| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#1
May 4th 05, 07:24 AM
|
|||
|
|||
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". snip A mere half-century ago there were some people who didn't like the idea of treating black people as equals. They especially didn't want blacks to be able to vote. Some even used the argument that a black vote would diminish the value of their own vote, which was a weak rationalization of their racist attitudes. You are confusing racism with morality. They're not the same, even if some of the methods seem similar. Now -there's- a quote for the Dave Hall hall-of-shame. 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. And maybe you missed the boat on this one too, but a lot of people got the disease from blood transfusions. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. But that's not the case. You just hate homosexuals. It's as simple as that, isn't it, Dave? 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. 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. snip 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. 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 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. 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. snip 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. 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. 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. It's clear that you never learned the basics of your own government. 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! Climb down off your morality horse and learn about your own country before you wage a holy war against other Americans. And yes, even homosexuals can be American citizens. Does that diminish the value of your citizenship? If it does then you know what you can do, don't you Dave? ----== 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 =---- |
|
#2
May 4th 05, 02:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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" |
|
#3
May 4th 05, 04:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dave Hall (N3CVJ) Jr. wrote:
(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? No statistics..just votes making laws giving the queers equal rights. The fact that states are now permitting same sex unions is another example. Your current batch of thugs in Washington is also catering to the gays ever since there was found to be so many of them in the hiarchy of the current administration. |
|
#5
May 5th 05, 12:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 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? 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. 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". but our whole government is littered with Christian references. The ten commandments in judicial buildings. As well as religious symbols of other faiths. 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. and others. Things that have been here for many years, yet liberals are now fighting to have removed. Better late than never. 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. 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, 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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". In fact, the world would be a pretty boring place if everyone fit within one standard deviation. 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? 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. 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 if that concept is beyond your level of comprehension you can always take up astrology, voodoo, crystal ball gazing..... or even republican economics. snip 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". But that freedom doesn't extend to the point that it conflicts with the constitutional precept that seperates church and state. 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? 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, Wrong. I believe that change is inevitable. and that new ideas are always better than old ones right? March like the rest of the lemming 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 Constitution is considered to be a "living" document -- it adapts to change. You, OTOH, can't. snip 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. You have verified my suspicions nicely. Thank you. 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". 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. 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. BTW, what's the name of that tech school you claim to have attended? ----== 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 =---- |
|
#6
May 5th 05, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#7
May 6th 05, 07:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:32:11 -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. 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 Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens, maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration. snip The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state. Not "officially", Or "unofficially". The majority of Christian citizens would probably disagree. Despite the fact that this majority of Christian citizens is not a majority of American citizens, seperation of church and state is not subject to a majority vote. I think this page says it best: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues 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? Go search the net for a picture of the wall behind the Supreme Court bench. 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? 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. The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly what you claim. 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. And once again, the clause was added by unanimous consent. snip 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. What parts do I ignore? Let me clue you in here, Dave: Many years ago I took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". I took that oath seriously. In fact, I took it so seriously that I took the time to learn more about what I swore to defend with my life. Maybe if you had taken that oath yourself you might have done the same. If you had, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. And although I was discharged 20 years ago, I still hold myself to that oath. Meaning that I will still defend it with my life if it comes under attack -- even if that attack comes from a large group of people claiming to be Christians. 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 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. 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. And after such a comparison, gay marriage is -barely- significant, if at all. Yet you are whining about it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant factors. The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals. 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. snip Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are lowered then my degree becomes more valuable. Only to you. 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. 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. But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'. 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. I'm not going to make justifications for your bigotry, Dave. 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. 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. 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. snip 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. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#8
May 6th 05, 07:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Well, unless I am mistaken, the following appears in our constitution:
". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." Now, I am an AMERIAN with GREAT respect for the founders and traditions of this country--if the "rule of God" was good enough for them, it is good enough for me, end of story!!!! Regards, John "Frank Gilliland" wrote in message ... | On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:32:11 -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. | | | 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 | | | Blog, blog, blog. If you think that Democrats are godless heathens, | maybe you should take a second look at the Carter administration. | | | snip | The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state. | | Not "officially", | | | Or "unofficially". | | The majority of Christian citizens would probably disagree. | | | Despite the fact that this majority of Christian citizens is not a | majority of American citizens, seperation of church and state is not | subject to a majority vote. | | I think this page says it best: | | http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues | | | 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? | | | Go search the net for a picture of the wall behind the Supreme Court | bench. | | | 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? | | | 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. | The clause forbidding a "religous test" was added to -prevent- exactly | what you claim. 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. | | And once again, the clause was added by unanimous consent. | | | snip | 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. | | | What parts do I ignore? Let me clue you in here, Dave: Many years ago | I took an oath to "protect and defend the Constitution against all | enemies, foreign and domestic". I took that oath seriously. In fact, I | took it so seriously that I took the time to learn more about what I | swore to defend with my life. Maybe if you had taken that oath | yourself you might have done the same. If you had, we wouldn't be | having this conversation right now. | | And although I was discharged 20 years ago, I still hold myself to | that oath. Meaning that I will still defend it with my life if it | comes under attack -- even if that attack comes from a large group of | people claiming to be Christians. | | | 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 | | | 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. 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. And after such a comparison, gay | marriage is -barely- significant, if at all. Yet you are whining about | it like a stuck pig while denying those other, much more significant | factors. The conclusion is obvious: this has absolutely nothing to do | with the value of marriage. You simply hate homosexuals. | | | 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. | | | snip | Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are | lowered then my degree becomes more valuable. | | Only to you. | | | 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. | | | 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. | But some, like myself, will already understand that those two extra | years mean the difference between 'good' and 'better'. | | | 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. | | | I'm not going to make justifications for your bigotry, Dave. 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. | | | 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. 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. | | | snip | 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. | | | | | | | ----== 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 =---- |
|
#9
May 6th 05, 08:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Fri, 6 May 2005 11:00:49 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote in : Well, unless I am mistaken, the following appears in our constitution: ". . . endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights . . ." You -are- mistaken -- that's from the Declaration of Independence. Now, I am an AMERIAN with GREAT respect for the founders and traditions of this country--if the "rule of God" was good enough for them, it is good enough for me, end of story!!!! But it -wasn't- good enough for them, which is why Madison and Jefferson fought so hard against the Conventicle Act and the Test Act, and why the Bill of Rights includes a clause that establishes both freedom of religion and the seperation of church and state. ----== 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 =---- |
|
#10
May 10th 05, 01:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Thu, 05 May 2005 23:35:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote: On Thu, 05 May 2005 09:32:11 -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. 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 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. snip The USA is not, nor has it ever been, a Christian state. Not "officially", Or "unofficially". The majority of Christian citizens would probably disagree. Despite the fact that this majority of Christian citizens is not a majority of American citizens, seperation of church and state is not subject to a majority vote. There is no mandated "separation of church and state". Only an establishment clause prohibiting a state sponsored religion. I think this page says it best: http://www.au.org/site/PageServer?pagename=issues 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? Go search the net for a picture of the wall behind the Supreme Court bench. 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? 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. 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? 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. 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%. 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 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. And after such a comparison, gay marriage is -barely- significant, if at all. When you base your conclusion on a false premise, I can understand your error. 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. Bad is bad no matter how large or small it may be. 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. 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? snip Referring back to your "college degree" analogy, if the standards are lowered then my degree becomes more valuable. Only to you. 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. 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. 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. 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. I'm not going to make justifications for your bigotry, Dave. Then settle for a good analogy. The one you presented was not a good comparison for the reasons I gave. 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. 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.......... 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. 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? Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Amateur Radio Newslineâ„¢ Report 1419 Â October 22, 2004 | CB | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
| Amateur Radio Newsline™ Report 1419  October 22, 2004 | Dx | |||
| OLD motorola trunking information | Scanner | |||
Hybrid Mode
