Did you miss this post, Dave? Just in case you did I'm reposting it
because I really think it has issues that you need to address if you
want to continue to defend your arguments -- you didn't answer the
questions:

On Fri, 20 May 2005 07:24:56 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Thu, 19 May 2005 06:02:17 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Thu, 19 May 2005 07:01:51 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Wed, 18 May 2005 06:41:56 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Wed, 18 May 2005 07:49:36 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
Speaking of 'media bias', are you keeping up-to-date on the status of
one of your staunchly anti-gay, conservative Republicans that happens
to be the mayor of my home town?

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/jimwest/


No, I'm more interested in the criminal activities surrounding the
associates of the democratic mayor of Philadelphia in a "Pay to play"
scandal. It is, after all, more regionally relevant for me.

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/10995886.htm


Gee Dave, after all your sermons about morality -- you don't care
about a pedophile that not only used his government office for
cyber-sex but promised internships to young boys in exchange for
'dates'? What happened to your morality, Dave? Did it suddenly get
lost because West is a conservative Republican?

Geeze Frank, don't get your panties into a bunch here. This has
nothing to do with my "morality", only that you live 3000 miles away
from me and, as such, the events which occur there take a back seat in
the local news to events which are also occurring here.


Gee, so a couple gays getting married in San Francisco should be about
as unimportant as the mayor of Spokane, huh?


A totally different issue. One single gay couple in San Fran, is a
minor footnote. The broader reaching implications of such behavior, is
what concerns me and most Americans.


So a mayor that's a homosexual and a pedophile doesn't have any
"broader reaching implications"?


I was simply
not aware for what you were referring.


Your "Jim West" is a scumbag, plain and simple. Being a republican
does not excuse him from human flaws or the consequences of acting out
on them.


That's it? That's all you have to say about the subject?

What do you want me to say?


No diatribe
about how it diminishes the credibility of your own mayor?

Why should it? It's not the whole institution of mayor's which is at
the heart of the issue. It's simply one person's sick, perverted
behavior.


So the behavior is seperate from the office?


No sermon
on how his sexual perversions are a moral abomination?

I would think you'd already know that. If my assumption was wrong
then, I apologize.


Instead you
refer to his homosexuality and pedophilia as "human flaws" when you
have consistently referred to such behavior in much stronger language?

How much stronger than "scumbag" do you want me to go? I'd like to
keep this at a "PG" level.


Hey, it's not like I'm suprised -- it's ok to call Kerry a criminal
when there has been no trial; but Bush, who was tried and convicted of
a DUI, is guilty of nothing more than a "civil infraction".

I'm sorry if the truth bothers you. Bush's conviction was for a motor
vehicle violation at that time. Not a criminal offense. Despite the
fact that Kerry never saw a courtroom for his perjurious and arguably
treasonous behavior, his actions are still contemptible.


And all
the while it was -you- that said that anyone who breaks the law is a
criminal. So instead of condemning people in your own camp with your
own standards, you simply use softer words. How nice.

You really need to get over yourself Frank. You spend far too much
time analyzing my words, and attempting to imply meanings which are
not there.


You can complain about how I "analyze" your words all you want, but
the fact remains that you change their definitions and context when
forced to defend yourself against your own words.


Liberal pedophile: guilty of a moral sin.
Conservative pedophile: victim of a human flaw.

All pedophiles are guilty of moral sins, which happens to be a human
flaw.


Then why do you refer to a homosexuality as immoral, yet a homosexual
that is a conservative Republican merely has "human flaws"? This has
to do with the strength of your wording, Dave. You use strong words
when addressing people you despise, but much softer words when
describing bad behavior of people you favor. This isn't a recent
observation, Dave -- it's one of the common characteristics of your
postings for a very long time. And it's very hypocritical.


You're a trip, Dave.

No, your interpretations are.


snip
All I can say is that I sure wish I had the tools of the internet and
computers back when I had to do term papers. The task would have been
much less tedious and actually somewhat interesting, and fun.


Where did you go to college, Dave? And BTW, what was the name of that
tech school you claimed to have attended?

Give me one good reason why I should tell you.


Because if you don't then your claim has no credibility, and I will be
reiterating that fact for as long as you post in this group.

Then neither do any of yours for, as Twisty is so fond of pointing
out, USENET is an anonymous service. Very little about anyone is
verifiable. Being a ham puts me at somewhat of a disadvantage, as my
name and address can be obtained from my call sign. But any personal
information beyond that is revealed by personal choice at your own
risk. As long as guys like Twisty can be a continual disruption and
can safely hide from the consequences behind his cloak of anonymity, I
feel no obligation to provide any more of my personal information,
just to satiate your credibility issues. Remembering what happened to
Dennis O, when his place of employment was found out, is further
incentive for me to remain quiet about those aspects of my personal
life.

If you can't handle that, Tough.


How would a simple call to the administration of this alleged academic
institution to verify your attendance get you fired from your present
job? Or did you get your job by lying on your resume like you lie in
this newsgroup?

You never attended any sort of post-graduate education, Dave. You
probably took a high-school shop class and glorified it with your
imagination.


Who does the majority party represent if not the majority?

Is this a loaded question?


Not at all. Bush and the Republicans ignored the voices of the vast
majority of Americans when they tried to meddle in the Shiavo case. If
they were not acting on behalf of the majority of Americans then what
was their motive? IOW, who does the majority party represent if not
the majority?

Principles, Character, Morality. Most of which the majority posses and
agree with.


Apparently not, since the majority didn't agree with the "principles,
character, morality" that the Republicans attempted to impose. So who
does the majority party represent if not the majority? And why are you
having such a difficult time answering such a simple question?


Where does the Constitution require, or
even suggest, that religious influence should play any role in the
government?

Where does the Constitution require or even suggest that religious
influences should NOT play any role in the government?


You claimed that the Constitution included words that defined this
country to be a Christian state. Where does it say anything of the
sort?

I never made any such claim. But I'm sure you've misinterpreted one of
my past statements and think I said it.


You most certainly did make that claim, and more than once:

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

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

"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..."

Need more examples?


I did say that the constitution was written by religious, God
respecting people, most of whom were Christian.


No, you said they were -all- Christians. Need a quote there too?


How does gay and lesbian marriage infringe on your rights?

It is not a matter of infringing on my "rights".


That's absolutely correct, Dave.

Of course it is, I said it.


It's matter of
tarnishing an institution that is based on religious practices.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with the government or the
Constitution.


The
government has no right to do such.


The government cannot prevent people from practicing their religion as
they see fit, even if their religion includes a definition of marriage
that's different than your's.


The only thing the government can
or should do is offer a civil union option, to provide gay couples the
same civil rights and responsibilities as straight couples when
dealing with secular issues.


You can call it a "civil union" if you want. They can call it a
"marriage" if -they- want. That's -their- right. It's not -your- right
to prevent them from exercising -their- rights.

From a secular point of view, they have the right to live in sin, but
no true Christian church would recognize such a union.


And the law doesn't require them to do anything of the sort. It only
requires that you respect their -legal- rights. And if they choose to
exercise their right to freedom of expression by calling their "civil
union" a marriage, or if their religion formally recognizes homosexual
marriage, then you have no right to prevent them from exercising their
rights. It's a very simple concept, Dave. And why is -that- so hard
for you to understand?


And any
institution that would, cheapens and tarnishes that institution.


Then that's the choice of the institution, not the government.


You, a big advocate for separation of church and state, should
understand where the line is drawn here. If you advocate that church
doctrine should not be infused into the workings of the government,
then the converse is also true. Otherwise you are practicing
hypocrisy.


I agree, the government should not impose upon any religion. How does
gay marriage impose government upon religion?

By forcing universal recognition of gay marriages as legitimate, which
they are not in the eyes of God.


Where, in the Constitution, does it require that any law must be
viewed as legitimate in the eyes of God? And even if it did, who
exactly would make that determination? God's legal representative?


I see your point, Dave. But what you refuse to accept is that marriage
is not exclusive to religion.

But it started there.


So? Christmas and Easter originated with Christianity but eventually
merged with pagan festivals. Why aren't you bitching about that? The
Sabbath is on Saturday but the Christians worship it on Sundays,
despite the first of the Ten Commandments. Why aren't you bitching
about that? The Bible embraces slavery, but it's now illegal in the
US. Why aren't you bitching about that?

You aren't bitching about those things because you are only concerned
with homosexuality. You are a bigot, Dave. And a hypocrite.


It may have been formally defined under
religion, but I wasn't there so I don't know for sure. Regardless, the
concept of marriage is not only secular but universal.

By necessity, not by choice. And the secular definition of marriage
simply adopted the religious definition of marriage in order to define
the civil rights that married couples would gain. Creating a new
definition of marriage, that is not endorsed by the church, is not
acceptable.


Yet it already exists, like it or not.


Think of it as similar to a copyrighted trademark. The church has
"licensed" the term "marriage" to the government to use for civil
purposes, as long as they abide by the terms of the license. Unless
the church decides to condone a gay union (Not likely), then the
government has no right to apply the term "marriage" to a secular gay
union.


The church has a "copyright" on marriage? ROTFLMMFAO!!! Dave, marriage
outside the sphere of religion has been socially recognized for many,
many centuries -- perhaps even longer than religion!


Like I said before, I have no problem with the government creating a
gay civil union, with the same civil rights and responsibilities given
to married couples, just don't call it marriage.


That's not your choice. Deal with it.


And as I have
pointed out several times before, the Christian definition of marriage
is, at best, poorly defined.

But it has been widely accepted in this country for hundreds of years.
Marriage is only recognized in the secular arena, due to the
additional legal rights and responsibilities that couples get. Before
the complexities of secular society necessitated such civil
recognition of marriage, the only thing a couple needed to do was have
the marriage blessed before God at a church service. That was all
that was necessary to legitimize a marriage.


Times change, Dave. You can either change with the times or spend the
rest of your life in a bitter depression.


I have no problem with secular civil unions. I have a big problem with
gay marriages.


You don't want homosexuals to be able to walk down the same street
that you do. You are a bigot.


Ah, you're back to making unfounded speculative assumptions and then
drawing an erroneous conclusion based on those unfounded speculations.
That's yet another example of your poor logic. You never could stick
to the facts Frank. But your liberal demonization tactic doesn't work
on me Frank. Labeling me will not change the very real legitimacy of
the issue.


Why not? You slap the "liberal" label on me all the time.






----== 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 =----