On Tue, 10 May 2005 08:14:02 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
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.


Unless your partner is infected.

Which won't likely happen if you are both monogamous.


And virgins.


snip
Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens,
maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration.

Why? Carter's administration has no relevance to this discussion.


Sure it does. You made a reference to the Democrats. Carter is a
Democrat, isn't he? Ok, so he doesn't hold an office right now. But
how many Democrats currently holding office are athiests? By their own
admissions, not many. Your argument is bogus -- I think Jeanine
Garafalo (sp?) had it right: The conservative's definition of
'liberal' is any judge that upholds the law. Or something like that.


snip
There is no mandated "separation of church and state". Only an
establishment clause prohibiting a state sponsored religion.


Since you refuse to read it yourself, here's that clause from First
Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Sounds to me
like that is a mandate defining the seperation of church and state. Or
are you going to argue that a bird with a flat bill and webbed feet
that flys, swims, quacks, and waddles when it walks isn't a duck
because the word "duck" isn't engraved anywhere on its body?


I think this page says it best:

http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues


Too liberal for ya, huh Dave?


snip
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?


Don't you know? Haven't you read the Constitution?

Yes, have you? What passage are you referring?


The same passage I have been referring to all along -- Article VI.
Since you haven't read it, let me quote if for you, and in full:

"All Debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the
Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United
States under this Constitution as under the Confederation.

"This Constituion, and the Laws of the United States which shall be
made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be
made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme
Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby,
any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members
of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall
be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office
or public Trust under the United States.

You now have no excuse for such stupid questions.


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?


Swearing on a bible is -not- required to take an oath of affirmation.

No, but it is used in every court case, to "swear in" a witness.


Once again you demonstrate your ignorance by talking of things about
which you know little or nothing: An oath on the bible is used in
every court but not for every person. There are different oaths for
different faiths -- there is even an oath for athiests and agnostics.


The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly
what you claim.

Then why is it still being done on a daily basis?


Because you watch too much TV.


It was added because, at the time, some states had
oaths that required the person entering office to declare a belief in
God or a "divine inspiration". Such an oath was a "religious test"
that was required to qualify for the office, and excluded anyone that
didn't share the same religious beliefs. This violated the seperation
of church and state, so the clause was added to prohibit such tests,
and the office would be available to any citizen -despite- religious
beliefs.

We're talking about court cases here, not job applications.


We're talking about the seperation of church and state.


snip
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


No, it's very true. You skipped right over the line, "The U.S. Census
Bureau does not collect the number of marriages and divorces that take
place in a given year." That statistic is collected by the CDC. And
for the year of 2003, the divorce rate was -almost exactly- half the
rate of marriage:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_22.pdf


You should read the link I posted again. The very first line tells the
story. The divorce rate is only 9.6%.


You sure did sleep a lot in school. It's clear that you don't
understand statistics either. I don't have Excell (well, I have it, I
just don't have it installed because I never used it when I did), so I
downloaded the equivalent PDF file:

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

This is nothing but a breakdown of marriage -status-, not the marriage
and divorce rates. You can't calculate marriage and divorce rates from
this data for the simple fact that many people are, or have been,
married more than once.

You are also ignoring the fact that the divorce rate says nothing by
itself. According to the CDC, during the year 2003 there were 7.5
marriages per thousand people. There were also 3.8 divorces per
thousand people. This means (to anyone that can handle 5th grade math)
that the divorce rate is half (50.7%) the rate of marriage.

And here's the fun part, Dave: Since half of all marriages end in
divorce, and if the majority of citizens are right-wing conservative
Christians that hold marriage to be a sacred value, then there sure
are a lot of hypocrites that call themselves Christians.

As for the "tradition" of marriage, remember that the filibuster has
been an American tradition for almost 200 years. IOW, you are a
hypocrite, Dave.


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.


It's a very logical and justifiable tactic, Dave.

No, it's a logical fallacy.

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/falsean.htm


You are trying to build an inductive argument using information that
only tells one side of the story (and heavily biased in favor of your
conclusion). I merely presented some information that you conveniently
overlooked. And it so happens that your premise loses almost all of
it's weight when -all- the facts are known.


If the foundation of
your argument is that gay marriage weakens the value of marriage, it's
both fair and reasonable to compare gay marriage to other factors that
would affect the value of marriage.

Not if they have little in common, other than the idea of marriage
itself.


The common denominator is the value of marriage. That alone makes such
issues relevant to the discussion and exposes your argument as nothing
more than an exercise in bigotry. And that's no different than KKK
tactics which use the very same type of lame justifications to defend
racism (religion, tradition, morality, etc.).


snip
Yet you are whining about
it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant
factors.

So, because there might be other factors which may be more
significant, we should ignore the small ones? That's the same sort of
twisted logic that freebanders use to justify illegal radio pirating.


If what you say were true then CB radio would be all over the news. It
isn't. OTOH, opposition to gay marriage -is- all over the news, and
that's because of all the attention it's given. If gay marriage is
getting all this attention because it threatens the value of marriage
then there would be much -greater- attention to the divorce rate (and
there would probably be a few right-wing fanatic groups lobbying to
outlaw divorce). But, in fact, there -isn't- any political outcry
against divorce. The only reasonable conclusion is that these factions
of "Christianity" (at least one of which I'm sure you are a member)
are hypocrites that are practicing church-sponsored bigotry.


Bad is bad no matter how large or small it may be.


Well, what's worse, Dave: A couple homos getting married? or a large
group of bigots trying to subvert the Constitution under the guise of
Christianity?


The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do
with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals.

Once again, your chain of logic is based on flawed conclusions based
on fallacious logic, and your own internal bias.


When will you get it through your thick Republican head that bias has
nothing to do with it, Dave? I'm not homo, I don't have any friends
that are homo, I don't like "Queer Eye" or "Will & Grace"..... and
personally, I find the homosexual lifestyle somewhat repulsive. But
there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits two gays from
getting married if that's how they get their kicks. So it's not my
place to judge. And that would be even -more- true if I was a
Christian, the doctrine being that you should forgive others of their
sins (assuming you see homosexuality as a sin), and that judgment
should be left to God.

You hate gays. So do a lot of other people. Big deal. But my "bias"
leans towards the Constitution, not my aversion to homosexuality. They
have the same rights as me, and I treat them with the same amount of
respect that I do anyone else whether I like them or not. That's the
difference between tolerance and bigotry. I am tolerant. You are not.
You are a bigot.


snip
The fact that polygamy might have been acceptable once does
not mean that a gay marriage should be now.


I never suggested it did. I was pointing out that your "traditional
Christian values" regarding marriage are, at best, hypocritical.

So we should abandon all moral values now since they may change
sometime in the future?


Well gee Dave, we probably should, now that you suggested it, huh?
Idiot.


snip
Hardly. If the standards are lowered then I have an education that
meets a higher standard, and I am therefore more qualified -- out of
the gate -- than someone with a lesser education.

But YOU will have to prove that.


Easy enough. It's called a "diploma".


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.


Because people like you exist, some will undoubtedly see it that way.

Most people will eventually see it that way.


I don't think so, Dave. I really think that most people have more
smarts than you give them credit for.


But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra
years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'.

Yes, but you will have to "educate" those who will quickly forget
that.


There's no point in trying to educate people who refuse to look at the
facts objectively and make reasonable and logical conclusions. The
only reason I continue to try is because you aren't the only person
reading my posts. And it's nice to know that your ignorance is being
recorded for posterity.


snip
Then settle for a good analogy. The one you presented was not a good
comparison for the reasons I gave.


I'll consider a good analogy when you provide a good reason.


How you
feel about your own marriage is not dependent upon anyone else but
yourself. The Constitution is not going to change just because a
couple gays getting married affects the way you feel about your own
marriage.

It just might.


No, it won't. And when you make your next regular visit to your
doctor, tell him that you want to back off the dosage on those
anti-depressants.


snip
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.


I snipped a lot of stuff. Unlike you, I have to work for a living, and
I simply don't have the time to play your game.

Excuses excuses..........


Financial responsibilities, time that could be used more
productively......... If you cut in half the time you waste on the
computer and spent that extra time reading the Constitution you could
probably cut in half the time you waste on the computer.


So if you want to
start whining about my dumping the excess baggage you add to your
posts then feel free -- it will get snipped just like all the other
crap you use to water down the topics.

I water down the topics? Pointing out your own intolerance and
hypocrisy is very much pertinent to the discussion as it becomes
testimony as to your objectivity and credibility on this subject.


Sounds great! So when do you plan to implement your new policy?


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?


Moron.

What's the matter Frank? Are you that incapable of participating in an
open discussion that challenges your preconceived notions?


You thrive on being publically disgraced, don't you?

inevitable -- [ Latin, 'in', not + 'evitabilis', avoidable] that
which cannot be avoided; certain to happen.







----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----