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 =----

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
=----

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 =----

You are right, that is the bill of rights--the two documents are inseperable
in my mind--I often refer to them both as one...

And, you are right again, we do indeed have freedom of religion--the "state"
cannot establish a "state religion" is what that means... I didn't want them
to anyway ... with my luck they'd pick the "Jehovah Witnesses"--I'd have
gov't people knocking on my door on the weekend!!!! grin

Regards,
John

"Frank Gilliland" wrote in message
...
| 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
=----

On Fri, 6 May 2005 14:07:53 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote in
:

You are right, that is the bill of rights--the two documents are inseperable
in my mind--I often refer to them both as one...


That's because they -are- one. The Bill of Rights is just a name used
for the first ten Amendments to the Constitution. Actually, the bill
contained twelve amendments, but the first two didn't pass. One of
those two amendments passed 150 years later. The other one deserves
reconsideration -- it would establish an upper limit on the number of
people that can be represented by a member of the House of Reps.


And, you are right again, we do indeed have freedom of religion--the "state"
cannot establish a "state religion" is what that means...


Absolutely right. Religious freedom is for -everybody-, not just the
majority. If the government starts playing favorites then the freedoms
enjoyed by the minorities are stifled, and we regress back to the same
type of government that ruled over the colonies until they declared
independence from Britain.


I didn't want them
to anyway ... with my luck they'd pick the "Jehovah Witnesses"--I'd have
gov't people knocking on my door on the weekend!!!! grin


Hmmmm..... Jehovah's Witness IRS agents..... now -that's- scary!






----== 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 =----

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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
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.


Being monogamous with your wife/husband/partner has nothing to do with
your past. There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for
years and years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly
appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases
until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS. The ONLY "cure" is found in
the prevention..in other words, abstaining from pre-marital sex then
both parties getting a thorough CBC (complete blood count) prior to
tying the knot.

On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:43:50 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

Which won't likely happen if you are both

monogamous.


Being monogamous with your wife/husband/partner has nothing to do with
your past.

Never said that it did.

There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for
years and years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly
appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases
until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS.

Monogamous doesn't mean act like a slut throughout your "formative"
years and then decide to "stay with one person at age 30.


The ONLY "cure" is found in
the prevention..in other words, abstaining from pre-marital sex then
both parties getting a thorough CBC (complete blood count) prior to
tying the knot.

Now you are finally seeing the light. Congratulations!

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

From: (Dave=A0Hall)
On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:43:50 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
(Which won't likely happen if you are both
monogamous. )

Being monogamous with your wife/husband/partner has nothing to do with
your past.

Never said that it did.
=A0

You said one will not likely catch AIDS if one practices monogamy. This
would only hold true if both were virgins when getting married..,not
practical when applied to present reality, as the vast majority have a
sexual past history.
_
=A0There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for years and
years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly
appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases
until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS.

Monogamous doesn't mean act like a slut

throughout your "formative" years and then

decide to "stay with one person at age 30.



That you consider a past sexual history equals "acting like a slut"
reveals several interesting facts of your beliefs regarding this topic.
_
The ONLY "cure" is found in
the prevention..in other words, abstaining from pre-marital sex then
both parties getting a thorough CBC (complete blood count) prior to
tying the knot.

Now you are finally seeing the light.

I've known this since 1980 when the disease was traced to a cave in
Africa and suspected of being contracted from bat guano (the initial
host.....believed by scholars) or a rhesus monkey. Google "The Hot Zone"
and the parallels are there for the reading. Better yet, read the book.
Now if only you could understand that monogamy today does not discount
one's past, as the majority of people have a sexual past history prior
to marriage and monogamy. Your claim that monogamy decreases the chance
of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past
history. The "clean" mark was originally 5 years, then 10, then
15,,,it's now believed that 20 years is the "safe" mark regarding past
sexual activity..in other words, if you have een monogamous for 20 years
with your partner, and your partner has also been monogamous for that
amount of time, the likelihood of contracting the virus decreases
substantially, but is -still- not discounted totally.


Congratulations!


I'd like to say the same regarding your beliefs of contracting this
disease, but I think your moral beliefs are heavily biasing and
preventing you from obtaining the facts regarding such.

Dave

"Sandbagger"

n3cvj

On Wed, 11 May 2005 11:29:58 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:

From: (Dave*Hall)
On Tue, 10 May 2005 18:43:50 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote:
(Which won't likely happen if you are both
monogamous. )

Being monogamous with your wife/husband/partner has nothing to do with
your past.

Never said that it did.
*

You said one will not likely catch AIDS if one practices monogamy. This
would only hold true if both were virgins when getting married..,not
practical when applied to present reality, as the vast majority have a
sexual past history.

And the less promiscuous that past is, the less likely that one will
catch AIDS.

Besides, you imply that it's next to impossible or, at the very least,
unrealistic for someone to wait until marriage to engage in sexual
relations. There is nothing honorable or otherwise noteworthy about
becoming sexually active in your teenaged years, despite the image
that the major media outlets try to paint to those overly
impressionable teenagers.

_
*There are instances where the HIV virus is semi-dormant for years and
years (10 to 15 year spans are on record) and then it suddenly
appears,,,the same can be said of AIDS..it's manageable in many cases
until,...poof,,it morphs to full blown AIDS.

Which means nothing if you've never been exposed to it.


Monogamous doesn't mean act like a slut
throughout your "formative" years and then
decide to "stay with one person at age 30.



That you consider a past sexual history equals "acting like a slut"
reveals several interesting facts of your beliefs regarding this topic.

Yes, it reveals that I don't believe that sex should be engaged as a
casual activity. Sex is a part of an act of love, to be shared with
someone who you have a much deeper emotional bond with. Not something
for two people, who are barely friends, who are simply looking to kill
a few hours.

The ONLY "cure" is found in
the prevention..in other words, abstaining from pre-marital sex then
both parties getting a thorough CBC (complete blood count) prior to
tying the knot.

Now you are finally seeing the light.

I've known this since 1980 when the disease was traced to a cave in
Africa and suspected of being contracted from bat guano (the initial
host.....believed by scholars) or a rhesus monkey. Google "The Hot Zone"
and the parallels are there for the reading. Better yet, read the book.
Now if only you could understand that monogamy today does not discount
one's past, as the majority of people have a sexual past history prior
to marriage and monogamy.

That's part of the problem.


Your claim that monogamy decreases the chance
of acquiring AIDS assumes incorrectly these people had no sexual past
history.

It's not an "all or nothing" proposition. While total abstinence
before marriage is a concept that's lost on this latest hedonistic
generation, the simple truth is that the less partners you have had,
the less your chances of catching AIDS. The type of partners you have
had also affects your chances. Frequent patronage of prostitutes, for
instance, greatly increases your chances of getting the disease.


The "clean" mark was originally 5 years, then 10, then
15,,,it's now believed that 20 years is the "safe" mark regarding past
sexual activity..in other words, if you have been monogamous for 20 years
with your partner, and your partner has also been monogamous for that
amount of time, the likelihood of contracting the virus decreases
substantially, but is -still- not discounted totally.

Better that than hooking up with someone who's rear end has seen more
bedsheets than underwear. My wife and I recently celebrated our 20
year wedding anniversary. So I guess we're safe ;-)

Congratulations!


I'd like to say the same regarding your beliefs of contracting this
disease, but I think your moral beliefs are heavily biasing and
preventing you from obtaining the facts regarding such.

The facts are quite simple. The less sex you engage in, the lesser
your chances of getting AIDS. Those who contract the disease have only
themselves, by virtue of their activities, to blame in most cases.

I am quite certain that my risk of contracting AIDS is less than my
chances of getting hit by a meteor. I am far more concerned with
cancer and heart disease as these pose a much greater risk to the
members of my family.


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