On Tue, 03 May 2005 23:24:18 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Tue, 03 May 2005 09:00:00 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
The difference between you and I is only a matter of degree. When you
make relative value judgements, this is the danger you run into. When
you apply logic in the justification for allowing certain behaviors,
the same logic can be applied to a successive list of increasingly
abhorrent behaviors and practices. It comes down to what you are
willing to tolerate. Once you start down that slippery slope, there's
no turning back, without abandoning your logic and adopting some sort
of "bigotry".


That "degree of morality" is established by society, not you, and not
any religious activist group. The overwhelming majority of people
(99%) feel that murder, sex crimes, etc are 'immoral'. But there
isn't much of a majority condemning homosexuality. -That's- how you
make a "relative value judgment".

Based on what statistics?

snip
If you lead a monogamous lifestyle and do not engage in dangerous
recreational habits, your chances of contracting AIDS is minuscule.


HIV doesn't care if you are gay or straight.

No, but how you get it most definitely depends on how sexually
promiscuous you are.

And maybe you missed the
boat on this one too, but a lot of people got the disease from blood
transfusions.

If you read the link I provided, you'd find that the percentage of
those people are less than 2%.

So if you are going to suggest that AIDS is a disease
that is contracted only by evil people then you are even more ignorant
than you have so far demonstrated.

If you are suggesting that sexual promiscuity and gender orientation
have no part in it, then you are more ignorant that you are accusing
me of.

If you want to drastically slow down the spread of AIDS, the answer is
quite simple. Abstain from sex.


Science therefore vindicated the gay community. But it also exposed
people to their own misperceptions about homosexuality. Apparently you
weren't paying attention.

I was paying attention. To the facts.

There are many who believe that AIDS is the work of God, sent to
punish those who engage in "unworthy" behavior. It's easy for those
who have little faith in a supreme being to deny this possibility. But
it's interesting in where the highest percentages of HIV cases are,
and what activities place people at the most risk. Coincidence?


I was wrong about you, Dave. I thought you were intelligent but a
little misguided. Now I see that you are a certifiable holy-roller
racist whacko.

I am far from a holy roller, but I also cannot deny both the timing
and the groups of people who have had the most affect from this
disease. I'm not one who believes in random coincidences, so I am
forced to consider the possibility that this could be deliberate. It's
called having an open mind. Something you have demonstrated that you
do not have by discarding it and covering it by an ad-hominem attack
at me.

BTW, how is this "racist"?





snip
Well, kick back and pop a
brew, Dave, because this is America,

A nation founded by Christian people based on Christian doctrine, even
if the 1st amendment decries that there is no "official" state
sponsored religion.


Not just the First Amendment, Dave. The concept is reflected in the
main body of the Constitution; "...no religious test shall ever be
required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States," a clause which was unanimously adopted by the
Constitutional Convention.

Yet the democrats are using this exact criteria to DENY appointees to
the court. In their minds, a strong belief in faith should be regarded
as a reason to disqualify someone from serving in public office.


This country was founded on the principle of religious freedom (as
well as other important principles). After being forced by England to
practice only one religion (the religion of the state), the new
Americans wanted people to have the freedom to practice religion
according to their belief, be it Christianity, Judaism, Islam,
Bhuddism, Taoism, Monoanimism..... or even no religion at all.

The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state.

Not "officially", but our whole government is littered with Christian
references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings. The swearing
on the Bible, and others. Things that have been here for many years,
yet liberals are now fighting to have removed.


and you have the right to
practice your religion as you see fit -- just let the rest of us do
the same.

As long as what you do doesn't infringe on what I do or diminish the
values that this country was originally founded on.


Gay marriage doesn't change your legal rights and responsibilities. It
doesn't change your tax filing status. It doesn't give your kids birth
defects. It doesn't invalidate your will. It doesn't change your life
insurance policy premiums, or any other bills you pay.

Actually it may. If insurance is forced to extend benefits to same sex
partners, the increased the pool of insured, which will mean that
everyone's rates will ultimately increase to cover it.


It doesn't
change the color of your house, the mileage of your car, or how fast
the weeds grow in your garden. It doesn't affect you in any way except
the way you feel.

It tarnishes the sanctity of marriage. If you are someone who does not
believe strongly in anything, then nothing can affect you. Who was it
that said that "those who will not stand for anything, stand for
nothing"?


And -you- are responsible for the way you feel, not -anybody- else.
There is nothing in the Constitution that dictates how a person should
feel. If gay marriage weakens the value of your marriage, it does so
only because you let it, and that's nobody's fault but your own.

It diminishes the value of the whole institution. It's not much
different in principle than earning a college degree. If they change
the requirements for a college degree to only needing 2 years of
course study, then it diminishes the value of that degree for those
who put in their 4 years.


If your bigoted brain had any intelligence you would realize that gay
marriage would -strengthen- the value of your marriage because it
provides a contrast to your own definition of the union.

How does diluting an institution strengthen it?


But that's
not the case. You just hate homosexuals. It's as simple as that, isn't
it, Dave?

It's easy for people like you to vilify and demonize any opposing
views as hate. That's an overly simplistic justification and usually a
sign of someone who's afraid to take on the topic and discuss it to
the level that's needed. A common tactic employed by liberals. Are you
SURE you're not a liberal Frank?

I don't "hate" anyone Frank. But I do acknowledge that homosexuals are
biologically and mentally anomalous. It's not "normal" behavior no
matter how much anyone wishes to sugar coat it. I also resent efforts
to "normalize" obvious abnormal behavior rather than trying harder to
correct it.


snip
..... Or do you support the position
of right-wing conservative Christians who say (by their actions) that
any participation of fags in America's free-market economy should be
supressed?

Sometimes politics is at odds with economic considerations. Sometimes
you have to cut off your own nose to make a much larger point. That's
called "principle"


A simple 'yes' would have sufficed.

But would have been incorrect.


snip
The "right" choice is any choice that isn't unconstitutional.

The constitution is relative as well. It was framed by Christian
people with their religious inspired morality contained within its
wording.


You have obviously never read it.

I have. Many times.

Maybe you should. Here it is:

http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html


If you choose to reject science and
logic, that's your business.

Quite contrary. Logic supports the existence of a creator or, more
generally, the concept of intelligent design. Our whole ecosystem, the
intricate specialization of the various functions of our bodies and
other aspects of nature are far too complex to have occurred and
evolved at random. There is simply not enough order in chaos for this
to happen.


I see you slept through history -and- science.

No, actually those were my strongest subjects. I had to explain to my
4th grade teacher how nuclear fission worked. I have also studied the
intricacies of our planet and its ecosystem. It is far too complex to
have evolved totally randomly.

If I'm wrong then you can rest assured
that I'll pay for my indiscretions -- but that's -my- business, not
your's.

Yes, it is. But it's my business if you try to poison others by
"immoral" thinking. And hence we have the classic "moral dilemma".


No, it's -not- your business if I try to "poison" others by stating
that I'm an atheist.

You can state anything you want. But don't get mad if those who
disagree with you, challenge you.


You have just as much right to declare that you
are a Christian (or whatever warped permutation of religion you have
adopted to validate your "core beliefs"). And no group of Christians,
no matter how large, has the right to impose it's version of morality
on me.

Nor do you have the right to denounce any display of religiously
inspired morality.

This is 21st Century America, not the dark ages or the Spanish
Inquisition. But it -is- your business to abide by the Constitution
the United States, which clearly states that religion has no place in
this government. If that makes you feel bad, tuff ****. Learn to live
with it or get out. I would highly recommend the latter.

I just wish all those sore losers at the end of the 2004 election
would make good on their threats to leave this country and join
Canada. Then this country can return to more traditional values.


These "Christians" really need to start practicing what they
preach. Or at least how to live and let live.

Not when abhorrent behavior is cancerous to their way of life. They
have a right to fight for what they believe in, just as much as those
who would throw traditional morality to the wind in support of the
latest hedonistic pop-culture fad.


Rock and roll is here to stay, Dave.

Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good,
and that new ideas are always better than old ones right? March like
the rest of the lemming right off the cliff........


snip
Once again you are confused, Dave. It was statutory law that initiated
the Constitutional challenge. The statute was -overthrown- by the
Supreme Court, not established.

Exactly. But what right should a branch of government which is
supposed to interpret and apply the law, have in making or overturning
standing law? That is the job for the legislature.


Oh dear god, you really don't have any clue about how the government
works, do you? Three branches of government? Checks and balances?
Seperataion of powers? But why should I be suprised -- you haven't
even read the Constitution.

I told you before. But you don't seem to know how government works.
The legislative branch makes the laws. The executive branch enacts
them. The judicial branch applies them. Those are your checks and
balances.


And case law is just as much 'law' as
statutory law because of the system of 'checks and balances' -- to
suggest that a law is something less because it is a "judicial ruling"
is completely bogus.

I call it "overstepping their bounds". No law that is made by the
legislature should be struck down by a panel of judges without debate,
which should include the legislature who passed the law in the first
place.


When I realize that people like you vote, it comes as no suprise that
Bush was re-elected..... he has great appeal with the ignorant.

Then you should have voted for him. No, strike that. You're not
ignorant. You're worse. You think you know things, but what you know
is twisted.


It's clear that you never learned the basics of your own government.

Because I don't agree with your warped view of it?


Just like you never learned the basics of electronics. The problem is
that you can't possibly make an informed decision about who to vote
for if you don't even know the job description!

I'm not the one who threw away my vote on a non-candidate. One who is
the most socialist leaning of any of them. Yet you claim to support
the constitution. You are a person of contradictions Frank. No wonder
you can't understand what I'm telling you.


Climb down off your morality horse

Morality is the foundation of any successful government. You have yet
to learn that.


Dave
"Sandbagger"