NJCubScouter Posted August 27, 2012 Share Posted August 27, 2012 Since humans defined what murder means in the first place, then yes, humans can re-define it as they see fit. Well, they can, but can they enforce the changed definition? Assuming that "they" are a state legislature (or Congress) in the United States, they have to act in accordance with the U.S. Constitution and (if a state legislature) their own state Constitution as well. A statute that looked at the sexual orientation of the perpetrator (or the victim) before determining whether a murder had occurred would have to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Or at least I think it would. Not to get too legalese-y here, but it probably would be looked at under the "rational basis" test, meaning the legislature would need to have a rational basis for making the distinction. That test gives the legislature a wide latitude, but even so, I don't see what rational basis there could possibly be for making this kind of distinction. If the distinction was not on the basis of sexual orientation, but say, race or religion, then the actions of the legislature would have to pass a much more difficult test ("strict scrutiny.") But this would be one of those rare instances in which the "test" probably would not make a difference, because there isn't even a rational basis for the distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 We have certainly defined away legal penalties for killing unborn children, at least if the mother and a doctor do it. If an assailant does it they can still be prosecuted for a crime. Indeed, the ability to kill off unborn children is now a constitutional right --- you can find it right there in the constitution! The mothers of America and Europe have killed off more defenseless human beings than Stalin and Hitler combined Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 The mothers of America and Europe have killed off more defenseless human beings than Stalin and Hitler combined But they still can't touch god's rate of ~30% miscarriages per pregnancy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrinator Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 And since you just ask about 'humans', history is rife with examples of murder of unpopular minorities being legal, and often helped by governments. Oh, I definitely agree that a tyrannical and oppressive government could commit "legalized" murder, just as a tyrannical and oppressive government could give "legal" "right" to men to "marry" other men and women to "marry" other women. But that would not change what marriage is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrinator Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 But they still can't touch god's [sic] rate of ~30% miscarriages per pregnancy. Good to know you've started to accept the existence of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Oh, I definitely agree that a tyrannical and oppressive government could commit "legalized" murder, just as a tyrannical and oppressive government could give "legal" "right" to men to "marry" other men and women to "marry" other women. But that would not change what marriage is. How is that "tyrannical"? "unjustly cruel, harsh, or severe; arbitrary or oppressive; despotic" And the debate is over marriage as a legal relationship, not a religious one, so if the government changes it, that's what it is. You might notice that the bible describes marriages with multiple wives and concubines, but the US doesn't recognize that kind of marriage. And no, gods are still myths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Oh, for crying out loud... Hey OGE, can we get a "Godwin's Law" violation call on Seattle Pioneer here? And just to be even-handed, can you also slap Merlyn around a little? Rhetorically speaking, of course... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrinator Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 How is that "tyrannical"? "unjustly cruel, harsh, or severe; arbitrary or oppressive; despotic" You don't find that redefining a word as something other than its traditional meaning, attempting to redefine an institution, etc. -- arbitrary? Isn't that the definition of "arbitrary"? Of course, perhaps you also believe that it lies within the power of a government to change the meaning of "arbitrary" as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrinator Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 And no, gods are still myths. Well, as Tolkien pointed out to C.S. Lewis (an author whose works you would profit from reading) many years ago, "myth" is not synonymous with "falsehood." Why would you claim that God is responsible for miscarriages if you do not believe in Him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 > Merlyn must have had his fingers crossed when he signed his BSA application. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 You don't find that redefining a word as something other than its traditional meaning, attempting to redefine an institution, etc. -- arbitrary? No. It isn't "arbitrary." You can characterize any change in the law as "arbitrary" (and therefore tyrannical) using that bizarre reasoning. Why would you claim that God is responsible for miscarriages if you do not believe in Him? Like jazz, if I have to explain it, you ain't never going to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Well SeattlePioneer, when I was a cub scout, the BSA certainly didn't make it clear that atheists weren't allowed, and when I omitted "under god" from the pledge (during a group mumble) either nobody noticed, or nobody cared. This was also in Minnesota, which as we've already seen isn't a stickler when it comes to kicking out people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrinator Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 No. It isn't "arbitrary." You can characterize any change in the law as "arbitrary" (and therefore tyrannical) using that bizarre reasoning. I think you're confused about the definition of arbitrary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary If a government has the authority to redefine words against their traditional meaning, or to redefine institutions that pre-date government, then government's power is truly unlimited -- arbitrary, tyrannical, despotic. I would say that government has become your god, except that your ideal government can do things that God can't -- for example, lying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 No. It isn't "arbitrary." You can characterize any change in the law as "arbitrary" (and therefore tyrannical) using that bizarre reasoning. I think you're confused about the definition of arbitrary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arbitrary It's in direct response to same-sex couples wanting to marry. It's isn't "arbitrary." If a government has the authority to redefine words against their traditional meaning, or to redefine institutions that pre-date government, then government's power is truly unlimited -- arbitrary, tyrannical, despotic. The US government has done that all through its history. And your definition is ridiculous -- I guess no longer having some citizens count as 3/5 of a person any more is "despotic"? And the Loving decision was "despotic"? I would say that government has become your god BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeattlePioneer Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 > Are you a Cub Scout or a registered adult leader? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now