On Tue, 10 May 2005 17:13:37 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:


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


And virgins.

And your point?


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.

Yes, that it primarily the left who are spearheading an intensified
effort to remove all signs of religion from government processes, even
though most have been around since this country was founded.


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.

Jeanine Garafalo is a hopelessly biased liberal on a liberal radio
network which is failing miserably.

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.

No, it's an establishment clause that states (quite plainly) that
congress shall not establish an "official" religion, and may not
prevent anyone from exercising their own personal religious beliefs.
Nowhere can you state accurately that that statement implies that
there shall be no religious influences in the day to day operation of
the government.

Maybe you did read the constitution, but you don't seem to understand
it.



I think this page says it best:

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


Too liberal for ya, huh Dave?

Much. They are taking this to an extreme. And here again, you are
displaying yet another of your contradictions. You who claim to
support the constitution and the wisdom of our forefathers (who were
all religious people), yet now advocate that we go above and beyond
the definitions called for in the constitution, and to totally
eradicate all religious influences from our government, even though
they have been intrinsically intertwined in it from the start.


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.

You've never participated in a jury trial have you?


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.

I've never seen any such offering. At least in the court trials that
I've been a part of. I imagine if someone made enough of a stink about
it, the "PC" police would provide an acceptable substitute.


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.

No, I participate in the REAL world.


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.

When you're under the gun, you insult your opposition. It's not an
elegant debate tactic Frank, and it sure doesn't buy you any points.

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.

Marital status is a more accurate reflection of the institution of
marriage.

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.

And some people remain married for 50 years. Once they are married,
they are not counted again in "marriage rates" but they still count
as a matter of marital status. Marital status gives a much better
picture of the state of marriage as it is.


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.

But that doesn't take into consideration the marriages from previous
years who are STILL married, but not counted as a new 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.

Half of all marriages do not end in divorce. Only 9.6% of the
population is divorced.


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.

As are you Frank. You're just on the other side of the coin.


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.

But your method is still drawing a false analogy.


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.

Based on your own hypocritical bias.


And that's no different than KKK
tactics which use the very same type of lame justifications to defend
racism (religion, tradition, morality, etc.).

Another false analogy fallacy. You're just full of them.


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.

Because it's only 9.6% of the population. Your conclusion is erroneous
because your premise is flawed.


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.

Had enough of the false analogy fallacies, so you've switched to the
false dilemma fallacy?


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 only people trying to subvert the constitution are left wing
liberals who are attempting to derive new meanings from words which
the rest of us have understood and upheld for the last 200+ years.

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?

Because it does Frank. Even if you won't admit it (even to yourself).


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.

And you call me a bigot?

But
there's nothing in the Constitution that prohibits two gays from
getting married if that's how they get their kicks.

There's nothing in the constitution that prohibits you from marrying
Dolly the cloned sheep either. But other "rules" would have a problem
with it.

Your problem is that you see the constitution as the be all and end
all of all rules and laws. The constitution does not address each and
every life situation that could have been foreseen 200+ years ago.


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.

It's one thing to forgive sin. It's totally another to condone and
encourage further participation in it.

A Christian would forgive someone who stole their car. But that
doesn't mean the law should be changed to allow theft.

You hate gays.

No, I don't. If I hated gays, I'd want them exterminated.

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.

So then based on your "faith" in the constitution, you'd have no
objection to pedophiles having the right to marry?

That's the
difference between tolerance and bigotry. I am tolerant.

No, you are not. You are a hypocrite. You "tolerate" things you have a
personal agreement with or indifference to. But you have little
tolerance for those who do not share your viewpoint. The reckless
assigning of vitriolic names like "bigot" is proof of that.


You are not.
You are a bigot.

No, I am someone who values traditional morality.

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?


That's basically what you are proposing. Once you start down that
slippery slope of justifying deviant, abhorrent behavior, it becomes
only a matter of subjective degree where you draw the line between
acceptance and rejection.

Idiot.

You are certainly acting like one.



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".

But you will have to go to the pains to prove it. It will not be
readily apparent. Perhaps you can wear your diploma on your head so
everyone would see it.


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.

It's not a matter of smarts, it's a matter of contemporary educational
standards.




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.

My "ignorance" is only a matter of your bigoted intolerance and bias
and manifested by your pompous arrogance.

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.

Always an excuse......



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.

More personal insults. You really are losing this debate.....



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


Financial responsibilities, time that could be used more
productively.

Like in a more gainful job than tending bar........



........ 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.

I've read the constitution many times over. We spent a whole course in
high school studying it. There is NOTHING that you can tell me about
the constitution. But I'll admit, I find it amusing that you try.

The time I spend on the computer is minuscule. When you are parked on
a T1 line, you can take breaks and drink a cup or two between tasks
while getting a little entertainment. And I don't have to mix drinks
or smell cigarettes and bad breath doing it.

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?

What 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?

No, I thrive on making you disgrace yourself.


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

I am fully aware of the definition of the word Frank. Don't patronize
me.

I challenge the notion that change is inevitable. What you are
embracing is the idea of predetermination. Something I would not
expect from a existential atheist.

If we can effect change, should we not have the responsibility to
prevent change that would promote demoralization?

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