, anyway. Sorry your
experiences with me have been so dour, Mr. Snippit. Maybe you should,
firstly, form a solid thought, and back it with common sense when
applicable. Then you'll be in a better position to understand your
errors. Next.
Riiiight. Still no explanation, I see.
Come back when ya wanna debate.
Next.
You don't *have* anything to debate, Krazyman.
KK
---
Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because of,
the lack of evidence.
- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff George" |
|
| Title: Re: Homophobia kills |
07 Apr 2004 04:00:29 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 06 Apr 2004 13:09:27 -0400, Adam H. <adam@mailinator.com>
added the following words of wisdom:
On 6 Apr 2004 05:32:52 -0700, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Not unless you ask an intelligible question, anyway. Sorry your
experiences with me have been so dour, Mr. Snippit. Maybe you should,
firstly, form a solid thought, and back it with common sense when
applicable. Then you'll be in a better position to understand your
errors. Next.
Riiiight. Still no explanation, I see.
---
Well, from reading the guy's posts it's obvious that he doesn't know
the difference between facts and opinions, so I doubt he is capable of
explaining anything. He has yet to back up anything that he spouts as
facts with any sort of data whatsoever.
Jeff George
SLAP (Socialist Liberation Army of the People)
SLUG (Socialists for Liberty United Government)
Power to the People! Vive la revolution!
Viva La Revolucion!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Krazy K" |
|
| Title: Re: Homophobia kills |
06 Apr 2004 07:12:33 AM |
|
|
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<g9f370hmmtqjm24lkq6v87k9mi7balsna1@4ax.com>...
On 5 Apr 2004 09:46:14 -0700, (Krazy K)
wrote:
Thomas P. <tonyofbexarremovethis@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<2rro6019gjm9c75dil1rjr9ugqr8dbp15u@4ax.com>...
snip
Let me reiterate: the more we *see* homosexuality being in the
*spotlight* (gay marriages, politics, tv shows..etc), the more
*likely* people will either accept it, or not. By that very standard,
more people will try it, *and* more people will condemn it,
simultaneously, as with *anything* in the limelight.
That is your claim. It is not, however, "a proven fact".
We'll just say it's "common sense", then.
You may say it if you like. I see no reason to believe it is true.
Since my presentation is completely unbiased, and based on the natural
laws of
physics, from which society flourishes, I'd venture to say you should
refute it properly, with evidence and not opinion.
I am surprised. I would be very interested in hearing how your
opinion is based on the laws of physics. Which particular law did you
have in mind?
Read this, but beware, it is very lengthy.
THE NATURE OF LAWS IN GENERAL.
LAW, in it's most general and comprehensive sense, signifies a rule of
action; and is applied indiscriminately to all kinds of action,
whether animate or inanimate, rational or irrational. Thus we say, the
laws of motion, of gravitation, of optics, or mechanics, as well as
the laws of nature and of nations. And it is that rule of action,
which is prescribed by some superior, and which the inferior is bound
to obey.
Thus when the supreme being formed the universe, and created matter
out of nothing, he impressed certain principles upon that matter, from
which it can never depart, and without which it would cease to be.
When he put that matter into motion, he established certain laws of
motion, to which all moveable bodies must conform. And, to descend
from the greatest operations to the smallest, when a workman forms a
clock, or other piece of mechanism, he establishes at his own pleasure
certain arbitrary laws for it's direction; as that the hand shall
describe a given space in a given time; to which law as long as the
work conforms, so long it continues in perfection, and answers the end
of it's formation.
If we farther advance, from mere inactive matter to vegetable and
animal life, we shall find them still governed by laws; more numerous
indeed, but equally fixed and invariable. The whole progress of
plants, from the seed to the root, and from thence to the seed again;
..... the method of animal nutrition, digestion, secretion, and all
other branches of vital economy; .... are not left to chance, or the
will of the creature itself, but are performed in a wondrous
involuntary manner, and guided by unerring rules laid down by the
great creator.
This then is the general signification of law, a rule of action
dictated by some superior being: and, in those creatures that have
neither the power to think, nor to will, such laws must be invariably
obeyed, so long as the creature itself subsists, for it's existence
depends on that obedience. But laws, in their more confined sense, and
in which it is our present business to consider them, denote the
rules, not of action in general, but of human action or conduct: that
is, the precepts by which man, the noblest of all sublunary beings, a
creature endowed with both reason and freewill, is commanded to make
use of those faculties in the general regulation of his behaviour.
Man, considered as a creature, must necessarily be subject to the laws
of his creator, for he is entirely a dependent being. A being,
independent of any other, has no rule to pursue, but such as he
prescribes to himself; but a state of dependence will inevitably
oblige the inferior to take the will of him, on whom he depends, as
the rule of his conduct: not indeed in every particular, but in all
those points wherein his dependence consists. This principle therefore
has more or less extent and effect, in proportion as the superiority
of the one and the dependence of the other is greater or less,
absolute or limited. And consequently, as man depends absolutely upon
his maker for every thing, it is necessary that he should in all
points conform to his maker's will.
This will of his maker is called the law of nature. For as God, when
he created matter, and endued it with a principle of mobility,
established certain rules for the perpetual direction of that motion;
so, when he created man, and endued him with freewill to conduct
himself in all parts of life, he laid down certain immutable laws of
human nature, whereby that freewill is in some degree regulated and
restrained, and gave him also the faculty of reason to discover the
purport of those laws.
Considering the creator only as a being of infinite power, he was able
unquestionably to have prescribed whatever laws he pleased to his
creature, man, however unjust or severe. But as be is also a being of
infinite wisdom, he has laid down only such laws as were founded in
those relations of justice, that existed in the nature of things
antecedent to any positive precept. These are the eternal, immutable
laws of good and evil, to which the creator himself in all his
dispensations conforms; and which he has enabled human reason to
discover, so far as they are necessary for the conduct of human
actions. Such among others are these principles: that we should live
honestly, should hurt nobody, and should render to every one his due;
to which three general precepts Justinian[1] has reduced the whole
doctrine of law.
But if the discovery of these first principles of the law of nature
depended only upon the due exertion of right reason, and could not
otherwise be obtained than by a chain of metaphysical disquisitions,
mankind would have wanted some inducement to have quickened their
inquiries, and the greater part of the world would have rested content
in mental indolence, and ignorance it's inseparable companion. As
therefore the creator is a being, not only of infinite power, and
wisdom, but also of infinite goodness, he has been pleased so to
contrive the constitution and frame of humanity, that we should want
no other prompter to inquire after and pursue the rule of right, but
only our own self-love, that universal principle of action. For he has
so intimately connected, so inseparably interwoven the laws of eternal
justice with the happiness of each individual, that the latter cannot
be attained but by observing the former; and, if the former be
punctually obeyed, it cannot but induce the latter. In consequence of
which mutual connection of justice and human felicity, he has not
perplexed the law of nature with a multitude of abstracted rules and
precepts, referring merely to the fitness or unfitness of things, as
some have vainly surmised; but has graciously reduced the rule of
obedience to this one paternal precept, "that man should pursue his
own true and substantial happiness." This is the foundation of what we
call ethics, or natural law. For the several articles into which it is
branched in our systems, amount to no more than demonstrating, that
this or that action tends to man's real happiness, and therefore very
justly concluding that the performance of it is a part of the law of
nature; or, on the other hand, that this or that action is destructive
of man's real happiness, and therefore that the law of nature forbids
it.
This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God
himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other-It is
binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times; no
human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this: and such of them
as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority,
mediately or immediately, from this original.
But in order to apply this to the particular exigencies of each
individual, it is still necessary to have recourse to reason; whose
office it is to discover, as was before observed, what the law of
nature directs in every circumstance of life: by considering, what
method will tend the most effectually to our own substantial
happiness. And if our reason were always, as in our first ancestor
before his transgression, clear and perfect, unruffled by passions,
unclouded by prejudice, unimpaired by disease or intemperance, the
task would be pleasant and easy; we should need no other guide but
this. But every man now finds the contrary in his own experience; that
his reason is corrupt, and his understanding full of ignorance and
error.
This has given manifold occasion for the benign interposition of
divine providence; which, in compassion to the frailty, the
imperfection, and the blindness of human reason, hath been pleased, at
sundry times and in divers manners, to discover and enforce it's laws
by an immediate and direct revelation. The doctrines thus delivered we
call the revealed or divine law, and they are to be found only in the
holy scriptures. These precepts, when revealed, are found upon
comparison to be really a part of the original law of nature, as they
tend in all their consequences to man's felicity. But we are not from
thence to conclude that the knowledge of these truths was attainable
by reason, in it's present corrupted state; since we find that, until
they were revealed, they were hid from the wisdom of ages. As then the
moral precepts of this law are indeed of the same original with those
of the law of nature, so their Intrinsic obligation is of equal
strength and perpetuity. Yet undoubtedly the revealed law is of
infinitely more authenticity than that moral system, which is framed
by ethical writers, and denominated the natural law. Because one is
the law of nature, expressly declared so to be by God himself; the
other is only what, by the assistance of human reason, we imagine to
be that law. If we could be as certain of the latter as we are of the
former, both would have an equal authority; but, till then, they can
never be put in any competition together.
Upon these two foundations, the law of nature and the law of
revelation, depend all human laws; that is to say, no human laws
should be suffered to contradict these. There are, it is true a great
number of indifferent points, in which both the divine law and the
natural leave a man at his own liberty; but which are found necessary
for the benefit of society to be restrained within certain limits. And
herein it is that human laws have their greatest force and efficacy;
for, with regard to such points as are not indifferent, human laws are
only declaratory of, and act in subordination to, the former. To
instance in the case of murder; this is expressly forbidden by the
divine, and demonstrably by the natural law; and from these
prohibitions arises the true unlawfulness of this crime. Those human
laws that annex a punishment to it, do not at all increase its moral
guilt, or superadd any fresh obligation in foro conscientiae to
abstain from it's perpetration. Nay, if any human law should allow or
enjoin us to commit it, we are bound to transgress that human law, or
else we must offend both the natural and the divine. But with regard
to matters that are in themselves indifferent, and are not commanded
or forbidden by those superior laws; such, for instance, as exporting
of wool into foreign countries; here the inferior legislature has
scope and opportunity to interpose, and to make that action unlawful
which before was not so.
If man were to live in a state of nature, unconnected with other
individuals, there would be no occasion for any other laws, than the
law of nature, and the law of God. Neither could any other law
possibly exist; for a law always supposes some superior who is to make
it; and in a state of nature we are all equal, without any other
superior but him who is the author of our being. But man was formed
for society; and, as is demonstrated by the writers on this
subject,[2] is neither capable of living alone, nor indeed has the
courage to do it. However, as it is impossible for the whole race of
mankind to be united in one great society, they must necessarily
divide into many; and form separate states, commonwealths and nations,
entirely independent of each other, and yet liable to a mutual
intercourse. Hence arises a third kind of law, to regulate this mutual
intercourse, called "the law of nations:" which, as none of these
states will acknowledge a superiority in the other, cannot be dictated
by any; but depends entirely upon the rules of natural law, or upon
mutual compacts, treaties, leagues, and agreements between these
several communities: in the construction also of which compacts we
have no other rule to resort to, but the law of nature; being the only
one to which all the communities are equally subject: and therefore
the civil law[3] very justly observes, that quod naturalis ratio inter
omnes homines constituit, vocatur jus gentium.
Thus much I thought it necessary to premise concerning the law of
nature, the revealed law, and the law of nations, before I proceeded
to treat more fully of the principal subject of this section,
municipal or civil law; that is, the rule by which particular
districts, communities, or nations are governed; being thus defined by
Justinian,[4] "jus civile est quod quisque sibi populus constituit." I
call it municipal law, in compliance with common speech for, though
strictly that expression denotes the particular customs of one single
municipium or free town, yet it may with sufficient propriety be
applied to any one state or nation, which is governed by the same laws
and customs.
Municipal law, thus understood, is properly defined to be "a rule of
civil conduct prescribed by the Supreme power in a state commanding
what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong." Let us endeavour to
explain it's several properties, as they arise out of this definition.
And, first, it is a rule; not a transient sudden order from a
superior, to or concerning a particular person; but something
permanent, uniform and universal. Therefore a particular act of the
legislature to confiscate the goods of Titius, or to attaint him of
high treason, does not enter into the idea of a municipal law; for the
operation of this act is spent upon Titius only, and has no relation
to the community in general; it is rather a sentence than a law. But
an act to declare that the crime of which Titius is accused shall be
deemed high treason; this has permanency, uniformity, and
universality, and therefore is properly a rule. It is also called a
rule, to distinguish it from advice or counsel, which we are at
liberty to follow or not, as we see proper, and to judge upon the
reasonableness or unreasonableness of the thing advised; whereas our
obedience to the law depends not upon our approbation, but upon the
maker's will, Counsel is only matter of persuasion, law is matter of
injunction: counsel acts only upon the willing, law upon the unwilling
also.
It is also called a rule, to distinguish it from a compact or
agreement; for a compact is a promise proceeding from us, law is a
command directed to us. The language of a compact is, "I will, or will
not, do this;" that of a law is, "thou shall, or shalt not, do it." It
is true there is an obligation which a compact carries with it; equal
in point of conscience to that of a law, but then the original of the
obligation is different. In compacts, we ourselves determine and
promise what shall be done, before we are obliged to do it; in laws,
we are obliged to act without ourselves determining or promising any
thing at all. Upon these accounts law is defined to be "a rule."
Municipal law is also "a rule of civil conduct." This distinguishes
municipal law from the natural, or revealed; the former of which is
the rule of moral conduct, and the latter not only the rule of moral
conduct, but also the rule of faith. These regard man as a creature,
and point out his duty to God, to himself, and to his neighbour,
considered in the light of an individual. But municipal or civil law
regards him also as a citizen, and bound to other duties towards his
neighbour, than those of mere nature and religion: duties, which he
has engaged in by enjoying the benefits of the common union: and which
amount to no more, than that he do contribute, on his part, to the
subsistence and peace of the society.
It is likewise "a rule prescribed." Because a bare resolution,
confined in the breast of the legislator, without manifesting itself
by some external sign, can never be properly a law. It is requisite
that this resolution be notified to the people who are to obey it. But
the manner in which this notification is to be made, is matter of very
great indifference. It may be notified by universal tradition and long
practice, which supposes a previous publication, and is the case of
the common law of England. It may be notified, viva voce, by officers
appointed for that purpose, as is done with regard to proclamations,
and such acts of parliament as are appointed to be publicly read in
churches and other assemblies. It may lastly be notified by writing,
printing, or the like; which is the general course taken with all our
acts of parliament.[5] Yet, whatever way is made use of, it is
incumbent on the promulgators to do it in the most public and
perspicuous manner; not like Caligula, who (according to Dio Cassius)
wrote his laws in a very small character, and hung them up upon high
pillars, the more effectually to ensnare the people. There is still a
more unreasonable method than this, which is called making of laws ex
post facto;[6] when after an action (indifferent in itself) is
committed, the legislator then for the first time declares it to have
been a crime, and inflicts a punishment upon the person who has
committed it. Here it is impossible that the party could foresee that
an action, innocent when it was done, should be afterwards converted
to guilt by a subsequent law: he had therefore no cause to abstain
from it; and all punishment for not abstaining must of consequence be
cruel and unjust.[7] All laws should be therefore made to commence in
futuro, and be notified before their commencement, which is implied in
the term "prescribed." But when this rule is in the usual manner
notified, or prescribed, it is then the subject's business to be
thoroughly acquainted therewith; for if ignorance, of what he might
know, were admitted as a legitimate excuse, the laws would be of no
effect, but might always be eluded with impunity.
But farther: municipal law is "a rule of civil conduct prescribed by
the supreme power in a state." For legislature, as was before
observed, is the greatest act of superiority that can be exercised by
one being over another. Wherefore it is requisite to the very essence
of a law, that it be made by the supreme power. Sovereignty and
legislature are indeed convertible terms; one cannot subsist without
the other.[8]
This will naturally lead us into a short inquiry concerning the nature
of society and civil government; and the natural, inherent right that
belongs to the sovereignty of a state, wherever that sovereignty be
lodged, of making and enforcing laws.
The only true and natural foundations of society are the wants and the
fears of individuals. Not that we can believe, with some theoretical
writers, that there ever was a time when there was no such thing as
society, either natural or civil; and that, from the impulse of
reason, and through a sense of their wants and weaknesses, individuals
met together in a large plain, entered into an original contract, and
chose the tallest roan present to be their governor. This notion, of
an actually existing unconnected state of nature, is too wild to be
seriously admitted: and besides it is plainly contradictory to the
revealed accounts of the primitive origin of mankind, and their
preservation two thousand years afterwards; both which were effected
by the means of single families. These formed the first natural
society, among themselves; which, every day extending it's limits,
laid the first though imperfect rudiments of civil or political
society: and when it grew too large to subsist with convenience in
that pastoral state wherein the patriarchs appear to have lived, it
necessarily subdivided itself by various migrations into more.
Afterwards, as agriculture increased, which employs and can maintain a
much greater number of hands, migrations became less frequent; and
various tribes, which had formerly separated, reunited again;
sometimes by compulsion and conquest, sometimes by accident, and
sometimes perhaps by compact. But, though society had not it's formal
beginning from any convention of individuals, actuated by their wants
and their fears; yet it is the sense of their weakness and
imperfection that keeps mankind together, that demonstrates the
necessity of this union, and that therefore is the solid and natural
foundation, as well as the cement, of civil society. And this is what
we mean by the original contract of society; which, though perhaps in
no instance it has ever been formally expressed at the first
institution of a state, yet in nature and reason must always be
understood and implied, in the very act of associating together:
namely, that the whole should protect all its parts, and that every
part should pay obedience to the will of the whole; or, in other
words, that the community should guard the rights of each individual
member, and that (in return for this protection) each individual
should submit to the laws of the community; without which submission
of all it was impossible that protection could be certainly extended
to any.
For when civil society is once formed, government at the same time
results of course, as necessary to preserve and to keep that society
in order. Unless some superior be constituted, whose commands and
decisions all the members are bound to obey, they would still remain
as in a state of nature, without any judge upon earth to define their
several rights, and redress their several wrongs. But, as all the
members which compose this society were naturally equal, it may be
asked, in whose hands are the reins of government to be entrusted? To
this the general answer is easy; but the application of it to
particular cases has occasioned one half of those mischiefs, which are
apt to proceed from misguided political zeal. In general, all mankind
will agree that government should be reposed in such persons, in whom
those qualities are most likely to be found, the perfection of which
is among the attributes of him who is emphatically stiled the supreme
being; the three grand requisites, I mean, of wisdom, of goodness, and
of power: wisdom, to discern the real interest of the community:
goodness, to endeavour always to pursue that real interest; and
strength, or power, to carry this knowledge and intention into action.
These are the natural foundations of sovereignty, and these are the
requisites that ought to be found in every well-constituted frame of
government.
How the several forms of government we now see in the world at first
actually began, is matter of great uncertainty, and has occasioned
infinite disputes.[9] It is not my business or intention to enter into
any of them. However they began, or by what right soever they subsist,
there is and must be in all of them a supreme, irresistible, absolute,
uncontrolled authority, in which the jura summi imperii or the rights
of sovereignty, reside. And this authority is placed in those hands,
wherein (according to the opinion of the founders of such respective
states, either expressly given, or collected from their tacit
approbation) the qualities requisite for supremacy, wisdom, goodness,
and power, are the most likely to be found.
The political writers of antiquity will not allow more than three
regular forms of government; the first, when the sovereign power is
lodged in an aggregate assembly consisting of all the free members of
a community, which is called a democracy; the second, when it is
lodged in a council, composed of select members, and then it is stiled
an aristocracy; the last, when it is entrusted in the hands of a
single person, and then it takes the name of a monarchy. All other
species of government, they say, are either corruptions of, or
reducible to, these three.
By the sovereign power, as was before observed, is meant the making of
laws; for wherever that power resides, all others must conform to, and
be directed by it, whatever appearance the outward form and
administration of the government may put on. For it is at any time in
the option of the legislature to alter that form and administration by
a new edict or rule, and to put the execution of the laws into
whatever hands it pleases; by constituting one, or a few, or many
executive magistrates: and all the other powers of the state must obey
the legislative power in the discharge of their several functions, or
else the constitution is at an end.[10]
In a democracy, where the right of making laws resides in the people
at large, public virtue, or goodness of intention, is more likely to
be found, than either of the other qualities of government. Popular
assemblies are frequently foolish in their contrivance, and weak in
their execution; but generally mean to do the thing that is right and
just, and have always a degree of patriotism or public spirit. In
aristocracies there is more wisdom to be found, than in the other
frames of government; being composed, or intended to be composed, of
the most experienced citizens: but there is less honesty than in a
republic, and less strength than in a monarchy. A monarchy is indeed
the most powerful of any; for by the entire conjunction of the
legislative and executive powers all the sinews of government are knit
together, and united in the hand of the prince: but then there is
eminent danger of his employing that strength to improvident or
oppressive purposes.
Thus these three species of government have, all of them, their
several perfections and imperfections. Democracies are usually the
best calculated to direct the end of a law; aristocracies to invent
the means by which that end shall be obtained; and monarchies to carry
those means into execution. And the antients, as was observed, had in
general no idea of any other permanent form of government but these
three: for though Cicero[12] declares himself of opinion, "esse optime
constitutam rempublicam, quae ex tribus generibus illis, regali,
optimo, et populari, sit modice confusa;" yet Tacitus treats this
notion of a mixed government, formed out of them all, and partaking of
the advantages of each, as a visionary whim, and one that, if
effected, could never be lasting or secure.[13][14]
But, happily for us of this island, the British constitution has long
remained, and I trust will long continue, a standing exception to the
truth of this observation. For, as with us, the executive power of the
laws is lodged in a single person, they have all the advantages of
strength and dispatch, that are to be found in the most absolute
monarchy: and as the legislature of the kingdom is entrusted to three
distinct powers, entirely independent of each other; first, the king;
secondly, the lords spiritual and temporal, which is an aristocratical
assembly of persons selected for their piety, their birth, their
wisdom, their valour, or their property;[15] and thirdly, the house of
commons, freely chosen by the people from among themselves, which
makes it a kind of democracy; as this aggregate body, actuated by
different springs, and attentive to different interests, composes the
British parliament, and has the supreme disposal of every thing; there
can no inconvenience be attempted by either of the three branches, but
will be withstood by one of the other two; each branch being armed
with a negative power, sufficient to repel any innovation which it
shall think inexpedient or dangerous.
Here then is lodged the sovereignty of the British constitution; and
lodged as beneficially as is possible for society. For in no other
shape could we be so certain of finding the three great qualities of
government so well and so happily united. If the supreme power were
lodged in any one of the three branches separately, we must be exposed
to the inconveniences of either absolute monarchy, aristocracy, or
democracy; and so want two of the three principal ingredients of good
polity, either virtue, wisdom, or power. If it were lodged in any two
of the branches for instance, in the king and house of lords, our laws
might be providently made, and well executed, but they might not have
always the good of the people in view: if lodged in the king and
commons, we should want that circumspection and mediatory caution,
which the wisdom of the peers is to afford: if the supreme rights of
legislature were lodged in the two houses only and the king had no
negative upon their proceedings, they might be tempted to encroach
upon the royal prerogative, or perhaps to abolish the kingly office,
and thereby weaken (if not totally destroy) the strength of the
executive power. But the constitutional government of this island is
so admirably tempered and compounded, that nothing can endanger or
hurt it, but destroying the equilibrium of power between one branch of
the legislature and the rest. For if ever it should happen that the
independence of any one of the three should be lost, or that it should
become subservient to the views of either of the other two, there
would soon be an end of our constitution.[16] The legislature would be
changed from that, which (upon the supposition of an original
contract, either actual or implied) is presumed to have been
originally set up by the general consent and fundamental act of the
society: and such a change, however effected is according to Mr.
Locke[17] (who perhaps carries his theory too far) at once an entire
dissolution of the bands of government; and the people are thereby
reduced to a state of anarchy, with liberty to constitute to
themselves a new legislative power.
Having thus cursorily considered the three usual species of
government, and our own singular constitution, selected and compounded
from them all, I proceed to observe, that as the power of making laws
constitutes the supreme authority, so wherever the supreme authority
in any state resides, it is the right of that authority to make
laws;[18] that is, in the words of our definition, to prescribe the
rule of civil action. And this may be discovered from the very end and
institution of civil states. For a state is a collective body,
composed of a multitude of individuals, united for their safety and
convenience, and intending to act together as one man. If it therefore
is to act as one man, it ought to act by one uniform will. But,
inasmuch as political communities are made up of many natural persons,
each of whom has his particular will and inclination, these several
wills cannot by any natural union be joined together, or tempered and
disposed into a lasting harmony, so as to constitute and produce that
one uniform will of the whole. It can therefore be no otherwise
produced than by a political union; by the consent of all persons to
submit their own private wills to the will of one man, or of one or
more assemblies of men, to whom the supreme authority is entrusted;
and this will of that one man, or assemblage of men, is in different
states, according to their different constitutions, understood to be
law.
Thus far as to the right of the supreme power to make laws; but
farther, it is it's duty likewise. For since the respective members
are bound to conform themselves to the will of the state, it is
expedient that they receive directions from the state declaratory of
that it's will. But, as it is impossible, in so great a multitude, to
give injunctions to every particular man, relative to each particular
action, it is therefore incumbent on the state to establish general
rules, for the perpetual information and direction of all persons in
all points, whether of positive or negative duty. And this, in order
that every man may know what to look upon as his own, what as
another's; what absolute and what relative duties are required at his
hands; what is to be esteemed honest, dishonest or Indifferent; what
degree every man retains of his natural liberty; what he has given up
as the price of the benefits of society; and after what manner each
person is to moderate the use and exercise of those rights which the
state assigns him, in order to promote and secure the public
tranquillity.
From what has been advanced, the truth of the former branch of our
definition is (I trust) sufficiently evident; that "municipal law is a
rule of civil conduct prescribed by the supreme power in a state."[19]
I proceed now to the latter branch of it; that it is a rule so
prescribed, "commanding what is right, and prohibiting what is wrong."
Now in order to do this completely, it is first of all necessary that
the boundaries of right and wrong be established and ascertained by
law. And when this is once done, it will follow of course that it is
likewise the business of the law, considered as a rule of civil
conduct, to enforce these rights and to restrain or redress these
wrongs. It remains therefore only to consider in what manner the law
is said to ascertain the boundaries of right and wrong; and the
methods which it takes to command the one and prohibit the other.
For this purpose every law may be said to consist of several parts:
one, declaratory; whereby the rights to be observed, and the wrongs to
be eschewed, are clearly defined and laid down: another, directory:
whereby the subject is instructed and enjoined to observe those
rights, and to abstain from the commission of those wrongs: a third,
remedial: whereby a method is pointed out to recover a man's private
rights, or redress his private wrongs; to which may be added a fourth,
usually termed the sanction, or vindicatory branch of the law; whereby
it is signified what evil or penalty shall be incurred by such as
commit any public wrongs, and transgress or neglect their duty.
With regard to the first of these, the declaratory part of the
municipal law, this depends not so much upon the law of revelation or
of nature as upon the wisdom and will of the legislator. This
doctrine, which before was slightly touched, deserves a more
particular explication. Those rights then which God and nature have
established, and are therefore called natural rights, such as are life
and liberty, need not the aid of human laws to be more effectually
invested in every man than they are; neither do they receive any
additional strength when declared by the municipal laws to be
inviolable. On the contrary, no human legislature has power to abridge
or destroy them, unless the owner shall himself commit some act that
amounts to a forfeiture. Neither do divine or natural duties (such as,
for instance, the worship of God, the maintenance of children, and the
like) receive any stronger sanction from being also declared to be
duties by the law of the land. The case is the same as to crimes and
misdemesnors, that are forbidden by the superior laws, and therefore
stiled mala in se, such as murder, theft, and perjury; which contract
no additional turpitude from being declared unlawful by the inferior
legislature. For that legislature in all these cases acts only, as was
before observed, in subordination to the great lawgiver, transcribing
and publishing his precepts. So that, upon the whole, the declaratory
part of the municipal law has no force or operation at all, with
regard to actions that are naturally and intrinsically right or wrong.
But with regard to things in themselves indifferent, the case is
entirely altered. These become either right or wrong, just or unjust,
duties or misdemesnors, according as the municipal legislator sees
proper, for promoting the welfare of the society, and more effectually
carrying on the purposes of civil life. Thus our own common law has
declared, that the goods of the wife do instantly upon marriage become
the property and right of the husband; and our statute law has
declared all monopolies a public offence: yet that right, and this
offence, have no foundation in nature; but are merely created by the
law, for the purposes of civil society. And sometimes, where the thing
itself has it's rise from the law of nature, the particular
circumstances and mode of doing it become right or wrong, as the laws
of the land shall direct. Thus, for instance, in civil duties;
obedience to superiors is the doctrine of revealed as well as natural
religion: but who those superiors shall be, and in what circumstances
or to what degrees they shall be obeyed, it is the province of human
laws to determine. And so, as to injuries or crimes, it must be left
to our own legislature to decide, in what cases the seising another's
cattle shall amount to a trespass or a theft; and where it shall be a
justifiable action, as when a landlord takes them by way of distress
for rent.
Thus much for the declaratory part of the municipal law: and the
directory stands much upon the same footing; for this virtually
includes the former, the declaration being usually collected from the
direction. The law that says, "thou shall not steal," implies a
declaration that stealing is a crime. And we have seen[20] that, in
things naturally indifferent, the very essence of right and wrong
depends upon the direction of the laws to do or to omit them.
The remedial part of a law is so necessary a consequence of the former
two, that laws must be very vague and imperfect without it. For in
vain would rights be declared, in vain directed to be observed, if
there were no method of recovering and asserting those rights, when
wrongly withheld or invaded. This is what we mean properly, when we
speak of the protection of the law. When, for instance, the
declaratory part of the law has said, "that the field or inheritance,
which belonged to Titius's father, is vested by his death in Titius;"
and the directory part has "forbidden any one to enter on another's
property, without the leave of the owner:" if Gaius after this will
presume to take possession of the land, the remedial part of the law
will then interpose it's office; will make Gaius restore the
possession to Titius, and also pay him damages for the invasion.
With regard to the sanction of laws, or the evil that may attend the
breach of public duties; it is observed, that human legislators have
for the most part chosen to make the sanction of their laws rather
vindicatory than remuneratory, or to consist rather in punishments,
than in actual particular rewards. Because, in the first place, the
quiet enjoyment and protection of all our civil rights and liberties,
which are the sure and general consequence of obedience to the
municipal law, are in themselves the best and most valuable of all
rewards. Because also, were the exercise of every virtue to be
enforced by the proposal of particular rewards, it were impossible for
any state to furnish stock enough for so profuse a bounty. And
farther, because the dread of evil is a much more forcible principle
of human actions than the prospect of good.[21] For which reasons,
though a prudent bestowing of rewards is sometimes of exquisite use,
yet we find that those civil laws, which enforce and enjoin our duty,
do seldom, if ever, propose any privilege or gift to such as obey the
law; but do constantly come armed with a penalty denounced against
transgressors, either expressly defining the nature and quantity of
the punishment, or else leaving it to the discretion of the judges,
and those who are entrusted with the care of putting the laws in
execution.
Of all the parts of a law the most effectual is the vindicatory. For
it is but lost labour to say, "do this, or avoid that," unless we also
declare, "this shall be the consequence of your non-compliance." We
must therefore observe, that the main strength and force of a law
consists in the penalty annexed to it. Herein is to be found the
principal obligation of human laws.
Legislators and their laws are said to compel and oblige; not that by
any natural violence they so constrain a man, as to render it
impossible for him to act otherwise than as they direct, which is the
strict sense of obligation: but because, by declaring and exhibiting a
penalty against offenders, they bring it to pass that no man can
easily choose to transgress the law; since, by reason of the impending
correction, compliance is in a high degree preferable to disobedience.
And, even where rewards are proposed as well as punishments
threatened, the obligation of the law seems chiefly to consist in the
penalty: for rewards, in their nature, can only persuade and allure;
nothing is compulsory but punishment.
It is true, it hath been holden, and very justly, by the principal of
our ethical writers, that human laws are binding upon men's
consciences. But if that were the only or most forcible obligation,
the good only would regard the laws, and the bad would set them at
defiance. And, true as this principle is, it must be understood with
some restriction. It holds, I apprehend, as to rights; and that, when
the law has determined the field to belong to Titius, it is matter of
conscience no longer to withhold or to invade it. So also in regard to
natural duties, and such offences as are mala in se: here we are bound
in conscience, because we are bound by superior laws, before those
human laws were in being, to perform the one and abstain from the
other. But in relation to those laws which enjoin only positive
duties, and forbid only such things as are not mala in se but mala
prohibita merely, without any intermixture of moral guilt, annexing a
penalty to non-compliance,[22] here I apprehend conscience is no
farther concerned, than by directing a submission to the penalty, in
case of our breach of those laws: for otherwise the multitude of penal
laws in a state would not only be looked upon as impolitic, but would
also be a very wicked, thing; if every such law were a snare for the
conscience of the subject. But in these cases the alternative is
offered to every man; "either abstain from this "or submit to to such
a penalty:" and his conscience will be clear, whichever side of the
alternative he thinks proper to embrace...... Thus, by the statutes
for preserving the game, a penalty is denounced against every
unqualified person that kills a hare, and against every person who
possesses a partridge in August...... And so too, by other statutes,
pecuniary penalties are inflicted for exercising trades without
serving an apprenticeship thereto, for not burying the dead in
woollen, for not performing statute-work on the public roads, and for
innumerable other positive misdemesnors. Now these prohibitory laws do
not make the transgression a moral offence, or sin: the only
obligation in conscience is to submit to the penalty, if levied. It
must however be observed, that we are here speaking of laws that are
simply and purely penal, where the thing forbidden or enjoined is
wholly a matter of indifference, and where the penalty inflicted is an
adequate compensation for the civil inconvenience supposed to arise
from the offence.[23] But where disobedience to the law involves in it
also any degree of public mischief or private injury, there it falls
within our former distinction, and is also an offence against
conscience.[24]
I have now gone through the definition laid down of a municipal law;
and have shewn that it is "a rule .... of civil conduct ....
prescribed .... by the supreme power in a state .... commanding what
is right and prohibiting what is wrong:" in the explication of which I
have endeavoured to interweave a few useful principles, concerning the
nature of civil government, and the obligation of human laws. Before I
conclude this section, it may not be amiss to add a few observations
concerning the interpretation of laws.
When any doubt arose upon the construction of the Roman laws, the
usage was to state the case to the emperor in writing, and take his
opinion upon it. This was certainly a bad method of interpretation. To
interrogate the legislature to decide particular disputes, is not only
endless, but affords great room for partiality and oppression. The
answers of the emperor were called his rescripts, and these had in
succeeding cases the force of perpetual laws; though they ought to be
carefully distinguished, by every rational civilian, from those
general constitutions, which had only the nature of things for their
guide. The emperor Macrinus, as his historian Capitolinus informs us,
had once resolved to abolish these rescripts, and retain only the
general edicts: he could not bear that the hasty and crude answers of
such princes as Commodus and Caracalla should be reverenced as laws.
But Justinian thought otherwise,[25] and he has preserved them all. In
like manner the canon laws, or decretal epistles of the popes, are all
of them rescripts in the strictest sense. Contrary to all true forms
of reasoning, they argue from particulars to generals.
The fairest and most rational method to interpret the will of the
legislator, is by exploring his intentions at the time when the law
was made, by signs the most natural and probable. And these signs are
either the words, the context, the subject-matter, the effects and
consequence, or the spirit and reason of the law. Let us take a short
view of them all.
1. Words are generally to be understood in their usual and most known
signification; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar, as
their general and popular use. Thus the law mentioned by
Puffendorf,[26] which forbad a layman to lay hands on a priest, was
adjudged to extend to him, who had hurt a priest with a weapon. Again;
terms of art, or technical terms, must be taken according to the
acceptation of the learned in each art, trade, and science. So in the
act of settlement, where the crown of England is limited "to the
princess Sophia, and the heirs of her body, being protestants," it
becomes necessary to call in the assistance of lawyers, to ascertain
the precise idea of the words "heirs of her body;" which in a legal
sense comprize only certain of her lineal descendants.
2. If words happen to be still dubious, we may establish their meaning
from the context; with which it may be of singular use to compare a
word, or a sentence, whenever they are ambiguous, equivocal, or
intricate. Thus the proeme, or preamble, is often called in to help
the construction of an act of parliament. Of the same nature and use
is the comparison of a law with other laws, that are made by the same
legislator, that have some affinity with the subject, or that
expressly relate to the same point.[27]
Thus, when the law of England declares murder to be felony without
benefit of clergy, we must resort to the same law of England to learn
what the benefit of clergy is: and when the common law censures
simoniacal contracts, it affords great light to the subject to
consider what the canon law has adjudged to be simony.[28]
3. As to the subject-matter, words are always to be understood as
having a regard thereto; for that is always supposed to be in the eye
of the legislator, and all his expressions directed to that end. Thus,
when a law of our Edward III. forbids all ecclesiastical persons to
purchase provisions at Rome, it might seem to prohibit the buying of
grain and other victuals; but when we consider that the statute was
made to repress the usurpations of the papal see, and that the
nominations to benefices by the pope were called provisions, we shall
see that the restraint is intended to be laid upon such provisions
only.
4. As to the effects and consequence, the rule is, that where words
bear either none, or a very absurd signification, if literally
understood, we must a little deviate from the received sense of them.
Therefore the Bolognian law, mentioned by Puffendorf,[29] which
enacted "that whoever drew blood in the streets should be punished
with the utmost severity," was held after a long debate not to extend
to the surgeon, who opened the vein of a person that fell down in the
street with a fit.
5. But, lastly, the most universal and effectual way of discovering
the true meaning of a law, when the words are dubious, is by
considering the reason and spirit of it; or the cause which moved the
legislator to enact it. For when this reason ceases, the law itself
ought likewise to cease with it. An instance of this is given in a
case put by Cicero, or whoever was the author of the treatise
inscribed to Herennius.[30] There was a law, that those who in a storm
forsook the ship, should forfeit all property therein; and that the
ship and lading should belong entirely to those who staid in it. In a
dangerous tempest all the mariners forsook the ship, except only one
sick passenger, who by reason of his disease was unable to get out and
escape. By chance the ship came safe to port. The sick man kept
possession, and claimed the benefit of the law. Now here all the
learned agree, that the sick man is not within the reason of the law;
for the reason of making it was, to give encouragement to such as
should venture their lives to save the vessel: but this is a merit,
which he could never pretend to, who neither staid in the ship upon
that account, nor contributed any thing to its preservation.[31]
From this method of interpreting laws, by the reason of them, arises
what we call equity; which is thus defined by Grotius,[32] "the
correction of that, wherein the law (by reason of it's universality)
is deficient." For since in laws all cases cannot be foreseen or
expressed, it is necessary, that when the general decrees of the law
come to be applied to particular cases, there should be somewhere a
power vested of defining those circumstances, which (had they been
foreseen) the legislator himself would have expressed. And these are
the cases which, according to Grotius, "lex non exacte definit, sed
arbitrio boni viri permittit."
Equity thus depending, essentially, upon the particular circumstances
of each individual case, there can be no established rules and fixed
precepts of equity laid down, without destroying its very essence, and
reducing it to a positive law. And, on the other hand, the liberty of
considering all cases in an equitable light, must not be indulged too
far; lest thereby we destroy all law, and leave the decision of every
question entirely in the breast of the judge. And law, without equity,
though hard and disagreeable, is much more desirable for the public
good, than equity without law: which would make every judge a
legislator, and introduce most infinite confusion; as there would then
be almost as many different rules of action laid down in our courts,
as there are differences of capacity and sentiment in the human mind.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] a Juris praecepta sunt hace, honeste vivere. alterum non laedere,
suum cuique tribuere. Inst, 1. 1. 3.
[2] b Puffendorf, l 7. c. 1. compared with Barbeyrac's Commentary.
[3] c Ff. 1. 1. 9.
[4] d Inst 1. 2. 1.
[5] 1 The laws of Virginia are promulgated by printing; copies of them
are sent to the clerks of the county courts for the use of each
magistrate, clerk, state's attorney, and sheriff in the County, or
Corporation. Copies are likewise furnished the Judges of the Superior
Courts. The Laws of the United States have been usually reprinted by
the Printer to the Commonwealth, at the public expence, and
distributed in the same manner. See V. L. 1794. c. 62. 3. 8. Certain
laws are likewise directed to be translated and printed in the German
language. Resolution of both Houses, December 23, 1794. Sessions Acts.
By the Act of 3. Cong. c. 115. the Secretary of State is required to
furnish the Executives of the several States, and of the Territories
Northwest, and South of the River Ohio, with four thousand five
hundred copies of the Edition of the Laws of the United States, by
that Act directed to be printed, and the like number of the Acts
passed at each succeeding Session, to be divided among them according
to the rule for apportioning Representatives, and distributed as the
Executive or Legislature of the States shall deem most conducive to
the general information of the people. And by the act of 5. Cong. c.
136. five thousand copies are directed to be printed and distributed
in like manner. The act further directs that every order, resolution,
or law passed by Congress, shall be published by the Secretary of
State in at least one, and not more than three, of the Newspapers in
each State.
[6] 2. No ex post facto law shall be passed by Congress; or by any of
the United States. C. U. S. Art. 1. §. 9. 10.
[7] e Such laws among the Romans were denominated privilegia, or
private laws of which Cicero (de leg. 3. 19. and in his oration pro
domo, 17.) thus speaks: "Vetant leges sacratae, vetant duodecim
tabulae, leges privatis hominibus irrogari, id enim est priviligium.
Nemo unquam tulit, nihil est crudelius, nihil perniciosus, nihil quod
minus haec civitas ferre possit."
[8] 3. See Appendix to this Volume, Note A.
[9] 4. Whatever difficulty or uncertainty there may be in tracing the
origin of the several forms of government in the Old World, it is the
distinguished happiness of America that no such difficulty or
uncertainty can here prevail as will be shewn hereafter.
[10] 5. In a former note, (Appendix, note A,) we endeavoured to shew
that this maxim does not apply to the governments of the American
Stales; by whose respective Constitutions, as also by the Constitution
of the Federal Government, the legislative power is restrained within
certain limits, both in the Federal and State Governments, which
neither the Congress, nor the State Legislatures can transgress,
without an absolute breach of the Constitutions from whence the
Legislative Authority is derived. For, both the Federal, and State
Constitutions derive their authority and existence from the immediate
act, and consent of the people, "in whom" as our bill of rights
expresses it, "all power is vested, and consequently, is derived from
them." These acts of the people having, then, the stamp of primitive
authority, must be paramount to the act of the Legislative body, which
derives its authority, and even its existence from that origin.[11]
And since the powers of the Legislature are thus limited, it follows
that the Jura summi imperii, or that supreme, irresistible, absolute,
uncontrolled authority, of which the commentator makes mention in a
preceding paragraph, doth not reside in the legislature, nor in any
other of the branches of the Government, nor in the whole of them
united. For if it did reside in them, or either of them, then would
there be no limits, such as may be found in all the American
Constitutions, to the powers of Government. The existence of such
limits proves the existence of an higher power elsewhere; that is, in
the PEOPLE; in whom, and in whom, only, the rights of sovereignty
remain: the people, therefore, only, and not the Legislature, have it
at any time in their option to alter the form and administration of
Government, by a new edict or rule, and to put the execution of their
authority into whatever hands they please: and all the powers of the
State, the Legislature as well as the rest, must obey them in the
execution of their several functions, or the Constitution will,
indeed, be at an end. For the Constitution is a law to the Government,
"which derives its just powers therefrom, as from the consent of the
governed, for whose benefit that power is entrusted, and by whom,
whenever it is abused, or exceeded, it may be revoked, and a new
government instituted." See the American Declaration of Independence,
July 1776.
[11] * And herewith Vattel, B. 1. c. 3. §. 34. agrees.
[12] f In his fragments de rep. l. 2.
[13] g "Cunctas nationes et urbes populus aut primores, aut singuli
regunt: delecta ex bis et constituta reipublicae forma laudari
facilius quam evenire, vel, si evenit, baud diuturna esse potest. Ann
l. 4."
[14] 6. See Appendix. Note B.
[15] 7. This is an imposing picture: but let us see how this assembly
is descr | | | | |
