On Wed, 04 May 2005 16:44:59 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 04 May 2005 09:09:37 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
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.


No it doesn't. It only takes one exposure to get the bug.

And if you and your partner are monogamous, this is highly unlikely.


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%.


I suppose those are acceptable losses, huh?

Whether or not they are "acceptable" is irrelevant to this discussion.


snip
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.


You are -totally- off your rocker, Dave.

Am I? I guess you haven't been following the struggle for the
appointment of judicial nominees. It is quite obvious that the ones
who the dems oppose the most are people with a strong religious
faith.

Some light reading for you to come up to speed on this issues.

http://www.federalistjournal.com/fedblog/?cat=3

http://quante.blogspot.com/2005/04/y...-morality.html

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/...l_politics.php



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",


Or "unofficially".

The majority of Christian citizens would probably disagree.

but our whole government is littered with Christian
references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings.


As well as religious symbols of other faiths.

Such as?



The swearing
on the Bible,


And here's proof that you have never read the Constitution -- the
passage I quoted above is in direct reference to the requirement for
an Oath of Affirmation.

What passage have you quoted? And how does that diminish the fact that
swearing on the bible is a confirmation that Judeo-Christian
influences have been intertwined in our government from the beginning?

and others. Things that have been here for many years,
yet liberals are now fighting to have removed.


Better late than never.

Says you. I look at it as heading down the wrong path. Sort of like
the de-evolution of CB radio over the last 35 years.




snip
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"?


Unlike you, I believe in the Constitution.

No, you don't. Like other leftists, you wear the constitution like a
badge of honor when it suits you, but conveniently ignore the parts
that do not further your agenda.


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 you are so worried about the "institution" of marriage then you
have bigger issues than gays. In case you haven't noticed, nearly half
of all marriages end in divorce,

Not true. You are not keeping current.

http://www.census.gov/population/soc.../tabA1-all.xls


and a large number of people get
married more than once. There is also the issue of polygamy -- if you
are going to claim that marriage is a religious value or that it is
traditionally monogamous then you better change your tune because
that's not the case. For example, King Solomon (a "servant of God")
had 600 wives and 900 concubines... or was it 900 wives and 600
concubines.... whichever, it doesn't really matter. The point is that
the "traditional Christian marriage" is just as much a farce in
definition as it is in practice; and gay marriage has far less impact
on it's "value" than legalized divorce, secular ceremonies, Joseph
Smith, or even the holy doctrine of your own faith.


Typical tactic. Justify a particular abhorrent behavior by making
unrelated comparisons to other abhorrent behaviors.

A traditional monogamous marriage has been the norm for over 1000
years. At no time in our history was a same sex union ever been
justified. The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does
not mean that a gay marriage should be now. Your comparison of such is
an example of a weak analogy logical fallacy.




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?


Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are
lowered then my degree becomes more valuable.

Only to you. After a few years go by, everyone will then consider a BS
degree to be a 2 year course. You will have to remind people (and by
doing so be construed as bragging in much the same way that a 20 WPM
Extra reminds people that he passed a tougher code exam than the
current 5 WPM extra) of the fact that you had an additional 2 years of
study, thereby propping up your perceived value. The public at large
will not be immediately aware of your "extra" work. Therefore it has
diminished in value.


Here's another analogy:
If some of the auto makers start making cars of lower quality, what
happens to the value of the vehicles made by other manufacturers? Duh.

That's not a good analogy in this situation. For this analogy to be
applicable, you would have to offer 2 different "marriage systems".
One allowing gays, and one not. Then a relative value comparison
between two distinct entities can accurately be assessed.


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.


Yes you do. You hate homosexuals. You also hate blacks.

What? Now who's playing crystal ball Frank? Or are you simply
projecting?


It's written
all over your posts despite your efforts to hide the fact. You can
justify your hatred any way you want -- even to yourself. But the more
you write about such subjects, the harder you try to skirt an open
admission, and the easier it is to see the bigotry in your writings.

Where have I ever made any statement about blacks in a negative way?

You are yet again adopting liberal "debate" topics by demonizing the
opposition by referring to them with words that end in -ist. The
tactic of course is to silence opposition, rather than encourage open
debate of the issues. By branding the opposition with such a label as
"racist" you attempt to discredit any perspective that they may have
by virtue of a perceived badge of unworthiness.

There are problems within many of the ethnic, racial and gender-based
communities. Calling attention to these issues does not make one
(Insert word here) -ist.

I also noticed that you snipped the part of your last response where
you called me a "holy roller religious wacko". After retrospection,
I'm sure you realized that in making such a statement, you are
practicing the very same intolerance and bigotry for other viewpoints
as you had accused me of doing, thereby exposing your own hypocrisy.

But I did notice.




It's that 'perception window' thing I suggested you read about. Or
haven't you found that book yet?


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.


There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a person to be
"normal".

The constitution has nothing to do with the institution of marriage.
That is a bond formed before God.


In fact, the world would be a pretty boring place if
everyone fit within one standard deviation.

But a lot easier to live in.

But the Constitution
-does- say that you can do anything you want as long as it doesn't
infringe on anyone else's rights. So how does gay marriage infringe on
your rights, Dave?

No, it doesn't say that. That is your openly liberal interpretation of
it.




snip
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.


That's an argument used by primitive civilations to explain things
which they do not understand.

No, magic is usually used to explain that.


If you want to be a part of an
enlightened society, the first thing you need to learn is that
complexity does not require divine providence.

But the synergistic and symbiotic nature of our complex ecosystem is
such that suggestions that it all evolved randomly is a ludicrous
position to take. Order does not come from chaos without help.

This is not an endorsement for any particular religion. Just an
observation that the probability is high, that there has been an
intelligent hand guiding the development of life on this planet.

What facts can you point to that discounts the likelihood of an
intelligent design?



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.


I have just as much right to denouce it as you do to display it. It's
called "freedom of speech".

And it works both ways, much to the consternation of liberals all
around.


But that freedom doesn't extend to the
point that it conflicts with the constitutional precept that seperates
church and state.


There is no place in the constitution where it calls for "separation
of church and state". What we have is the establishment clause, which
only states that the government shall not establish any religion as a
"state" religion, or prohibit the free exercise of religion. Nowhere
does it say that matters of state shall not have religious inspiration
or influence.

You haven't truly read it have you?




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.


Yeah, it was a whole lot better when women didn't have the right to
vote, the blacks that weren't slaves had their own schools and public
facilities, chemical waste could be dumped anywhere, working 16/7 for
just enough to eat..... those were the good ol' days, huh?

Another typical liberal tactic. The use of extreme strawman
comparisons in order to polarize and vilify the opposing position.
These strawman examples bare a sight resemblance or relationship to
the main topic, but are a weaker argument and very easy to knock down
and discredit, (And by the false analogy fallacy, associate to the
main topic) thereby avoiding discussing the main points of the debate.


Rock and roll is here to stay, Dave.

Yep, you're one of those guys who believes that change is always good,


Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable.


Even if it's bad? Is it not our right to oppose bad changes? Is it
civically responsible to allow bad things to happen because "change is
inevitable"? That smacks of a cop out to me.


and that new ideas are always better than old ones right? March like
the rest of the lemmings right off the cliff........


History proves that those who don't accept the changes that come with
time are destined to be left behind.

That's why the Catholic Church is still here. It's survived some
pretty radical social changes over the years.


That's why the Constitution is
considered to be a "living" document -- it adapts to change.

When? If you are a true constitutionalist, as you have claimed, then
how can you, on one hand, claim to uphold the values and insight of
the framers, and on the other hand, claim that the constitution should
"adapt to the changing times". Either the constitution is a document
of incredible insight and wisdom, that remains timeless, or it is a
"living document" which can change its meaning at any time, including
changes to prohibit such things as gay marriage.

So which is it?

Another in a series of contradictions in your logic Frank.

You,
OTOH, can't.

Eu Contraire. I see the big picture all too clearly. I am just amused
at guys like you who spin your wheels defending little pieces of it.
You are too engrossed in the "nuts and bolts" aspects to be able to
transcend above that.


snip
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.


The only people who waste their votes are the people who fall for any
bull**** propoganda which proclaims that not voting for a democrat or
republican is "wasting your vote".

Yet you voted for a what amounts to socialist. What does that say
about your principles, and support of democracy?


snip
Climb down off your morality horse

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


"Morality" has been the -DOWNFALL- of more governments than you can
imagine.

Really? Name some.


When a government starts dictating morality is when the
people usually seek a new government -- one way or another. And the
best example of this in recent history is when the 13 colonies signed
the Declaration of Independence.

The United States came to be when they adopted their own
interpretation of morality. But the government of Great Britain did
not cease to exist as a result of it.


There's a difference between intrinsic morality, and a desperate
attempt to reign in an out of control population by legislating it.
Once you get to that level, your done. We are gradually heading that
way.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj