NationStates Jolt Archive

I pledge allegiance
to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands
One nation under God
Indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.

What do those words mean to you?

To me they mean "thank you America.

for your strength, your courage, and for our freedom

to do what we want and say what we want

a freedom that has been the world's beacon for over 200 years

The flag, whose bright stars are 50 states, each bearing its own stamp of individuality

A people 300 million strong

These are people who have come to work from all the corners of the globe

A land of laws and an ingenious system of checks and balances that allows no man to become a tyrant and lets no group prevail unless their power is tampered by real concern for welfare of those they govern.

A land where the right of free speech and dissent is jealously guarded.

Where the ballot box is the sword and the people its welders. Our revolutions are fought at the ballot box and the voters determine the outcome.

America is a land where freedom of worship is a cornerstone of her being,

A land graced with temples and churches, mosques, synagogues and alters of all faiths. Showing that America welcomes all the religions of the world.

A land touched by hot steel and raw courage of its men and women in the armed forces.

America was purified by the awful crucible of civil war.
a land where people can move about without hindrance or fear

America is a land where a determined man who seeks an honest life cannot be denied his chance.

a land whose citizens move freely within her borders without hindrance or fear.

America is a land brimming with opportunities for everyone.

America is a land where freedom of choice is the guideline for all.

The courts of our land are open to all.

It's wheels of justice grind onward for all causes and for all peoples.
They look to every avenue for justice.
To every concern of the law.
And they temper their reasoning with mercy for all.


What does the Pledge of Allegiance mean to you? Non Americans can weigh in too. Do your countries have a pledge of allegiance?

To me it means "All my will are belong to teh Government"

For me, it means 30 seconds out of every working day.

What does this thread mean to you?

To me it means "All my will are belong to teh Government"

Pretty much.

To me it means "All my will are belong to teh Government"

To me, that and the morning announcements are about to start.

To be honest, if this country is truly free, why are students forced by law to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag of the country? It's kind of like saying "You're so free you must pledge allegiance or else". :rolleyes:

Do your countries have a pledge of allegiance?

Of course not, because we have not built a ludicrous society.

It means we should encourage nationalism instead of crass comercialism. It was, after all, written by the socialist Francis Bellamy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Bellamy

it means once again we're willing to pay lipservice to the Constitution as a secular by requirement nation contains in its pledge a reference to god.

To me, that and the morning announcements are about to start.

To be honest, if this country is truly free, why are students forced by law to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag of the country? It's kind of like saying "You're so free you must pledge allegiance or else". :rolleyes:

what state are you in? There should be federal law that says you can't be forced to say the pledge. If they are forcing you then you can probably sue them.
O wait, it was the US Supreme Court who said they can't force you to say the pledge. I forgot the case name though.

America was purified by the awful crucible of civil war.

purified?! :eek:

Non Americans can weigh in too. Do your countries have a pledge of allegiance?

I don't think we do then again you might want to ask someone who knows the national anthem (I’m grateful that my teachers never even tried to teach me it)

I have to ask why is the pledge so important to U.Sians

I think it is a barbaric custom.

it means once again we're willing to pay lipservice to the Constitution as a secular by requirement nation contains in its pledge a reference to god.

that made no sense

They mean that I am making an unconditional pledge that I will support the United States forever (there is no "so long as..." in it).

The US has done, is doing, and will do evil, and I refuse to support it in such things. So I refuse to say the pledge.

I pledge allegiance
to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands
One nation under God
Indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.

What do those words mean to you?

To me they mean "thank you America.

for your strength, your courage, and for our freedom

to do what we want and say what we want

a freedom that has been the world's beacon for over 200 years

The flag, whose bright stars are 50 states, each bearing its own stamp of individuality

A people 300 million strong

These are people who have come to work from all the corners of the globe

A land of laws and an ingenious system of checks and balances that allows no man to become a tyrant and lets no group prevail unless their power is tampered by real concern for welfare of those they govern.

A land where the right of free speech and dissent is jealously guarded.

Where the ballot box is the sword and the people its welders. Our revolutions are fought at the ballot box and the voters determine the outcome.

America is a land where freedom of worship is a cornerstone of her being,

A land graced with temples and churches, mosques, synagogues and alters of all faiths. Showing that America welcomes all the religions of the world.

A land touched by hot steel and raw courage of its men and women in the armed forces.

America was purified by the awful crucible of civil war.
a land where people can move about without hindrance or fear

America is a land where a determined man who seeks an honest life cannot be denied his chance.

a land whose citizens move freely within her borders without hindrance or fear.

America is a land brimming with opportunities for everyone.

America is a land where freedom of choice is the guideline for all.

The courts of our land are open to all.

It's wheels of justice grind onward for all causes and for all peoples.
They look to every avenue for justice.
To every concern of the law.
And they temper their reasoning with mercy for all.


What does the Pledge of Allegiance mean to you? Non Americans can weigh in too. Do your countries have a pledge of allegiance?

Pretty much nothing, since as I understand it it was originally a publicity stunt put on by school children. Then they added the Under God because communists were threatening America.

I would die for my country, but I don't believe I have to posture for everyone around me.

The kids sell their souls to the devil*cough*gov't...

I pledge allegiance
to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands
One nation under God
Indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.

What do those words mean to you?

To me they mean "thank you America.

for your strength, your courage, and for our freedom

to do what we want and say what we want

a freedom that has been the world's beacon for over 200 years

The flag, whose bright stars are 50 states, each bearing its own stamp of individuality

A people 300 million strong

These are people who have come to work from all the corners of the globe

A land of laws and an ingenious system of checks and balances that allows no man to become a tyrant and lets no group prevail unless their power is tampered by real concern for welfare of those they govern.

A land where the right of free speech and dissent is jealously guarded.

Where the ballot box is the sword and the people its welders. Our revolutions are fought at the ballot box and the voters determine the outcome.

America is a land where freedom of worship is a cornerstone of her being,

A land graced with temples and churches, mosques, synagogues and alters of all faiths. Showing that America welcomes all the religions of the world.

A land touched by hot steel and raw courage of its men and women in the armed forces.

America was purified by the awful crucible of civil war.
a land where people can move about without hindrance or fear

America is a land where a determined man who seeks an honest life cannot be denied his chance.

a land whose citizens move freely within her borders without hindrance or fear.

America is a land brimming with opportunities for everyone.

America is a land where freedom of choice is the guideline for all.

The courts of our land are open to all.

It's wheels of justice grind onward for all causes and for all peoples.
They look to every avenue for justice.
To every concern of the law.
And they temper their reasoning with mercy for all.


What does the Pledge of Allegiance mean to you? Non Americans can weigh in too. Do your countries have a pledge of allegiance?

To me itsymbolizes all of that and more: the service that my father, grandfathers, and great grandfathers all gave, to ensure that freedom would be protected and the sacrifices that so many give. I find it deplorable that courts have declared it unconstitutional in some areas of our country.

)I have to ask why is the pledge so important to U.Sians

I think its a bit like the countries that have monarchs who have little to no power. That seems very odd to many USians.

I'm not sure. That's why I'm asking what it means to people. I know that they almost say it in school, at all political meetings, and at many sporting events. To me its a sign of loyalty and gratitude. But I would like to know what it means to other people.

And why is it important to Americans?

That I am confused once again why we're pledging to the flag and not the Constitution.

should the words "under God" be replaced with the words "with religious liberty" or "founded upon religious freedom"

How do you pledge to the Constitution?

How do you pledge to the Constitution?
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America
And to the republic which it formed
One people, out of many
With liberty and justice for all.

should the words "under God" be replaced with the words "with religious liberty" or "founded upon religious freedom"

Removed. They were added in the '50s. It was fine without them.

How do you pledge to the Constitution?

How do you pledge to the flag? To me pledging your allegiance to the bundle of moral codes and philosophies that define America is a lot more logical than pledging it to a bit of cloth.

I don't like it. I think that it's silly. I don't pledge allegiance unconditionally. I don't beleive in brainwashing children from Kindergarten on.

How do you pledge to the flag? To me pledging your allegiance to the bundle of moral codes and philosophies that define America is a lot more logical than pledging it to a bit of cloth.

I think the flag is basically a stand-in for the US. Its a physical symbol for an abstract concept, a nation. Not that it makes much sense and I don't care about it one way or the other.

To me, that and the morning announcements are about to start.

To be honest, if this country is truly free, why are students forced by law to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag of the country? It's kind of like saying "You're so free you must pledge allegiance or else". :rolleyes:

It's not a law. In fact, the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that no one may be compelled to say it or even to stand.

It's not a law. In fact, the Supreme Court has specifically ruled that no one may be compelled to say it or even to stand.

In Pennsylvania, if you refuse to say the pledge in public schools, your parents must be informed by the administration.

To me, that and the morning announcements are about to start.

To be honest, if this country is truly free, why are students forced by law to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag of the country? It's kind of like saying "You're so free you must pledge allegiance or else". :rolleyes:

They aren't, thanks to a lawsuit brought decades ago by the Jehovah's Witnesses, of all people. No one can force you to say the pledge. All they can do is keep you from disrupting it.

A land where the right of free speech and dissent is jealously guarded.
This doesn't sound like a good thing. Doesn't it imply that America values free speech and dissent but works to stop other nations from getting those same rights? :p

That I am confused once again why we're pledging to the flag and not the Constitution.

hmmm does that mean if I lets say tossed a flag off a cliff an American would be duty bound to jump down and break its fall?

the idea of pledging allegiance to a FLAG seems stupid to me. it also reminds me of the eddie izzard bit about world conquest and flags

the need to have people make the pledge over and over again is also very annoying. does it really wear off so quickly?

but other than that i think of it as an ideal that we fall short of "liberty and justice for all" but should strive for.

In Pennsylvania, if you refuse to say the pledge in public schools, your parents must be informed by the administration.

what does that do? Your parents punish you for not saying the pledge?

hmmm does that mean if I lets say tossed a flag off a cliff an American would be duty bound to jump down and break its fall?
Technically, according to the flag code, you are supposed to prevent the flag from touching the ground or getting soiled.

However, since no one knows or follows said code (Even President Bush), I doubt anyone would.

hmmm does that mean if I lets say tossed a flag off a cliff an American would be duty bound to jump down and break its fall?

the US has people who keep trying to pass flag burning laws to ban flag burning at protest. There's a whole guideline of how the flag is supposed to be handled. For one you are not allowed to let it touch the ground. If it touches the ground or is otherwise spoiled, it has to be burned in some kind of ceremony.

In Pennsylvania, if you refuse to say the pledge in public schools, your parents must be informed by the administration.

So?

"Mr and Mrs. Katganistan, your daughter refused to say the pledge."
"Thanks for informing us." *click*

On the second call, if they are supposed to call every time, "Don't call us about this matter again. We know. We also know she has a right not to say it."

Third time, I would put in writing my intention to slap them with a suit for harassment.

what does that do? Your parents punish you for not saying the pledge?

My parents did nothing. But it's the idea behind it. If you don't say the pledge, you will be "punished"

Yes, it's a weak punishment, but there is still the idea that something must be done because you refuse to be "patriotic"

So?

"Mr and Mrs. Katganistan, your daughter refused to say the pledge."
"Thanks for informing us." *click*

It's the idea behind it. Why do your parents need to know? So they can prevent you from becoming an unpatriotic terrorist.

To me, that and the morning announcements are about to start.

To be honest, if this country is truly free, why are students forced by law to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag of the country? It's kind of like saying "You're so free you must pledge allegiance or else". :rolleyes:

they passed a law?, i must of been sleeping under a rock. when did this happen?

It's the idea behind it. Why do your parents need to know? So they can prevent you from becoming an unpatriotic terrorist.
My guess is that in most cases, the parents encourage their kids to not say the pledge.

It should be up to the parents if the kids say the pledge or not.

They mean that I am making an unconditional pledge that I will support the United States forever (there is no "so long as..." in it).

The US has done, is doing, and will do evil, and I refuse to support it in such things. So I refuse to say the pledge.

I feel sorry for you

It's the idea behind it. Why do your parents need to know? So they can prevent you from becoming an unpatriotic terrorist.

I should think it's so they can stand up for you. "We're fully aware, now buzz off, kthnxbai."

To me it's a load of bull.

Technically, according to the flag code, you are supposed to prevent the flag from touching the ground or getting soiled.

soiled? :eek: (like wearing American flag themed underwear soiled?)

However, since no one knows or follows said code (Even President Bush), I doubt anyone would.

*goes back to finding America's one true weakness*

It should be up to the parents if the kids say the pledge or not.

or, possibly up to the kid itself. the pledge is called a pledge but to many (as proven by this thread) is nothing more then a bunch of words.

lets leave it up to the parents and kids on if they want to recite poetry or sing songs.

The late comedian Red Skelton has a bit about it (what the Pledge means). It's not a comedy bit, though.

Check it out... (http://www.poofcat.com/july.html)

To me, that and the morning announcements are about to start.

To be honest, if this country is truly free, why are students forced by law to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag of the country? It's kind of like saying "You're so free you must pledge allegiance or else". :rolleyes:

You aren't forced by law, at least not a federal law. In my school we don't say the pledge of allegiance. If you have to it's probably just a school rule.

I feel sorry for you

:confused: Why?

:confused: Why?

If you look at this country and see nothing but evil, all I can do is pity you.

And (addressing everyone, now) (minus the thread maker) if this is what everybody thinks of the Pledge of Allegiance,...wow... just wow... what a sad state of affairs... I seem to recall from my history classes that Rome experienced something like this prior to its fall.

So, I want to ask... why is it so difficult to grasp a concept now that we Americans have grasped for so long? I mean, ya, the Pledge is just a bunch of words, but they're a part of the whole. When put together, it's a bold commitment of faith and loyalty to a country that, while not flawless, is the closest to flawless that history's seen in a good long time. I, at least, am PROUD to stand up every day and say the Pledge, with gusto every time, because it means so much to me.

If you look at this country and see nothing but evil, all I can do is pity you.

And (addressing everyone, now) (minus the thread maker) if this is what everybody thinks of the Pledge of Allegiance,...wow... just wow... what a sad state of affairs... I seem to recall from my history classes that Rome experienced something like this prior to its fall.

So, I want to ask... why is it so difficult to grasp a concept now that we Americans have grasped for so long? I mean, ya, the Pledge is just a bunch of words, but they're a part of the whole. When put together, it's a bold commitment of faith and loyalty to a country that, while not flawless, is the closest to flawless that history's seen in a good long time. I, at least, am PROUD to stand up every day and say the Pledge, with gusto every time, because it means so much to me.
"The arrogance! They have brought truth, and you condemn it?" [/Jedi]

If you look at this country and see nothing but evil, all I can do is pity you.

You misunderstand. I did not say that I only see evil. I see much more good then I see evil. But it's still there. And I cannot make an unconditional pledge to a government which will do things wrong (it has Man at the helm, it's going to happen).

And (addressing everyone, now) (minus the thread maker) if this is what everybody thinks of the Pledge of Allegiance,...wow... just wow... what a sad state of affairs... I seem to recall from my history classes that Rome experienced something like this prior to its fall.

Yes, we're heading toward a fall, but not because of a lack of patriotism. That's just a symptom.

So, I want to ask... why is it so difficult to grasp a concept now that we Americans have grasped for so long? I mean, ya, the Pledge is just a bunch of words, but they're a part of the whole. When put together, it's a bold commitment of faith and loyalty to a country that, while not flawless, is the closest to flawless that history's seen in a good long time. I, at least, am PROUD to stand up every day and say the Pledge, with gusto every time, because it means so much to me.

I hope when we start persecuting Muslims or Calvinists or Jews or gays or whoever it is that we persecute (and the time is coming) that you will be able to look and say that you are justified in breaking your unconditional pledge to the Republic (not the ideals of a period in that republic, but the Republic).

Maybe they are cynical becuase lately America has failed to live up to the principles for which it and the pledge and the constitution are all suppposed to stand for.

If America does not stand by its principles then does not the Constitution become empty words? the Pledge empty rhetoric?

If America does not stand by its principles then does not the Constitution become empty words? the Pledge empty rhetoric?

no the constitution is an excuse for revolution and a good one as well since whither you succeed or fail you are fairly certain of being remembered as a patriot

I seem to recall from my history classes that Rome experienced something like this prior to its fall.

well I'm British and I can assure you are empire did not fall due to any lack of patriotism (and seriously why do people compare Rome to America has any state ever fallen the same way as Rome?)

So, I want to ask... why is it so difficult to grasp a concept now that we Americans have grasped for so long? I mean, ya, the Pledge is just a bunch of words, but they're a part of the whole. When put together, it's a bold commitment of faith and loyalty to a country that, while not flawless, is the closest to flawless that history's seen in a good long time. I, at least, am PROUD to stand up every day and say the Pledge, with gusto every time, because it means so much to me.

so the pledge to you is placing blind faith?

You misunderstand. I did not say that I only see evil. I see much more good then I see evil. But it's still there. And I cannot make an unconditional pledge to a government which will do things wrong (it has Man at the helm, it's going to happen).

My apologies, then. That's what I thought you meant. But, are you saying that just because we're ruled by mortals, you can't make an allegiance to a country that's stood for higher goals? I'm sorry there's evil/corruption/etc. in the government, but I'll still stand up should the call come.


Yes, we're heading toward a fall, but not because of a lack of patriotism. That's just a symptom.

I agree, if only that you imply that the lack of patriotism isn't the only thing wrong with our society as a whole, right now. But, I have to disagree; the lack of patriotism is a major source of our future fall, that and political correctness, total distrust of the government, etc., as we can all see by reading this thread (or by watching the nightly news, your choice).

I hope when we start persecuting Muslims or Calvinists or Jews or gays or whoever it is that we persecute (and the time is coming) that you will be able to look and say that you are justified in breaking your unconditional pledge to the Republic (not the ideals of a period in that republic, but the Republic).

Should that day come, yes, it will a sad state of affairs. However, I wouldn't give up my allegiance then. I would use my Constitutionally-protected rights to protest the persecutions to the greatest extent of my abilities.

It would take a great deal (and I mean, A GREAT DEAL) before I break my oath to my country.

My apologies, then. That's what I thought you meant. But, are you saying that just because we're ruled by mortals, you can't make an allegiance to a country that's stood for higher goals? I'm sorry there's evil/corruption/etc. in the government, but I'll still stand up should the call come.

I will pledge allegience as soon as they add the line "so far as that Republic obeys the Law of God." Until then, I cannot pledge.

I agree, if only that you imply that the lack of patriotism isn't the only thing wrong with our society as a whole, right now. But, I have to disagree; the lack of patriotism is a major source of our future fall, that and political correctness, total distrust of the government, etc., as we can all see by reading this thread (or by watching the nightly news, your choice).

The source is, in my opinion, the relativism that is seeping over everything. The lack of patriotism is a result of the idea that no nation is any better than any other (because morality is relative). This lack of patriotism leads to a disregard for the nation and then to anarchy.

Patriotism is often over-emphasized, also.

Should that day come, yes, it will a sad state of affairs. However, I wouldn't give up my allegiance then. I would use my Constitutionally-protected rights to protest the persecutions to the greatest extent of my abilities.

If you have those "rights" still.

It would take a great deal (and I mean, A GREAT DEAL) before I break my oath to my country.

Well, I think you're overly optimistic, but you're allowed to be. I just hope you know when enough is enough.

no the constitution is an excuse for revolution and a good one as well since whither you succeed or fail you are fairly certain of being remembered as a patriot

Wow, are the British STILL this bitter about the war? I mean, come on, that was over 200 years ago... and we've beaten you again since then, and then we go and win wars for you... talk about gratitude...


well I'm British and I can assure you are empire did not fall due to any lack of patriotism (and seriously why do people compare Rome to America has any state ever fallen the same way as Rome?)

Well, no offense or anything, but I thought this was obvious: we compare the United States to Rome (at least in this case) because Rome fell. It grew weak, interiorally and exteriorally, and simply collapsed, and historians notice many trends between Rome near the end and America now.


so the pledge to you is placing blind faith?

You really are bitter. No, it isn't blind faith. Didn't I mention something about the flaws of America? Ya, if I had said "AMERICA IS DA PERFECTZ," I could understand where you're coming from. However, I've examined the government and the Constitution, what it stands for, what it's built upon, and I've come to the conclusion that (didn't I already say this?) despite all its flaws, I can give it my support without any regrets to my country. If that's what blind faith is, well, give me my blind man's dog.

Originally Posted by Call to power
no the constitution is an excuse for revolution and a good one as well since whither you succeed or fail you are fairly certain of being remembered as a patriot

Oh, by the way, I forgot to mention this:

Again, no offense, but you need to get your history straight. The Constitution was written several years after the war ended. Thus, they no longer needed an "excuse" for the Revolution. Unless, of course, you're referring to the Declaration of Independence, in which case they spelled out, very clearly, the exact reasons they went to war against their British oppressors, and then made sure that the British king saw it with his own eyes, putting their very lives on the line to ensure that whatever country came out of that mess was a better one than the British.

Wow, are the British STILL this bitter about the war? I mean, come on, that was over 200 years ago... and we've beaten you again since then, and then we go and win wars for you... talk about gratitude...

huh? you’ know I was mentioning about how a constitution works as a contract and when that contract is broken by government the citizens are in there full right to revolt (or do you believe that we don't have one two or something?)

Well, no offense or anything, but I thought this was obvious: we compare the United States to Rome (at least in this case) because Rome fell. It grew weak, interiorally and exteriorally, and simply collapsed, and historians notice many trends between Rome near the end and America now.

Roman civilization lasted till the fall of Constantinople in the 1400's you have a long way to go yet which is beside the point because if as you put the lack of patriotism is a sign of fall you can also compare America to the British empire where sections split off (which is good news really since it was a fairly graceful fall)

You really are bitter. No, it isn't blind faith. Didn't I mention something about the flaws of America? Ya, if I had said "AMERICA IS DA PERFECTZ," I could understand where you're coming from. However, I've examined the government and the Constitution, what it stands for, what it's built upon, and I've come to the conclusion that (didn't I already say this?) despite all its flaws, I can give it my support without any regrets to my country. If that's what blind faith is, well, give me my blind man's dog.

Considering you mentioned faith in your little rant you must mean that you will support America right or wrong and thus it makes coming to a conclusion a bit redundant no?

Either that or you need a dictionary

Germany got rid of pledges of allegiance because...well, the whole thing came to its natural conclusion in 1945, and they thought that that might have been enough.

When put together, it's a bold commitment of faith and loyalty to a country that, while not flawless, is the closest to flawless that history's seen in a good long time. I
I'd dispute that, as I'm sure a lot of people would. The USA is hardly close to flawless, and there are many nations that are.

America is a land where freedom of worship is a cornerstone of her being,
And yet includes a specific religion in its pledge.


America is a land where freedom of choice is the guideline for all.

Abortion, gay marriage etc etc.


a freedom that has been the world's beacon for over 200 years
Any remaining respect there was for the US's "freedom" has evaporated what with the Patriot Act and Guantanemo bay.

Of course not, because we have not built a ludicrous society.

Oh I don't know. There are some rather scary people when you leave Stockholm.....

hmmm does that mean if I lets say tossed a flag off a cliff an American would be duty bound to jump down and break its fall?
An OT, but kind of interesting sidebar to this, durrin gthe Civil War soilders would go to some prrety extream measures to keep the colors, national and regimental, from touching the ground standing up in heavy enemy fire and such in order to retrieve them from wounded/dead/ color bearers

I'd dispute that, as I'm sure a lot of people would. The USA is hardly close to flawless, and there are many nations that are.

oh, really? There are many nations that are/are close to flawless? OK then, name me some. I'm interested in knowing what you think.

And yet includes a specific religion in its pledge.

No, it doesn't. If you really pay attention, the only reference to a religion is the phrase "under God," which, oddly enough, isn't a specific... unless Godism is a new religion :rolleyes: . OK, seriously, come on now, how many religions worship someone who is called "God?" All of the major ones (Christianity, Judaism, Islam (translate Allah into English and you get... GOD!)), and literally hundreds of sects and divisions. So there, not one specific religion included.

Abortion, gay marriage etc etc.

What about them? I mean, really. Abortion is nothing but murder by another word and, last time I checked, murder is illegal. And gay marriage is not a legal issue so much as it is a cultural issue. Homosexuality (forget gay marriage) has been shunned by society for... how many thousands of years now? I'm not saying they're inhuman or evil or anything like that, all I'm saying is they aren't allowed to radically change our culture because they want a social status.


Any remaining respect there was for the US's "freedom" has evaporated what with the Patriot Act and Guantanemo bay.

:headbang:
Oh, please. This argument is getting really old, really fast. But ya know, I don't like it either. I wish we could go back to the days where we were all so naive as to think that nobody wanted to harm us... but those days are over. 9/11 was a serious wake-up call that said, in essence, "Hey, America: WE (Islamo-fascists) DON'T LIKE YOU. WE WANT TO SEE YOU DEAD." I don't want to see another 3,000 (probably more) Americans (or anyone else for that matter) die AGAIN before we're ready to make more steps to protect us (which happens to be the government's TRUE job). And besides, if you have nothing to hide, why would you be concerned that the government may be listening?

oh, really? There are many nations that are/are close to flawless? OK then, name me some. I'm interested in knowing what you think.

No, it doesn't. If you really pay attention, the only reference to a religion is the phrase "under God," which, oddly enough, isn't a specific... unless Godism is a new religion :rolleyes: . OK, seriously, come on now, how many religions worship someone who is called "God?" All of the major ones (Christianity, Judaism, Islam (translate Allah into English and you get... GOD!)), and literally hundreds of sects and divisions. So there, not one specific religion included.

What about them? I mean, really. Abortion is nothing but murder by another word and, last time I checked, murder is illegal. And gay marriage is not a legal issue so much as it is a cultural issue. Homosexuality (forget gay marriage) has been shunned by society for... how many thousands of years now? I'm not saying they're inhuman or evil or anything like that, all I'm saying is they aren't allowed to radically change our culture because they want a social status.
I am a US citizen who happens to be homosexual. Why should I have fewer rights than heterosexual citizens?

:headbang:
Oh, please. This argument is getting really old, really fast. But ya know, I don't like it either. I wish we could go back to the days where we were all so naive as to think that nobody wanted to harm us... but those days are over. 9/11 was a serious wake-up call that said, in essence, "Hey, America: WE (Islamo-fascists) DON'T LIKE YOU. WE WANT TO SEE YOU DEAD." I don't want to see another 3,000 (probably more) Americans (or anyone else for that matter) die AGAIN before we're ready to make more steps to protect us (which happens to be the government's TRUE job). And besides, if you have nothing to hide, why would you be concerned that the government may be listening?
As of November 19th, 2,864 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. That's pretty close to the number that died at the World Trade Center, if it isn't higher? Do you really feel safer because they were sacrificed?

To me, it means the country took a wrong turn in the '50s, when the words "under God" were added.

I like the U.S. Constitution, but since I reject the concept of nations, I dislike the flag, and thus dislike the idea of pledging allegiance to it.
There is whole religious supremacism aspect to it, as well, which I dislike.

I pledge allegiance
to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands
One nation
Indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.


Fixed

I don't like the idea of pledging allegiance to anyone or anything, especially not to states and the pieces of cloth that represent them.

I dislike the pledge because it's to the flag and not the Constitution. I also dislike it because I don't believe it's indivisible or under any sort of "god".

oh, really? There are many nations that are/are close to flawless? OK then, name me some. I'm interested in knowing what you think.
How is the USA flawless? We descriminate against gays and atheists, we make unnecessary wars, and give huge tax breaks to the rich while the poor are living on one of the lowest welfare systems in the world.



No, it doesn't. If you really pay attention, the only reference to a religion is the phrase "under God," which, oddly enough, isn't a specific... unless Godism is a new religion :rolleyes: . OK, seriously, come on now, how many religions worship someone who is called "God?" All of the major ones (Christianity, Judaism, Islam (translate Allah into English and you get... GOD!)), and literally hundreds of sects and divisions. So there, not one specific religion included.
How about athesits? I guess we should forget about a whole 10% of America simply because YOU believe in god and YOU want everyone to pledge alligegence to him. Last time I checked, we were pledging alligence to our country, not god.


Homosexuality (forget gay marriage) has been shunned by society for... how many thousands of years now? I'm not saying they're inhuman or evil or anything like that, all I'm saying is they aren't allowed to radically change our culture because they want a social status.
I'm sorry, are you kidding me? So because we've shunned them for thousands of years and finally realized that it was wrong, you're saying we should keep doing it? Just because tradtion says so? I think not.

How do you pledge to the flag? To me pledging your allegiance to the bundle of moral codes and philosophies that define America is a lot more logical than pledging it to a bit of cloth.

The pledge is not to "a bit of cloth." It is to what the flag represents.

Earlier, someone put forth a Pledge to the Constitution. I actually liked the way he put it.

But, by your logic, that is merely a pledge to a bit of parchment.

I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America
And to the republic which it formed
One people, out of many
With liberty and justice for all.

Very good, very good. Or you could make it more like a declaration of faith ...

I believe that Congress shall make no 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.

I believe that a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And so forth.

I am a US citizen who happens to be homosexual. Why should I have fewer rights than heterosexual citizens?

You don't.

You have the exact same rights that a heterosexual citizen has.

As of November 19th, 2,864 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. That's pretty close to the number that died at the World Trade Center, if it isn't higher? Do you really feel safer because they were sacrificed?

Safety has nothing to do with it.

I like the U.S. Constitution, but since I reject the concept of nations,

Yet, you're playing this game?

i dont get it either, its like whenever Mussuilini (sp?) would make people say he was an overall authority everyday. they're justt saying "how about we make you talk about how free you are?"

You don't.

You have the exact same rights that a heterosexual citizen has.



Safety has nothing to do with it.

To marry the consenting adult that you love?
Only in very few places

You don't.

You have the exact same rights that a heterosexual citizen has.



Safety has nothing to do with it.

Really? Then why can't we go to City Hall, get a marriage license, have some friends and relatives over for a ceremony, and start filing jointly? Why should I have to spend money on lawyers and contracts when a hetero couple can do just that?

And if keeping America safe isn't the point, what is?

No, it doesn't. If you really pay attention, the only reference to a religion is the phrase "under God," which, oddly enough, isn't a specific... unless Godism is a new religion :rolleyes: . OK, seriously, come on now, how many religions worship someone who is called "God?" All of the major ones (Christianity, Judaism, Islam (translate Allah into English and you get... GOD!)), and literally hundreds of sects and divisions. So there, not one specific religion included.

While it does not include one specific religion, it specifically excludes others...polytheistic hindusim (of which there are nearly a billion in the world), voodoo, anamism, and while they're certainly less practices...norse, greek, and original egyptian still have followers, and numerous others that either don't have a concept of a god, or reject the concept of a singular god.

The constitution demands that the united states neither suppor NOR reject any religion. While it may not directly support any specific one, it explicitly rejects several

To marry the consenting adult that you love?
Only in very few places

Pha, love and marriage, bunch of Romantic nonsense. Ought to go back to it being an economic/political contract/alliance between two families like God ment it to be.;)

You don't.

You have the exact same rights that a heterosexual citizen has.


Do heterosexual citizens have the right to marry the adult, consenting person they love?

Do homosexual citizens have the right to marry the adult, consenting person they love?

Do heterosexual citizens have the right to marry the adult, consenting person they love?

Do homosexual citizens have the right to marry the adult, consenting person they love?

Nicely put, good symmetry, Arthais. I'll have to remember that way of putting it.

Yet, you're playing this game?Yes. I view the game as acting as though I were living in a community based upon direct democracy where the majority of people, or all of the people, agreed with me.
I suppose, though, I should have said I reject the idea of countries, as a nation doesn't have to be a country.

To marry the consenting adult that you love?
Only in very few places

If you want to be technical and mean "marriage", then not "in very few places".

In one place, massachussets. Nowhere else.

To marry the consenting adult that you love?

This is not a right.

No one has the RIGHT to marry. Not heterosexuals, not homosexuals.

The execution of rights does not depend upon a second party. Marriage does. If one had the RIGHT to marry but none would have the poor soul, another would have to be forced to marry him, because it is his right.

Further, MARRIAGE is the joining of a mixed-sex couple, that's just the way it is. Doesn't matter if they are homesexual or heterosexual, as long as they are mixed.

This is not a right.

No one has the RIGHT to marry. Not heterosexuals, not homosexuals.

The execution of rights does not depend upon a second party. Marriage does. If one had the RIGHT to marry but none would have the poor soul, another would have to be forced to marry him, because it is his right.

Then think of it as the right of the couple, not of the individual. Stop quibbling over nothing.

Further, MARRIAGE is the joining of a mixed-sex couple, that's just the way it is.

Why?

The pledge is not to "a bit of cloth." It is to what the flag represents.

Earlier, someone put forth a Pledge to the Constitution. I actually liked the way he put it.

But, by your logic, that is merely a pledge to a bit of parchment.

I notice they always like to use the trivializing "bit of cloth" statement.

That must have been decided at some meeting.

Really? Then why can't we go to City Hall, get a marriage license, have some friends and relatives over for a ceremony, and start filing jointly? Why should I have to spend money on lawyers and contracts when a hetero couple can do just that?

Because Marriage isn't a right.

And if keeping America safe isn't the point, what is?

It is not the duty of the government to keep Americans "safe." It is because of this flawed idea that we have government interference in our lives requiring things like seatbelts, bicycle helmets, motorcycle helmets, etc. The Constitution was not written to keep us from banging our heads.

How is the USA flawless? We descriminate against gays and atheists, we make unnecessary wars, and give huge tax breaks to the rich while the poor are living on one of the lowest welfare systems in the world.

People, get it straight. I didn't say it was flawless, I said it was the closest to flawless. And, interestingly enough, nobody's taken up my challenge...


How about athesits? I guess we should forget about a whole 10% of America simply because YOU believe in god and YOU want everyone to pledge alligegence to him. Last time I checked, we were pledging alligence to our country, not god.

Aww, poor them. PITY PARTY! Seriously, come on. Why, if you don't believe in God, are you so intent on NOT saying His name? Seriously now...
And, while I'm at it, what's so wrong with acknowledging the fact that this contry was founded on Christian principles? Doesn't that make us "one nation, under God?"


I'm sorry, are you kidding me? So because we've shunned them for thousands of years and finally realized that it was wrong, you're saying we should keep doing it? Just because tradtion says so? I think not.

No, if I were kidding, I'd have :rolleyes: in there. But it's not, so I'm serious.

And, to Farnhamia...

Maybe this is something that's frequently overlooked, but nobody has the right to be married. Seriously! Check the Constitution and Bill of Rights! Not even straight couples have that right. Marriage is granted by *gasp* the church (or whatever church you belong to i.e. synogogue (sp?), mosque, etc.); the marriage liscence granted by the state is basically used to make you pay more in taxes. Honestly, financially speaking, gay (and all, for that matter) couples are better off (tax-wise) unmarried.

Because Marriage isn't a right...

Ah, it's a privilege available only to straight people? No dogs, gays or lesbians need apply?

Do heterosexual citizens have the right to marry the adult, consenting person they love?

No, they do not.

Not the RIGHT.

Do homosexual citizens have the right to marry the adult, consenting person they love?

No, they do not.

Not the RIGHT.

Equality stinks, doesn't it?

The execution of rights does not depend upon a second party. Marriage does. If one had the RIGHT to marry but none would have the poor soul, another would have to be forced to marry him, because it is his right.

Nonsense. A right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure can not be executed unless someone is attempting an unreasonable search and seizure of your person/property.

Your right against cruel and unusual punishment does not take effect until someone is trying to inflict cruel and unusual punishment on you.

Slavery only exists when someone is making a slave out of someone else.

A good chunk of the rights gaurenteed in the constitution related directly to actions taken between you AND ANOTHER PERSON.

The right to bear arms, freedom of speech, etc, there you are right, they do not involve the actions of another person.

Further, MARRIAGE is the joining of a mixed-sex couple, that's just the way it is. Doesn't matter if they are homesexual or heterosexual, as long as they are mixed.

It was argued that MARRIAGE is the joining of a mixed-sex couple of the same race, and that was the way it was. Doesn't matter if they were black and white, as long as they are mixed, and of the same gender.

That argument hasn't worked in a long time. Social definitions bend to the supreme law of the land.

Because Marriage isn't a right.

Equal protection under the law is.

It is not the duty of the government to keep Americans "safe." It is because of this flawed idea that we have government interference in our lives requiring things like seatbelts, bicycle helmets, motorcycle helmets, etc. The Constitution was not written to keep us from banging our heads.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

No, they do not.

Not the RIGHT.



No, they do not.

Not the RIGHT.

Equality stinks, doesn't it?


OK, if you really want to argue it's not a right, and it's a privlidge, it doesn't matter.

Do heterosexual couples have the PRIVLIDGE to marry someone they love?

Do homosexual couples have the PRIVLIDGE to marry someone they love?

Even if it's not a RIGHT, it's a PRIVLIDGE, and due to the very fun thing we have called "equal protection" you can't selectively extend privlidges.

If you want to argue it's a right, then you run into a substantive due process problem. If you want to pull a cop out and call it "not a right, but a legal privlidge" then you run into an equal protection problem. Either it's a right, and thus EVERYBODY gets it, or it's not a right. If it's not a right, the government MAY allow for it, and it MAY not allow for it. But if it DOES allow for it, it can't selectively extend it.

Then think of it as the right of the couple, not of the individual. Stop quibbling over nothing.

Couples do not have rights outside of those they retain as individuals.

Are you saying that a couple has more rights than I, as a single person? How do you justify that?

Why?

Hey, I didn't invent the institution, I just play by the rules.

morning pledges to flags? flags codes? flag burning ceremonies?

jesus.. im Irish and we dont have ANY of this stuff. personally i like my country but im nto "patriotic" per say, the worlds round . love for everyone ^_^ :fluffle:

but if ya sugessted in the work place over here , that you had to stand and speak to a flag at 8 am in the morning.. youd either be asked "are you taken the piss" or suggested you take a few days off to relax... and loads of irish peolel are patriotic,, i cant imagien kids having to learn the national anthem or do anything like that..

its a bit weird :confused:

Couples do not have rights outside of those they retain as individuals.

Are you saying that a couple has more rights than I, as a single person? How do you justify that?

Not more, just others. The rights of the "couple" which apply equally to both don't exist outside of the couplehood

Hey, I didn't invent the institution, I just play by the rules.

The "institution" is a cultural one. Its definition is meaningless. Culture adapts to the times, not the other way around.

People, get it straight. I didn't say it was flawless, I said it was the closest to flawless. And, interestingly enough, nobody's taken up my challenge...The Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada all seem pretty nice.

Maybe this is something that's frequently overlooked, but nobody has the right to be married. Seriously! Check the Constitution and Bill of Rights! Not even straight couples have that right. Marriage is granted by *gasp* the church (or whatever church you belong to i.e. synogogue (sp?), mosque, etc.); the marriage liscence granted by the state is basically used to make you pay more in taxes. Honestly, financially speaking, gay (and all, for that matter) couples are better off (tax-wise) unmarried.Which church grants a marriage when you get married at City Hall?

Ah, it's a privilege available only to straight people? No dogs, gays or lesbians need apply?

Important key word - PRIVILEGE.

You can be as gay or lesbian as you like, as long as your partner is of the opposite sex.

Homosexuals can marry, as long as their partner is of the opposite sex.

No, no dogs.

Maybe this is something that's frequently overlooked, but nobody has the right to be married. Seriously! Check the Constitution and Bill of Rights!

Please don't tell me you think that the only rights US citizens have are listed in the Constitution. You should check the 9th Amendment if you think that.

Maybe this is something that's frequently overlooked, but nobody has the right to be married. Seriously! Check the Constitution and Bill of Rights! Not even straight couples have that right.

If you're so keen on the wording of the constitution you should remember this little gem "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Know what it means? It means "just because it's not written here doesn't mean it doesn't exist"


Marriage is granted by *gasp* the church (or whatever church you belong to i.e. synogogue (sp?), mosque, etc.);

...what? Why do judges, justices of the peace, and ships captains allowed to perform marriages? Your info is backwards. The marriage is granted by the state, and the state decides what institutions they wish to allow to grant it. The church has NO legal binding authority by itself. It has such because the state has decided it wishes to allow churches to perform a legally binding ceremony. The power of the church does not exist in a vaccum, it has no inherent legal authority. It has such authority because the state has DECIDED to give that authority to it.

the marriage liscence granted by the state is basically used to make you pay more in taxes. Honestly, financially speaking, gay (and all, for that matter) couples are better off (tax-wise) unmarried.

Once again...what? Couples as a general rule pay CONSIDERABLY less in taxes, that's the whole point of the "filing jointly" thing. Also, just FYI, nobody HAS to file as a couple, even married couples have the ability to file seperatly if they wish to. You don't HAVE to pay taxes as a couple, you may pay taxes as if you weren't.

So considering it's 100% entirely OPTIONAL to file as a couple, why the hell do you think people do it if it makes them worse off?

Important key word - PRIVILEGE.

You can be as gay or lesbian as you like, as long as your partner is of the opposite sex.

Homosexuals can marry, as long as their partner is of the opposite sex.

No, no dogs.

Let's change that JUST a tad shall we? Let's take gender out of it, and substitute race. Let's take "heterosexual" and "homosexual" and replace them with "black" and "white".

So we say "marriage is the privlidge to marry someone of the same race".

Whites can marry, as long as their partner is of the same race as them.

Blacks can marry, as long as their partner is of the same race as them.

They are logically the EXACT same thing right? You have the privlidge to marry someone of YOUR race (logically exactly identical as saying you have the privlidge to marry someone NOT of your gender).

You would think such a formation is equally legal right?

I suggest you read loving v. virginia

To me, that and the morning announcements are about to start.

To be honest, if this country is truly free, why are students forced by law to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag of the country? It's kind of like saying "You're so free you must pledge allegiance or else".


Thats not a law if kids are forced in school its the school not the govt and the school and or whoever forced the kid to will get in trouble

The Netherlands, Sweden, and Canada all seem pretty nice.

Yes, and all very, very socialist. I'm not gonna lie, I don't like socialism, mainly because of it's extreme inefficiency. But anyway, if, say, Canada is so nice, why are so many of them coming over here (to the US) to get good medical care, if it's provided for free from their government? **rhetorical question**

Which church grants a marriage when you get married at City Hall?

Well, depends. But that's only half the process.

But anyway, if, say, Canada is so nice, why are so many of them coming over here (to the US) to get good medical care, if it's provided for free from their government? **rhetorical question**
You got that backwards. People are going to Canada for healthcare.

Yes, and all very, very socialist. I'm not gonna lie, I don't like socialism, mainly because of it's extreme inefficiency. But anyway, if, say, Canada is so nice, why are so many of them coming over here (to the US) to get good medical care, if it's provided for free from their government? **rhetorical question**Meh. You asked, I answered. I've never been to any of those places, so I don't know for sure if they're nicer, but they are from what I've heard.

Well, depends. But that's only half the process.What's the other half of the process?

Well, depends. But that's only half the process.

what "half the process"? Is a marriage done in city hall, utterly devoid of ANY religious figure, not a legal marriage?

What "half of the process" is missing? A religious ceremony is absolutly OPTIONAL.

To be honest, if this country is truly free, why are students forced by law to stand up and pledge allegiance to the flag of the country? It's kind of like saying "You're so free you must pledge allegiance or else".

They're not, SCOTUS ruled on that, children CAN NOT be punished by the school for refusing to say the pledge, it's absolutly optional.

I have no problem with the optional pledge, as a whole, I object to the inclusion of god.

Thats not a law if kids are forced in school its the school not the govt and the school and or whoever forced the kid to will get in trouble

Um, public schools ARE part of the government, what in the world are you talking about?

Nonsense. A right to be protected against unreasonable search and seizure can not be executed unless someone is attempting an unreasonable search and seizure of your person/property.

What we have is a right to be secure in our properties. If there is no other party, that right is fulfilled easily.

Your right against cruel and unusual punishment does not take effect until someone is trying to inflict cruel and unusual punishment on you.

This is not a right. It is a protection guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitution grants no rights, it protects them. In the case of the 8th Amendment, it guarantees a limitation upon government. As Alexander Hamilton said;

"(B)ills of rights ... are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. For why declare that things shall not be done (by Congress) which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given (to Congress) by which restrictions may be imposed?"

The federal government is restricted in all cases where it is not specifically granted power.

Slavery only exists when someone is making a slave out of someone else.

Slavery is not a right.

A good chunk of the rights gaurenteed in the constitution related directly to actions taken between you AND ANOTHER PERSON.

None of the rights mentioned in the Constitution are granted by the Constitution. The Constitution does not have the power to grant rights.

That argument hasn't worked in a long time. Social definitions bend to the supreme law of the land.

And, the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) mentions marriage where again?

1. a freedom that has been the world's beacon for over 200 years

2. A people 300 million strong

3. A land of laws and an ingenious system of checks and balances that allows no man to become a tyrant and lets no group prevail unless their power is tampered by real concern for welfare of those they govern.

4. Where the ballot box is the sword and the people its welders. Our revolutions are fought at the ballot box and the voters determine the outcome.

5. America is a land where freedom of worship is a cornerstone of her being,

6. A land touched by hot steel and raw courage of its men and women in the armed forces.

7. America was purified by the awful crucible of civil war.
a land where people can move about without hindrance or fear

8. America is a land where a determined man who seeks an honest life cannot be denied his chance.

9. America is a land brimming with opportunities for everyone.

10. It's wheels of justice grind onward for all causes and for all peoples.
They look to every avenue for justice.
To every concern of the law.
And they temper their reasoning with mercy for all.



I agree entirely with everything you said, that I have not quoted and numbered.


1. First of all, America, as a country, has hardly been around for 200 years(223 to be exact).. I don't think England was too happy with us for a while and last time I checked they were part of the world. Ah, also all the countries like..Colombia, Panama, the Phillipines.. maybe some of the other countries we have meddled with more recently.. they don't regard us as a "beacon", at any rate, not a good one.

2. Population: 295,734,134

3. The system is ingenious, but you are never sure if one man may become a tyrant or not.

4. I should hope the people do not weld the ballot boxes..or the sword boxes..or whatever.. Anyhow, the revolutions such as the war against England, for independece, and the Civil War, were hardly fought at the ballot box. We may use the ballot welded sword box to make changes, but not our revolutions. Oh, and the electoral college determines the outcome for presidential elections.

5. This is questionable, there were various reasons why the United States came about. One being "No Taxation without Representation". Which is evidently far better than "Taxation with Representation":rolleyes:

6. Er.I do not want to end up branded like a steer...sure...maybe?:confused:

7. Purified...no. Free of fear.. no.

8. Actually he can be denied his chance, though it sometimes may be illegal.

9. Yes, it is I suppose. Some may not get those oppurtunites though.

10. Nice poem I guess.

Thank goodness! I would rather not have to listen to a long sermon (or speech) on how my parents' God(s) are so fantastic.

And, the Constitution (the supreme law of the land) mentions marriage where again?

Once again, read Loving v. Virgina for a complete and utter refutation of your argument (unless you want to pull the old sawtooth of "activist judges")

Another question, can the government walk in and tell you to stop posting here?

By your logic it can, as the words "computer" and "internet" are not mentioned at all.

And once again, since you're keen on the words of the constitution, I suggest you read "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

And your argument runs into a logical fallacy. Either rights are legal entities, in which case the constitution, as law, creates them, or they're grander, universal rights, and the constitution as a legal entity merely protects them.

And if it's the second, how do you know what those rights are, and how do you know marriage is not one of them?

Your arguments are simple boilerplate bigotry spewed forth without reason or logic, and every argument you make has already been refuted by law. I once again encourage you to read Loving v. Virgina.

How do you pledge to the Constitution?
We don't even really have a constitution in the same fashion as the US here, and even if we did, the monarchy doesn't really try to stir up trouble by reminding everyone they're on top, therefore we'd never do a pledge, methinks.

OK, if you really want to argue it's not a right, and it's a privlidge, it doesn't matter.

Do heterosexual couples have the PRIVLIDGE to marry someone they love?

As long as the partner is of the opposite sex.

Do homosexual couples have the PRIVLIDGE to marry someone they love?

As long as the partner is of the opposite sex.

As long as the partner is of the opposite sex.



As long as the partner is of the opposite sex.

nice ignoring my argument yet again.

If we took "of the opposite sex" out of your argument and replaced it with "of the same race" would it be equally valid? If not, why not?

If so, read loving v. virginia.

If you're so keen on the wording of the constitution you should remember this little gem "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Know what it means? It means "just because it's not written here doesn't mean it doesn't exist"

...No, actually, that's not what that means. What it really means is that what is said in the Constitution can not be misconstrued to take away/lessen rights already granted in the Constitution. Very different from what you think it says.


...what? Why do judges, justices of the peace, and ships captains allowed to perform marriages? Your info is backwards. The marriage is granted by the state, and the state decides what institutions they wish to allow to grant it. The church has NO legal binding authority by itself. It has such because the state has decided it wishes to allow churches to perform a legally binding ceremony. The power of the church does not exist in a vaccum, it has no inherent legal authority. It has such authority because the state has DECIDED to give that authority to it.

...Well, whatever. You can interpret my post however you want.


Once again...what? Couples as a general rule pay CONSIDERABLY less in taxes, that's the whole point of the "filing jointly" thing. Also, just FYI, nobody HAS to file as a couple, even married couples have the ability to file seperatly if they wish to. You don't HAVE to pay taxes as a couple, you may pay taxes as if you weren't.

So considering it's 100% entirely OPTIONAL to file as a couple, why the hell do you think people do it if it makes them worse off?

Not really, unless there's only one working person between the two of them. If they both work, they are pushed into a higher tax bracket and pay more than they would if they weren't married, even if they file jointly. I've researched this, don't doubt me ;) .

And Myseneum, you're a great human... keep up the good work.

As long as the partner is of the opposite sex.
Translation: Yes



As long as the partner is of the opposite sex.
Translation: No

Not more, just others.

What "others?"

If these "others" are rights that the individual doesn't have, then they become "more."

Or, are some individual rights swapped out to make room for couple rights? Some sort of zero-sum affair?

The rights of the "couple" which apply equally to both don't exist outside of the couplehood

Such as?

What rights are available to the couple, yet not to the individual?

The "institution" is a cultural one. Its definition is meaningless.

Apparantly not.

You have the exact same rights that a heterosexual citizen has.


That is, in fact, a true statement.
Read it carefully and think a tad.
True, honestly.

Let's change that JUST a tad shall we?

Since that's not the issue, let's not.

Such as?

What rights are available to the couple, yet not to the individual?


Visitation. Next of kin.

...No, actually, that's not what that means. What it really means is that what is said in the Constitution can not be misconstrued to take away/lessen rights already granted in the Constitution. Very different from what you think it says.




Um...no. Not in the slightest. 100% absolutly wrong.

[T]he Framers did not intend that the first eight amendments be construed to exhaust the basic and fundamental rights.... the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights

Written by Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut.

A decision that has never been overturned.

It's not what "I" think it says, it's what the Supreme Court of the United States thinks it says...unless you want to argue that you're right and they're wrong because you "reasearched it" and "know what you're talking about"

You got that backwards. People are going to Canada for healthcare.

Why?

In Canada, the average time a patient waited between referral from a general practitioner to treatment rose from 16.5 weeks in 2001-02 to 17.7 weeks in 2003. Saskatchewan had the longest average waiting time of nearly 30 weeks, while Ontario had the shortest, 14 weeks.

Waiting lists also exist for diagnostic procedures such as computer tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. Depending on what province and the particular diagnostic procedure, the waiting times can range from two to 24 weeks.

If you're a girl in British Columbia, you can expect a 14.3 week wait to get you gynecological needs met. Gee, suppose you had the beginning stages of Cervical cancer? Would you want to wait 14.3 weeks to find out?

Got a heart problem needing a bypass? In British Columbia, you'd have to wait 22.9 weeks to get any surgery done. I wonder what the survival odds are of waiting 22.9 weeks for a heart bypass?

But, these numbers are just one province and do not reflect the initial wait to get a referral from your GP to see the specialist in the first place. For Canada overall, 50% of the time you have to wait at least 8.3 weeks after getting a referral before seeing a specialist (it was 3.7 weeks in 1993).

However, this wait is for any service. If you needed any sort of eye exam, the wait from referral to specialist is median of 13.9 weeks. This is just to see the specialist. If you needed any surgery, the median additional wait would be 16 more weeks. So, to get that corneal transplant could take 30 weeks; almost 8 months. Could a needed eye operation wait that long?

Source;
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Complete%20Publication-wyt2003.pdf#

In a December 2003 story by Kerri Houston for the Frontiers of Freedom Institute titled "Access Denied: Canada's Healthcare System Turns Patients Into Victims," she wrote that, in some instances, patients die on the waiting list because they become too sick to tolerate a procedure. Houston says that hip-replacement patients often end up non-ambulatory while waiting an average of 20 weeks for the procedure, and that's after having waited 13 weeks just to see the specialist. The wait to get diagnostic scans followed by the wait for the radiologist to read them just might explain why Cleveland, Ohio, has become Canada's hip-replacement center.

Source;
http://cf.townhall.com/linkurl.cfm?http://ff.org/centers/ccfsp/pdf/CCSFP-1203-PP.pdf

Self-pay -

Some patients would avoid long waits for medical services by paying for private treatment. However, in 2003, the government of British Columbia enacted Bill 82, an "Amendment to Strengthen Legislation and Protect Patients." On first glance, Bill 82 is to "protect patients from inadvertent billing errors." But according to a January 2004 article written by Nadeem Esmail for the Fraser Institute's Forum and titled "Oh to Be a Prisoner," Bill 82 would disallow anyone from paying the clinical fees for private surgery, where previously only the patients themselves were forbidden from doing so (so, even a rich uncle would be barred from paying for your surgery). The bill also gives the government the power to levy fines of up to $20,000 on physicians who accept these fees or allow such a practice to occur. That means it is now against Canadian law to opt out of the Canadian health-care system and pay for your own surgery.

Source;
http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/Oh%20To%20Be%20a%20Prisoner!-Jan04ffesmail.pdf

Since that's not the issue, let's not.

Only the arguments you have advanced are exactly the same as the ones advanced in favor of prohibitions on interracial marriage. The Supreme Court struck them down anyway.

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888). To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

Since that's not the issue, let's not.

Once again, you avoided the question. Would your argument hold if we changed "mixed" to "the same" and "gender" to "race"?

Yes or no? If you avoid the question it merely indicates you are incapable of answering it, and have no basis for your assertions other than "teh gays are evil"

Why?So they can actually get healthcare, perhaps?

Only the arguments you have advanced are exactly the same as the ones advanced in favor of prohibitions on interracial marriage. The Supreme Court struck them down anyway.

I would point out some very important words in that decision, for those who have said "marriage is not a right".

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535, 541 (1942). See also Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 190 (1888).

A decision, again, that has never been overturned.

I haven't said the pledge for almost seven years now. I refuse to say it as I see it as a pledge to the government rather than to the ideals of America.

However, I do salute whenever I hear the Star Spangled Banner, because I am in that case saluting to the ideals upon which the nation was formed, or at least what I'd like to think the ideals are.

Because Marriage isn't a right.

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

Loving v. Virginia

The law would seem to disagree with you.

Another question, can the government walk in and tell you to stop posting here?

Not without due process.

And once again, since you're keen on the words of the constitution, I suggest you read "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

Indeed.

But, marriage is not a right.

And your argument runs into a logical fallacy. Either rights are legal entities, in which case the constitution, as law, creates them, or they're grander, universal rights, and the constitution as a legal entity merely protects them.

The latter.

And if it's the second, how do you know what those rights are, and how do you know marriage is not one of them?

I go with Locke's version of rights.

Ah, it's a privilege available only to straight people? No dogs, gays or lesbians need apply?

False.
Heterosexual people can marry an individual of the opposite sex.
Homosexual people can marry an individual of the opposite sex.
An American can marry an individual of the opposite sex.

Same exact right/priviledge for both.

Granted, one party, not being sexually attracted toward the opposite sex, may not find the right to marry someone of those specifications usefull/good/whatever.

But, marriage is not a right.

The latter.

I go with Locke's version of rights.

So your opinion on what constitutes a "right" is entirely subjective. OK, prove you're right.

False.
Heterosexual people can marry an individual of the opposite sex.
Homosexual people can marry an individual of the opposite sex.
An American can marry an individual of the opposite sex.

Same exact right/priviledge for both.


A new law is passed saying people may only marry those of their own race

Black people can marry an individual of their race
White peopel can marry an individual of their race
An American can marry and individual of his/her own race

That is the exact same right/privledge correct? The right/privlidge to marry someone of your own race?

Would such a law be allowable under your argument?

nice ignoring my argument yet again.

I didn't ignore it. You asked questions, I answered them. How is that ignoring?

If we took "of the opposite sex" out of your argument and replaced it with "of the same race" would it be equally valid? If not, why not?

Well, if we can play word exchange, how about we take marriage out of the argument and replaced it with slavery?

nice ignoring my argument yet again.

I didn't ignore it. You asked questions, I answered them. How is that ignoring?

If we took "of the opposite sex" out of your argument and replaced it with "of the same race" would it be equally valid? If not, why not?

Well, if we can play word exchange, how about we take marriage out of the argument and replace it with slavery?

Well, if we can play word exchange, how about we take marriage out of the argument and replace it with slavery?

Marriage involves consent. Slavery does not. Your argument gets fucked right there.

Um...no. Not in the slightest. 100% absolutly wrong.



Written by Earl Warren, Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in Griswold v. Connecticut.

A decision that has never been overturned.

Oh, so I was supposed to read that and interpret it through the eyes of Warren, the most activist Supreme Court judge in America's history? Gee, I didn't know that...

And most of his decisions haven't been overturned (completely, anyway) yet most of them are very controversial (i.e. Roe v Wade). The same can be said for many, many cases, so your logic doesn't reall apply...

Well, if we can play word exchange, how about we take marriage out of the argument and replace it with slavery?

Answer his question.

False.
Heterosexual people can marry an individual of the opposite sex.
Homosexual people can marry an individual of the opposite sex.
An American can marry an individual of the opposite sex.

Same exact right/priviledge for both.

Granted, one party, not being sexually attracted toward the opposite sex, may not find the right to marry someone of those specifications usefull/good/whatever.

So you in effect deny me the right to the pursuit of happiness. Besides, read Arthais' posts above. The US Supreme Court has recognized a "right to marry" in cases involving inter-racial couples. Why can that jurisprudence not now be extended to same-sex couples? Someone above mentioned the "marriage penalty" in an attempt to say that getting married did not necessarily convey economic benefit. In that case, wouldn't admitting millions of same-sex couples to the tax rolls in those higher brackets benefit the government by increasing revenue?

But really, I ask you, why am I denied a privilege that you have? Am I a lesser person because I am in love with someone of the same sex? Less a citizen? A simple yes or no answer will do.

Oh, so I was supposed to read that and interpret it through the eyes of Warren, the most activist Supreme Court judge in America's history? Gee, I didn't know that...

And most of his decisions haven't been overturned (completely, anyway) yet most of them are very controversial (i.e. Roe v Wade). The same can be said for many, many cases, so your logic doesn't reall apply...

Warren? Activist? That's a joke. The lochner era judges were really activist. Warren wasn't.

Besides, it's been held for quite a long time now by every court (that is, previous supreme courts to the present) that the bill of rights is not an absolute listing of rights. Hell, it says as much. This bill can not be construed to deny other rights retained by the people, or the states, respectively.

Visitation. Next of kin.

These aren't rights, these are privileges.

Further, these privileges can be granted by signing paperwork granting said privileges to another. All marriage does is save the couple the time of making their own form.

I am not married to my girlfriend, yet she has visitation to me, if ever it is needed, and will be notified if anything happens to me. Very simple process.

Well, if we can play word exchange, how about we take marriage out of the argument and replaced it with slavery?

Fine, I'll answer your question if you answer mine.

If we ask "would a law stating one can own slaves be allowed if the slave owner only owned slaves of his race?" the answer is easily given.

No, the 13th amendment prohibits slavery. It however doesn't deal with marriage so the 13th amendment can not be used to answer my question.

Now answer my question, would a law be allowed if we replaced "one has the right to marry someone of the opposite gender" with "one has the right to marry someone of the same race".

I have answered your question, now answer mine, would a law stating "one has the right to marry someone of the same race" be constitutional? If not, why not? If why not, why can that not be allowed but your framework be allowed?

These aren't rights, these are privileges.

Further, these privileges can be granted by signing paperwork granting said privileges to another. All marriage does is save the couple the time of making their own form.

I am not married to my girlfriend, yet she has visitation to me, if ever it is needed, and will be notified if anything happens to me. Very simple process.

14th amendment equal protection and due process clauses. Government benefits can not be transfered outside of a family, and often will not be transfered to partners.

Only the arguments you have advanced are exactly the same as the ones advanced in favor of prohibitions on interracial marriage. The Supreme Court struck them down anyway.

Were the Lovings of the same sex?

Did this case address homosexuality?

Oh, so I was supposed to read that and interpret it through the eyes of Warren, the most activist Supreme Court judge in America's history? Gee, I didn't know that...

And most of his decisions haven't been overturned (completely, anyway) yet most of them are very controversial (i.e. Roe v Wade). The same can be said for many, many cases, so your logic doesn't reall apply...

Nice poisoning the well. You said the constitution meant something specific. I provided to you a quote from the supreme court, the MAIN AUTHORITY on what the constitution says.

Those who have the power to interpret the constitution have interpreted it the way I said. And you have the ultimite arrogance to assume you know what the constitution means BETTER than the supreme court? A decision that has never been overturned?

The supreme court is the arbiter of the constitution, you would assume that YOU know better?

My logic is sound, the Warren court and EVERY SINGLE COURT AFTER has upheld that definition. It is law. It is perfectly logical, when asked what the constitution says, to cite the authority whose principle job it is, is to interpret the constitution.

Your rejection of that authority is the illogical assumption.

(i.e. Roe v Wade).

Earl Warren had left the Supreme Court by 1973, when Roe v. Wade was decided.

So you in effect deny me the right to the pursuit of happiness. Besides, read Arthais' posts above. The US Supreme Court has recognized a "right to marry" in cases involving inter-racial couples. Why can that jurisprudence not now be extended to same-sex couples? Someone above mentioned the "marriage penalty" in an attempt to say that getting married did not necessarily convey economic benefit. In that case, wouldn't admitting millions of same-sex couples to the tax rolls in those higher brackets benefit the government by increasing revenue?

But really, I ask you, why am I denied a privilege that you have? Am I a lesser person because I am in love with someone of the same sex? Less a citizen? A simple yes or no answer will do.

No.

That does not suffice as explanation however.

I did not state that 'you' are less of a person because of that, nor that you should be denied "pursuit of happiness".

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I believe in that quote there. I was merely stating that technically, both straight and gay individuals had the same rights. I did not say they were fair, or equally advantagious.

Though, pursuit of happiness brings up other questions.. Such as if a person would only be happy while slaughtering innocent civilians with explosives. Now, the two instances are entirely separate in magnitude and intent, but it is still "pursuit of happiness"

What rights are available to the couple, yet not to the individual?

Right of inheritance, rights of joint custody of minor children, powers of attorney, and numerous other rights under contract law that cannot, be definition, be applied to individuals since they are in fact rights governing the interaction between two or more people.

Honestly, are you just brainwashed, or actively trolling? I wouldn't like it to be the latter.

Once again, you avoided the question.

No, I remained on topic.

Would your argument hold if we changed "mixed" to "the same" and "gender" to "race"?

Would it if we changed "marriage" to "slavery?"

If you avoid the question it merely indicates you are incapable of answering it, and have no basis for your assertions other than "teh gays are evil"

So, now, along with changing words, you're inventing words.

My homosexual friends would be chagrined to learn that I thought "gays are evil."

But really, I ask you, why am I denied a privilege that you have? Am I a lesser person because I am in love with someone of the same sex? Less a citizen? A simple yes or no answer will do.

Answer the woman's question, people who would try to deny gay marriage by saying they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Answer her question.

I'll go ahead and do what I ask of you by answering it myself: No, she is not a lesser citizen. She deserves the right to marry her lover. Yes, a lover that is of the same sex, but someone she loves dearly. She deserves the right to marry her.

What does the Pledge of Allegiance mean to you? Non Americans can weigh in too. Do your countries have a pledge of allegiance?To me, it feels like a lie that we Americans tell ourselves in order to further the delusion that we have all that. It's why I remain silent during certain parts of the pledge.

And most of his decisions haven't been overturned (completely, anyway) yet most of them are very controversial (i.e. Roe v Wade).

He was SO much of an activist judge that he managed to write the opinion in the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade a whole FOUR YEARS after he retired from SCOTUS in 1969.

You fail, try again.

The most controversial (for its time) decisions that Warren took part in were, perhaps, Miranda and Brown v. Board. And not only have these NOT been overturned, they've been upheld time and time again.

No.

That does not suffice as explanation however.

I did not state that 'you' are less of a person because of that, nor that you should be denied "pursuit of happiness".

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I believe in that quote there. I was merely stating that technically, both straight and gay individuals had the same rights. I did not say they were fair, or equally advantagious.

Though, pursuit of happiness brings up other questions.. Such as if a person would only be happy while slaughtering innocent civilians with explosives. Now, the two instances are entirely separate in magnitude and intent, but it is still "pursuit of happiness"

So you're okay with gay marriage and would support laws allowing it in all 50 states or perhaps on a Federal basis?

Would it if we changed "marriage" to "slavery?"


I already answered that question, it would be invalid under the 13th amendment. Now answer mine

My homosexual friends would be chagrined to learn that I thought "gays are evil."

This is right next to "I'm not racist, I have friends who are black" as the most overused line that bigots say to excuse their behavior.

Answer the woman's question, people who would try to deny gay marriage by saying they can marry someone of the opposite sex. Answer her question.

I'll go ahead and do what I ask of you by answering it myself: No, she is not a lesser citizen. She deserves the right to marry her lover. Yes, a lover that is of the same sex, but someone she loves dearly. She deserves the right to marry her.

Thanks, Kyronea. :p

Were the Lovings of the same sex?

Did this case address homosexuality?

Do continue to miss the point. It saves me the effort of having to respond to serious arguments.

when ever someone says it seriously, then to me it means "i am far too centered on my home country",

Why the crap is this such a big issue it's a couple of words. It was added because of communism during the cold war. It's not because of christianity. It never specifys which god. You atheist who are out there who have to get rid of everything remotely christian that you see can just stfu because you can get over it, it's not a big deal you losers just want to make it a big deal. If we got rid of under god then maybe I'll complain that you guys are forcing your beliefs on me. Well there is my 2 cents you can send me some crap over it but I'll get over because life moves on and so should you losers that care about the freaking pledge of alligiance.

Why the crap is this such a big issue it's a couple of words. It was added because of communism during the cold war. It's not because of christianity. It never specifys which god. You atheist who are out there who have to get rid of everything remotely christian that you see can just stfu because you can get over it, it's not a big deal you losers just want to make it a big deal. If we got rid of under god then maybe I'll complain that you guys are forcing your beliefs on me. Well there is my 2 cents you can send me some crap over it but I'll get over because life moves on and so should you losers that care about the freaking pledge of alligiance.

What, no :sniper: ?

I'm disappointed.

If we got rid of under god then maybe I'll complain that you guys are forcing your beliefs on me.Why? It's not like anyone is writing "Under no god(s)" into it.

What, no :sniper: ?

I'm disappointed.

This is my first post !!!!11!!oneoneone!!111

:sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5:

Thanks, Kyronea. :p

You're welcome. :)

Euchreing: As you stated, it was added in the Fifties due to fear of Russia's brand of communism, which included state enforced athiesm. I wouldn't agree with state enforced athiesm, but I would agree with removing "Under God" from the pledge simply because not all of us actually worship a god, and thus the pledge--if we are to say it--should be impartial to all beliefs. We could concievably replace it with something akin to "religious freedom" which I would be perfectly fine with.

This is my first post !!!!11!!oneoneone!!111

:sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :gundge: :gundge: :sniper: :mp5:

What a guy, he knows the Law and how to stack up shooting and gundging smilies! Can you do laundry without turnng everything pink?

Why the crap is this such a big issue it's a couple of words. It was added because of communism during the cold war. It's not because of christianity. It never specifys which god. You atheist who are out there who have to get rid of everything remotely christian that you see can just stfu because you can get over it, it's not a big deal you losers just want to make it a big deal. If we got rid of under god then maybe I'll complain that you guys are forcing your beliefs on me. Well there is my 2 cents you can send me some crap over it but I'll get over because life moves on and so should you losers that care about the freaking pledge of alligiance.

How is just not mentioning it and returning back to the original pledge forcing our beliefs on you?

What a guy, he knows the Law and how to stack up shooting and gundging smilies! Can you do laundry without turnng everything pink?

Not only that...I can cook AND iron my own shirts.

All a matter of situations. I know law because I went to law school. I can be domestic because I had frequently absent parents.

.....

I made myself sad now

Not only that...I can cook AND iron my own shirts.

Whoa ... :cool:

So you in effect deny me the right to the pursuit of happiness. Besides, read Arthais' posts above. The US Supreme Court has recognized a "right to marry" in cases involving inter-racial couples. Why can that jurisprudence not now be extended to same-sex couples? Someone above mentioned the "marriage penalty" in an attempt to say that getting married did not necessarily convey economic benefit. In that case, wouldn't admitting millions of same-sex couples to the tax rolls in those higher brackets benefit the government by increasing revenue?

But really, I ask you, why am I denied a privilege that you have? Am I a lesser person because I am in love with someone of the same sex? Less a citizen? A simple yes or no answer will do.

No.

That does not suffice as explanation however.

I did not state that 'you' are less of a person because of that, nor that you should be denied "pursuit of happiness".

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I believe in that quote there. I was merely stating that technically, both straight and gay individuals had the same rights. I did not say they were fair, or equally advantagious.

Though, pursuit of happiness brings up other questions.. Such as if a person would only be happy while slaughtering innocent civilians with explosives. Now, the two instances are entirely separate in magnitude and intent, but it is still "pursuit of happiness"

No, I remained on topic.

The topic is "the US Pledge of Allegiance" not "your thoughts on gay marriage". Try again.

My homosexual friends would be chagrined to learn that I thought "gays are evil."

How would they feel knowing your stance that you don't believe they should be treated like other citizens?

A new law is passed saying people may only marry those of their own race

Black people can marry an individual of their race
White peopel can marry an individual of their race
An American can marry and individual of his/her own race

That is the exact same right/privledge correct? The right/privlidge to marry someone of your own race?

Would such a law be allowable under your argument?

...

I stated that everyone had an equal right, I did not state it was fair or just..

...

I stated that everyone had an equal right, I did not state it was fair or just..

If it isn't fair or just for all citizens, it isn't equal.

Non Americans can weigh in too. Do your countries have a pledge of allegiance?
I can't think of a single other country with such a pledge.

And I honestly don't understand what it's for.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

I believe in that quote there. I was merely stating that technically, both straight and gay individuals had the same rights. I did not say they were fair, or equally advantagious.

I always loved that quote. Very poetic. You know what it's from, don't ya? The US declaration of independance.

Very beautiful document, very emotially driven, very historically important. It is all of those things.

It is not, however, law. And therefore its words are absolutly irrelevant when it comes to american LAW. It is the declaration of independance, it is not the constitution, it is not the supreme law of the land. It is not, in fact, of any legal weight what so ever. What it says, as a matter of law, is irrelevant.

It is not the law of the land. Your argument about "they have the same rights" has already been rejected on principle in Loving v. Virginia, a case that DID depend on the supreme law of the land.

Regardless of what the declaration of independance says (which I fail to see how that quote even supports your position at all), it is legally irrelevant. It is not law, the constitution is, and the constitution, as interpreted in Loving v. Virginia, has already preemptively negated your argument.

...

I stated that everyone had an equal right, I did not state it was fair or just..

You didn't answer my question. Would such a law be legal in your opinion? If not, why not?

If not, how is it different?

Answer my question. If instead of "everyone is free to marry someone of their opposite gender" the law was "everyone is free to marry someone of their own race" would such a law be legal?

yes or no?

I can't think of a single other country with such a pledge.

And I honestly don't understand what it's for.

When I was in school it was used to let you know the school day was about to start.

Whoa ... :cool:

Yeah.

Shame you're gay :p

Yeah.

Shame you're gay :p

Yeah, well ... I'd be happy to write you a reference. "To Whom It May Concern, If I were straight, you wouldn't be getting near Arthias ..."

Yeah, well ... I'd be happy to write you a reference. "To Whom It May Concern, If I were straight, you wouldn't be getting near Arthias ..."

interesting. I think though my girlfriend would object. Those Eastern European women are fiesty.

So you're okay with gay marriage and would support laws allowing it in all 50 states or perhaps on a Federal basis?

I suppose so.

I have never really thought of it as my problem, however, since it appears to be affecting a good sized portion of society negatively for no real reason and if allowed will most likely cause no great harm to society; I would probably support it.

Though, if it is allowed in all 50 states, what is the benefit of going Federal?

As I say, certain people are going to be gay with or without the marriage; if the right to marriage makes them happier, who cares.

I have never really thought of it as my problem

I will refer to those who have said it better than I ever could.

"an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".

-The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

-Pastor Martin Niemöller



Though, if it is allowed in all 50 states, what is the benefit of going Federal?


Because marriage has state benefits and federal benefits. Same sex married couples in massachussetts are eligible for state benefits, but not federal ones.

oh, really? There are many nations that are/are close to flawless? OK then, name me some. I'm interested in knowing what you think.

Mild mistype there, meant to say closer than the US. But in various cases I'd say that the likes of Canada, Switzerland for example are closer to flawless in my opinion. UK just about as well.


No, it doesn't. If you really pay attention, the only reference to a religion is the phrase "under God," which, oddly enough, isn't a specific... unless Godism is a new religion :rolleyes: . OK, seriously, come on now, how many religions worship someone who is called "God?" All of the major ones (Christianity, Judaism, Islam (translate Allah into English and you get... GOD!)), and literally hundreds of sects and divisions. So there, not one specific religion included.

It was meant to refer to the Christian one. Not to mention how it applies to atheists for example.


What about them? I mean, really. Abortion is nothing but murder by another word and, last time I checked, murder is illegal. And gay marriage is not a legal issue so much as it is a cultural issue. Homosexuality (forget gay marriage) has been shunned by society for... how many thousands of years now? I'm not saying they're inhuman or evil or anything like that, all I'm saying is they aren't allowed to radically change our culture because they want a social status.
Given that the general term for those people in favour of legalising abortion is pro-choice I was making the point that the USA doesn't support this.

Things run in cycles, some societies apparently saw homosexuality as preferable. Most developed countries now have either legalised gay marriage in some form or are moving towards it. In this "freedom" the USA appears to be lagging behind. I wouldn't say it's a radical change, allow two people to commit to each other and get the benefits that are entailed with that (or at least recognition).


:headbang:
Oh, please. This argument is getting really old, really fast. But ya know, I don't like it either. I wish we could go back to the days where we were all so naive as to think that nobody wanted to harm us... but those days are over. 9/11 was a serious wake-up call that said, in essence, "Hey, America: WE (Islamo-fascists) DON'T LIKE YOU. WE WANT TO SEE YOU DEAD." I don't want to see another 3,000 (probably more) Americans (or anyone else for that matter) die AGAIN before we're ready to make more steps to protect us (which happens to be the government's TRUE job). And besides, if you have nothing to hide, why would you be concerned that the government may be listening?
I'm merely pointing out something, that America is not the beacon of freedom you seemed to think it was. Imprisonment without trial is not something that should be accepted under any circumstances. Terrorrism wasn't invented in 9/11, it'd happened before to the USA several times. Will probably happen again. See (Roosevelt's ?) quote, along the lines of "those who sacrifice freedoms for security deserve neither".

Who guards the guards, take a vision of 1984 for example, why not let the government watch you constantly if you have nothing to hide.

You didn't answer my question. Would such a law be legal in your opinion? If not, why not?

If not, how is it different?

Answer my question. If instead of "everyone is free to marry someone of their opposite gender" the law was "everyone is free to marry someone of their own race" would such a law be legal?

yes or no?






I hope you are just using me to make a point or something, being as I never said anything to the contrary regarding the legality of restricted marriage 'rights'.

No, it should not be legal, however it could be made 'legal'. Depends on the opinion of society.

It should not be legal due to the restrictive nature of the law, it would force people to choose one thing, or nothing. Like choosing to be hung or jump off a bridge.

It is different only in words.

And no, the law would not be just. It would in fact be 'legal' due to its status as a law.

I will refer to those who have said it better than I ever could.

"an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".

-The Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"First they came for the Communists, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn’t speak up, because I wasn’t a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn’t speak up, because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me."

-Pastor Martin Niemöller
I never said it wasn't my problem, I have said I never thought of it as my problem. I'm not a perfect human being.

I always loved that quote. Very poetic. You know what it's from, don't ya? The US declaration of independance.
Yes, I copied and pasted the quote. Though I was aware of that fact beforehand. While not a law, I am not arguing the law side of this; I am merely saying that yes, the rights are the same. Equal. However, not just, or fair.

They make me think that we edited icons of national freedom just to bother the communists, and they make me think of how the christians run this country.

No, it should not be legal, however it could be made 'legal'. Depends on the opinion of society.

And no, the law would not be just. It would in fact be 'legal' due to its status as a law.

Your statement that it would be legal is absolutly incorrect. It is in fact absolutly ILLEGAL to create racially restrictive marriage laws. It CAN NOT be made legal, in violation of the constitution.

Loving v. Virginia

Your statement that it would be legal is absolutly incorrect. It is in fact absolutly ILLEGAL to create racially restrictive marriage laws. It CAN NOT be made legal, in violation of the constitution.

Loving v. Virginia

Okay, I guess you are right.
No need to shout.
To be honest, I have not read the case, do not have the time to, and have somewhere along the line lost the thread of debate.

On topic:
I say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, quite a deal louder than most of the individuals around me, some of whom may not even know the words.
But what am I supposed to discuss about it anyhow?

Okay, I guess you are right.
No need to shout.
To be honest, I have not read the case, do not have the time to, and have somewhere along the line lost the thread of debate.

On topic:
I say the Pledge of Allegiance every morning, quite a deal louder than most of the individuals around me, some of whom may not even know the words.
But what am I supposed to discuss about it anyhow?

What The Pledge Means To You. I think that's the idea.

Though, pursuit of happiness brings up other questions.. Such as if a person would only be happy while slaughtering innocent civilians with explosives. Now, the two instances are entirely separate in magnitude and intent, but it is still "pursuit of happiness"

That would be one person infringing upon another person's rights. You have a right to pursue happiness as long as it does not infringe upon another's right to pursue happiness. Nice try, poor execution.

So you in effect deny me the right to the pursuit of happiness.

You can pursue all you like. But, you have no right to achieve it.

But really, I ask you, why am I denied a privilege that you have?

People are denied privileges that others receive every day.

I do not have the privilege to use a veterans hospital, because I am not a veteran.

Privileges can be discriminatory.

Am I a lesser person because I am in love with someone of the same sex?

Who said you were?

Less a citizen?

Who said you were?

A simple yes or no answer will do.

I will choose how I answer.

Fine, I'll answer your question if you answer mine.

I was not asking a question; I was making a point.

I have answered your question, now answer mine, would a law stating "one has the right to marry someone of the same race" be constitutional? If not, why not? If why not, why can that not be allowed but your framework be allowed?

Who made such a law? What jurisdiction?

You can pursue all you like. But, you have no right to achieve it.


No, but you have the right the means to achieve it, so far as it does not infringe upon others rights.



People are denied privileges that others receive every day.

Not based on who they are.


I do not have the privilege to use a veterans hospital, because I am not a veteran.

Because you did not choose to go off and fight in a war. Homosexuality isn't a choice.


Privileges can be discriminatory.


Does that make them right? Also, name a privelege that is discriminatory. I dare ya.
[/QUOTE]

14th amendment equal protection and due process clauses. Government benefits can not be transfered outside of a family, and often will not be transfered to partners.

Benefits are not rights.

Further, at the federal level, there should be no "benefits" at all. The federal government is not authorized to provide benefits.

Right of inheritance, rights of joint custody of minor children, powers of attorney, and numerous other rights under contract law that cannot, be definition, be applied to individuals since they are in fact rights governing the interaction between two or more people.

Inheritance: Covered by writing a will.
Joint Custody: Children are not property to be assigned by the "rights" of others. Of course, this is moot with homsexual couples.
Powers of Attorney: Covered by signing a form assigning said powers to whomever one wishes.

what state are you in? There should be federal law that says you can't be forced to say the pledge. If they are forcing you then you can probably sue them.
O wait, it was the US Supreme Court who said they can't force you to say the pledge. I forgot the case name though.

Oh really? I didn't know that. I live in North Carolina, but the middle school teachers practically threaten you to say it or they'll get you suspended. They didn't threaten me, but I got back in the habit really quickly and it works, everyone in high school does it and we're as atheist/agnsotic/unpatriotoic as they come.

I already answered that question, it would be invalid under the 13th amendment. Now answer mine

You'll pardon me, I hope, if I attend to work at times.

This is right next to "I'm not racist, I have friends who are black" as the most overused line that bigots say to excuse their behavior.

So, what, you're saying I have no homsexual friends? Then, what are they? They call themselves lesbian, but perhaps they are mistaken

Inheritance: Covered by writing a will.
Joint Custody: Children are not property to be assigned by the "rights" of others. Of course, this is moot with homsexual couples.
Powers of Attorney: Covered by signing a form assigning said powers to whomever one wishes.


For Inheritance and Powers of Attorney:

Accidents happen, and if you do not have those papers on hand(for powers of Attorney), then you can be denied your rights there of.

As for the will, not everyone thinks they will die soon, and thus don't make a will immediately. Accidents happen, and people die. If a premature death were to occur, the partner would be SOL.

Thus, I propose removing the idea of "marriage" from the government completely, replacing it with a Civil Union. Any two consenting adults may engage in a Civil Union, which would grant all rights of the current establishment of marriage to the two joined. There we go, problem freakin solved.

I believe, in schools anyway, that it is a form of nationalism, which I am not particularly fond of.
Now, if some group spontaneously decided to say the pledge that would be different.

Patriotism isn’t ritual, it’s the deliberate love of one’s country that the country earns through its actions.

The topic is "the US Pledge of Allegiance" not "your thoughts on gay marriage". Try again.

The thread wandered to other topics.

Is that unheard of here?

I do apologize...

How would they feel knowing your stance that you don't believe they should be treated like other citizens?

I do feel they should be treated like other citizens. That includes being allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I do feel they should be treated like other citizens. That includes being allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

I think I see the problem. You think homosexuals choose to be so, don't you? Well, news flash: It's not a choice. Remarkable "new" research is showing that homosexuality is biologic, just as heterosexuality is. They do not choose to be attracted to others of the same sex, they ARE. There is no choice involved.

Now, under this, what is the purpose of Marriage? If it is simply for breeding, then you have a point. If for love, then you have no point whatsoever.

So, two question for you:

1.Is homosexuality a choice, you think?
2.What is the purpose of Marriage?

No, but you have the right the means to achieve it, so far as it does not infringe upon others rights.

Not always. If the means to your happiness involves the property of another, you have no right to that property.

Because you did not choose to go off and fight in a war.

Not necessarily. I might have been drafted. No choice there, either.

Does that make them right?

Doesn't make them wrong.

Also, name a privelege that is discriminatory. I dare ya.

I already have. What others would you like?

I do not have the privilege to enter onto the property of others, unless the other grants me permission.

I do not have the privilege to play on the New England Patriots.

I do not have the privilege to vote in elections for officials not of my state.

you say that both heterosexuals and homosexuals have the same right, to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Would it have worked in the 50s if someone said that blacks and whites have the same right (or privilage, if you want) to sit in their rightful space on the bus (which just happens to be in the back for black people.)?

The thread wandered to other topics.

Is that unheard of here?

I do apologize...

It happens, just don't pull the shit of "I won't answer that question because I'm staying on topic". We went off topic a while ago.

I do feel they should be treated like other citizens. That includes being allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Just not allowed to marry the person they love. Tell me do your "gay friends" know of that particular viewpoint of yours?-

Benefits are not rights.


I suggest you read the 14th amendment some time. Doesn't even have to be a right to be covered.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

You'll pardon me, I hope, if I attend to work at times.

I notice you still haven't answered.

So, what, you're saying I have no homsexual friends? Then, what are they? They call themselves lesbian, but perhaps they are mistaken

I am saying it's entirely possible to have gay friends and still be homophobic. Trying to excuse or deny your homophobia and bigotted behavoir because you 'have gay friends" is neither an excuse nor a denial

People, get it straight. I didn't say it was flawless, I said it was the closest to flawless. And, interestingly enough, nobody's taken up my challenge...
Closest to flawless?
-France has the highest tourism and immigration rate.
-The U.S has one of the worst educational and welfare systems.
-The U.S is now one of the worst on civil rights (gays, atheists).
-The U.S is one of the only countrys that forces its students to honor the pledge. One of my teachers said that any student who didn't stand up during the pledge was to get a white card.

Now, what goood qualities does the U.S have? A huge, useless military? SEriously, we're not that great a nation buddy, we could use some work.


Aww, poor them. PITY PARTY! Seriously, come on. Why, if you don't believe in God, are you so intent on NOT saying His name? Seriously now...
And, while I'm at it, what's so wrong with acknowledging the fact that this contry was founded on Christian principles? Doesn't that make us "one nation, under God?"

Good Point. Why don't we just revise the pledge to this:
I pledge alligance to the flag of the united states of America, and to the republic, to which it stands, one nation, rejecting god indivisibal, with l iberty and justice for all.

What, don't want to say you reject god in your country's pledge? Aww... PITY PARTY! SDeriously, come on. Why, if you believe in God, are you so intent on NOT saying that you reject him? You don't mean it. Seriously now...

And we were NOT founded on christian principals. We were founded BY Christians on the principals written in the constitution. The principals in the constitution says that we cannot support or reject any form of religion.


Maybe this is something that's frequently overlooked, but nobody has the right to be married. Seriously! Check the Constitution and Bill of Rights! Not even straight couples have that right. Marriage is granted by *gasp* the church (or whatever church you belong to i.e. synogogue (sp?), mosque, etc.); the marriage liscence granted by the state is basically used to make you pay more in taxes. Honestly, financially speaking, gay (and all, for that matter) couples are better off (tax-wise) unmarried.

Actually, marriage is a right. If you don't believe me, ask my friends Merriam and Webster .
1 a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage

THEY say that a marriage is being united to anyone of any gender. In addition, we're not asking the church to reconize the marriage. They can be homophobic bastards if they want, we're asking the state to reconize it, something that they are inclinded to do. They are inclinded to treat all people equally.

Not always. If the means to your happiness involves the property of another, you have no right to that property.



If you were to take it, you are infringing on their right to property. Really, learn how things work.



Doesn't make them wrong.

Huh. America: Land of the Free, as long as you do what we tell you to do.

Alright, perfect sense.


I do not have the privilege to enter onto the property of others, unless the other grants me permission.

You are infringing on a number of rights of that person. Like I said: You have the right to pursue happiness as long as it doesn not infringe on the rights of others


I do not have the privilege to play on the New England Patriots.

You have the ability to have that privelege.


I do not have the privilege to vote in elections for officials not of my state.
Because you have no right over other areas. Heh. And voting is a right, not a privelege. All US citizens have the RIGHT to vote.

For Inheritance and Powers of Attorney:

Accidents happen, and if you do not have those papers on hand(for powers of Attorney), then you can be denied your rights there of.

As the Boy Scouts say, Be Prepared.

My girlfriend and I have these papers prepared and we each have these papers of the other in our possession.

As for the will, not everyone thinks they will die soon, and thus don't make a will immediately.

Does this work if one is in a vehicle accident? "Oh, officer, I didn't think I'd be in an accident so soon, so I haven't bought insurance yet.

Accidents happen, and people die. If a premature death were to occur, the partner would be SOL.

Not if proper preparations are taken.

Where is it written that the government must ensure that you take proper preparation?

You have the right to pursue happiness not have it handed to you.

Thus, I propose removing the idea of "marriage" from the government completely, replacing it with a Civil Union. Any two consenting adults may engage in a Civil Union, which would grant all rights of the current establishment of marriage to the two joined. There we go, problem freakin solved.

I support Civil Unions, also. With all the attendant privileges granted by marriage. But, as a separate entity. Marriage is already spoken for.

So, two question for you:

1.Is homosexuality a choice, you think?

In some cases. Some years ago, a poll was taken of local high school students. Many expressed a choice to be gay, because it was "cool."
But, in far more cases, it seems to be a miswiring.

2.What is the purpose of Marriage?

To have children
To join families
To secure a royal line
To seal treaties
To bypass immigration laws
To gain access to the spouse's wealth

One is able to love another without getting married.

As the Boy Scouts say, Be Prepared.

My girlfriend and I have these papers prepared and we each have these papers of the other in our possession.


However, married couples do not need to have these papers. Homosexuals do.



Does this work if one is in a vehicle accident? "Oh, officer, I didn't think I'd be in an accident so soon, so I haven't bought insurance yet.


Well, as you are required to have car insurance in most states(if not all), then you really don't have a point here.


Where is it written that the government must ensure that you take proper preparation?

Nowhere. However, by this argument, then a married(hetero) couple has no rights in these areas as well.


You have the right to pursue happiness not have it handed to you.


Alright, however they don't even have the right to pursue happiness in this case.


I support Civil Unions, also. With all the attendant privileges granted by marriage. But, as a separate entity. Marriage is already spoken for.

As marriage is pretty much a religious institution, it should be removed. Legally, civil union. Whatever ceremony you want after wards to be "married", whatever, I don't give a damn. But legally, "marriage" shouldn't even be recognized, unless the term is broadened.

In some cases. Some years ago, a poll was taken of local high school students. Many expressed a choice to be gay, because it was "cool."
But, in far more cases, it seems to be a miswiring.


Care to back this up? Really, I'm quite interested.

And I don't think "miswiring" is really a good word, as homosexual behavior appears to be extremely natural, and occurs in nature. It's may be an a-normality, but it is hardly a miswiring. One of the beautiful things about biology is that the more you research it, the more you understand that there is no such thing as "abnormal" or "wrong" genes.


To have children
To join families
To secure a royal line
To seal treaties
To bypass immigration laws
To gain access to the spouse's wealth

One is able to love another without getting married.

Alright, so basically a couple who:

Does not want to have children.
Do not care about joining families.
Do not secure royal lines.
Do not seal treaties.
Do not bypass immigration laws.
Do not do so to gain access to the spouses wealth.

Have no reason to get married, and thus should not be allowed to do so.

Closest to flawless?
-France has the highest tourism and immigration rate.

...and the US has the highest illegal immigration rate. But what do either of those have to do with flawless???

-The U.S has one of the worst educational and welfare systems.

I'll grant you a quarter point for this. Our high school graduates are among the stupidest of the first world. However, if our educational system is that bad, why does the rest of the world flock to our colleges and universities to get educated? *again, rhetorical question* And why does everyone use the "welfare argument?" We don't have an extensive welfare system because we don't need it. Americans have always wanted to stand on their own two feet, as opposed to their Eurpoean counter-parts, who, for the most part, want the government to be their crutch in almost every aspect of their lives (I blame this on centuries of monarchy, but that's an argument for another day).

-The U.S is now one of the worst on civil rights (gays, atheists).

...All I have to say is "..."

-The U.S is one of the only countrys that forces its students to honor the pledge. One of my teachers said that any student who didn't stand up during the pledge was to get a white card.

*GASP* A WHITE CARD! HOW DARE S/HE?? OK, what's the big deal with standing up and saying, as many people here say, "just a few words?" I mean, you people say it means nothing, then turn around and complain about having to say it. It boggles the mind

Now, what goood qualities does the U.S have? A huge, useless military? SEriously, we're not that great a nation buddy, we could use some work.

I'm not denying we could use some work (starting with kicking the Dems out, but again, that's another discussion), but a lot of countries could use a lot more work than we could. As for good qualities, you must really be living under a rock. We give more money per capita than any other country, including your precious France; we contribute more money, again, per capita, to the UN than any other country (still including France), etc etc. The list goes on. Get your head out of the mud and maybe, just maybe, you'll see something other than dirt.


Good Point. Why don't we just revise the pledge to this:
I pledge alligance to the flag of the united states of America, and to the republic, to which it stands, one nation, rejecting god indivisibal, with l iberty and justice for all.

What, don't want to say you reject god in your country's pledge? Aww... PITY PARTY! SDeriously, come on. Why, if you believe in God, are you so intent on NOT saying that you reject him? You don't mean it. Seriously now...

lol, I never said you couldn't say that. That's what's so ^%$#@%$@ GREAT ABOUT THIS COUNTRY! IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU CAN SAY SO! I won't like you for saying that, but hey, if that's how you feel, it's your right to say so.

And we were NOT founded on christian principals. We were founded BY Christians on the principals written in the constitution. The principals in the constitution says that we cannot support or reject any form of religion.

Now, don't make me pull out the Constitution. This isn't hard. First of all, we weren't founded by the Constitution, we were founded by pilgrims (history class, people) who happened to be deeply devout. They made laws to govern themselves, and eventually everything grew until we have... THE UNITED STATES!


Actually, marriage is a right. If you don't believe me, ask my friends Merriam and Webster .


THEY say that a marriage is being united to anyone of any gender. In addition, we're not asking the church to reconize the marriage. They can be homophobic bastards if they want, we're asking the state to reconize it, something that they are inclinded to do. They are inclinded to treat all people equally.

...And Merriam-Webster is the law of the land? That's news to me. And just because something is recognized by the state doesn't mean it's accepted or promoted by the state. For example, the state acknowledged that there was a sovereignty called the USSR. However, we never really supported them, did we?

And yes, the government is inclined to treat all these homosexuals equally by, as Myseneum put it, letting them marry people of the opposite sex. I mean, isn't that what's granted to heterosexuals?

*GASP* A WHITE CARD! HOW DARE S/HE?? OK, what's the big deal with standing up and saying, as many people here say, "just a few words?" I mean, you people say it means nothing, then turn around and complain about having to say it. It boggles the mind



I believe the point is to return the Pledge to it's original state. By having the words "Under God", it is infact endorsing a single religion(As anyone who knows why it is in place can easily see this), and it is quite frankly not the actual pledge. It's not about what you can/cannot say, it is about what the government endorses.

That being said, every day during the "Pledge", I would be the only not standing, preferring to stay silent. I refused to indulge in false pride in our country, my pride needs not be justified with words.

First of all, we weren't founded by the Constitution, we were founded by pilgrims (history class, people) who happened to be deeply devout. They made laws to govern themselves, and eventually everything grew until we have... THE UNITED STATES!


um...wow, your knowledge of history is astonishingly bad. The Constitution established the United States of America.There was no america before there was america.

Prior to that it was british colonies.

The british colonies were established by pilgrims. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was established by the Constitution as supreme law. The pilgrims did not "establish" the united states. They established colonies.

The british founded colonies in the same geographic area that the United States would later occupy, but they didn't create america, not in the slightest.

Do you have any idea what the hell you are talking about at all?

Now, don't make me pull out the Constitution. This isn't hard. First of all, we weren't founded by the Constitution, we were founded by pilgrims (history class, people) who happened to be deeply devout. They made laws to govern themselves, and eventually everything grew until we have... THE UNITED STATES!



Uh, you're the one whom needs to learn history. The pilgrims were not the first ones on over here, nor were they the majority. The majority of the colonies which were set up were set up for business reasons, with approval by the King of England, to set up colonies in the New World. Most were merchants, or immigrants who's trip was payed for by merchants, to go, set up a colony, and most importantly here, make money. Money. Gold. Glory. You get the idea. The Pilgrims were just a rather noisy minority of the people whom came to the "New World", and only a handfull of the colonies were created by them(Pennsylvania for instance).

Also, they didn't make the laws. The people whom chartered the colonies did. In each colony charter, the colony founder was pretty much given full rights to set up a local government in the colony-not the colonists themselves.

That is the very basics of it. It's not the simplistic, grade school, teaching of "Pilgrims fled to America, and BAM! They made it what it was today." Not at all. The Pilgrims(Most commonly the Puritans) were a small minority of people coming to America.

um...wow, your knowledge of history is astonishingly bad. The Constitution established the United States of America.There was no america before there was america.

Prior to that it was british colonies.

The british colonies were established by pilgrims. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA was established by the Constitution as supreme law. The pilgrims did not "establish" the united states. They established colonies.

The british founded colonies in the same geographic area that the United States would later occupy, but they didn't create america, not in the slightest.

Do you have any idea what the hell you are talking about at all?

*sigh* yes, yes I do know what I'm talking about. Apparently, you just can't seem to follow me. So, let's do this, step. by. step.

OK, pilgrims land in the Americas, the original (Eurpoean) settlers (if you discount the Vikings). Long story short, they become British colonies, but they've created their own state constitutions and carry out their day-to-day politics and policies. Here we have what will one day become the United States of America. They then revolt, and create their own government, the Confederate States of America, realize that it's screwed up, then write the Constitution and we have (follow me?) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

That's what I meant, not, apparently what you thought I said.

Uh, you're the one whom needs to learn history. The pilgrims were not the first ones on over here, nor were they the majority. The majority of the colonies which were set up were set up for business reasons, with approval by the King of England, to set up colonies in the New World. Most were merchants, or immigrants who's trip was payed for by merchants, to go, set up a colony, and most importantly here, make money. Money. Gold. Glory. You get the idea. The Pilgrims were just a rather noisy minority of the people whom came to the "New World", and only a handfull of the colonies were created by them(Pennsylvania for instance).

Also, they didn't make the laws. The people whom chartered the colonies did. In each colony charter, the colony founder was pretty much given full rights to set up a local government in the colony-not the colonists themselves.

That is the very basics of it. It's not the simplistic, grade school, teaching of "Pilgrims fled to America, and BAM! They made it what it was today." Not at all. The Pilgrims(Most commonly the Puritans) were a small minority of people coming to America.

Professor, I was just trying to simplify this... I don't want to write a 500 page essay just so that I can justify a minor point of mine.:headbang:

*sigh* yes, yes I do know what I'm talking about. Apparently, you just can't seem to follow me. So, let's do this, step. by. step.

OK, pilgrims land in the Americas, the original (Eurpoean) settlers (if you discount the Vikings). Long story short, they become British colonies, but they've created their own state constitutions and carry out their day-to-day politics and policies. Here we have what will one day become the United States of America. They then revolt, and create their own government, the Confederate States of America, realize that it's screwed up, then write the Constitution and we have (follow me?) THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

That's what I meant, not, apparently what you thought I said.

*rubs temples*

Pilgrims were not the first colonists. Not only that, they were the vast minority of colonists. The First Colony was Jamestown, Virginia, which was founded for one reason and one reason only: Wealth. Infact, that is why the majority of colonists came over, the new world had prospective wealth, and was very attractive to many of the not so rich(Whom could opt for having their way payed over by wealthy merchants, and work for a few years under a contract).

And the Revolution is far more complicated than that. The controversy, in basics, was:

The Colonies were given the right to rule themselves due to charters with the King.

Various legal documents of England gave complete control to Parliament.

The Colonists wanted to rule themselves, and wanted England to butt out, England needed to pay for a war with france, and layed a tiny tax on the colonies(Most Brits at the time were paying far more in taxes than the colonials).

Now, the Colonial Business men didn't like to be taxed, so they started inciting "tyranny" and such(Not to mention they didn't like the fact that they weren't allowed to illegally trade with France without paying the British taxes on French goods, after strengthening of regulations came about).

So really... learn history.

Professor, I was just trying to simplify this... I don't want to write a 500 page essay just so that I can justify a minor point of mine.:headbang:

And your simplification was almost completely false.

A good simplification:

New world was found, colonies were founded by merchants, some pilgrims came, home rule was used(largely allowed because of benefit to England), England needed to pay for war with France, tiny taxes levied, businessmen get all upity, revolution, Confederacy, confederacy fails, USA.

And that is about as simple as you can get.

*sigh* yes, yes I do know what I'm talking about. Apparently, you just can't seem to follow me. So, let's do this, step. by. step.

OK, pilgrims land in the Americas, the original (Eurpoean) settlers (if you discount the Vikings). Long story short, they become British colonies, but they've created their own state constitutions and carry out their day-to-day politics and policies. Here we have what will one day become the United States of America.

The bolded part is where you went wrong.

The colonies did not "one day become" the united states of america. Very wrong. Nothing "became" America. America was created. It was born through the Constitution, or the Articles of the Confederation, however you

The colonies did not "change" into America. At best, the European colonies were political entities that occupied the same geographic areas that the United States would later occupy.

The founders kept the names of the colonies, but that's really it. The colonies did not become America. The colonies ceased to exist and in there place a new political entity was created. As I said, at best, they occupied the same geographic area, nothing more.

*rubs temples*

Pilgrims were not the first colonists. Not only that, they were the vast minority of colonists. The First Colony was Jamestown, Virginia,

Almost but not quite.

The first true colony was Roanoke, the inabitants of which vanished mysteriously, the mystery of their disappearance never being fully solved, lit is widely believed that the most likely explanation is that the colonists, fearing either the elements or an attack by a savage nomadic Indian tribe, took refuge with the friendly Croatan Indians who lived nearby, and eventually intermarried with and were assimilated by these Croatans. In 1719, over a century after the disappearance of the colonists, when white hunters came to Robeson-or Robinson-County, N. C., just 100 mi. inland from Roanoke, they found a tribe of unusual Indians whose skins were light and who spoke English. A 1790 census of the Robinson County Indians revealed that 54 of the 95 family names were those of the lost colonists.

Roanoke was established in 1585, 22 years before Jamestown, the first permanent settlement, and 37 years before the Pilgrims landed in Massachusetts

The pledge reminds me of elementary school, and how boring it was. I also get slightly pissed cause it still mentions God.

And your simplification was almost completely false.

A good simplification:

New world was found, colonies were founded by merchants, some pilgrims came, home rule was used(largely allowed because of benefit to England), England needed to pay for war with France, tiny taxes levied, businessmen get all upity, revolution, Confederacy, confederacy fails, USA.

And that is about as simple as you can get.

Um, professor? Does that mean that, every single man at that tea party in Boston was a businessman? Every soldier was a businessman? I'm confused, because that's an awful lot of businessmen, assuming, of course, that it was just the businessmen who got uppity (upity?) with the higher taxes, and not the people who actually had to pay the higher taxes...

Tiny taxes? nyeh, I laugh...

There was that whole "taxation without representation" thing, ya know, which everybody wants to overlook for some reason...

Would it have worked in the 50s if someone said that blacks and whites have the same right (or privilage, if you want) to sit in their rightful space on the bus (which just happens to be in the back for black people.)?

Speaking for myself, I always liked the back of the bus. Usually more room back there. And, I enjoyed the ride more behind the axles.

But, to the point, if the owners of the bus assigned seating, by whatever criteria, then they can do so with their property. If some don't like it, they can choose to not use the service.

Um, professor? Does that mean that, every single man at that tea party in Boston was a businessman? Every soldier was a businessman? I'm confused, because that's an awful lot of businessmen, assuming, of course, that it was just the businessmen who got uppity (upity?) with the higher taxes, and not the people who actually had to pay the higher taxes...

Tiny taxes? nyeh, I laugh...

There was that whole "taxation without representation" thing, ya know, which everybody wants to overlook for some reason...

You know, there was quite a bit of difference in time between the foundation of the colonies and the American Revolution. Demographics did in fact change in between.

Anyway, the guys who first founded the government were mostly Diests, which back then was the only way you could say "I'm an Atheist" and not get lynched.

But, to the point, if the owners of the bus assigned seating, by whatever criteria, then they can do so with their property. If some don't like it, they can choose to not use the service.

In most instances likewise incorrect.

I suggest you read up on the concept of "entanglement" and understand what the word "public" means in "public transportation"

I suggest you read the 14th amendment some time. Doesn't even have to be a right to be covered.

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Benefits are not privileges, either.

Benefits are not privileges, either.

funny how you were the one who kept talking about marriage being a "privledge".

And a benefit, afforded by the government, most certainly is a privlidge.

I am saying it's entirely possible to have gay friends and still be homophobic. Trying to excuse or deny your homophobia and bigotted behavoir because you 'have gay friends" is neither an excuse nor a denial

I'm not homophobic; I fear no homosexuals.

The bolded part is where you went wrong.

The colonies did not "one day become" the united states of america. Very wrong. Nothing "became" America. America was created. It was born through the Constitution, or the Articles of the Confederation, however you

The colonies did not "change" into America. At best, the European colonies were political entities that occupied the same geographic areas that the United States would later occupy.

The founders kept the names of the colonies, but that's really it. The colonies did not become America. The colonies ceased to exist and in there place a new political entity was created. As I said, at best, they occupied the same geographic area, nothing more.

OK, no offense, but read this again. To me, this sounds like nothing but you making something up to prove me wrong.

Simple scientific fact: you can't make nothing from something, and you can't make something from nothing (obviously, that's not exactly what it says, but you get the gist of it). The same rule can be applied to our situation here.

From what I understand from your post, the British colonies... simply ceased to be, became non-entities, disappeared (follow me?). Well... how can that happen? Honestly.

The colonies didn't "cease to exist." After the Revolution, they still had their names, their state constitutions, etc. Basically, they stayed the same (minus the fact that there isn't a war anymore and they aren't under the British boot). The Articles (and, later, the Constitution) simply took these loose ex-colonies and bound them together using a Federal government.

I'm not homophobic; I fear no homosexuals.

Of course not. As long as the government continues to deny them rights, what have you to fear?

I'm not homophobic; I fear no homosexuals.

Webster's definition of homophobic: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Try again.

Webster's definition of homophobic: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Try again.

Well, if he's friends with lesbians, as he said, he obviously doesn't avert them, or discriminate against them.

Try again

Well, if he's friends with lesbians, as he said, he obviously doesn't avert them, or discriminate against them.

Try again

"I'm friends with black people, but I don't think they should have the right to vote."

Hooray for easy counterexamples. Try again.

Um, professor? Does that mean that, every single man at that tea party in Boston was a businessman? Every soldier was a businessman? I'm confused, because that's an awful lot of businessmen, assuming, of course, that it was just the businessmen who got uppity (upity?) with the higher taxes, and not the people who actually had to pay the higher taxes...

Most colonists were not affected at all by the increase in taxes. Most owned their own land, and had very few business transactions or did trade in which most of the taxes were levied. They bought into the hype of revolutionary leaders about "tyranny"(The closest it ever got to being was the Coercive Acts, which didn't occur until long after many of leaders starting screaming "TYRANNY!" at the top of their lungs). Also, as for the Boston Tea party, it WAS pretty much a bunch of business men, or at the very least business backing it. Really, some good words(Not to mention most colonists had never even seen English soil) can pull plenty of weight with the masses.


Tiny taxes? nyeh, I laugh...

Most of the taxes were only a few pennies, if even. For the vast majority of colonists, they pretty much didn't affect them. And they were extremely low. Compared to England, who's citizens were paying far higher taxes than in the colonies, it was next to nothing.


There was that whole "taxation without representation" thing, ya know, which everybody wants to overlook for some reason...

Heh. That's funny. Because less than 5% of mainland England's population was actually represented in Parliament, and they payed FAR higher taxes than the colonists. Really, it was pretty much some business not wanted to pay taxes on some rather shady things they were doing, and insighting the masses with false premises of "tyranny".

Really, look it up.

I suggest you read up on the concept of "entanglement" and understand what the word "public" means in "public transportation"

"Public transportation" was nowhere within the post I responded to, simply the word, "bus."

If tax money is going to pay for this transportation, then those riding, if citizens, can sit where they wish, provided the seat they desire is not already filled.

OK, no offense, but read this again. To me, this sounds like nothing but you making something up to prove me wrong.

You do a good job of that by yourself, I don't have to help you.

Simple scientific fact: you can't make nothing from something, and you can't make something from nothing (obviously, that's not exactly what it says, but you get the gist of it). The same rule can be applied to our situation here.

What in the world are you going on about? Do you even read what you're saying? We're not talking science, we're not talking laws of thermaldynamics.

We're talking POLITICAL ENTITIES. Political entities are created by matters of law, not science. They are purely political ideas. They were british colonies because as a matter of law they were british colonies.

The ceased to be british colonies when britian declared that they were no longer british colonies.

Political distinctions are legal in nature. the LAND didn't disappear or reappear, but the legal framework that said "this land is british" was declared nul, so that land was no longer british. Then there was the legal framework that said "this land is america".

America came into existance through the legal framework that created america. America did not exist prior to the legal framework that created it.

Prior to that legal framework creating america, it didn't exist.

You exist because your father's sperm and your mothers egg joined to create an embryo. Prior to the creation of that embryo, you didn't exist. After the embryo was formed, you did (taking the most early place of "existance" for the sake of simplicity).

You didn't exist until you did.

Prior to the legal framework that created America, America didn't exist.

From what I understand from your post, the British colonies... simply ceased to be, became non-entities, disappeared (follow me?). Well... how can that happen? Honestly.

Do you know ANYTHING about history? Anything at all? It happens when the legal framework that governs the nation ceases to exist.

When was the last time you saw the USSR on a map? How about about the city of East Berlin?

How about the Confederacy?

Show me on the map where the USSR is. You can't. Why not? Because it doesn't exist anymore.

The colonies didn't "cease to exist." After the Revolution, they still had their names, their state constitutions, etc.

Yes they did. The land was no longer colonial, it was independant. The colonies, as a legal entity, ceased to exist because the legal framework that they existed under ceased to exist.

Basically, they stayed the same (minus the fact that there isn't a war anymore and they aren't under the British boot). The Articles (and, later, the Constitution) simply took these loose ex-colonies and bound them together using a Federal government.

Creating a brand NEW legal entity in the process.

If you really want to argue that something simply can not simply come into existance and then stop existing, you must believe that you have existed since the dawn of time and are immortal.

You were created when the sperm hit the eg. You will cease to be when you die.

The USSR ceased to be when the legal framework that it existed under ceased to operate.

America as a political entity simply DID NOT EXIST until the legal framework that created it came into existance.

Well, if he's friends with lesbians, as he said, he obviously doesn't avert them, or discriminate against them.

Try again

I'm sure many slave owners were quite friendly with their slaves. Doesn't mean they weren't still racist

Try again yourself.

If tax money is going to pay for this transportation, then those riding, if citizens, can sit where they wish, provided the seat they desire is not already filled.

Tax money goes to support marriage benefits.

Whoo hoo! I win the thread!

St Jello Biafra;11977080']Of course not. As long as the government continues to deny them rights, what have you to fear?

No rights are denied them.

Christ, will you actually respond to some of the points that are being made here, rather than offhand comments? Please?

No rights are denied them.

:rolleyes:

OK, no offense, but read this again. To me, this sounds like nothing but you making something up to prove me wrong.

Simple scientific fact: you can't make nothing from something, and you can't make something from nothing (obviously, that's not exactly what it says, but you get the gist of it). The same rule can be applied to our situation here.

From what I understand from your post, the British colonies... simply ceased to be, became non-entities, disappeared (follow me?). Well... how can that happen? Honestly.

The colonies didn't "cease to exist." After the Revolution, they still had their names, their state constitutions, etc. Basically, they stayed the same (minus the fact that there isn't a war anymore and they aren't under the British boot). The Articles (and, later, the Constitution) simply took these loose ex-colonies and bound them together using a Federal government.

The American Government was not born of nothing, in that you are correct.
It would be more accurate to say that the colonies were transformed into the United States.
Now, it is true that Christianity was a very popular belief during the revolutionary war. Similarly, it was a very common belief that black people should be owned by white people. However, the nation was not founded on the basis of religious principles. Representatives of the thirteen colonies signed the Constitution, a document that made no mention of God or a creator, and then signed the Bill of Rights, which specifically prohibited the government from interfering in matters of religion.
Later still, the Treaty of Tripoli declared that America was not specifically a Christian nation.

Webster's definition of homophobic: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals

Try again.

Then, Websters is obviously unfamiliar with the meaning of the Greek suffix.

No rights are denied them.

were rights being denied to black men who wanted to marry white women when the law said marriage was only between two people of the same race?

Cmon still waiting for an answer.

Then, Websters is obviously unfamiliar with the meaning of the Greek suffix.

you are obviously unfamiliar with the fact that we don't speak greek, and that meanings of words spoken in one language do not always fully follow the language rules of the language of origin.

were rights being denied to black men who wanted to marry white women when the law said marriage was only between two people of the same race?

Cmon still waiting for an answer.

Don't hold your breath.

St Jello Biafra;11977173']Tax money goes to support marriage benefits.

How?

Not being married, I am not aware of any tax money going to support marriage.

If it does, I would advocate such support to be revoked, not that same-sex couples be allowed to marry - whatever their sexual preferences.

How?

Not being married, I am not aware of any tax money going to support marriage.

If it does, I would advocate such support to be revoked, not that same-sex couples be allowed to marry - whatever their sexual preferences.

justices of the peace who perform marriages are paid for through taxation, is the first one I can think of.

were rights being denied to black men who wanted to marry white women when the law said marriage was only between two people of the same race?



:eek:

How?

Not being married, I am not aware of any tax money going to support marriage.

If it does, I would advocate such support to be revoked, not that same-sex couples be allowed to marry - whatever their sexual preferences.

How the hell do you think the government gets the money to give benefits? Print more dough? Refibulate the interest rates? Unnooberate the money market? Blab on and on about shit they apparently don't understand?

were rights being denied to black men who wanted to marry white women when the law said marriage was only between two people of the same race?

Yes, as the marriage involved an opposite-sex couple.