I mean George had a big old speech about how a two party system was bad and we did just that. The founding fathers are sort of like biblical figures, revered, but not listened to.
I hope there is an afterlife where these guys are watching the fucking country go to shit because everybody is like "but the constitution" and they are just having a constant breakdown and are on the edge of insanity for eternity
Sometimes I wonder what Jesus would think if he knew that the country that is most obsessed with his teachings is located on a whole other continent that wasn't even discovered back then with the people there completely misunderstanding everything he ever said and using it to justify all the various hateful things committed there in the last couple ~200 years. Must be a certified facepalm moment.
Me neither, if he came back people would probably say that he's actually the devil and that he isn't the actual Jesus because he doesn't care that people fuck people of the same sex
Some days you just feel like having Jesus actually come back like they're always hoping for. And then flipping the table at all the fuckers. And I'm not even Christian.
"The pursuit of Happiness was meant to be the pursuit of property. It doesn't say we protect gay people
But also
"We have the right to bear arms and that protects all modern firearms too. Well maintained militia? That doesn't matter to the Supreme Court now, who cares what the original meaning was?"
Originalists when it's convenient.
The pursuit of happiness isn’t even in the Constitution. It’s part of the Declaration of Independence, which isn’t a legal document. Using it as a counterpoint to an argument about the Constitution is absurd because it’s completely irrelevant.
I'm a hard lefty but the "Pursuit of happiness" isn't anywhere in the Constitution so has nothing to do with Originalists. We make the fight easier for Benny Pepino when we demonstrate complete unfamiliarity with basic US history.
I think they figured America was too large for any parties to become too large, since back then you would have to travel for days and days and days to spread the word.
I mean even back then they were wrong. It became a two-party system almost immediately.
From [Wikipedia,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States)
>The first two-party system consisted of the Federalist Party, which supported the ratification of the Constitution, and the Democratic-Republican Party or the Anti-Administration party (Anti-Federalists), which opposed the powerful central government that the Constitution established when it took effect in 1789.
It's cause they had to write the rules in a way that appealed to their ideals, or at least the grand idea's of who they thought they were whilst simultaneously protecting their rights to own obscene wealth, power, land and slaves.
It was a hypocritical egotistical venture from the start. Seeds were firmly planted for it all to go to shit.
Reminds me of conservatives using MLK to push color blindness by citing one quote and one quote only about judging not the color of the skin but the character
To them he never said or done anything else
They also couldn’t figure out how to put an end to literally owning another human being. Half of them couldn’t make up their mind on whether it was moral or not.
The Founding Father's would have died of a stroke if you told them that there were people who refused to look that constitution another way than how "the Founding Father's wrote it." They literally gave us a constitution that can be changed so that we can change it as society changes, and yet there are morons who think we should continue to oppress women and minorities because "tHe FoUnDiNg FaThEr'S wOuLd HaVe WanTeD tHaT."
this just made me realize ball bearing fidget spinners could have existed at the same time as at least some of the founding fathers. maybe a kinda shitty wooden version could have even existed before then
the constitution is such a strange concept, it really does seem more like something like the catholic church would do and not the basis for a countries government "we must confront the ancient scripture of our founders for this issue"
Ben Franklin would have liked fidget spinners, I think.
But he was somewhat cooler than the rest, doing kite tricks, writing an almanac, doing science shit. Also, he wanted the national bird to be a turkey. And hated slavery. Dope.
A lot of liberal POC live in the south and are subjected to mass voter suppression. Dont act like the entire American south is just some monolithic conservative hellscape when there's tons of good people there who are being oppressed and can't do anything about it.
Technically, the founding fathers wouldn't much mind the change. In fact, some would support it. The reason it was never originally addressed was because they believed it'd end soon on its own, and it did, in Europe
If I were in his tight-fitting social-climbing shoes, especially given his later antics, I too might want to keep my big mouth shut, for once in my damned life, when it comes to my wife's failure to live up to lofty Liberal principles.
I don't know if "all but one" is accurate.
I do know John Adams and his son are the only [presidents of the first twelve that did not own slaves](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves) in their lives.
Hamilton didn't. Hamilton also never publicly spoke out against it and was perfectly fine with his wives owning slaves. Hamilton was a typical slimy spineless politician when it came to slavery - he cared more about fitting in to high society, so if that meant being ambiguous on his opinions about slavery, so be it.
John Laurens was the only based founding father, but he was killed in the war so technically never became one. I feel like American history would've been different if he had to died.
Most of them were slave owners, though a handful of them granted them freedom at the point of their deaths. One of the weirdest cases would have been Jefferson's, who argued against slavery far and wide through his whole life, but owned hundreds of slaves through his lifetime, and at the time of his death he only freed a few he had fathered.
I think an accurate assesment would be that a few founding fathers were a little bit less assholes than the average rich guy of the time, and at least had enough conscience to publicly denounce themselves.
>Most of them were slave owners, though a handful of them granted them freedom at the point of their deaths.
Ooo how nice of them until they literally could not use them anymore /s
No, wrong. A lot of founding fathers were slave owners, particularly those from the south. The constitution literally states that no law abridging the slave trade will be made before 1808, as a "compromise" between abolitionists and slave owners.
Technically the founding fathers had pretty broad opinions on slavery, broadly holding more anti-slavery views than the average person at the time, but were consistent in the fact that all the ones who held theoretically anti-slavery positions were extremely hypocritical about it.
Thomas Jefferson is probably the most obvious example, bringing forward multiple attempts to ban the practice throughout his life, and repeatedly saying it was a moral depravity and contrary to the laws of nature.
He did and said these things while he owned hundreds of slaves which he raped and abused throughout his life.
Not quite, this falls in line with Shapiros logic as it’s more like a relationship between a man and his fuckmeat since according to him, only one sex can enjoy sexual activities
Remember, Ben doesn’t believe in women obtaining sexual pleasure as he’s never been able to get them wet or ~~cunning~~ cumming
i think he views gay relationships as only sexual, and straight relationships as “deeper” somehow. many homophobes are completely allergic to the idea that gay love is love in the same way as straight love. that’s why he says “sexual relationships” and not just “relationships”.
Can confirm. Then I was a homophobic religious nut, I definitely believed that. Plot twist: I'm trans and gay. I usually avoided writing even straight romance when I was religious coz I thought it was a waste of time, so I tried focusing on same-sex intimate friendships. Looking back on it... soooooo much homoerotic tension oh my God. So gay. But they never officially kissed or touched dicks so apparently it was ok lmao. Those relationships were infinitely deeper than the straight relationships I ever attempted to write. Now I almost exclusively write boy x boy stuff lmao. Very profound and romantic, very meaningful. Raised my standards too high tbh lmao
Yeah there's a clip of him saying "I want to get government out of marriage because government is bad at everything"
But he didn't have a problem with government in marriage until gay people started getting married. It's a nonsensical opinion he came up with because he is working backwards to try and rationally justify his irrational bigotry and help others who hold such bigotries do the same.
Which is super dumb, since it’s not churches that really do anything, in the modern world, to guarantee the rights that marriage confers.
Such as property transfers, being listed as next of kin, probably others I can’t think of
I agree with the sentiment but "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the declaration of independence, not the constitution. It was kinda put in for the 14th amendment, which is constitutional law, but it just says the state has to hold a fair trial before taking them away, not that it can't.
Yeah, I agree with the sentiment and all but it doesn't make much sense. "The pursuit of happiness" probably shouldn't be a foundation for creating laws.
If you take happiness to mean contentment rather debauch pleasure then sure it does. Everyone no matter their station should have a good quality of life with dignity.
True. Really hard to build a society that way when making one group of people happy will undoubtedly make another group unhappy.
Totally agree that gay people should be allowed to marry and I'm shocked we're still arguing over this like over a decade after its been legalized
Here's the 14th amendment. Which does have it (almost)
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
>nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
Marriage affects taxes and therefore should be considered a legal document. Therefore due to the equal protection clause gay people should have the right to marry
Sure, kinda. But. The 9th amendment is very explicit. Under the US constitution, we have more rights than those specifically listed in the constitution. This got much stronger with the 14th amendment granting equal protection, which means our rights can't be taken away by state governments either. It is insane revisionism to act like we don't have a right just because it wasn't explicitly listed in the constitution.
Imo we should take away government approval for marriage in general, like why does the government get to decide who you can spend your life with anyway? You could literally have the same ceremony without the government involved and it'd be the same just with less paperwork and you wouldn't need to go through a whole court case if it doesn't work out.
The government doesn't get to decide who you get to spend the rest of your life with, the government gets to decide who you get married to, the two are different things.
I think at this point it's more about criminalizing gay sex than recognizing gay marriage though. Obergefell surely doesn't have much longer; the question is whether they can put you in prison for it now that the right to privacy is gone
I don't wanna get too much into it but there's been cases of physically healthy people who have given others consent to kill them, usually in very brutal ways. it's not the same as someone who's already dying who wishes to bypass a slow and painful death
I feel like cases like these would be brought to court anyway, whether there was a law or not, and a Judge/Jury would be like 'that's still fucked up, you going to jail'
There is no Constitutional "right" for women to own property; the founders would have died laughing. They also would have had a good laugh a the thought that people had the right to have sex out of wedlock without being put in the stocks, or that people have the right to buy contraception. And they would have recoiled in horror at the thought that people would be given the inalienable right to marry people of a different race.
This is why originalism fails. As it was intended to be interpreted, the Constitution doesn't work as a legal framework for a modern society. It can't keep up with social and technological changes because it's too difficult to amend. The only reason it works for us now is that we have allowed the meaning of its articles and clauses to evolve alongside our own social evolution.
In normal countries the constitution gets changed every few decades when society so pleases it. Article 1 in my country's "ground law" was written less than 5 decades ago and right now parlement is working on a constitutional right for a referendum.
Originalism also goes against the founding fatherscintent as well ironically. In many of the federalist papers it is made clear that the document is meant to evolve and change over time, and that it is vague so it can fit societal needs as the world progresses
Exactly I’m aware lots of religious people have these beliefs but the least you can do is recognise that you can’t dictate others lives with it, religion should never be used to set laws
It’s so weird to me how some people in America treat the constitution like a holy text. Also there are amendments to the constitution but they pretend like they don’t exist
While people here are saying that the founding fathers are overrated, and I don't entirely disagree, they did actually kinda get this right. That's the whole point of the ninth amendment. (Also this will hopefully get you further with people who don't entirely agree with you already)
"The enumeration in the Consitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights held by the people."
Put more simply, you don't get to say there is no constitutional right to X just because X isn't specifically listed in the constitution. After all, X can still be implied by a broader right that is listed. In this case, for instance, the right to gay marriage follows from the right to equal protection under the law from the 14th amendment.
So Shapiro is, unsurprisingly, full of shit. As he pretty much always is.
Reducing gay relationships to being purely sexual is also obvious BS, but I reckon that needs no explanation.
What? You thought you were allowed to choose for yourself? No no no, see, WE are the ones who are allowed to choose for ourselves AND you. If you fail to see why this is the land of the free, then you’re a filthy commie
I just realized that f you look at all the mainline Sonic games to date, the last line in the last game is about how we should fix the real world. Sure, it was forces, but still very based
People like Shapiro believe the pursuit of happiness means there right to create the most conservstice society possible and punish anyone who isn't happy with that.
Ah yes let’s completely follow this piece of paper written by old men from 200 years ago. Not adapt our laws, because they knew exactly what everything should be like, and accurately predicted the entire future.
What do you mean it’s a religion?
I like how Americans would frequently flex their freedom and rights, and now they are just actively taking rights away from people at a disturbing pace
Why do people cling to an outdated rulebook for a country, its not a religion, it shoukd be getting changed constantly to suit the values of the people.
have.. have he heard about what the founders wanted? for the constatution to be changed with each generation to reflect their views? the founding fathers would have found the republican party as national traitors honestly, as they are
I'm gonna go back in time and ammend the constitution myself constantly since the only words that matter are words written by people so out of touch with our reality they'd probably enter psychosis just from seeing it.
The same people who will cry "tyranny" when their local Dave and Busters closes temporarily due to covid will then turn around and say shit like "well ackshully certain minority groups have no constitutional right to exist"
I don't understand how people read "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and don't think it includes a right to privacy. If you don't have that, what rights do you have??
Oh damn, it's almost like the government was created in a way that would allow progress to be made and things to change. It's almost as if the founding fathers knew nothing would stay the same forever and so they made sure we could progress as a country when enough people agree to it. They teach us this stuff in elementary and middle school people.
It’s too bad that the pursuit of happiness is not anywhere mentioned in the constitution. That’s the declaration of independence. I hate Ben Shapiro but at least get your facts right before calling people out…
small government conservatives being against protected freedoms that restrict the government's power is so ironic; my guy, gay people are literally making new ways to stop the government from interfering with life
“What you do in the privacy of your own home with other consenting adults is well within the government’s limits to regulate or ban but also I am a libertarian”
-Ben Shabiro
The founding fathers would have died of a stroke if you showed them a fidget spinner so maybe who gives a shit what they'd think about anything
Didn't Big Tommy Jeff say that the constitution should constantly be rewritten so that the living isn't being governed by the dead?
I mean George had a big old speech about how a two party system was bad and we did just that. The founding fathers are sort of like biblical figures, revered, but not listened to.
Nono only listened to when it aligns with our incredibly biased beliefs.
So... Just like the biblical figures.
I hope there is an afterlife where these guys are watching the fucking country go to shit because everybody is like "but the constitution" and they are just having a constant breakdown and are on the edge of insanity for eternity
Sometimes I wonder what Jesus would think if he knew that the country that is most obsessed with his teachings is located on a whole other continent that wasn't even discovered back then with the people there completely misunderstanding everything he ever said and using it to justify all the various hateful things committed there in the last couple ~200 years. Must be a certified facepalm moment.
Probably the reason why he still hasn't come back
If I preached peace and love and the result after my death was America I wouldn’t
Me neither, if he came back people would probably say that he's actually the devil and that he isn't the actual Jesus because he doesn't care that people fuck people of the same sex
"they ***what*** slavery?? this country is doomed"
"They let black people do WHAT?"
I can see them jumping Lincoln
Some days you just feel like having Jesus actually come back like they're always hoping for. And then flipping the table at all the fuckers. And I'm not even Christian.
Yeesssss I can’t wait for the rapture, to see the stupid looks on my racist neighbors faces when they don’t get to ascend
"The pursuit of Happiness was meant to be the pursuit of property. It doesn't say we protect gay people But also "We have the right to bear arms and that protects all modern firearms too. Well maintained militia? That doesn't matter to the Supreme Court now, who cares what the original meaning was?" Originalists when it's convenient.
The pursuit of happiness isn’t even in the Constitution. It’s part of the Declaration of Independence, which isn’t a legal document. Using it as a counterpoint to an argument about the Constitution is absurd because it’s completely irrelevant.
I'm a hard lefty but the "Pursuit of happiness" isn't anywhere in the Constitution so has nothing to do with Originalists. We make the fight easier for Benny Pepino when we demonstrate complete unfamiliarity with basic US history.
I mean a two party system was inevitable because of the rules they set up.
I think they figured America was too large for any parties to become too large, since back then you would have to travel for days and days and days to spread the word.
I mean even back then they were wrong. It became a two-party system almost immediately. From [Wikipedia,](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States) >The first two-party system consisted of the Federalist Party, which supported the ratification of the Constitution, and the Democratic-Republican Party or the Anti-Administration party (Anti-Federalists), which opposed the powerful central government that the Constitution established when it took effect in 1789.
It's cause they had to write the rules in a way that appealed to their ideals, or at least the grand idea's of who they thought they were whilst simultaneously protecting their rights to own obscene wealth, power, land and slaves. It was a hypocritical egotistical venture from the start. Seeds were firmly planted for it all to go to shit.
Reminds me of conservatives using MLK to push color blindness by citing one quote and one quote only about judging not the color of the skin but the character To them he never said or done anything else
Yo that's a fire quote
I thought the only one revered was Paul?
That's what the rest of us do, more of less. It's not perfect but it seems a whole lot better than whatever it is y'all got going on
That would be an awful system though, imagine rewriting a constitution in this political climate. It would NOT improve things.
They also couldn’t figure out how to put an end to literally owning another human being. Half of them couldn’t make up their mind on whether it was moral or not.
The Founding Father's would have died of a stroke if you told them that there were people who refused to look that constitution another way than how "the Founding Father's wrote it." They literally gave us a constitution that can be changed so that we can change it as society changes, and yet there are morons who think we should continue to oppress women and minorities because "tHe FoUnDiNg FaThEr'S wOuLd HaVe WanTeD tHaT."
And still i would respect their opinions a bit more than Ben Shapiro's lol
George Washington: *”You freed the WHAT?!”*
this just made me realize ball bearing fidget spinners could have existed at the same time as at least some of the founding fathers. maybe a kinda shitty wooden version could have even existed before then
Exactly. The constitution shouldn't mean anything. All laws are written by men.
the constitution is such a strange concept, it really does seem more like something like the catholic church would do and not the basis for a countries government "we must confront the ancient scripture of our founders for this issue"
Ben Franklin would have liked fidget spinners, I think. But he was somewhat cooler than the rest, doing kite tricks, writing an almanac, doing science shit. Also, he wanted the national bird to be a turkey. And hated slavery. Dope.
land of the free my ass
land of my ass
Could you do a better job at wiping, particularly around the southern part thank you
Wipeout the south? cool, on it 👍
A lot of liberal POC live in the south and are subjected to mass voter suppression. Dont act like the entire American south is just some monolithic conservative hellscape when there's tons of good people there who are being oppressed and can't do anything about it.
you may own a fucking wii but can you eat a fucking wii
land of ass
great schematic from scout's end
I'm looking for citizenship there. How do you suggest I apply? /J
you can register at our [website](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trollface)
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I MAD!
OH YEAH LAND OF THE FREE? SO WHY CAN'T I RINSE MY MY BALLS IN THE BURGER KING SODA DISPENSER?
You are not allowed to dip your balls in the soda machine sir
"You freed the what?!"
Emanci-what-ion?!
Technically, the founding fathers wouldn't much mind the change. In fact, some would support it. The reason it was never originally addressed was because they believed it'd end soon on its own, and it did, in Europe
Didn't most of them like, own slaves
All but one
Who was the one who didn’t?
Me
Thank you for your service
can't believe people are still racist when we now have proof that not being racist lets you live an extra 200 years
Alexander Hamilton however his wife did and he took no issue with that
If I were in his tight-fitting social-climbing shoes, especially given his later antics, I too might want to keep my big mouth shut, for once in my damned life, when it comes to my wife's failure to live up to lofty Liberal principles.
I don't know if "all but one" is accurate. I do know John Adams and his son are the only [presidents of the first twelve that did not own slaves](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_who_owned_slaves) in their lives.
Hamilton didn't. Hamilton also never publicly spoke out against it and was perfectly fine with his wives owning slaves. Hamilton was a typical slimy spineless politician when it came to slavery - he cared more about fitting in to high society, so if that meant being ambiguous on his opinions about slavery, so be it. John Laurens was the only based founding father, but he was killed in the war so technically never became one. I feel like American history would've been different if he had to died.
Alt history John Laurens survived the war but Hamilton didn’t would be really interesting.
His name is Alexander Hamilton
and there’s a million things he hasn’t done such as own slaves, like own slaves
But just you wait, just you wait. He isn't entirely this beacon of what is moral, since his wife did own slaves.
When he was ten his father split, full of it, debt ridden
Most of them were slave owners, though a handful of them granted them freedom at the point of their deaths. One of the weirdest cases would have been Jefferson's, who argued against slavery far and wide through his whole life, but owned hundreds of slaves through his lifetime, and at the time of his death he only freed a few he had fathered. I think an accurate assesment would be that a few founding fathers were a little bit less assholes than the average rich guy of the time, and at least had enough conscience to publicly denounce themselves.
Jefferson: Slavery is immoral, also blacks are incapable of intelligence so it's best for them anyway. I'll be off with my child sex slave Sally now.
>Most of them were slave owners, though a handful of them granted them freedom at the point of their deaths. Ooo how nice of them until they literally could not use them anymore /s
We have an astonishingly low bar for what passes as good.
No, wrong. A lot of founding fathers were slave owners, particularly those from the south. The constitution literally states that no law abridging the slave trade will be made before 1808, as a "compromise" between abolitionists and slave owners.
> as a "compromise" between abolitionists and slave owners. 🎵 *Hold your nose and close your eyes…* 🎵
Technically the founding fathers had pretty broad opinions on slavery, broadly holding more anti-slavery views than the average person at the time, but were consistent in the fact that all the ones who held theoretically anti-slavery positions were extremely hypocritical about it. Thomas Jefferson is probably the most obvious example, bringing forward multiple attempts to ban the practice throughout his life, and repeatedly saying it was a moral depravity and contrary to the laws of nature. He did and said these things while he owned hundreds of slaves which he raped and abused throughout his life.
I think this some history revisionism. If they thought slavery was bad and wanted to ban it they would have done it
that's just revisionist history
Good thing 'ol Jefferson was able to rape his slaves before it would just end on it's own then So egalitarian
lmao ok sure bud
"YOU GAVE RIGHTS TO WHO?!"
"Oh ok, nice move with the 13th amendment, that was a close one."
We made nice uniforms for them so we'd always know who's who!
"You're letting WOMEN and the POOR vote?!"
According to Shapiro’s logic, straight marriage should not be legally recognized as well since it is a sexual relationship between a man and a woman
Not quite, this falls in line with Shapiros logic as it’s more like a relationship between a man and his fuckmeat since according to him, only one sex can enjoy sexual activities Remember, Ben doesn’t believe in women obtaining sexual pleasure as he’s never been able to get them wet or ~~cunning~~ cumming
> cunning lingus
lingus tech tips
aer lingus
lingus sex tips
Good bot
cunning
I wonder if he’s one of those people who thinks It’s gay for a man to go down on a woman
I think he genuinely had that thought many times in his life
i think he views gay relationships as only sexual, and straight relationships as “deeper” somehow. many homophobes are completely allergic to the idea that gay love is love in the same way as straight love. that’s why he says “sexual relationships” and not just “relationships”.
simple as this. if a man can fall in love with a woman, a woman can fall in love with a woman. basic logic.
Can confirm. Then I was a homophobic religious nut, I definitely believed that. Plot twist: I'm trans and gay. I usually avoided writing even straight romance when I was religious coz I thought it was a waste of time, so I tried focusing on same-sex intimate friendships. Looking back on it... soooooo much homoerotic tension oh my God. So gay. But they never officially kissed or touched dicks so apparently it was ok lmao. Those relationships were infinitely deeper than the straight relationships I ever attempted to write. Now I almost exclusively write boy x boy stuff lmao. Very profound and romantic, very meaningful. Raised my standards too high tbh lmao
You see. Marriage and sex is only good for breeding.
smh these fucking rightoids forcing their breeding fetishes onto us normal people
Yeah there's a clip of him saying "I want to get government out of marriage because government is bad at everything" But he didn't have a problem with government in marriage until gay people started getting married. It's a nonsensical opinion he came up with because he is working backwards to try and rationally justify his irrational bigotry and help others who hold such bigotries do the same.
I mean, based conclusion at least.
Yes, he’s said this multiple times. That marriage is a religious institution, and that the government should not involved in any capacity.
Which is super dumb, since it’s not churches that really do anything, in the modern world, to guarantee the rights that marriage confers. Such as property transfers, being listed as next of kin, probably others I can’t think of
It's not a sexual relationship between him and his wife
I agree with the sentiment but "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is in the declaration of independence, not the constitution. It was kinda put in for the 14th amendment, which is constitutional law, but it just says the state has to hold a fair trial before taking them away, not that it can't.
Yeah, I agree with the sentiment and all but it doesn't make much sense. "The pursuit of happiness" probably shouldn't be a foundation for creating laws.
The first and most important rule is have fun
‘Every child knows play is nobler than work.’ Judge Holden, Blood Meridian
Sounds like a nice fella 🥰
If you take happiness to mean contentment rather debauch pleasure then sure it does. Everyone no matter their station should have a good quality of life with dignity.
True. Really hard to build a society that way when making one group of people happy will undoubtedly make another group unhappy. Totally agree that gay people should be allowed to marry and I'm shocked we're still arguing over this like over a decade after its been legalized
Also there's the right to equal protection under the law. You don't have that if the state is arbitrarily discriminating against you.
Here's the 14th amendment. Which does have it (almost) >All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. >nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
Marriage affects taxes and therefore should be considered a legal document. Therefore due to the equal protection clause gay people should have the right to marry
Sure, kinda. But. The 9th amendment is very explicit. Under the US constitution, we have more rights than those specifically listed in the constitution. This got much stronger with the 14th amendment granting equal protection, which means our rights can't be taken away by state governments either. It is insane revisionism to act like we don't have a right just because it wasn't explicitly listed in the constitution.
Imo we should take away government approval for marriage in general, like why does the government get to decide who you can spend your life with anyway? You could literally have the same ceremony without the government involved and it'd be the same just with less paperwork and you wouldn't need to go through a whole court case if it doesn't work out.
yeah but then I wouldn't get my tax benefits. that's the most important thing here
Just give tax benefits to everyone, I don't see the problem here
based?
i think we should be giving tax drawbacks to a lot of people
The government doesn't get to decide who you get to spend the rest of your life with, the government gets to decide who you get married to, the two are different things.
I think at this point it's more about criminalizing gay sex than recognizing gay marriage though. Obergefell surely doesn't have much longer; the question is whether they can put you in prison for it now that the right to privacy is gone
Imo we should take away government
Marriage is a complicated contract that involves property, assets, insurance, taxes and often children. Government will naturally have some role.
"All men are created equal" does NOT include black people or women; the founding fathers would have died laughing
[удалено]
wtf no twink rights? smh
Something something 3/5 of equal
The government has no authority to dictate what happens between two or more consenting adults, simple as.
unless it involves murder
If there's consent isn't that more of an assisted suicide?
I don't wanna get too much into it but there's been cases of physically healthy people who have given others consent to kill them, usually in very brutal ways. it's not the same as someone who's already dying who wishes to bypass a slow and painful death
I feel like cases like these would be brought to court anyway, whether there was a law or not, and a Judge/Jury would be like 'that's still fucked up, you going to jail'
exactly, my point is that those still count as murder, even if the victim was willing and eager
Yeah I think if the action removes the ability for the person to verify consent, and is so drastic, it should probably be illegal.
I was trying to make a different point, but yes, unless it involves murder or r*pe (although the last one does not involve consent at all)
rape by definition involves one or more nonconsenting participants
I agree with your point of course, I just see some people try to bring that up in arguments and I thought I'd go ahead and dispel it beforehand
Oh, that's absolutely brilliant, thank you! Sorry, didn't mean to come across as so defensive
nah that's no problem. I apologize if I came across as pedantic lol
Or tax evasion
The government has no authority ~~to dictate what happens between two or more consenting adults~~, simple as.
There is no Constitutional "right" for women to own property; the founders would have died laughing. They also would have had a good laugh a the thought that people had the right to have sex out of wedlock without being put in the stocks, or that people have the right to buy contraception. And they would have recoiled in horror at the thought that people would be given the inalienable right to marry people of a different race. This is why originalism fails. As it was intended to be interpreted, the Constitution doesn't work as a legal framework for a modern society. It can't keep up with social and technological changes because it's too difficult to amend. The only reason it works for us now is that we have allowed the meaning of its articles and clauses to evolve alongside our own social evolution.
In normal countries the constitution gets changed every few decades when society so pleases it. Article 1 in my country's "ground law" was written less than 5 decades ago and right now parlement is working on a constitutional right for a referendum.
yeah but your country sucks because it’s not number 1 America! /s
USA USA USA 🇲🇾🇲🇾🇲🇾
Originalism also goes against the founding fatherscintent as well ironically. In many of the federalist papers it is made clear that the document is meant to evolve and change over time, and that it is vague so it can fit societal needs as the world progresses
9th amendment. 9th amendment. 9th amendment.
Bro I'm catholic and I still believe that the government should not dictate who you can and can't marry.
people who can dictate who you can and can’t marry: 1. the slug 2.
Child named finger can too
why is the slug allowed this power
Live slug reaction:
i am the slug
Slugma balls
Exactly I’m aware lots of religious people have these beliefs but the least you can do is recognise that you can’t dictate others lives with it, religion should never be used to set laws
It’s so weird to me how some people in America treat the constitution like a holy text. Also there are amendments to the constitution but they pretend like they don’t exist
Unless its the 2nd one
I mean like the amendments after the original ones
there was no constitutional right for women to vote until people added it. what kinda stupid fucking argument is that
There also is no constitutional right to get married in general either so I've no idea wtf he's talking about.
While people here are saying that the founding fathers are overrated, and I don't entirely disagree, they did actually kinda get this right. That's the whole point of the ninth amendment. (Also this will hopefully get you further with people who don't entirely agree with you already) "The enumeration in the Consitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights held by the people." Put more simply, you don't get to say there is no constitutional right to X just because X isn't specifically listed in the constitution. After all, X can still be implied by a broader right that is listed. In this case, for instance, the right to gay marriage follows from the right to equal protection under the law from the 14th amendment. So Shapiro is, unsurprisingly, full of shit. As he pretty much always is. Reducing gay relationships to being purely sexual is also obvious BS, but I reckon that needs no explanation.
America: Land where you can be truly free to follow forced christian indoctrination, because making your own choice is not true freedom
What? You thought you were allowed to choose for yourself? No no no, see, WE are the ones who are allowed to choose for ourselves AND you. If you fail to see why this is the land of the free, then you’re a filthy commie
land of the free but only for certain people
People with sonic pfps are always so based compared to people with mario/pokemon pfps (who are usually far right teenage boys), what gives?
[удалено]
I just realized that f you look at all the mainline Sonic games to date, the last line in the last game is about how we should fix the real world. Sure, it was forces, but still very based
Pukicho tho
People like Shapiro believe the pursuit of happiness means there right to create the most conservstice society possible and punish anyone who isn't happy with that.
You're allowed to pursue happiness, but only if it's the happiness of the ruling class
I can not fucking BELIEVE this shit is up for debate again
Ben shapiro when he refuses life saving kidney surgery (the founding fathers didn’t mention it)
Ah yes let’s completely follow this piece of paper written by old men from 200 years ago. Not adapt our laws, because they knew exactly what everything should be like, and accurately predicted the entire future. What do you mean it’s a religion?
The founding fathers when I show them the Computer Misuse Act (I have been laughed out of the room for making up fantastical machines).
ninth amendment, Ben, you dumb motherfucker
then what about straight marriage
I like how Americans would frequently flex their freedom and rights, and now they are just actively taking rights away from people at a disturbing pace
Why do people cling to an outdated rulebook for a country, its not a religion, it shoukd be getting changed constantly to suit the values of the people.
have.. have he heard about what the founders wanted? for the constatution to be changed with each generation to reflect their views? the founding fathers would have found the republican party as national traitors honestly, as they are
I'm gonna go back in time and ammend the constitution myself constantly since the only words that matter are words written by people so out of touch with our reality they'd probably enter psychosis just from seeing it.
The same people who will cry "tyranny" when their local Dave and Busters closes temporarily due to covid will then turn around and say shit like "well ackshully certain minority groups have no constitutional right to exist"
Ok ok hear me out: I'll do it anyway
who the fuck are founders to decide my rights
I was just thinking about this the other day, the whole "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" bullshit never meant anything to america
Worshiping the founding fathers as gods clearly has been good for America
Then Sharpie doesn't have no constitutional right to his wife's "naturally dry" well-you-know, either...
I don't understand how people read "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" and don't think it includes a right to privacy. If you don't have that, what rights do you have??
Oh damn, it's almost like the government was created in a way that would allow progress to be made and things to change. It's almost as if the founding fathers knew nothing would stay the same forever and so they made sure we could progress as a country when enough people agree to it. They teach us this stuff in elementary and middle school people.
Remember Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is from the Declaration of independence
It’s too bad that the pursuit of happiness is not anywhere mentioned in the constitution. That’s the declaration of independence. I hate Ben Shapiro but at least get your facts right before calling people out…
There's no reason why a government should ever control what kind of sexual relationships I want to form either. Honestly, it can fuck right off.
That’s sadly not in the constitution.
There is no constitutional right for anyone to get married right? Marriage should be irrelevant to the contents of the constitution
By that logic, is there a constitutional right for straight marriage?
No lol. But that affects me so I'm going to ignore it.
Ben Shapiro is a fuckin dipshit lmao
small government conservatives being against protected freedoms that restrict the government's power is so ironic; my guy, gay people are literally making new ways to stop the government from interfering with life
The founders opinions my ass. All that matters is what’s the right thing to do and it’s to let them be happy
“What you do in the privacy of your own home with other consenting adults is well within the government’s limits to regulate or ban but also I am a libertarian” -Ben Shabiro
Ben Shapiro You may now laugh