NationStates Jolt Archive

1) In short the candates in the elction are so poor there seems to be no point, I don't like Kerry and I don't like Bush so who should I vote for.




2) I'm not old enough, I'm 14!



3) I'm not American, I'm british, however in the britsh elelections I would vote for the Lib-dems.

In answer to your first question, you could vote for Michael Badnarik. He's the only non-socialist running.

In answer to your first question, you could vote for Michael Badnarik. He's the only non-socialist running.

Ahem.....http://www.constitutionparty.org

You might want to retract that "non-Socialist" comment...you're forgetting the only other non-Socialist....

Me!

Nope, the Constitution Party is socialist, too. They're theocrats, which is in fact a form of socialism (as is statism in general).

1) In short the candates in the elction are so poor there seems to be no point, I don't like Kerry and I don't like Bush so who should I vote for.




2) I'm not old enough, I'm 14!



3) I'm not American, I'm british, however in the britsh elelections I would vote for the Lib-dems.


Yeah...I think the last two are the main reason why this thread is pointless.

Im not american either, not of age too. Wont let that stop me.

1) In short the candates in the elction are so poor there seems to be no point, I don't like Kerry and I don't like Bush so who should I vote for.




2) I'm not old enough, I'm 14!



3) I'm not American, I'm british, however in the britsh elelections I would vote for the Lib-dems.

Go Charles Kennedy!

Vote pot!

http://www.pot-party.com/

Nope, the Constitution Party is socialist, too. They're theocrats, which is in fact a form of socialism (as is statism in general).

We're not theocrats by any stretch of the imagination. Pardon us, if we want to return America to the way our Founding Fathers saw fit. We're as far from socialism as one can possibly get....

On a side note, you should go to: http://forum.protestwarrior.com

Great forums for political discussion from all sides of the spectrum....

Me!

From the front page of the CP's website: "Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore...our law to its Biblical foundation."

From their platform: "This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

I could go on, but I don't need to. Given that, almost without exception, the Founders were in fact NOT Christian, it is quite clear that the CP is trying to put its own theocratic spin on a Free Republic. At the very least, it is basing its supposed "individualist" ideology on religious notions, which is, to say the least, absurd--religion, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is the pinnacle of collectivism.

I'm not going to even get started on the error of mindless Constitutionalism--the Constitution grants government many powers that it simply should not have.

From the front page of the CP's website: "Join the Constitution Party in its work to restore...our law to its Biblical foundation."

Our government was founded on our Jedeo-Christian values and the Bible, whether you wish to recognize it as or not, is the foundation for our most basic of laws....



From their platform: "This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

See above....


I could go on, but I don't need to. Given that, almost without exception, the Founders were in fact NOT Christian, it is quite clear that the CP is trying to put its own theocratic spin on a Free Republic.

Again, our nation was founded on the undying Judeo-Christian principles. To try and say otherwise is simply not true.

Some of them were strong Christians, but others were deitists, or believed in one spirtual being (God if you will) which had very little to do with governing their lives on earth.
However, it is important to note that all of the Founding Fathers followed Christian doctrine for rules on how to conduct ones self, for it was so intertwined with the society. Benjamin Franklin probably explains it best when he, to paraphrase, said that although he is unsure of whether God exists or not, he felt it was better to believe in Christianity and the Christian God than not to, for the Christian teachings prevented moral anarchy. Thus, our nation was founded on Christian principles because the Founding Generation recognized the value in them to create a moral, virtuous society.

http://www.faqfarm.com/History/Founding/2686


At the very least, it is basing its supposed "individualist" ideology on religious notions, which is, to say the least, absurd--religion, especially in the Judeo-Christian tradition, is the pinnacle of collectivism.

Do you even know what collectivism is?

I'm not going to even get started on the error of mindless Constitutionalism--the Constitution grants government many powers that it simply should not have.

I want to restore America to the way our Founding Fathers saw it. That means dismantling ALL gov't welfare programs, dismantling Social Security, abolishing the unConstitutional income tax, et al. The gov't's only purpose is to maintain order and to protect property....

Me!

Wait.. Bush is a socialist? I don't understand..I thought Bush was just an idiot.

Our government was founded on our Jedeo-Christian values and the Bible, whether you wish to recognize it as or not, is the foundation for our most basic of laws....
Was it, or is there simply a strong resemblance? It's an important difference.


Do you even know what collectivism is?

Yes. Do you?


abolishing the unConstitutional income tax, et al.

But it IS Constitutional (see the 16th Amendment)--and therein lies the problem with mindless Constitutionalism. The only "principle" (if it can be called that) underlying Constitutionalism is the contents of a certain document--contents that can (and have been) altered. The original Constitution did not allow for an income tax--but as the Constitution now stands it does. Amendments are as much a part of the Constitution as the original articles. Constitutionalism, then, requires that one accept that government can have ANY power granted to it in the Constitution, whether in the original document or through an amendment, regardless of whether or not it SHOULD have that power. It's a not-so-obvious form of an is/ought fallacy.

Was it, or is there simply a strong resemblance? It's an important difference.


Yes, our gov't was founded on the fundamental Judeo-Christian principles...there's no real way that one can logically refute that...


Yes. Do you?

Yes, I do....


But it IS Constitutional (see the 16th Amendment)--and therein lies the problem with mindless Constitutionalism.

You support the open government theft of citizen's money through an income tax? While taxes are necessary, income tax is a high point in gov't interferrance in its citizens' lives....

The only "principle" (if it can be called that) underlying Constitutionalism is the contents of a certain document--contents that can (and have been) altered.

More of that "it's a living, breathing document" liberal nonsense, 'eh? Yes, the Constitution can and will be modified to make up for new situations. (God willing, the next Amendment will be to outline marriage, but I doubt that will happen.)

Me!

So wait...you want government out of your life, except when it can be used to bash the QUEERS.


Dear god...that must be why you people get next to no votes.

Why do you guys make everything a freakin' political debate!?

Pfff...
Jack-offs.

1) In short the candates in the elction are so poor there seems to be no point, I don't like Kerry and I don't like Bush so who should I vote for.




2) I'm not old enough, I'm 14!



3) I'm not American, I'm british, however in the britsh elelections I would vote for the Lib-dems.


Your latter two reasons are excellent reasons for not voting in the American elections. :)

You support the open government theft of citizen's money through an income tax? While taxes are necessary, income tax is a high point in gov't interferrance in its citizens' lives....
No, I don't. Was I really that unclear, or were you deliberately misinterpreting me?

Here's what I said:

But it IS Constitutional (see the 16th Amendment)--and therein lies the problem with mindless Constitutionalism. The only "principle" (if it can be called that) underlying Constitutionalism is the contents of a certain document--contents that can (and have been) altered. The original Constitution did not allow for an income tax--but as the Constitution now stands it does. Amendments are as much a part of the Constitution as the original articles. Constitutionalism, then, requires that one accept that government can have ANY power granted to it in the Constitution, whether in the original document or through an amendment, regardless of whether or not it SHOULD have that power. It's a not-so-obvious form of an is/ought fallacy.

So wait...you want government out of your life, except when it can be used to bash the QUEERS.


Dear god...that must be why you people get next to no votes.

Well, for starters, I don't think many homosexuals take a kind-liking the use of the word queer being directed at them. Seeing as you're the only one in this thread who has used the word queer, then perhaps you do not have any room to attack me in such the way that you did. Those in glass houses, should not throw stones, CSW...

Secondly, the Marriage Protection Amendment would only define marriage as a man and a women. Let homosexuals have their 'civil unions.' Why must you corrupt the meaning of yet another word?

Me!

No, I don't. Was I really that unclear, or were you deliberately misinterpreting me?

No, I was not misinterpreting you. You said: But it IS Constitutional (see the 16th Amendment)--and therein lies the problem with mindless Constitutionalism.

I replied with:
You support the open government theft of citizen's money through an income tax? While taxes are necessary, income tax is a high point in gov't interferrance in its citizens' lives....

I asked you a question -- do you or do you not support the gov't theft of civillian's money through income tax?

Me!

No, you misinterpreted me.

The income tax is Constitutional, yes. But that does not mean I support it. I was using it as an example of the problem with mindless Constitutionalism. As the Constitution now stands, income tax is allowable. Thus, Constitutionalists must be willing to accept it, as the Constitution quite clearly grants government that power. However, it is not a power government SHOULD have--thus I do not support it.

The problem with Constitutionalism is that it requires that one accept whatever power is granted to government by the Constitution. If, in the future, an amendment were to be passed granting government the power to execute all dissenters, then Constitutionalists must support it (because after all, it's in the Constitution). However, that is clearly NOT a power government should have. That is why I am a libertarian and not a Constitutionalist.

No, you misinterpreted me.

The income tax is Constitutional, yes. But that does not mean I support it. I was using it as an example of the problem with mindless Constitutionalism. As the Constitution now stands, income tax is allowable. Thus, Constitutionalists must be willing to accept it, as the Constitution quite clearly grants government that power. However, it is not a power government SHOULD have--thus I do not support it.

The problem with Constitutionalism is that it requires that one accept whatever power is granted to government by the Constitution. If, in the future, an amendment were to be passed granting government the power to execute all dissenters, then Constitutionalists must support it (because after all, it's in the Constitution). However, that is clearly NOT a power government should have. That is why I am a libertarian and not a Constitutionalist.

This is not true. You're misunderstanding the Constitutionalists, either on purpose on or ancident. Constitutionalists do not *have* to support an Amendment. If your hypothetical Amendment was real, Constitutionalists would not have to honor it nor would they have to support it. The vast majority of Constitutionalists do not support income tax or the prohibition of drinking alcohol, (yes, the latter was repealed...no need to state that.)

Me!

They don't have to support it while it's in the meat grinder, sure. But once it gets passed, they have to accept it as legitimate--after all, that's the definition of Constitutionalism: Acceptance of the complete legitimacy of any government act allowed by the Constitution and complete opposition of any act not allowed.

Again: While they don't have to support it beforehand, once it is passed and added to the Constitution, they have to accept it as legitimate.

Unless you're using a different definition of Constitutionalism than what is standard--which is fine as long as you define your terms beforehand, but you haven't done that.

Well, for starters, I don't think many homosexuals take a kind-liking the use of the word queer being directed at them. Seeing as you're the only one in this thread who has used the word queer, then perhaps you do not have any room to attack me in such the way that you did. Those in glass houses, should not throw stones, CSW...

Secondly, the Marriage Protection Amendment would only define marriage as a man and a women. Let homosexuals have their 'civil unions.' Why must you corrupt the meaning of yet another word?

Me!

I don't think so either. But you think it. Besides, I don't mince words, why should we, the heterosexual master race, care about those queer second class citizens.

Secondly, the Marriage Protection Amendment would only define marriage as a man and a women. Let homosexuals have their 'civil unions.' Why must you corrupt the meaning of yet another word?

Me!

Why does government need to involve itself in marriage in the first place? Government doesn't get to decide who can get baptized, take communion, or have a bar mitzvah, so why should it decide who can get married?

Our government was founded on our Jedeo-Christian values and the Bible, whether you wish to recognize it as or not, is the foundation for our most basic of laws....

What is Jedeo? Seriously though, the founding fathers recognized the need for separation of church and state and also for RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. This means freedom to not only believe in Judaism or Christianity, but to believe in any religion. If you base everything in your government on the Bible, YOU ARE ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION (which, by the way, is unconstitutional) Sorry, you lose.

Again, our nation was founded on the undying Judeo-Christian principles. To try and say otherwise is simply not true.

Yes, because anything moral must come from Judeo-Christian principles. Never mind that other societies had laws very similar to ours in ancient times and were, in fact, not Judeo-Christian.

Some of them were strong Christians, but others were deitists, or believed in one spirtual being (God if you will) which had very little to do with governing their lives on earth.

So you admit that some of them believe God had very little to do with governing their lives on earth. Therefore any Christian principles they may have held to came from a different moral source, not the Christian God. Interesting...

However, it is important to note that all of the Founding Fathers followed Christian doctrine for rules on how to conduct ones self, for it was so intertwined with the society.

As were the idea that women are inferior and the oh-so-perfectly reasonable practice of slavery. Should we go back to that too? Or will you admit that maybe everything the founding fathers did wasn't perfectly right and that, even if it was, you cannot force others to agree with it?

I want to restore America to the way our Founding Fathers saw it. That means dismantling ALL gov't welfare programs, dismantling Social Security, abolishing the unConstitutional income tax, et al. The gov't's only purpose is to maintain order and to protect property....

Reinstituting slavery, repealing the right of women to vote...

Shall we repeal speed limits? I doubt the founding fathers saw a need for them.

And then, even better:


We call on our local, state and federal governments to uphold our cherished First Amendment right to free speech by vigorously enforcing our laws against obscenity to maintain a degree of separation between that which is truly speech and that which only seeks to distort and destroy.

So, you guys believe in upholding the right to free speech by getting rid of others' free speech. Yeah, that makes loads of sense.

On sanctity of life, your website mentions all sorts of things, but not the death penalty. Apparently all life is sacred, except for some of it.

I'll agree with your party on gun control, but only if we only allow sales of the types of weapons they had when the constitution was written - after all, that would be what the founding fathers were talking about, right?

Here's a fun one:

The federal government has no Constitutional provision to regulate or restrict the freedom of the people to have access to medical care, supplies or treatments. We advocate, therefore, the elimination of the federal Food and Drug Administration, as it has been the federal agency primarily responsible for prohibiting beneficial products, treatments, and technologies here in the United States that are freely available in much of the rest of the civilized world.

So, the government has no reason to step in and keep someone from selling something that says it will help you lose weight but will in fact cause you permanent damage. Or how about all the "wonder-products" that were being sold before the FDA that said they could clean your floor, dye your hair, and treat migraine headaches all at once? Seriously, there has to be some sort of regulation of things. Being in the biotech industry, I know it is a pain in the butt to deal with the FDA, but they actually are more protective than proscriptive. And pretty much all of those products, treatments, and technologies get approved here too, it just takes a little more testing on the part of the company and some companies are lazy.

Why does government need to involve itself in marriage in the first place? Government doesn't get to decide who can get baptized, take communion, or have a bar mitzvah, so why should it decide who can get married?

Well, obviously it's because the founding fathers were married. According to the constitution party's logic, this must therefore mean that they meant all the people in the country to be married. And of course, none of them were married to men, so obviously we can't be having any of that.

On that note, I bet none of the founding fathers were vegitarians either, I think we should therefore make veganism a crime punishable by death.

What is Jedeo? Seriously though, the founding fathers recognized the need for separation of church and state and also for RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. This means freedom to not only believe in Judaism or Christianity, but to believe in any religion. If you base everything in your government on the Bible, YOU ARE ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION (which, by the way, is unconstitutional) Sorry, you lose.

Point to me in the Constitution where there is a separation of Church and State. You can't, because it doesn't exist. There is, Constitutionally speaking, no such thing....


Yes, because anything moral must come from Judeo-Christian principles. Never mind that other societies had laws very similar to ours in ancient times and were, in fact, not Judeo-Christian.

I never said that morals come from Judeo-Christian principles. I said our morals come from the Judeo-Christian principles.....



So you admit that some of them believe God had very little to do with governing their lives on earth. Therefore any Christian principles they may have held to came from a different moral source, not the Christian God. Interesting...

Huh?


As were the idea that women are inferior and the oh-so-perfectly reasonable practice of slavery. Should we go back to that too? Or will you admit that maybe everything the founding fathers did wasn't perfectly right and that, even if it was, you cannot force others to agree with it?

I never said that we should return to a slavery and no women's rights. Never put words in my mouth. Both of those are outlawed by the Constitution. I never said that everything the Founding Fathers did was perfectly right. For God's sake, Ben Franklin had holdings in a prosititution ring. Samuel Adams was a drunkard (and a bad investor). I never said that everything they did was moral or the right thing to do. But who the hell are you to contradict the men who gave their lives, their wealth, and their sacred honor in order to change the world?


Reinstituting slavery, repealing the right of women to vote...

See above. I never said that we should do either and you know I didn't. I didn't say that we should transplant the 2000's into the 1790's. I advocate an end to the massive, socialist government we currently have. I advocate reforming this socialist government back into what the Founders had in mind when they drew up our nation's law of the land, the Constitution....


Shall we repeal speed limits? I doubt the founding fathers saw a need for them.

Side comment and a little known fact: Speed limits did exist during the 1790's....

On-topic: Again, I never said we should repeal speed limits because they're not in the Constitution....


So, you guys believe in upholding the right to free speech by getting rid of others' free speech. Yeah, that makes loads of sense.

Did I say that I support everything on the Constitutionalist Party's platform? No, I did not say that....no, I do not support everything on their platform....


On sanctity of life, your website mentions all sorts of things, but not the death penalty. Apparently all life is sacred, except for some of it.

Again -- huh?


I'll agree with your party on gun control, but only if we only allow sales of the types of weapons they had when the constitution was written - after all, that would be what the founding fathers were talking about, right?

Where do you pull this nonsense from? I never said that we should reverse the order of life on all accounts. I want our government dwindled down to nothing, but that's it.....



So, the government has no reason to step in and keep someone from selling something that says it will help you lose weight but will in fact cause you permanent damage. Or how about all the "wonder-products" that were being sold before the FDA that said they could clean your floor, dye your hair, and treat migraine headaches all at once? Seriously, there has to be some sort of regulation of things. Being in the biotech industry, I know it is a pain in the butt to deal with the FDA, but they actually are more protective than proscriptive. And pretty much all of those products, treatments, and technologies get approved here too, it just takes a little more testing on the part of the company and some companies are lazy.

Why is it the federal gov't's responsibility to keep its citizens from buying certain products and to limit sellers from selling certain products? While I don't believe in completely eliminating the FDA, as they do some good, they need to be scaled back -- like all government, minus the military. The government's only purpose to protect property and maintain order....

Me!

Well, obviously it's because the founding fathers were married. According to the constitution party's logic, this must therefore mean that they meant all the people in the country to be married. And of course, none of them were married to men, so obviously we can't be having any of that.

On that note, I bet none of the founding fathers were vegitarians either, I think we should therefore make veganism a crime punishable by death.

Why do you support the corruption of marriage? Moreover, the Constitution party does not say that everyone has to live life as the Founders did. I do not say that everyone has to live life as the Founders did. Stop putting words in the mouth of the CP and in the mouth of myself...

Me!

Point to me in the Constitution where there is a separation of Church and State. You can't, because it doesn't exist. There is, Constitutionally speaking, no such thing....
Me!

Bzzt! One- Establishment clause in Amendment 1. Two- Supreme Court rulings.

I don't think so either. But you think it. Besides, I don't mince words, why should we, the heterosexual master race, care about those queer second class citizens.

I think what? I wasn't aware that you're a mind-reader, CSW....and if you're serious about that master race comment, perhaps you'd be more interested in visiting StormFront.org and not NationStates.net....

Me!

Point to me in the Constitution where there is a separation of Church and State. You can't, because it doesn't exist. There is, Constitutionally speaking, no such thing....

Those exact words aren't used, but it is there. Right where it says that Congress can't make a law establising a state religion. And if you actually read up on the founding fathers, just about anything on the subject written by Thomas Jefferson would let you know he believed very strongly in separation of church and state.

On a side note, if you've studied history, you would realize that separation of church and state is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, you get corruption of both. Half of the misconceptions in the Christian religion today come from Roman politics. And if you want an example of a religion-run government, move to an Islamic Fundamentalist country.

I never said that morals come from Judeo-Christian principles. I said our morals come from the Judeo-Christian principles.....

Of course, what you meant was your morals come from the Judeo-Christian principles. Of course, my atheist boyfriend's don't. Neither do those of a Wiccan or a Budhist. The so-called Judeo-Christian principles that that the country was supposedly based on could have come from Wicca. After all, most of our laws boil down to "don't hurt anyone."


So you admit that some of them believe God had very little to do with governing their lives on earth. Therefore any Christian principles they may have held to came from a different moral source, not the Christian God. Interesting...

Huh?

You pointed out that some of the founding fathers were deists, who believed that a supreme being created the world and then stopped meddling around in every day life. Thus, they obviously believed that morals came from somewhere other than the Bible.

I never said that we should return to a slavery and no women's rights. Never put words in my mouth.

You did say we should return to what the founding fathers intended. They intended for women to be sub-citizens and slavery to be legal. This follows directly from your logic. I'm sorry if I assumed that your thoughts are put together in a roughly logical manner.

Both of those are outlawed by the Constitution.

Not the Constitution as the founding fathers wrote it.

I never said that everything the Founding Fathers did was perfectly right. For God's sake, Ben Franklin had holdings in a prosititution ring. Samuel Adams was a drunkard (and a bad investor).

And these are the Christian principles that you say they all lived their lives by? Now I am confused...

I never said that everything they did was moral or the right thing to do. But who the hell are you to contradict the men who gave their lives, their wealth, and their sacred honor in order to change the world?

Erm... I haven't said anything to contradict them. I simply have pointed out that if you want to return to the Constitution as the founding fathers intended it, you should do so completely, not half-assed.

See above. I never said that we should do either and you know I didn't. I didn't say that we should transplant the 2000's into the 1790's. I advocate an end to the massive, socialist government we currently have. I advocate reforming this socialist government back into what the Founders had in mind when they drew up our nation's law of the land, the Constitution....

And you (or your party at least) also advocate turning our country into a theocracy, which is exactly one of the things the founders fought against.

Trying to do everything as the founding fathers intended it *would* transplant us back in time, unless of course you remember that the founding fathers intended the Constitution to be a malleable document. Certain things are laid out directly, but the rest is left up to interpretation on purpose. Thus, the Founding Fathers didn't think everyone should have the right to vote, but we realized that actually, they should and made ammendments to that effect. The founding fathers probably did see marriage as between a man and a woman - that was the social norm after all, but those of us who actually think about it realize that the Constitution should not deny equal rights to all. There are a lot of things that were social norms at the time of the founding fathers that are not (and should not be) today.

Now, as far as the "socialist" government, I do think most government aid should be drastically scaled back, so I won't argue that point with you.

Side comment and a little known fact: Speed limits did exist during the 1790's....

I stand corrected.

Did I say that I support everything on the Constitutionalist Party's platform? No, I did not say that....no, I do not support everything on their platform....

You posted a link to their website, I am simply refuting some of their claims.

Again -- huh?

This one was pretty self-explanatory, but I will re-explain. The Constitution Party Platform states that they believe in the sanctity of life, but does not mention the death penalty as one of the offending parts of the current government. Therefore, they are illogical. Got it?

Where do you pull this nonsense from? I never said that we should reverse the order of life on all accounts. I want our government dwindled down to nothing, but that's it.....

Dwindled down to nothing, except where it comes to legislating other people's morality. As for my remarks on gun control, the Constitution was written before the weapons of today were invented. I think anyone should be able to own a musket that wants to. As for anything more powerful, it's not so outrageous to ask that you register it.

Why is it the federal gov't's responsibility to keep its citizens from buying certain products and to limit sellers from selling certain products?

Limiting people from buying stuff - as long as it doesn't hurt someone, I don't really care.

Limiting sellers from selling products - because the sellers lie about what the products do and they may be harmful. It doesn't take a genius to see that allowing such acts would be BAD.

While I don't believe in completely eliminating the FDA, as they do some good, they need to be scaled back -- like all government, minus the military. The government's only purpose to protect property and maintain order....

And apparently legislate what is done in the bedroom.

I think what? I wasn't aware that you're a mind-reader, CSW....and if you're serious about that master race comment, perhaps you'd be more interested in visiting StormFront.org and not NationStates.net....

Me!


You sure sounded like it. Why should we care how marriage is defined, and what business is it of the government. How does it affect you that the queers get marriage rights.

Why do you support the corruption of marriage? Moreover, the Constitution party does not say that everyone has to live life as the Founders did. I do not say that everyone has to live life as the Founders did. Stop putting words in the mouth of the CP and in the mouth of myself...

Me!

I don't support the corruption of marriage, I support the idea that a legal right afforded to one set of people should be afforded to all people. Kind of like how I support people not being enslaved - after all, that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing should be applied to everyone, right?

You actually did say that the reason we should base all our laws off your particular morality is that the Founding Fathers acted like good little Christians. If we should do one thing just because they did, it follows that we should do all things just because they did.

Originally Posted by Colerica
However, it is important to note that all of the Founding Fathers followed Christian doctrine for rules on how to conduct ones self, for it was so intertwined with the society.

Those exact words aren't used, but it is there. Right where it says that Congress can't make a law establising a state religion. And if you actually read up on the founding fathers, just about anything on the subject written by Thomas Jefferson would let you know he believed very strongly in separation of church and state.

Again, I state, there is no separation of Church and State to be found anywhere in the Constitution. The First Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The phrase separation of Church and State comes from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote...yes, Jefferson was against mixing the two...


On a side note, if you've studied history, you would realize that separation of church and state is absolutely necessary. Otherwise, you get corruption of both. Half of the misconceptions in the Christian religion today come from Roman politics. And if you want an example of a religion-run government, move to an Islamic Fundamentalist country.

I'm a history buff. I understand that mixing Church and State does not produce desirable results. That said, I don't believe that we should remove all signs of religion from public places, like the ACLU does....


Of course, what you meant was your morals come from the Judeo-Christian principles. Of course, my atheist boyfriend's don't. Neither do those of a Wiccan or a Budhist. The so-called Judeo-Christian principles that that the country was supposedly based on could have come from Wicca. After all, most of our laws boil down to "don't hurt anyone."

I'm an agnostic, for starters. I have a set of morals I follow, that are not based on any religion, but are simply a set of morals. Things one should and should not do. The majority of any nation's laws boil down to "don't hurt anyone."


You pointed out that some of the founding fathers were deists, who believed that a supreme being created the world and then stopped meddling around in every day life. Thus, they obviously believed that morals came from somewhere other than the Bible.

Did you read the rest of the paragraph where I pointed that out?


You did say we should return to what the founding fathers intended. They intended for women to be sub-citizens and slavery to be legal. This follows directly from your logic. I'm sorry if I assumed that your thoughts are put together in a roughly logical manner.

I'll bite -- I should have been more descriptive in what I meant when I said "intended."


Not the Constitution as the founding fathers wrote it.


No, but as the Constitution stands now....


And these are the Christian principles that you say they all lived their lives by? Now I am confused...

I never said that they all lived their lives by Christian principles....


Erm... I haven't said anything to contradict them. I simply have pointed out that if you want to return to the Constitution as the founding fathers intended it, you should do so completely, not half-assed.

Completely produces problems. Not half-assed, but selectively. Dissolve our overwhelmingly large gov't, in favor of the government size the Founders sought....


And you (or your party at least) also advocate turning our country into a theocracy, which is exactly one of the things the founders fought against.

A: Technically, I'm not a Constitutionalist. I'm somewhere between a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist. Though, I usually, for simplicity, refer to myself as a Constitutionalist. I will be voting for the CP this year, save something make me change my mind about President Bush...

B: The CP does not want a theocracy. I just went over this earlier.....


The founding fathers probably did see marriage as between a man and a woman - that was the social norm after all, but those of us who actually think about it realize that the Constitution should not deny equal rights to all. There are a lot of things that were social norms at the time of the founding fathers that are not (and should not be) today.


The Constitution discriminates against all people. You have to be 35 and a natural born citizen of the US to run for President, for example...are you going to advocate allowing 20 year-old Canadians run for the highest office in the land?

No, slavery should not ever be instituted anywhere on earth. Yes, women should be granted the full rights of men.....


Now, as far as the "socialist" government, I do think most government aid should be drastically scaled back, so I won't argue that point with you.

Good.


You posted a link to their website, I am simply refuting some of their claims.


And you're allowed to do such...if you want the opinions of people who think similar to myself, try a few of the members on http://forum.protestwarrior.com .....


This one was pretty self-explanatory, but I will re-explain. The Constitution Party Platform states that they believe in the sanctity of life, but does not mention the death penalty as one of the offending parts of the current government. Therefore, they are illogical. Got it?

No, not illogical. The death penalty is not illogical. Once you've committed a crime so grievous as murder, you no longer, in my eyes, deserve to live....


I think anyone should be able to own a musket that wants to. As for anything more powerful, it's not so outrageous to ask that you register it.

You're joking, right?



Limiting sellers from selling products - because the sellers lie about what the products do and they may be harmful. It doesn't take a genius to see that allowing such acts would be BAD.

Forgive me for being a supporter of Lassiez Faire.....


And apparently legislate what is done in the bedroom.

I have nothing wrong with homosexuals, outside of the fact that I am not one and I do not agree with thier 'lifestyle.' As long as it does not involve children, animals, or dead bodies, the gov't should keep out of people's sex lives....but marriage is not equal to sex life....

Me!

I don't support the corruption of marriage, I support the idea that a legal right afforded to one set of people should be afforded to all people. Kind of like how I support people not being enslaved - after all, that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness thing should be applied to everyone, right?


Yes, it should. See my above post in regards to gay marriage....

***

If you would have taken the time to notice, the quote of mine you supplied are not my words...but the words from the URL listed below it....

Me!

You're right, we should stop the corruption of marrige.

From now on, marrige is only between a white virgin male, and a white virgin female!

**shuffles papers** In other news, the "constitution party" is a worhtless pile of shit.

More at 11

Again, I state, there is no separation of Church and State to be found anywhere in the Constitution. The First Amendment reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

And again I state that while the Constitution doesn't have the exact words "separation of church and state," those words are just a shorter way of saying exactly what you just quoted from the first amendment.

I'm a history buff. I understand that mixing Church and State does not produce desirable results. That said, I don't believe that we should remove all signs of religion from public places, like the ACLU does....

I didn't say we should either. But we definitely should not make laws based completely on "because the Bible says so."

I'm an agnostic, for starters. I have a set of morals I follow, that are not based on any religion, but are simply a set of morals. Things one should and should not do. The majority of any nation's laws boil down to "don't hurt anyone."

And where do your morals come from? Not the Bible if you are truly an agnostic. And obviously an agnostic doesn't believe in Judeo-Christian principles just because they are Judeo-Christian. So maybe the founding fathers followed morals, not because they were Judeo-Christian, but because they were morals that they believed to be right. Thus, your argument that the country is a country based on Judeo-Christian principles is null and void.

Did you read the rest of the paragraph where I pointed that out?

Yup, you said they weren't Christian but they followed Christian morals. Thus, obviously they intended that everyone in the country should be forced to do so.

No, but as the Constitution stands now....

As the Constitution stands now it allows income taxes too. It was legally amended by Congress to do so.

I never said that they all lived their lives by Christian principles....

Actually, you did.

However, it is important to note that all of the Founding Fathers followed Christian doctrine for rules on how to conduct ones self, for it was so intertwined with the society.

(And no, this wasn't from any link - scroll up several posts and you will see that these words are your own.

Completely produces problems. Not half-assed, but selectively. Dissolve our overwhelmingly large gov't, in favor of the government size the Founders sought....

If you would read the things I dissent on, the idea of scaling down the government is not one of them. It's just that you apparently want to legislate morality even more, while scaling down other parts of the government.

A: Technically, I'm not a Constitutionalist. I'm somewhere between a Libertarian and a Constitutionalist. Though, I usually, for simplicity, refer to myself as a Constitutionalist. I will be voting for the CP this year, save something make me change my mind about President Bush...[/quote[

At least you're not voting for Bush, that's all I ask.

[QUOTE=Colerica]B: The CP does not want a theocracy. I just went over this earlier.....

Have you read their website? They most certainly do. They want to legislate morality based on the Bible, thus - a theocracy.

The Constitution discriminates against all people. You have to be 35 and a natural born citizen of the US to run for President, for example...are you going to advocate allowing 20 year-old Canadians run for the highest office in the land?

No, but I would say that *any* 35-year old natural born citizen of the US should be able to run for President, regardless of race, creed, color, or whether or not they follow the same morals I think they should.

No, slavery should not ever be instituted anywhere on earth. Yes, women should be granted the full rights of men.....

Yup.

No, not illogical. The death penalty is not illogical. Once you've committed a crime so grievous as murder, you no longer, in my eyes, deserve to live....

It is illogical though. The CP holds that something that (while I may believe it is a human life) cannot be scientifically defined as a separate human life deserves to have rights, but not a proven human being that allegedly did something wrong. Doesn't really make much sense.

You're joking, right?

No, what on earth is so bad about registering that you have a weapon that you could use to kill lots of people with? I didn't say you can't have it - I just said you should have to register it. How does that infringe on anyone's rights? For that matter, I also believe you should have to prove (either by a test or going through classes) that you properly know how to use said gun. Why is that so bad? You have to prove that you know how to properly use a car, and it's purpose isn't destruction.

Forgive me for being a supporter of Lassiez Faire.....

Forgive me for being in the industry and knowing how much testing is needed to prove a claim that a drug/device/etc is beneficial.

I have nothing wrong with homosexuals, outside of the fact that I am not one and I do not agree with thier 'lifestyle.' As long as it does not involve children, animals, or dead bodies, the gov't should keep out of people's sex lives....but marriage is not equal to sex life....

No, marriage as a legal institution is equal to being seen as one entity under the law. Can you posit even one reason that we should allow that to opposite gender couples but not to same sex couples (other than "I don't agree with them getting it on")?

And again I state that while the Constitution doesn't have the exact words "separation of church and state," those words are just a shorter way of saying exactly what you just quoted from the first amendment.

The First Amendment does not state that Church and State are to be kept apart.....


I didn't say we should either. But we definitely should not make laws based completely on "because the Bible says so."


I agree...we shouldn't make laws just becaust he Bible says so....

And where do your morals come from?

Myself....

Not the Bible if you are truly an agnostic. And obviously an agnostic doesn't believe in Judeo-Christian principles just because they are Judeo-Christian. So maybe the founding fathers followed morals, not because they were Judeo-Christian, but because they were morals that they believed to be right. Thus, your argument that the country is a country based on Judeo-Christian principles is null and void.

Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are based on Judeo-Christian teachings. The textbook of these teachings in the Holy Bible. It is the "Owners Manual" or "The Book of Instructions" for our nation. The Founding Fathers and many others in position of authority ever since have recertified that fact. "America is a Christian nation." This does not mean that all the people were or are Christian. It merely means that there was a Christian consensus and all our founding documents, laws, moral codes and institutions are based on Christian principles from the Bible.

In broad sense Buddhism and Confucianism made China what it is. Shintoism made Japan what it is. Hinduism made India what it is. Islam made the middle east and North Africa what it is. Communism made 30 nations what they became.

Reformation Christianity made America what it is -- and this is the country we choose -- and so would millions of others if they could.

"The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty ... The rights of the colonists as Christians may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament," Samual Adams

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the gospel of Jesus Christ," Patrick Henry.

"The first and almost the only Book deserving of universal attention if the Bible....it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity," John Quincy Adams.

"And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion" George Washington's Farewell Address.

"We hold these truths ... that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ... appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world ... And for the support of this Declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence..."

Side-note and another litte-known fact: The First Continental Congress appropriated funds to import for the people 20,000 Holy Bibles as "the great political textbook of the patriots."

http://www.forksweb.com/christiannation.html


Yup, you said they weren't Christian but they followed Christian morals. Thus, obviously they intended that everyone in the country should be forced to do so.

I didn't say that they all were not Christian, as many of them were. Some were diest. Some were agnostic. Some, albeit a few, were athiest.....

As the Constitution stands now it allows income taxes too. It was legally amended by Congress to do so.

Article I, Section VIII (Powers Given to Congress): "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence [sic.] and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Section IX (Powers Denied to Congress): … "No Capitation [sic.], or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken."

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

… "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

The so-called 16th Amendment legalizing income tax was neverr fully ratified and therefore does not exist. But even if it does, two Supreme Court cases ruled it moot. The 16th Amendment is nothing more than double talk. The IRS operates on 90 percent bluff. But that is only the first part.

In addition, there is no law that requires you to pay income tax if you are a United States citizen living and working in the United States. (Employment by the federal government may be an exception.)

Recently I learned that the IRS has no legal authority to enforce. That really put those crooks in the dictator's throne.

Now consider this: With no law to enforce, without warrant or even notice, heavily armed IRS swat teams break, enter, seize, terrify, abduct and jail. They leave familes economically destitute. To add insult to injury, judges enforce a law that does not exist and put citizens in prison.

Folks, this is the very reason people left the old country and came to America. For that same reason they created the United States of America. The IRS is brazenly violating our Constitution and its inherent Bill of Rights as though it did not exist. Think about that for a while.

Visit here: http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/believe.htm


Actually, you did.



(And no, this wasn't from any link - scroll up several posts and you will see that these words are your own.

Those are not my words. Go to page one of this thread. Find those exact words. Click on the link below the paragraph. Need a shoehorn to get your foot out of your mouth?


If you would read the things I dissent on, the idea of scaling down the government is not one of them. It's just that you apparently want to legislate morality even more, while scaling down other parts of the government.

It's not that I want to legistlate morality, per se. I want government dwindled down to nothing because the government's only role, as I stated before, is to maintain order and protect property....



Have you read their website? They most certainly do. They want to legislate morality based on the Bible, thus - a theocracy.

Check the other thread where I argued this with that one Libertarian (sorry, your name is escaping right now.)



No, but I would say that *any* 35-year old natural born citizen of the US should be able to run for President, regardless of race, creed, color, or whether or not they follow the same morals I think they should.

I say the same thing....



It is illogical though. The CP holds that something that (while I may believe it is a human life) cannot be scientifically defined as a separate human life deserves to have rights, but not a proven human being that allegedly did something wrong. Doesn't really make much sense.

An unborn baby is an unborn baby. It is human life. It is a human. A vicious, multi-murderer does not deserve the right to live....in my eyes, at least....



No, what on earth is so bad about registering that you have a weapon that you could use to kill lots of people with? I didn't say you can't have it - I just said you should have to register it. How does that infringe on anyone's rights? For that matter, I also believe you should have to prove (either by a test or going through classes) that you properly know how to use said gun. Why is that so bad? You have to prove that you know how to properly use a car, and it's purpose isn't destruction.


Registration is the first step to confiscation. When the government knows exactly who has firearms and exactly how many they have...well, I think you're bright enough to realize what comes next....


No, marriage as a legal institution is equal to being seen as one entity under the law. Can you posit even one reason that we should allow that to opposite gender couples but not to same sex couples (other than "I don't agree with them getting it on")?

Yes, I can list quite a few actually.

-- Homosexuality is not natural by any stretch of the imagination.
-- Homosexual couples cannot produce children, (on their own, at least.)
-- I'm a traditionalist -- gay marriage is by no measure a tradition.
-- Children raised in a homosexual marriage lack the key (and obvious) component of a different sex parent. Problems are bound to happen and they do.
-- I find it disgusting. I'm not attacking gays here, but I find that disgusting. I'm sorry. No harm meant, I just find it gross. I have two friends who are open gays, though.

Among scores of others....

Me!

1) define natural

2) Neither can old people or sterile people

3) Tradition has been proven wrong many times before

4) Cite your sources

5) Tough shit :p

1) define natural



nat·u·ral (nchr-l, nchrl)
adj.

Present in or produced by nature: a natural pearl.
Of, relating to, or concerning nature: a natural environment.
Conforming to the usual or ordinary course of nature: a natural death.

Not acquired; inherent: Love of power is natural to some people.
Having a particular character by nature: a natural leader.
Biology. Not produced or changed artificially; not conditioned: natural immunity; a natural reflex.
Characterized by spontaneity and freedom from artificiality, affectation, or inhibitions. See Synonyms at naive.
Not altered, treated, or disguised: natural coloring; natural produce.
Faithfully representing nature or life.
Expected and accepted: “In Willie's mind marriage remained the natural and logical sequence to love” (Duff Cooper).
Established by moral certainty or conviction: natural rights.
Being in a state regarded as primitive, uncivilized, or unregenerate.

Related by blood: the natural parents of the child.
Born of unwed parents: a natural child.
Mathematics. Of or relating to positive integers, sometimes including zero.
Music.
Not sharped or flatted.
Having no sharps or flats.


2) Neither can old people or sterile people

Acknowledged, but that point is irrelevant, at best....


3) Tradition has been proven wrong many times before


This is true. However, tradition is both incredibly hard to break and often not need to be broken. Again, I state, I'm a traditionalist. He/she asked me for reasons why I think gay marriage is wrong....


4) Cite your sources


I'll bite, partcially -- they're not many studies 'bout the effects of gay marriage on children. And the ones that are out there have been debunked by both the pro-gay marriage and the anti-gay marriage crowd as being bias to either side. However, same-sex marriage is predicated on two grossly faulty premises: (1) that children do not need both a mother and a father; (2) that two moms or two dads are just as good as a mother and a father. Here is where most people I know register their visceral opposition, even if they can't articulate just why....


5) Tough shit :p

Perhaps...but that means "tough shit" to the majority of the country, because the majority does not want gay marriage.....and, last time I checked, the majority rules in America....

Me!

2) No, its not. Why should they be allowed to get married if the only point of marriage is procreation.

3) Irrelevent, it does now.

4) I wasn't aware that gay people could have children, making that argument moot at best.

5) Tough shit when it comes to infringing upon the rights of the minority. That's what the government is for.

2) No, its not. Why should they be allowed to get married if the only point of marriage is procreation.

Yes, it is irrelevant. Sterile and the elderly are not part of this debate. And the point of marriage is not to reproduce. That's the point of human life....


3) Irrelevent, it does now.

That sentence, if you can even call it that, doesn't make any sense.....what are you trying to say?



4) I wasn't aware that gay people could have children, making that argument moot at best.

It's called adoption....



5) Tough shit when it comes to infringing upon the rights of the minority. That's what the government is for.

No, that's not what governmet is for. Government is not supposed to be the defender of the downtrodden.....

Me!

1)If something is natural because it is produced in nature, going off of your defination, then how is homosexuality unnatural?

Or do all those animals not count ;)

2) It's not irrelevent because YOU said that it was a reason. Sorry dear, but "it's a reason! Wait, no, it's irrelevent!" is called "hypocrasy."

Based on your logic, which is further based on your second reason, old people and sterile people should not be allowed to marry.

3) So you want marrige to be strictly between a white, virgin male and a white, virgin female? That is tradition, after all.

4) Sorry, but unless you give cites, there's no reason to believe that two moms or two dads are better then a mom and a dad. I nkow people who's parents are openly gay, and they're wonderful parents. my parents are both straight, and they suck absolute shit.

5) Actually, the point of the government is to gaurentee (sp?) the rights of others. Furthermore, if the government bent to the will of the majority, slavery would be legal and women's rights would not.

1)If something is natural because it is produced in nature, going off of your defination, then how is homosexuality unnatural?


Homosexuality is not natural. Incase you didn't notice, the male and female bodies were made specifically for eachother....


Or do all those animals not count ;)

What animals would that be?


2) It's not irrelevent because YOU said that it was a reason. Sorry dear, but "it's a reason! Wait, no, it's irrelevent!" is called "hypocrasy."

I said that gays cannot reproduce. Which is true (unless the Japanese come up with something :p ). I never said that in order to be married couples had to reproduce....


Based on your logic, which is further based on your second reason, old people and sterile people should not be allowed to marry.

No, that's not based on my logic. All I said was that gays cannot reproduce....


3) So you want marrige to be strictly between a white, virgin male and a white, virgin female? That is tradition, after all.

No, that's not what I want. I'm not that much of a traditionalist. I state again: gay marriages is not tradition in America....


4) Sorry, but unless you give cites, there's no reason to believe that two moms or two dads are better then a mom and a dad. I nkow people who's parents are openly gay, and they're wonderful parents. my parents are both straight, and they suck absolute shit.

And the gay couple you reference are supposed to be the rule, not the exception?


5) Actually, the point of the government is to gaurentee (sp?) the rights of others. Furthermore, if the government bent to the will of the majority, slavery would be legal and women's rights would not.

No, government is not there to pacify its citizens. And majority does (or at least is supposed to) have the most say in the US government. Secondly, do you honestly believe that the current majority in America wants slavery to be legal and for women to not have any rights?

Me!

1)If something is natural because it is produced in nature, going off of your defination, then how is homosexuality unnatural?

Or do all those animals not count ;)

2) It's not irrelevent because YOU said that it was a reason. Sorry dear, but "it's a reason! Wait, no, it's irrelevent!" is called "hypocrasy."

Based on your logic, which is further based on your second reason, old people and sterile people should not be allowed to marry.

3) So you want marrige to be strictly between a white, virgin male and a white, virgin female? That is tradition, after all.

4) Sorry, but unless you give cites, there's no reason to believe that two moms or two dads are better then a mom and a dad. I nkow people who's parents are openly gay, and they're wonderful parents. my parents are both straight, and they suck absolute shit.

5) Actually, the point of the government is to gaurentee (sp?) the rights of others. Furthermore, if the government bent to the will of the majority, slavery would be legal and women's rights would not.

I like how you question your spelling of "gaurentee", but not "defination," "irrelevent," "hypocrasy," "marrige," and "nkow." Where are your poll results showing that the majority of this country support slavery and don't support women's rights? (Women make up a extremely slight majority of the American population...) Aside from that, the government does bend to the will of the majority. When was the last time the senate passed a bill voting 3 yea, 97 nay? Oh wait...the point of the government is to govern. It is to tell people what to do and what not to do. It is not to guarantee the rights of people. The power the government to govern is given by the consent of the people and if the majority of the consentors have no problem with their rights being trampled, then the government has not overstepped its bounds. The government can make whatever laws they want. That is why we have the Second Ammendment. So, gay people, take up your arms and fight the good fight against anti-gay laws (unless you want to just move out). If you win the fight (you probably won't, KKK people are hicks from Arkansas and they all hunt, making them excellent marksmen....yes, the KKK still exists...), then you get your rights, otherwise, the majority still consent to your rights being trampled and therefore our government has not nor will it overstep its bounds to squish your rights. (This post does not mean I condone an ammendment banning gay marriage...because I most certainly do not...)

1) geez, attacking my spelling? Wow, that hurts **rolls eyes** I know I don't spell good. Oh man, big insult there.

2) The Bottlenose Dolphin formes homosexual bonds that last through their life. In bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse and Guinean cocks-of-the-rock, homosexual parings occur until one goes off and mates, then returns.

Want animals? There's some.

3) By saying that "female and male bodies fit each other," you go into reproduction. However, according to you, that's NOT an issue. In short, you've contradicted yourself :p

4) I don't understand. "gays cannot reproduce." Why did you even bring that up if it wasn't an issue?

5) Traditionally, innerracial marriges weren't allowed either. Traditionally, women could not vote. Tradition isn't the end all and say all.

6) You have yet to show me how having two same-sex parents is bad for a child.

7) The majority USED to think that people of different colors were inferior to white people. The majority USED to thing that women were inferior.

Thankfully things have changed since then. I can only hope they continue changing, and gay/lesbian people are given their equal rights as well.

8) the government's purpose is to govern. As of right now, part of governing includes insuring the people's rights.

2) The Bottlenose Dolphin formes homosexual bonds that last through their life. In bison, gazelles, antelope, sage grouse and Guinean cocks-of-the-rock, homosexual parings occur until one goes off and mates, then returns.

Want animals? There's some.
-These are exceptions, more properly called defects. Homosexuality is utterly against all evolutionary theory; the entire point of existence is to pass on your genes.
3) By saying that "female and male bodies fit each other," you go into reproduction. However, according to you, that's NOT an issue. In short, you've contradicted yourself :p
-The issue is whether or not you accept an abberration as normal. Males shoudln't procreate with males.
5) Traditionally, innerracial marriges weren't allowed either. Traditionally, women could not vote. Tradition isn't the end all and say all.
-No, but generally there's a reason for it. Not always a good reason, but usually a logical reason.
6) You have yet to show me how having two same-sex parents is bad for a child.
-There hasn't been any widely accepted studies that go either way, last I read. It's not known if gay couples raise children worse, better, or the same as straight couples.
7) The majority USED to think that people of different colors were inferior to white people. The majority USED to thing that women were inferior.
-The people of color were selling their kinsmen into slavery. The white people were buying them. I wonder how the white people got the idea that the other races were inferior.
Thankfully things have changed since then. I can only hope they continue changing, and gay/lesbian people are given their equal rights as well.
-Yes, and polygamists, and beastialists, and incestuals, and pedophiles...
8) the government's purpose is to govern. As of right now, part of governing includes insuring the people's rights.

1) I like how you say "You're wrong, but I'm not going to supply any evidence to prove it." Last I checked, I believe the number on animals that weren't strictly hetrosexual was 450 different species.

2) Once again, "you're wrong and I'm right, just because." Why isn't it normal? How is it an abberation?

3) Was there a logical reason for the previous limitation on marrige? I'm sure back then people thought there were.

4) The thing on gay parents is going nowhere, so in an abscence of information, it's considered neutral.

5) polygamy: this is already being discussed elsewhere. Incest: sorry, causes birth defects. Wrong. Bestiality and Pedophelia: Ever hear of the word "consent?"

7) The majority USED to think that people of different colors were inferior to white people. The majority USED to thing that women were inferior.

Thankfully things have changed since then. I can only hope they continue changing, and gay/lesbian people are given their equal rights as well.

8) the government's purpose is to govern. As of right now, part of governing includes insuring the people's rights.

Uh, as far as 7 goes, I'm going to have to say there is a bit of difference. You can not choose your skin color or what body parts you have. (uh, well you can, Michael Jackson, transexuals...but all that aside...), and it hasn't been prozen one way or the other whether sexual preference is a choice or something that you are born with (I think it is neither, but more a product of the childs upbringing, but don't attack that as it is a theory and I have no proof, only a hunch), but any way...yea, do people who choose suicide deserve the right to live? Do people who choose to murder people deserve their rights? Our law says that they basically forfeit their rights when they commit that act, so the situation for LGB community could go that way and it'd make sense (to me...). Anyway, who says that murderers aren't the same as LGB in that they don't choose to murder it is just something wrong with their mind and how they were brought up or possibly even something they were born with, do they deserve their rights being trampled on in that case? If yes, then why doesn't the LGB community? Anyway...now on to point 8...

Based off the stuff I argued in the counterpoint to point 7, show me how gay marriage is a right that the government is forced to protect.

(Please keep in mind I am against a constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage.)

"Homosexuality isn't natural" is really a bad thing to say. Last time I checked, marriage wasn't "natural" either. Except maybe for penguins. They've got tuxes.

I personally don't believe marrige is a right period; I believe that the government should simply get out of marrige entirely. Let the churches marry who they want, end of story. THe fact is, many churches WERE giving marriges to same sex couples.

As for the whole murder thing, being homosexual doesn't hurt others :p


Oh, and Amyst? Hilarious post! xD

UAnyway, who says that murderers aren't the same as LGB in that they don't choose to murder it is just something wrong with their mind and how they were brought up or possibly even something they were born with, do they deserve their rights being trampled on in that case? If yes, then why doesn't the LGB community?
...
are you kidding?
...
I say that murderers aren't the same as homosexuals in that murderers HURT OTHER PEOPLE
Murderers rights should be taken away because they are infringing on the rights of their victims
Homosexuals do not infringe on anyone's rights.

I personally don't believe marrige is a right period; I believe that the government should simply get out of marrige entirely. Let the churches marry who they want, end of story. THe fact is, many churches WERE giving marriges to same sex couples.

As for the whole murder thing, being homosexual doesn't hurt others :p


Oh, and Amyst? Hilarious post! xD

eh, you completely missed the point I would've like you to reply too...

...
are you kidding?
...
I say that murderers aren't the same as homosexuals in that murderers HURT OTHER PEOPLE
Murderers rights should be taken away because they are infringing on the rights of their victims
Homosexuals do not infringe on anyone's rights.
But if the urge to commit murder is like some people argue the urge to be gay is, then it isn't the murderer's fault and (s)he has no control over it...they should have their rights removed for something they can't control? In that case, scratch ammendments 13,14,15,21 and I'm sure some other ones...

As for the whole murder thing, being homosexual doesn't hurt others :p


Nah, just makes it uncomfortable to sit down.

Oh, and Amyst? Hilarious post! xD

Thanks! Glad to see my first post on the new forum was amusing to somebody, at least. Damn thing wouldn't let me post for days. -_-

Ok then...:p

The right to gay marrige is not protected. Neither is the right to hetrosexual marrige. In fact, the right to marrige isn't really mentioned once.

If I'm wrong, correct me by all means.


By this logic, nobody should ever get married xD

But if the urge to commit murder is like some people argue the urge to be gay is, then it isn't the murderer's fault and (s)he has no control over it...they should have their rights removed for something they can't control? In that case, scratch ammendments 13,14,15,21 and I'm sure some other ones...
eh, instead of 13,14,15,21 it should be 13,14,15,19

Once again, murdering hurts others

You're still punishing someone for something they can't control...okay, let me change the example a little...

A kleptomaniac steals some books from the library (weird, eh? but I know a kid who does that and he actually reads the books, and their books like political philosophy and stuff, anyway), but he does this because of something inborn that he can't control. Now, let's suppose he was caught as he was stepping out of the doors to the library. How did he harm any one? The books will just be put back on the shelf, but if a cop caught him, he'd surely be punished, wouldn't he? Punished for something he can't control, right? How is that fair?

Stealing books is illegal

Being homosexual is not :p

You're still punishing someone for something they can't control...okay, let me change the example a little...

A kleptomaniac steals some books from the library (weird, eh? but I know a kid who does that and he actually reads the books, and their books like political philosophy and stuff, anyway), but he does this because of something inborn that he can't control. Now, let's suppose he was caught as he was stepping out of the doors to the library. How did he harm any one? The books will just be put back on the shelf, but if a cop caught him, he'd surely be punished, wouldn't he? Punished for something he can't control, right? How is that fair?


Alright, I'll take up the gauntlet. In the case mentioned here we must consider something. If an individual cannot control something then the reaction taken should be representitve of the danger posed to others. So in case of murder then the person should be removed from others in some manner for saftey reasons. If someone cannot control something and it is harmful then it must be controlled. In the second case they should be kept away from other's books, as they prosent a probable loss of those books. How would a case of homosexuality harm someone? Other then causing issues with others who do not approve(in which case seperation by the parties would be an acceptable method of ending the problem), there seems to not be a problem.

1. They are all political criminals.

2. It doesn't matter who gets elected.

and

3. I don't care.

*apathy is a wonder*

:)
Jim

Once again, murdering hurts others

oh, and like anal sex doesn't hurt...

I wouldn't know :p

Personally, if I were gay, I'd still say no to anal. I mean, the last thing I want to stick my penis into is a hole filled with crap :p

oh, and like anal sex doesn't hurt...
This is most likely true, but I'm with Goed...couldn't say for sure.

This is most likely true, but I'm with Goed...couldn't say for sure.
Of course, nothing can be done about that because there is the whole thing about consent, etc.

BUT
If person A consents to be murdered by person B, person B is still punished as if person A did not consent...and murder hurts people, and we've agreed that anal sex probably also hurts people...so...yea....

but S&M is still legal :D :eek:

but S&M is still legal :D :eek:
I'm not familiar with the term "S&M"...

Sadomasochism.

Whips and clamps. You know, kinky stuff that goes too far ;)

Sadomasochism.

Whips and clamps. You know, kinky stuff that goes too far ;)
Ah, but murder still gets life sentence or death penalty? Even if the victim had a note from their mommy?

see, it has to do with sex.

Quite a few people get turned on by buttsex. More then half the world, according to rap videos. Some people get turned on by S&M. A whole lot, according to yahoo :p


...Very few people get turned on by death x_X

see, it has to do with sex.

Quite a few people get turned on by buttsex. More then half the world, according to rap videos. Some people get turned on by S&M. A whole lot, according to yahoo :p


...Very few people get turned on by death x_X
But some do, they're called "Goths" and "Necropheliacs," is it really fair to tell one of these people they can't marry a dead person that they just murdered with consent from the once-living corpse? I mean, we can't deny these people their sexual pleasures, can we?

oh, and like anal sex doesn't hurt...

It doesn't.



(dun dun dunnnnnnnnn)

The First Amendment does not state that Church and State are to be kept apart.....

Let's try an experiment here. I'm going to say "People who think that the 1st Amendment does not mean that church and state are to be separate are coomplete idiots."

Ok, here's the question. Did I just call you an idiot? After all, I didn't say that you were.

I agree...we shouldn't make laws just becaust he Bible says so....

Well that's good at least.

Myself....

Your morals come from yourself and not from Judeo-Christian doctrine??!! How does that happen??!!! ::sarcasm::

Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are based on Judeo-Christian teachings. The textbook of these teachings in the Holy Bible. It is the "Owners Manual" or "The Book of Instructions" for our nation. The Founding Fathers and many others in position of authority ever since have recertified that fact. "America is a Christian nation." This does not mean that all the people were or are Christian. It merely means that there was a Christian consensus and all our founding documents, laws, moral codes and institutions are based on Christian principles from the Bible.

Of course, our laws are based on the parts of the Bible that occur in most religions and even in people who don't follow a religion. So, it doesn't really matter if it happens to be in the Bible of if many of the original settlers were Christian. That doesn't give us Christians the right to dictate to others what morals they should follow. After all, there is no law against eating pork, nor is there a law that says a woman raped inside a city is just as guilty as the rapist.

In broad sense Buddhism and Confucianism made China what it is. Shintoism made Japan what it is. Hinduism made India what it is. Islam made the middle east and North Africa what it is. Communism made 30 nations what they became.

Since when is Communism a religion? And do remember that much of the reason for forming this country was to get away from being countries that were ruled by religious principles being forced on others. Interesting, eh?

Cut - lots of quotes that are not from an official government document.

An official government document - The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli - specifically says that our country was not founded on the religion of Christianity. This was signed by President John Adams and supported by many of the other Founding Fathers. Sorry.

I didn't say that they all were not Christian, as many of them were. Some were diest. Some were agnostic. Some, albeit a few, were athiest.....

And I didn't say that you did. What I said was that you admitted that some of them were not Christian.

… "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States; And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand, exactly?

The so-called 16th Amendment legalizing income tax was neverr fully ratified and therefore does not exist. But even if it does, two Supreme Court cases ruled it moot. The 16th Amendment is nothing more than double talk. The IRS operates on 90 percent bluff. But that is only the first part.

And where is your source proving that the 16th Amendment was not ratified? The 16th Amendment is currently part of our Constitution, sorry. And Supreme Court cases should not go against what is placed in the Constitution. That's one of the checks and balances. Would you be ok with it if the ban on gay marriage got passed as an amendment and then the courts "ruled it moot." I think not. In fact, I think you would start screaming about "activist judges."

In addition, there is no law that requires you to pay income tax if you are a United States citizen living and working in the United States. (Employment by the federal government may be an exception.)

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/index.html

Folks, this is the very reason people left the old country and came to America. For that same reason they created the United States of America. The IRS is brazenly violating our Constitution and its inherent Bill of Rights as though it did not exist. Think about that for a while.

They also left the old country so that people wouldn't dictate their religion to them. Why are you ok with that?

Those are not my words. Go to page one of this thread. Find those exact words. Click on the link below the paragraph. Need a shoehorn to get your foot out of your mouth?

No, I need you to learn how to properly learn a little thing called quotation marks. Without them, a link below the paragraph means that you paraphrased, not quoted, and are using the link as a source. Not my fault you don't know how to properly cite things. Doing something like that in a class would get you failed for plagiarism pretty quickly.

Besides, you used those words as support for your argument and then went back and said that you "never said that." Quoted or not, you sure did say it.

It's not that I want to legistlate morality, per se. I want government dwindled down to nothing because the government's only role, as I stated before, is to maintain order and protect property....

And dictating morality does that how?

An unborn baby is an unborn baby. It is human life. It is a human.

According to your personal moral views. Mine too, but that is besides the point. You just said you don't want to legislate morality.

A vicious, multi-murderer does not deserve the right to live....in my eyes, at least....

Ok, but this means you can't use the "sanctity of all human life" argument. That's all.

Registration is the first step to confiscation. When the government knows exactly who has firearms and exactly how many they have...well, I think you're bright enough to realize what comes next....

Yes, and they would get all of the guns before everyone in the country revolted. Seriously, the point of registration is to prevent crime, and to find out who all the murderers you love so much are so that we can kill them all. We also no longer live in a society where everyone is taught how to properly use a gun. The government thus has a compelling interest making sure that those who have them can properly use them.

Yes, I can list quite a few actually.

This should be fun.

-- Homosexuality is not natural by any stretch of the imagination.

Yes, and this is why it occurs throughout nature, as well as transgender and asexuality. I have read the arguments you made for this after this post, and it is obvious to me that you haven't bothered to look at (or have ignored) all the evidence to the contrary. I pity your ignorance.

-- Homosexual couples cannot produce children, (on their own, at least.)

So they can't have kids and this means that we should allow them to bind themselves together in the eyes of the government? They can't have their own children, so we shouldn't let them officially share their assets. How does that follow, exactly?

-- I'm a traditionalist -- gay marriage is by no measure a tradition.

Neither was having a bill of rights, but our country did it. Neither is allowing blacks and whites to marry, but we allow that. Should we re-ban interracial marriage because it isn't traditional? Hell, let's go even futher and ban inter-class marriage.

-- Children raised in a homosexual marriage lack the key (and obvious) component of a different sex parent. Problems are bound to happen and they do.

You call yourself a traditionalist and still advocate the concept of the nuclear family? Seriously, the concept of the nuclear family as "best" has only been around about 50 years. Before that, children were raised by their extended families, not just two parents. The "norm" was for a child to have many role models in their lives, both male and female. When people started moving toward the nuclear family, many "traditionalists" complained that children should not be raised in families with only two adult role models as "obviously" this would be bad. Sounds a lot like your argument, doesn't it?

As long as a homosexual couple doesn't raise a child in a vacuum with only themselves for role models, there will be no problem.

-- I find it disgusting. I'm not attacking gays here, but I find that disgusting. I'm sorry. No harm meant, I just find it gross. I have two friends who are open gays, though.

Sorry, "I just don't like it" is not a valid argument for a law that affects other people. I think the fact that people go out and shoot animals for fun is disgusting, but I don't advocate banning hunting.

Among scores of others....

You haven't listed a single valid reason yet, would you like to keep trying?

Just to stop this income tax nonsence before it starts- You have to pay it. Period. You can file a zero return, you'll just get your ass thrown in jail for tax violations.

Oh, and the treaty of Tripoli. Passed without dissent in the senate. NO senator voted no to the treaty because of its statement saying that we are not founded upon christian principles.

Just to stop this income tax nonsence before it starts- You have to pay it. Period. You can file a zero return, you'll just get your ass thrown in jail for tax violations.

Yes, we know.

And I, at least, do not care. We were arguing the PRINCIPLE of it--whether government has the MORAL RIGHT to compel citizens to pay income tax--and not the PRAGMATICS of it (whether or not you'll get arrested if you refuse).

Or are you incapable of understanding the concept of "principle"?

Yes, we know.

And I, at least, do not care. We were arguing the PRINCIPLE of it--whether government has the MORAL RIGHT to compel citizens to pay income tax--and not the PRAGMATICS of it (whether or not you'll get arrested if you refuse).

Or are you incapable of understanding the concept of "principle"?
In addition, there is no law that requires you to pay income tax if you are a United States citizen living and working in the United States. (Employment by the federal government may be an exception.)

That is what I am referring to.

Ah, ok.

Apologies.

Let's try an experiment here. I'm going to say "People who think that the 1st Amendment does not mean that church and state are to be separate are coomplete idiots."

Ok, here's the question. Did I just call you an idiot? After all, I didn't say that you were.

The First Amendment does not state that there is a separation of Church and State....should these two be separated? Yes....are they, defined by the Constitution? No....


Since when is Communism a religion?

It isn't. Point out where I said "Communism is a religion." It's a worthless, hidious theory that is only wished for by those who are enemies of freedom...it's not a religion, though one could liken it to a cult...

And do remember that much of the reason for forming this country was to get away from being countries that were ruled by religious principles being forced on others. Interesting, eh?

This is true. People fled the Old World's religious oppression....


An official government document - The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli - specifically says that our country was not founded on the religion of Christianity. This was signed by President John Adams and supported by many of the other Founding Fathers. Sorry.

America is a nation wherin citizens can accept whatever religion they choose and can practice it freely--as long as they obey the laws of society. God willing, it will remain that way forever.....



And I didn't say that you did. What I said was that you admitted that some of them were not Christian.

This is true. Some of them were not Christian. I never stated that they were all Christian. That would be absurd....



And where is your source proving that the 16th Amendment was not ratified?

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2b7e5014d6.htm
http://www.taxableincome.net/articles/othertax/16thamend.html
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/incomtax.htm
The Law That Never Was -- Bill Benson
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/


The 16th Amendment is currently part of our Constitution, sorry. And Supreme Court cases should not go against what is placed in the Constitution. That's one of the checks and balances. Would you be ok with it if the ban on gay marriage got passed as an amendment and then the courts "ruled it moot." I think not. In fact, I think you would start screaming about "activist judges."

No, I would not 'scream' about activist judges. And the way you place quotes around those two words, makes it sound as though you don't believe activist judges exist...



They also left the old country so that people wouldn't dictate their religion to them. Why are you ok with that?

Why would I not be okay with that? Why would I not be okay with a central premise of our nation -- freedom of religion?


No, I need you to learn how to properly learn a little thing called quotation marks. Without them, a link below the paragraph means that you paraphrased, not quoted, and are using the link as a source. Not my fault you don't know how to properly cite things. Doing something like that in a class would get you failed for plagiarism pretty quickly.

Oh, pardon me glorious Grand Master of the I-Cannot-Ever-Make-A-Mistake-When-Writing-On-Internet-Forums-And-If-You-Do-I-Get-To-Attack-You-Because-Of-It-So-Ha-Ha Alliance.....


Besides, you used those words as support for your argument and then went back and said that you "never said that." Quoted or not, you sure did say it.

Yes, I did use those words as support for the post. That does not mean they're my words...



And dictating morality does that how?

It doesn't.....


According to your personal moral views. Mine too, but that is besides the point. You just said you don't want to legislate morality.


You don't know a damn thing about my personal moral views. Moreover, frag my views in this case....that's not according to my personal opinions, that's according to SCIENCE. An unborn human fetus is an unborn human being. It is a homo sapien....



Ok, but this means you can't use the "sanctity of all human life" argument. That's all.

Use the 'sanctity of all human life' argument for what? Abortion or execution?



Yes, and they would get all of the guns before everyone in the country revolted. Seriously, the point of registration is to prevent crime, and to find out who all the murderers you love so much are so that we can kill them all. We also no longer live in a society where everyone is taught how to properly use a gun. The government thus has a compelling interest making sure that those who have them can properly use them.

So you're saying that if they tell us to turn in all firearms, they'll be a rebellion? Interesting. Why didn't that happen in Germany? Why didn't that happen in Britain? Why didn't that happen in Australia? Et al.....

Secondly, to say that registration is in the interest of preventing crime is absurd. If you ban firearms, only criminals will have them. Registering firearms does not account for all of those that criminals already have and or can steal.....registration isn't in the interesting of fighting crime, it's in the interest of limiting our freedoms as Americans. The only ones who call for any 'gun control' are those who are anti-freedom, anti-Constitution, anti-American, socialists with an agenda to destroy the way we live....



Yes, and this is why it occurs throughout nature, as well as transgender and asexuality. I have read the arguments you made for this after this post, and it is obvious to me that you haven't bothered to look at (or have ignored) all the evidence to the contrary. I pity your ignorance.

If you can be so kind as to supply 'po "ignorant" me with a set of links to sites containing verified scientific (and unbiased) information that proves your claim that homosexuality is natural and occurs in all or near-all mammal species, then I will gladly concede that point to you....until then, you're blowing smoke...


So they can't have kids and this means that we should allow them to bind themselves together in the eyes of the government? They can't have their own children, so we shouldn't let them officially share their assets. How does that follow, exactly?

I never said that they shouldn't be allowed to marry solely on the fact that they can't reproduce. You asked me for my reasons why I disagree with gay marriage. That's one of them. That's not a reason to ban gay marriage, that's a reason why I disagree with it....



Neither was having a bill of rights, but our country did it. Neither is allowing blacks and whites to marry, but we allow that. Should we re-ban interracial marriage because it isn't traditional? Hell, let's go even futher and ban inter-class marriage.

No to both of your absurd farce-questions.....


You call yourself a traditionalist and still advocate the concept of the nuclear family?

I call myself a traditionalist and I advocate the concept of a normal American family -- husband, wife, and 2.5 children....

Seriously, the concept of the nuclear family as "best" has only been around about 50 years. Before that, children were raised by their extended families, not just two parents. The "norm" was for a child to have many role models in their lives, both male and female. When people started moving toward the nuclear family, many "traditionalists" complained that children should not be raised in families with only two adult role models as "obviously" this would be bad. Sounds a lot like your argument, doesn't it?

Are you going to deny that lacking either a mother or a father figure affects a child?


As long as a homosexual couple doesn't raise a child in a vacuum with only themselves for role models, there will be no problem.

And you can be sure of this....how?


Sorry, "I just don't like it" is not a valid argument for a law that affects other people. I think the fact that people go out and shoot animals for fun is disgusting, but I don't advocate banning hunting.

A: The fact that I find it disgusting is more of a reason against homosexuality, not gay marriage......

B: Why would you find recreational hunting disgusting?


You haven't listed a single valid reason yet, would you like to keep trying?

Irrelevant ad hominem...

Me!

If you ban firearms, only criminals will have them.

If you ban evolution, only criminals will evolve.

information that proves your claim that homosexuality is natural and occurs in all or near-all mammal species

Ok ... but first you have to provide links to scientific proof that walking erect is natural based solely on the fact that it occurs in all or near-all mammal species.


I call myself a traditionalist and I advocate the concept of a normal American family -- husband, wife, and 2.5 children....

You do realize there was a United States before 1960 don't you?

Since you're so big on talking about our Founding Fathers, let's examine one: George Washington.

George moved in with his half-brother, Lawrence, who inherited Mount Vernon from their father. Yes, that's right, half-brother ... George's father, Augustine, had children with another woman before George's mother, Mary. When George married Martha Custis, a widow, she had two children, John Parke Custis and Martha "Patsy" Custis.

After John died in the war, they (George and Martha) adopted two of his children.

Getting the picture? Even our Founding Fathers didn't live in your "traditional" nuclear family as described ...


Are you going to deny that lacking either a mother or a father figure affects a child?

Lots of children these days lack a father because he runs off when the woman gets pregnant. Nice, eh? As for affecting them, usually not in the greater sense because of the wonderful idea of the extended family. In your scenario, if one parent runs off, there is only one single person to be mentor and role model. Sad.

B: Why would you find recreational hunting disgusting?

That's an incidental question and the answer would have no bearing. If he finds it disgusting, that is his right. So long as he does not seek to stamp out the rights of other people, all is well.

Your rights end where mine begin.

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b2b7e5014d6.htm
http://www.taxableincome.net/articl.../16thamend.html
http://www.uhuh.com/taxstuff/incomtax.htm
The Law That Never Was -- Bill Benson
http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/


Bullshit. Didn't Benson get his ass thrown in jail for lying about that in his book?

Utter and complete BULLSHIT.

We're not theocrats by any stretch of the imagination. Pardon us, if we want to return America to the way our Founding Fathers saw fit.

Hmm. The site says the Constitution Party is "anti-free trade." Wouldn't Ben Franklin have something to say about that?

Bullshit. Didn't Benson get his ass thrown in jail for lying about that in his book?

Utter and complete BULLSHIT.

You have something intelligent to add to the thread or are you just blowing smoke? You want to tell me how it's bullshit?

Me!

You have something intelligent to add to the thread or are you just blowing smoke? You want to tell me how it's bullshit?

Me!

Um, its in the constitution and no serious challenge has ever been leveled against it, and every time someone does try to use this argument they are laughed out of court?

The First Amendment does not state that there is a separation of Church and State....should these two be separated? Yes....are they, defined by the Constitution? No....

It is quite obviously intended by the 1st Amendment. The logical conclusion of allowing people freedom of religion is that government cannot control religion and that a single religion cannot control government. It isn't that hard to put together. Not to mention the fact that it has been upheld time and time and time again.

It isn't. Point out where I said "Communism is a religion." It's a worthless, hidious theory that is only wished for by those who are enemies of freedom...it's not a religion, though one could liken it to a cult...

You were listing how you believed religions had shaped different cultures and you included Communism. ::shrug::

America is a nation wherin citizens can accept whatever religion they choose and can practice it freely--as long as they obey the laws of society. God willing, it will remain that way forever.....

Of course, if we legislate one person's particular moral views, we have just taken the right of those with different moral views to practice freely. The laws of society are meant to protect the life and property of the members of that society. If they give one group unfair control over another, they have no place in American society. Suppose the laws of society said that all women had to wear head scarves and fully cover their bodies, or that nobody could eat pork. Would you be ok with that?

This is true. Some of them were not Christian. I never stated that they were all Christian. That would be absurd....

Do you read? I just said that you "did not state that they were all Christian" and then you replied that you "never stated that they were all Christian." ::sigh::

No, I would not 'scream' about activist judges. And the way you place quotes around those two words, makes it sound as though you don't believe activist judges exist...

No, I do believe they exist. President Bush recently freaked out because he couldn't get confirmations for some of them. But, in truth, most people who use the term are just pissed off ultra-conservatives that don't like to think that their judges may actually read the constitution.

Why would I not be okay with that? Why would I not be okay with a central premise of our nation -- freedom of religion?

Ok, you missed it completely. The questions was, why are you ok with getting rid of the freedom of religion?

Oh, pardon me glorious Grand Master of the I-Cannot-Ever-Make-A-Mistake-When-Writing-On-Internet-Forums-And-If-You-Do-I-Get-To-Attack-You-Because-Of-It-So-Ha-Ha Alliance.....

I didn't say any of that. You attacked me, and I replied by showing that it was your mistake that caused the misunderstanding.

Yes, I did use those words as support for the post. That does not mean they're my words...

But using them does suggest you agree with them. You may not have been the first to use them, but they are yours once you do. If I say a country divided against itself cannot stand (quotes left out on purpose), I have made those words mine and, barring any sarcasm on my point, have suggested that I agree with them.

You don't know a damn thing about my personal moral views. Moreover, frag my views in this case....that's not according to my personal opinions, that's according to SCIENCE. An unborn human fetus is an unborn human being. It is a homo sapien....

As a scientist, I can tell you that you are wrong. Some people believe that a fetus can be seen as a separate human life from conception. Others think it should be viewed as such after the nervous system has developed. Others think it should be viewed as such at birth. The same viewpoints are found in science, although I think the most support goes to the middle view based on the current scientific definition of an organism.

Use the 'sanctity of all human life' argument for what? Abortion or execution?

You can't support a ban on abortion by saying that you believe in the sanctity of all human life and then say you don't believe in the sanctity of life for those convicted of a crime. It is illogical. You can hold both views, but that argument can't come into it.

So you're saying that if they tell us to turn in all firearms, they'll be a rebellion? Interesting. Why didn't that happen in Germany? Why didn't that happen in Britain? Why didn't that happen in Australia? Et al.....

(a) There was no constitutional right giving citizens of either country the right to bear arms.
(b) Americans are very suspicious of their government.

Besides, any order to turn in all guns would be challenged (and thus not carried out yet) immediately in the courts (probably by the ACLU and the NRA at the same time). At this point, it would be declared unconstitutional. Without a specific "we can take all ze guns" amendment (which would be *extremely* unlikely to ever pass), it won't ever happen.

Secondly, to say that registration is in the interest of preventing crime is absurd. If you ban firearms, only criminals will have them.

Did I say ban them? Nope, sure didn't. So, what does that have to do with the conversation? I ask you again, what is wrong with asking that those who have them really do know how to use them?

Registering firearms does not account for all of those that criminals already have and or can steal.....registration isn't in the interesting of fighting crime, it's in the interest of limiting our freedoms as Americans.

So, you don't want your right to have a gun slightly altered by asking that you tell someone you have it so a cop won't feel threatened and feel the need to shoot you when he sees it, but you do want to take away the right of others to decide who gets their stuff when they die, who takes care of their children, who can and cannot make medical decisions for them, to buy things together, etc. Funny how you are for abridging others' rights as long as you have them.

The only ones who call for any 'gun control' are those who are anti-freedom, anti-Constitution, anti-American, socialists with an agenda to destroy the way we live....

Actually, I would say that those who call for moderate gun control are intelligent enough to know that guns are dangerous. Those who call for banning guns are a little silly. Funny, that. However, those who want to write extra discrimination into the Constitution are anti-freedom, anti-American, fascists who want to destroy the intention of the Constitution.

If you can be so kind as to supply 'po "ignorant" me with a set of links to sites containing verified scientific (and unbiased) information that proves your claim that homosexuality is natural and occurs in all or near-all mammal species, then I will gladly concede that point to you....until then, you're blowing smoke...

Biological Exuberence by Bruce Bagemihl is the best source for someone with only a little biological background. It also concentrates specifically on birds and mammals (although with the occasional reference to fish), which I think would be better for you. A short list of mammals he mentions are apes (of all sorts), dogs, cats, cows, goats, dolphins, whales, walruses, and giraffes (in which heterosexual behavior is known to occur, but has never been observed in the wild).

Other sources (from a quick search of pubmed - these are all from the first page) are:

O'Neill AC, Fedigan LM, Ziegler TE. Related Articles, Links
Ovarian cycle phase and same-sex mating behavior in Japanese macaque females.
Am J Primatol. 2004 May;63(1):25-31.

Matsuzaki O. Related Articles, Links
Inter-male mating-like behavior in the domesticated house musk shrew, Suncus murinus.
Zoolog Sci. 2004 Jan;21(1):43-51.

Morris JA, Gobrogge KL, Jordan CL, Breedlove SM. Related Articles, Links
Brain aromatase: dyed-in-the-wool homosexuality.
Endocrinology. 2004 Feb;145(2):475-7. Review.

Teodorov E, Salzgeber SA, Felicio LF, Varolli FM, Bernardi MM.
Effects of perinatal picrotoxin and sexual experience on heterosexual and homosexual behavior in male rats.
Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2002 Mar-Apr;24(2):235-45.

Fox EA. Related Articles, Links
Homosexual behavior in wild Sumatran orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus abelii).
Am J Primatol. 2001 Nov;55(3):177-81.

Resko JA, Perkins A, Roselli CE, Fitzgerald JA, Choate JV, Stormshak F. Related Articles, Links
Endocrine correlates of partner preference behavior in rams.
Biol Reprod. 1996 Jul;55(1):120-6.

I never said that they shouldn't be allowed to marry solely on the fact that they can't reproduce. You asked me for my reasons why I disagree with gay marriage. That's one of them. That's not a reason to ban gay marriage, that's a reason why I disagree with it....

So what you're saying is "this is my reason for not allowing it, but it's not a reason to ban it." Right, gotcha.

No to both of your absurd farce-questions.....

Not so absured. Those are both examples of traditions and people argued against them by saying "I believe in tradition". How exactly do you determine which traditions are to be followed? It obviously isn't by how widely it is followed or by how long it was followed, both of which are generally the basis of traditionalism.

I call myself a traditionalist and I advocate the concept of a normal American family -- husband, wife, and 2.5 children....

Which makes no sense because, although that may be the "normal" American family now, it is certainly not traditional. 50 years does not constitute traditional in the scheme of things, especially not as the basis for an argument. It also isn't really the normal American family right now.

Are you going to deny that lacking either a mother or a father figure affects a child?

Nope, but I will deny that the mother or father figure has to be the biological mother or father. It can be a grandparent, aunt, uncle, friend of the family, neighboor, teacher, etc, etc. Children need both male and female role-models, but it does not have to be (and often should not be) the biological parents.

And you can be sure of this....how?

Because it has happened. And besides, you haven't shown any reason to think that it isn't true.

A: The fact that I find it disgusting is more of a reason against homosexuality, not gay marriage......

Good, then it wasn't an answer to my question, now was it?

B: Why would you find recreational hunting disgusting?

I find anyone who kills something for pleasure disgusting. I also find it disgusting that after hunting season every year growing up, I would see starving dogs that were left behind by the hunters but were too afraid to approach anyone else for food. Not only had they gone out, gotten drunk, and killed animals just for the fun of it, but they had also left their own animals to die. Mostly though, it's the killing something for pleasure. I don't think murderers are cool, and I don't think someone who goes out and shoots a deer for the pure pleasure of it is cool either. Personal opinion, really - but with just as much legal pull as you saying homosexual behaviour disgusts you. The difference is that I don't try and legislate my own particular morality.

I'm a girl by the way - for the person who called me 'he' in a reply. =)

Irrelevant ad hominem...

Me!

No more attempts then. Gotcha.

I'm a girl by the way - for the person who called me 'he' in a reply. =)

Oopsie.
:)

If you ban evolution, only criminals will evolve.


:rolleyes:


Ok ... but first you have to provide links to scientific proof that walking erect is natural based solely on the fact that it occurs in all or near-all mammal species.

Not all mammals walk upright.....infact, humans are the only constant bi-pedal animal currently on earth....save for if you believe in bigfoot....



You do realize there was a United States before 1960 don't you?

Yes, I do....again, all I said was that's how the normal family, in my eyes, should be.....I didn't say anything more anything less...


Since you're so big on talking about our Founding Fathers, let's examine one: George Washington.

George moved in with his half-brother, Lawrence, who inherited Mount Vernon from their father. Yes, that's right, half-brother ... George's father, Augustine, had children with another woman before George's mother, Mary. When George married Martha Custis, a widow, she had two children, John Parke Custis and Martha "Patsy" Custis.

After John died in the war, they (George and Martha) adopted two of his children.

Getting the picture? Even our Founding Fathers didn't live in your "traditional" nuclear family as described ...

Irrelevant to the debate. Yes, George Washington lived an irregular family life. Many of them did. Alexander Hamilton, for all intensive purposes, owned his own shipping company when he was 12....he lived without parents his entire life.....but, again, that's really irrelevant to a debate about homosexuals.....


Lots of children these days lack a father because he runs off when the woman gets pregnant. Nice, eh? As for affecting them, usually not in the greater sense because of the wonderful idea of the extended family. In your scenario, if one parent runs off, there is only one single person to be mentor and role model. Sad.

Two of my best friends had that exact same scenario happen to them (well, not exactly, because w/ one of them it was a father that ran off, it was the mother...) Yes, it's very sad...but it would be very foolish to believe that does not affect a child's life and emotions....


That's an incidental question and the answer would have no bearing. If he finds it disgusting, that is his right. So long as he does not seek to stamp out the rights of other people, all is well.

This is true....I would never attempt to strip him/her of his/her rights to disagree with something...and I'd like to believe that he/she would hold me in the same regard....

Your rights end where mine begin.


"Your rights end when they infringe on someone else's," is a better way of writing that... :p

Me!

Not all mammals walk upright.....infact, humans are the only constant bi-pedal animal currently on earth....save for if you believe in bigfoot....

So, since you believe that homosexuality cannot be natural because, as you state, there is no proof that homosexuality exists in any other mammal species; therefore, the logical conclusion is that you cannot possibly believe walking erect to be natural either.

Irrelevant to the debate. Yes, George Washington lived an irregular family life. Many of them did. Alexander Hamilton, for all intensive purposes, owned his own shipping company when he was 12....he lived without parents his entire life.....but, again, that's really irrelevant to a debate about homosexuals.....

Completely relevant! You state that your belief in a "traditional family" precludes that of the homosexual marriage, hence, you do not agree that homosexual marriage should be legal.

With that in mind, you must also, therefore, recognize that our own Founding Fathers' families (don't get me started on Jefferson) are also precluded by your stance on a "traditional family" and, thus, cannot have been legal families.

This is true....I would never attempt to strip him/her of his/her rights to disagree with something...and I'd like to believe that he/she would hold me in the same regard....

Actually, you want to legislate your morality and, thus, strip others of their rights. Be it banning gay marriage or legislating that this is a Christian nation. With just those two ideaologies, you have wiped out the civil rights of every homosexual and the rights of every Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, Atheist, Hindu, Pagan, Taoist, and every other religious non-Christian citizen of this country.

So, ok, let's say the United States is a "Christian" country - as you put it. What kind of Christianity? There are more Catholics in this country than there are Protestants, so do we go with the "might makes right" principle and make Catholicism the national religion?

No?

Ok, so let's look at the Protestants then. If we're to adopt a way of life based on Jesus Christ .... which Jesus? You say there's only one, but stick a Missionary Baptist and a Methodist in the same room and you'll see two completely different Jesuses (or would that be Jesi) emerge. Who's Jesus is the right Jesus?

What about the Jews? All of these laws that you call "based on Christian law" are old testament laws such as the 10 Commandments given to the Jews nearly 2000 years before Jesus was born, hence, they are Jewish laws, not Christian laws.

Fact: It's too complicated. This is why our Founding Fathers brilliantly said, "Congress shall enact no law with regard to the establishment of any religion."

You don't like what our Founding Fathers did? What are you ... a Communist?! ;)

It is quite obviously intended by the 1st Amendment. The logical conclusion of allowing people freedom of religion is that government cannot control religion and that a single religion cannot control government. It isn't that hard to put together. Not to mention the fact that it has been upheld time and time and time again.

That's not what I was stating. I was stating, simply put, that there is no mention of a separation between Church and State. Our Founders did not want us to become a theocracy. Our Founders did not want to impose their individual religious beliefs on the entire nation.....



You were listing how you believed religions had shaped different cultures and you included Communism. ::shrug::

You don't believe that Communism has shaped and forever changed cultures?


Of course, if we legislate one person's particular moral views, we have just taken the right of those with different moral views to practice freely. The laws of society are meant to protect the life and property of the members of that society. If they give one group unfair control over another, they have no place in American society. Suppose the laws of society said that all women had to wear head scarves and fully cover their bodies, or that nobody could eat pork. Would you be ok with that?

No, I would not be okay with your hypothetical situation/yes. The government has no right force you to do anything.....hence why I'm against military conscription....


No, I do believe they exist. President Bush recently freaked out because he couldn't get confirmations for some of them. But, in truth, most people who use the term are just pissed off ultra-conservatives that don't like to think that their judges may actually read the constitution.

A judge has no legal right to make laws. That is the job of any legislative branch. A judge's job is to intrept those laws.....


Ok, you missed it completely. The questions was, why are you ok with getting rid of the freedom of religion?

No....


I didn't say any of that. You attacked me, and I replied by showing that it was your mistake that caused the misunderstanding.

How did I "attack" you?


But using them does suggest you agree with them. You may not have been the first to use them, but they are yours once you do. If I say a country divided against itself cannot stand (quotes left out on purpose), I have made those words mine and, barring any sarcasm on my point, have suggested that I agree with them.

I'll bite -- they're not my words, but that doesn't stop me from agreeing with them.....


As a scientist, I can tell you that you are wrong. Some people believe that a fetus can be seen as a separate human life from conception. Others think it should be viewed as such after the nervous system has developed. Others think it should be viewed as such at birth. The same viewpoints are found in science, although I think the most support goes to the middle view based on the current scientific definition of an organism.

An unborn human baby, made by one male human being and one female human being, is not a human being?


You can't support a ban on abortion by saying that you believe in the sanctity of all human life and then say you don't believe in the sanctity of life for those convicted of a crime. It is illogical. You can hold both views, but that argument can't come into it.

Did I say that I believe in the sanctity of all human life?


(a) There was no constitutional right giving citizens of either country the right to bear arms.

Not a Constitutional right in Britain, but nonetheless a right...English Bill of Rights, (which has held legal weight for all these years), states, "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." While at the time they were referencing swords, daggers, bows, arrows, and hand cannons -- Britian has held onto that to transfer the meaning over to firearms....all up until they subsquently banned firearms....

Germany, if I'm not mistaken, had a similar right written into their books....and, admittedly, I'm not sure about Australia....


(b) Americans are very suspicious of their government.

This is true. We always have been and we always will be.....

Besides, any order to turn in all guns would be challenged (and thus not carried out yet) immediately in the courts (probably by the ACLU and the NRA at the same time). At this point, it would be declared unconstitutional. Without a specific "we can take all ze guns" amendment (which would be *extremely* unlikely to ever pass), it won't ever happen.

What exactly do you call the AWB, (which, thank God, is expiring in 8 weeks)? What exactly do you call the many proposed extensions for the AWB which would outlaw all semi-auto shotguns and all semi-auto rim-fire and center-fire rifles (even .22's)? (Both of which, Johny Kerry voted for...go figure...)


Did I say ban them? Nope, sure didn't. So, what does that have to do with the conversation? I ask you again, what is wrong with asking that those who have them really do know how to use them?

I didn't say that you stated that we should ban firearms. I'm not sure how the conversation got diverted to this, but it did. So you think the government should be so intrusive as to determine whether or not its people are intelligent enough to own property (which a firearm is, your own private property)? There are many (NRA-run) firearm safety courses. Do you think that the gov't should make firearm safety mandatory in say, public schools?


So, you don't want your right to have a gun slightly altered by asking that you tell someone you have it so a cop won't feel threatened and feel the need to shoot you when he sees it, but you do want to take away the right of others to decide who gets their stuff when they die, who takes care of their children, who can and cannot make medical decisions for them, to buy things together, etc. Funny how you are for abridging others' rights as long as you have them.

What are you talking about? "Getting stuff when they die, takes care of their children, can and cannot make medical decisions....."? I don't want the sanctity of marriage ruined and corrupted by including homosexuals into the mix. Let them have civil unions. Hell, if you want to go that far, let them their own marriage set up. Give them all the rights of married couples...just don't governmentally recognize it as a marriage....recognize it as a civil union....or whatever they'd feel would be 'PC' to call it.....


Actually, I would say that those who call for moderate gun control are intelligent enough to know that guns are dangerous. Those who call for banning guns are a little silly. Funny, that. However, those who want to write extra discrimination into the Constitution are anti-freedom, anti-American, fascists who want to destroy the intention of the Constitution.


The Constitution promises that all Americans have the right to own and bear arms. A right that cannot be abridged or denied. Thusly, any gun 'control' law would be, logically speaking, unConstitutional as it violates the Second Amendment. And I would not call defining marriage as a man and women Fascist.....


Biological Exuberence by Bruce Bagemihl is the best source for someone with only a little biological background. It also concentrates specifically on birds and mammals (although with the occasional reference to fish), which I think would be better for you. A short list of mammals he mentions are apes (of all sorts), dogs, cats, cows, goats, dolphins, whales, walruses, and giraffes (in which heterosexual behavior is known to occur, but has never been observed in the wild).

Other sources (from a quick search of pubmed - these are all from the first page) are:

O'Neill AC, Fedigan LM, Ziegler TE. Related Articles, Links
Ovarian cycle phase and same-sex mating behavior in Japanese macaque females.
Am J Primatol. 2004 May;63(1):25-31.

Matsuzaki O. Related Articles, Links
Inter-male mating-like behavior in the domesticated house musk shrew, Suncus murinus.
Zoolog Sci. 2004 Jan;21(1):43-51.

Morris JA, Gobrogge KL, Jordan CL, Breedlove SM. Related Articles, Links
Brain aromatase: dyed-in-the-wool homosexuality.
Endocrinology. 2004 Feb;145(2):475-7. Review.

Teodorov E, Salzgeber SA, Felicio LF, Varolli FM, Bernardi MM.
Effects of perinatal picrotoxin and sexual experience on heterosexual and homosexual behavior in male rats.
Neurotoxicol Teratol. 2002 Mar-Apr;24(2):235-45.

Fox EA. Related Articles, Links
Homosexual behavior in wild Sumatran orangutans (Pongo pygmaeus abelii).
Am J Primatol. 2001 Nov;55(3):177-81.

Resko JA, Perkins A, Roselli CE, Fitzgerald JA, Choate JV, Stormshak F. Related Articles, Links
Endocrine correlates of partner preference behavior in rams.
Biol Reprod. 1996 Jul;55(1):120-6.

Congratulations. I officially concede the point that homosexuality doesn't exist in nature. Happy?



So what you're saying is "this is my reason for not allowing it, but it's not a reason to ban it." Right, gotcha.

What I'm saying is that is my reason for disagreeing with the gay 'lifestyle,' but not an appropriate reason to ban gay marriage....



Not so absured. Those are both examples of traditions and people argued against them by saying "I believe in tradition". How exactly do you determine which traditions are to be followed? It obviously isn't by how widely it is followed or by how long it was followed, both of which are generally the basis of traditionalism.

Abandon all traditions, then?



Which makes no sense because, although that may be the "normal" American family now, it is certainly not traditional. 50 years does not constitute traditional in the scheme of things, especially not as the basis for an argument. It also isn't really the normal American family right now.


See the reply I made to the other man/woman....


Nope, but I will deny that the mother or father figure has to be the biological mother or father. It can be a grandparent, aunt, uncle, friend of the family, neighboor, teacher, etc, etc. Children need both male and female role-models, but it does not have to be (and often should not be) the biological parents.

Yes, a child needs a mother and father figure. No, it does not have to be their biological parents (and often, these days, isn't). But how are you going to make sure that all gay couples with children give their children a mother and father figure?



Because it has happened. And besides, you haven't shown any reason to think that it isn't true.

How, per se, has it happened? Men have fallen from hundreds of feet and lived. Does that mean if I jump off the Sears Tower, I'm going to walk away from it alive? (Granted, perhaps a bad analogy, but it holds true.) Rarely are things an absolute.....


I find anyone who kills something for pleasure disgusting. I also find it disgusting that after hunting season every year growing up, I would see starving dogs that were left behind by the hunters but were too afraid to approach anyone else for food. Not only had they gone out, gotten drunk, and killed animals just for the fun of it, but they had also left their own animals to die. Mostly though, it's the killing something for pleasure. I don't think murderers are cool, and I don't think someone who goes out and shoots a deer for the pure pleasure of it is cool either. Personal opinion, really - but with just as much legal pull as you saying homosexual behaviour disgusts you. The difference is that I don't try and legislate my own particular morality.

Please don't stereotype all of us hunters by our worst examples.....

Me!

Um, its in the Constitution and no serious challenge has ever been leveled against it, and every time someone does try to use this argument they are laughed out of court?
No comment?

That's not what I was stating. I was stating, simply put, that there is no mention of a separation between Church and State. Our Founders did not want us to become a theocracy. Our Founders did not want to impose their individual religious beliefs on the entire nation.....

Funny, I said that affirmed that the exact words separation of church and state are not in the Constitution three times and you still kept arguing for some reason.

You don't believe that Communism has shaped and forever changed cultures?

I never said that. I just said it's not a religion and therefore has no bearing on the point you were making.

No, I would not be okay with your hypothetical situation/yes. The government has no right force you to do anything.....hence why I'm against military conscription....

Yet you are for taking your personal moral view of "homosexuality is bad and therefore ruins marriage" and legislate it. Do you not see the hypocrisy here? Just because your religion says so, it's suddenly ok to force it on others?

A judge has no legal right to make laws. That is the job of any legislative branch. A judge's job is to intrept those laws.....

And to determine the constitutionality of those laws. That's all.

The activist judges I am referring to are those like Priscilla Owens, who apparently doesn't like the fact that (a) abortion is legal, to a point and (b) Texas allows teenagers to bypass parental consent in some cases. So what she does is make her own law instead of dealing with the ones she has in place.

The judges in Mass simply found a law unconstitutional - something that is within their duties.

How did I "attack" you?

Right there:

Need a shoehorn to get your foot out of your mouth?

An unborn human baby, made by one male human being and one female human being, is not a human being?

It can be argued that a fetus is not a separate life (any more than a skin cell is) until it meets the requirements used to define life. One of these requirements is the ability to sense and respond to stimulus. The fetus does not have this ability until it has developed a rudimentary nervous system.

Did I say that I believe in the sanctity of all human life?

Directly, no. But I responded to a point made in the Constitution Party website you posted and you decided to argue against what I said. If you don't believe in the sanctity of life, no problem.

Not a Constitutional right in Britain, but nonetheless a right...English Bill of Rights, (which has held legal weight for all these years), states, "That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law." While at the time they were referencing swords, daggers, bows, arrows, and hand cannons -- Britian has held onto that to transfer the meaning over to firearms....all up until they subsquently banned firearms....

The difference being that they can do that. There is nothing saying that they can't arbitrarily change laws or interpretations whenever they want.

What exactly do you call the AWB, (which, thank God, is expiring in 8 weeks)? What exactly do you call the many proposed extensions for the AWB which would outlaw all semi-auto shotguns and all semi-auto rim-fire and center-fire rifles (even .22's)? (Both of which, Johny Kerry voted for...go figure...)

I call them restrictions. Do you think that the "right to bear arms" should extend to nuclear weapons as well? I certainly hope not. But nuclear weapons are arms and by your interpretation of the amendment, all American citizens should have the right to keep nuclear weapons and rocket launchers in their houses and the government should have no say in that.

The point being that, when the amendment was written, the weapons that people wanted to keep in their homes couldn't even kill one man with a single pull of the trigger unless you were pretty lucky in how you shot it. And, again, pretty much everyone knew how to use a gun. I don't really care if someone who actually has a clue how and when to use it owns a semi-auto shotgun, but I can't really think of many instances in which they would need one that doesn't involve shooting lots of people.

So you think the government should be so intrusive as to determine whether or not its people are intelligent enough to own property (which a firearm is, your own private property)?

Do I think the government should be able to guage my intelligence when I want to buy a rug (where intelligence means how well I know how to use a rug)? - No, if I put my rug down upside down or use it as a curtain instead of a rug, it doesn't hurt anyone.

Do I think the government should be able to do so when I want to buy a dangerous weapon that I could use to kill lots of people (on purpose or by accident), hell yes. A firearm is not private property in the sense that a CD is, because the sole purpose of a firearm is destruction.

Let's take another example - driver's liscenses. The government has you take a test in order to determine if you can properly drive a car. Why? Because someone behind the wheel of a car who cannot properly drive it is dangerous to the rest of the citizens and property of this country. Thus, the government has a compelling interest in regulating who gets to drive a car, as they do in regulating who gets to have guns.

There are many (NRA-run) firearm safety courses.

Yes, and I'm sure that every person in this country who purchases a gun takes one of them. ::sarcasm::

Do you think that the gov't should make firearm safety mandatory in say, public schools?

No, I think they should make firearm safety mandatory to anyone who wants to own a gun.

What are you talking about? "Getting stuff when they die, takes care of their children, can and cannot make medical decisions....."? I don't want the sanctity of marriage ruined and corrupted by including homosexuals into the mix. Let them have civil unions. Hell, if you want to go that far, let them their own marriage set up. Give them all the rights of married couples...just don't governmentally recognize it as a marriage....recognize it as a civil union....or whatever they'd feel would be 'PC' to call it...

You know all the rights I just described? Guess what, that's what marriage is according to the law! If you think that we should give homosexual couples all the same rights as straight ones, then you aren't preserving the sanctity of anything, no matter what you call it. Besides, if you relegate them to second-class citizen status (which is what any separate-but-equal law would do), you have just taken your holier-than-thou religious view of the "sanctity of marriage" and tried to inject it into the law. Oops. Now, if you want to get rid of the word marriage in all legal forms and call it civil unions for everyone just because you want to hold onto a particular connotation of the word, sure - whatever.

Now, if you are talking about religious sanctity, that will be preserved just fine. No one is going to force any church to perform a marriage on anyone.

The Constitution promises that all Americans have the right to own and bear arms. A right that cannot be abridged or denied. Thusly, any gun 'control' law would be, logically speaking, unConstitutional as it violates the Second Amendment. And I would not call defining marriage as a man and women Fascist.....

So, when we say that human sacrifices are illegal, are we abridging the right to practice religion? After all, anyone who follows the Aztec religion would want to do so. When we say you are not allowed to tell people around you to go out and "kill XXXXX," are we abridging there right to free speech?

Of course we are! But there is a compelling government interest in both - namely, someone else could get hurt. The inalienable rights are the life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness - and hell, we even abridge and sometimes deny them.

Congratulations. I officially concede the point that homosexuality doesn't exist in nature. Happy?

I'll assume you mean *does*, not *doesn't*. Very good. So the "it is unnatural" reason will no longer be on your list?

What I'm saying is that is my reason for disagreeing with the gay 'lifestyle,' but not an appropriate reason to ban gay marriage....

Then it wasn't an answer to my question in the first place. Another "reason" down.

Abandon all traditions, then?

I didn't say that. But you can't use "it's a tradition" as a valid argument when that tradition harms others. Your "traditional" marriage keeps a portion of our population from having the same rights and priveledges afforded to the rest of them - just like the other traditions I mentioned.

See the reply I made to the other man/woman....

Fine, it's just your opinion. Just don't say "Because I consider myself a traditionalist, I think this is the way it should be," because your way isn't traditional.

Yes, a child needs a mother and father figure. No, it does not have to be their biological parents (and often, these days, isn't). But how are you going to make sure that all gay couples with children give their children a mother and father figure?

How are you going to make sure all straight couples give their children a good mother and father figure? If you can't give me an answer, then I guess we'll just have to ban all children.

How, per se, has it happened? Men have fallen from hundreds of feet and lived. Does that mean if I jump off the Sears Tower, I'm going to walk away from it alive? (Granted, perhaps a bad analogy, but it holds true.) Rarely are things an absolute.....

The point is that, as it has happened so far, there is no statistically significant effect. There are well-adjusted children that come out of your version of the "normal" family and there are completely screwed up children that come out of the same thing. This is also true of same-sex couples raising children, and nothing has demonstrated that there is any difference in the frequency of each.

Please don't stereotype all of us hunters by our worst examples.....

Me!

I didn't - I just stated why I am disgusted by the practice. Pretty much all the hunters go out and kill things for fun. I don't think that's right, but I deal with it because I'm not going to force my moral views on others. Can't you do the same?

1) In short the candates in the elction are so poor there seems to be no point, I don't like Kerry and I don't like Bush so who should I vote for.




2) I'm not old enough, I'm 14!



3) I'm not American, I'm british, however in the britsh elelections I would vote for the Lib-dems.

if you don't want anybody whos currently runner you can do one of 2 things. 1: hand in your election paper thnig empty. (the polistion only care about those who vote)

2: do as the Canadians do. use your vote to punish not praise.(doesn't make much sence , yes i know but it's done us all right so far.

1 - I already voted in the Canadian elections
2 - The NDP don't run in the US
3 - I'm Canadian...