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 =----